Allowed

Abdul Latheef, S/O. Aboobacker Kunju, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2021CRL.A/1871/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals by surety petitioners against an order imposing monetary penalty for skipping bail of the main accused. Held: Since principal accused were eventually acquitted by subsequent appellate order, sureties are not liable for further penalty. Appellants succeeded.

What did the court decide?

The order of the court below imposing penalty is set aside; no further order as to costs.

Abdul Latheef, S/O. Aboobacker Kunju, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.A.Nos.1871 & 1872 of 2006 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶6

CRL.A.No.1871 OF 2006

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MC 38/2004 (SC 176/2001) DATED 03-11-2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA

¶8

APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. ABOOBACKER KUNJU, KURUSHUM PARAMBIL, VEEYAPURAM MURI, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.

¶10

2 HAKKIM SHAFEEK, S/O.NAZAR, NAZAR MANZIL, KURATTIKADUMURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJILY JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH POLICE, STATION, ALAPPUZHA, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.L. SYLAJA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-03-2021, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1872/2006, THE COURT ON 08-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.A.Nos.1871 & 1872 of 2006

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶21

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶22

CRL.A.No.1872 OF 2006

¶23

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 24/2004 (SC 176/2001) DATED 03-11-2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA

¶24

APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

¶25

1 VINOD VARGHESE, S/O. M.G.VARGHESE, PARAYAKATTU PADEETTATHIL VEEDU, CHENNITHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶26

2 MUHAMMED SHERIFF, S/O. ABDUL RAHMANKUTTY, CHETTIVELIKKAKATHU MUTTEL, THONDANKULANGARA WARD, ARYAD THEKKU VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK.

¶27

3 SUSAN, W/O.PAULOSE, CHEEVELIL, CHENNITHALA PANCHAYATH, ERAMATHUR WARD, NO.II, THRIPPUNITHURA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA.

¶28

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

¶29

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶30

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH POLICE STATION,, ALAPPUZHA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶31

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.L.SYLAJA

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-03-2021, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1871/2006, THE COURT ON 08-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

Crl.A.Nos.1871 & 1872 of 2006

¶34

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Dated this the 8^th day of April 2021

¶37

The counter petitioners in M.C.No.38/2004 and M.C.No.24/2004 in S.C.No.176/2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Alappuzha, have filed Crl.Appeal Nos.1871 and 1872 of 2006, challenging the orders dated 03.11.2004, whereby they have been imposed with a penalty of ₹5,000/- each, as undertaken by them in the bonds executed before the committal court.

¶38

S.C.No.176 of 2001 was initiated against 6 accused, for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, upon a charge sheet filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North Police Station. The accused Nos.5 and 6 who had been arrested and released on bail, jumped the bail and were not available at the time of trial. The State had then filed petitions seeking action against the sureties under Section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code. M.C.No.38 of 2004 is the proceedings initiated against the sureties of the 5^th accused and M.C.No.24 of 2004 is the proceedings initiated against the 6^th accused.

¶39

It is seen from the order that subsequent to the filing of

¶40

Crl.A.Nos.1871 & 1872 of 2006 4

¶41

the above petitions, the accused had appeared before the Court. However, since there was a violation of the bond conditions, the court below has issued the impugned orders, imposing the penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the appellants. It is aggrieved by the above order, the appellants have come up before this Court.

¶42

Heard Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals and Smt.Sylaja, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶43

When the case had come up for orders today, the counsel for the appellants submitted that out of the 6 accused in the sessions case, the 1^st accused is no more and the 2^nd accused was absconding. It is submitted that the trial court had after trial, found the accused 1,3 and 4 guilty of the offences and convicted them and sentenced them. The accused 5 and 6, with respect to whom the appeals are concerned were acquitted by the trial court. It is also submitted that the accused who were found guilty had filed Crl.Appeal No. 1101 of 2005 before this Court and this Court had by judgment dated 18.2.2019 allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused 1,3 and 4 also of the offence. I have called for the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.1101 of 2005 and confirmed that the submission made by the counsel is factually correct. As such all the

¶44

Crl.A.Nos.1871 & 1872 of 2006 5

¶45

accused in the sessions case except the 2^nd accused who was absconding stand acquitted as on today.

¶46

In the light of the subsequent events, I am of the opinion

¶47

that the sureties need not be burdened with any further penalty.

¶48

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

¶51

dsn

Abdul Latheef, S/O. Aboobacker Kunju, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latheef, S/O. Aboobacker Kunju, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davis, S/O. Madathmppadi Lonappan, Vs Jonnel @ Johny Lonappan

Chinnan, S/O. Thankaraj Vs State of Kerala

Kumaresan, S/O. Titus, Vs State of Kerala

Antony Stephen Fernando Vs State of Kerala

Madhu, S/O. Ponnappan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Subbanna Shetty, S/O. Bhattu Shetty, Vs the Excise Inspector