In an appeal against forfeiture of bail bond and penalty, the Court held that bond forfeiture is automatic upon non-appearance. Though the appeal was allowed due to excessive penalty, the appeal is ultimately dismissed in part.
Penalty reduced to Rs.500; appellate bond forfeiture modified to detention for one month in default of payment.
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.
CRL.A NO. 475 OF 2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 475 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.12/2005 IN SC 676/2004 OF ADDITIONAL
COURT (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
CHARLEY GEORGE
S/O.M.E.GEORGE,
MULLANKUZHIYIL, KADAVANTHRA P.O., ELAMKULAM.
BY ADV SMT.SHIJA VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT.PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.2 DISTRICT COLLECTORERNAKULAM DISTRICT.3 THE SPECIAL VILLAGE OFFICER MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.4 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.BY SRI.G.SUDHEER-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
CRL.A NO. 475 OF 2007
K.BABU, J.
Crl.A No.475 of 2007
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from the order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Ernakulam in M.C.No.12/2005.
No.3 along with the accused executed a bond undertaking that the accused shall attend the Court and forfeit the bond amount on the failure of the appearance of the accused. When the accused failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the bail bond, the bond stood forfeited. Subsequently,
the Court below registered the above referred M.C against the counter petitioners. Notice was served on the counter petitioners to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. When the counter petitioners failed to show sufficient cause, the Court directed them to pay penalty of Rs.8,000/-.
CRL.A NO. 475 OF 2007
3
before this Court in appeal.
did not grant sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court.
in Thundichi v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 67].
CRL.A NO. 475 OF 20074
upon the concerned sureties or the person bound by it to pay the penalty therein or to show cause why it should not be paid. The appellant failed to
show sufficient cause for the non-payment of penalty. Therefore, this Court
finds that the Court below is perfectly justified in holding that the appellant is liable to pay penalty.
penalty of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) is sufficient in the interest of justice.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty payable by the appellant is modified as Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default
of its payment, to undergo detention in Civil Prison for a period of one month.
Sd/-
ab
K.BABU, JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on the surety for failure of the accused to appear in court was sustainable and excessive.
Whether sufficient time was granted to the surety to produce the accused before the Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thundichi v. State of KeralaFollowed¶40
Thundichi v. State of Kerala
1 provisions across 1 enactments
CHARLEY GEORGE
STATE OF KERALA
K. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court