Partly allowed

Amina Beebi, v. the Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC7 Jun 2023CRL.A/119/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged a lower court order imposing a Rs. 30,000 penalty on sureties for failing to produce an accused. The High Court noted the accused were later acquitted and held the entire bond need not be forfeited, modifying the penalty to Rs. 12,500 each.

What did the court decide?

Original penalty of Rs. 30,000 each was modified to Rs. 12,500 each; default sentence sustained.

Amina Beebi, Vs the Public Prosecutor — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.A NO. 119 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER TMC 27/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT - III, KASARAGOD / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE

¶7

APPELLANTS:

¶8

1AMINA BEEBI,
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.ABOOBACKER K.A., CHALANGODE HOUSE,
SP NAGAR, ULIYATHADKA,
HIDAYATH NAGAR, MADHUR VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 124.
2MUHAMMED FAISAL P.V.,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA P.V., REENA MAHAL HOUSE,
NATIONAL NAGAR, ULIYATHADKA, KUDLU VILLAGE AND POST,
KASARAGOD - 671 124.
BY ADV K.PUSHPAVATHI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2THE SPECIAL DY. THAHASILDAR (RR),
KASARGOD - 682 031.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN PP

¶13

Crl.Appeal. No. 119 of 2020 2

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.Appeal. No. 119 of 2020 3

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ==================== Crl.Appeal. No. 119 of 2020 ====================

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Appellants are the counter petitioners in M.C.No. 27/2019 in S.C.No.410/2018, on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kasargode. They are aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2019, imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on each of them for failing to produce the accused after standing as sureties.

¶20

Smt. Pushpavathi.K, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire bond amount has been forfeited and imposed as penalty without even considering the reason for non production of the accused. It was also submitted that subsequently, on 25.08.2021, the accused were even acquitted and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

¶21

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶22

On a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that despite undertaking to produce the accused in S.C.No.410/2018, the accused failed to appear and the appellants could not produce the accused. Proceedings were initiated properly and in accordance with law.

¶23

Crl.Appeal. No. 119 of 2020 4

¶24

Therefore, no fault can be found in initiating the proceedings as M.C.No.27/2019.

¶25

However, the entire bond amount has been forfeited and the same was directed to be paid as penalty, imposed upon each of the appellants. It is a settled law that, on failure to produce the accused, the entire bond amount need not necessarily be imposed as penalty and circumstances of each case can be taken notice of, while arriving at the quantum of penalty.

¶26

Having regard to the circumstances of the case including the subsequent acquittal of the accused, this Court of the view that an amount of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred only) each, would be sufficient penalty to be imposed upon the appellants.

¶27

Therefore, while affirming the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasargode, in M.C.No. 27/2019 in S.C.No. 41/2018, the penalty imposed upon the appellants shall stand modified to Rs. 12,500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred only) each. The default sentence imposed in the order is sustained.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.

¶29

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶30

mtk/07.06.23

¶31

Crl.Appeal. No. 119 of 2020 5

¶32

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 119/2020

¶33

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶34

ANNEXURE A1A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/7/2019
IN MC 27/2019 IN SC 410/2018 PASSED BY HE
LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III,
KASARGOD.
ANNEXURE A2A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
26/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND APPELLANT.

Amina Beebi, v. the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amina Beebi, v. the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munnan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Mahesh Kumar.T Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Abid Nazar Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Silvester Vs State of Kerala

Jinaraj K.P Vs State of Kerala