Appellants, as sureties for an accused on bail, failed to produce him and were penalized under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The High Court upheld the proceedings but reduced the penalty from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 each, citing the need for indulgence.
Penalty revised to Rs.25,000/- each; order to initiate proceedings confirmed; amount payable within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 378 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 93/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA MC 12/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VINAYA KUMAR AGED 47 YEARS S/O VIJAYA, BATTHUMBADI (H), KUMBALA, KASARGODE PIN - 671312 2 BABU AGED 57 YEARS S/O DAMODARAN, SARASWATHI NILAYAM, KUNTANGARADKA, KOIPADY, KASARGODE PIN - 671312 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) PRAJIT RATNAKARAN RAJ CAROLIN V.
RESPONDENT/S:
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
Crl.A.No. 378 of 2022
ADV.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN P P
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.A.No. 378 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellants are aggrieved by the penalty imposed upon them consequent to the proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners are the sureties of the accused in S.C No. 93/2019 on the file of Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadakara. The petitioners have executed a bond for Rs.50,000/- for releasing the accused on bail. However, subsequently, the accused failed to appear before the Court and consequently, proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C have been initiated against the petitioners. Even though, the petitioners appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and sought time to produce the accused, they failed to do so and accordingly, the proceedings were completed by imposing a penalty at the rate of 50,000/- each to the petitioners. This order is under challenged in this Appeal.
2 . Hear Sri. Abdul Raoof Pallipath learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4
Crl.A.No. 378 of 2022
3 . On going through the records, it is evident that, the appellants could not trace out the accused and produce him. According to the appellants, they have taken all earnest efforts to trace out the accused, but they could not succeed. It is also pointed out that, the amount of penalty imposed upon them is highly exorbitant and they seek indulgence in such circumstances.
4 . On perusal of the records and appreciating the same, I do not find legal infirmities in the proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The breach of conditions of the bond executed by the appellants are evident from the records, as they failed to secure the presence of the accused. However, I am of the view that, the penalty imposed upon the appellants is slightly on higher side. It is a well settled position of law as held in Sahadevan and Another v. State of Kerala [2017 KHC 981] . In all cases, it is not necessary to impose penalty equal to the amount of bond. On examining the entire materials, I find that some indulgence can be shown with respect to the amount of penalty. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to fix the penalty as Rs.25,000/- each.
5
Crl.A.No. 378 of 2022
5 . Accordingly, this Crl. Appeal is disposed of, confirming the order to initiate proceedings against the appellants herein, but revising the penalty as Rs.25,000/- each. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the appellants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, it shall be open for the learned Sessions Judge, to initiate appropriate proceedings.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A
JUDGE
rpk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on sureties for failing to produce the accused was reasonable or required reduction.
Whether the appellants acted in bona fide efforts to trace the accused which warrants indulgence in penalty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sahadevan and Another v. State of KeralaRelied on¶22
Sahadevan and Another v. State of Kerala [2017 KHC 981]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VINAYA KUMAR
BABU
THE STATE OF KERALA
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
