Allowed

Chellamma Keshavan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2024CRL.A/1175/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal filed under Section 449 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal to a limited extent. While acknowledging the appellants could not produce the accused during detention, the Court reduced the penalty from Rs.50,000 to Rs.15,000, considering the accused's subsequent appearance and acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The appellant's appeal was allowed to the extent that the penalty of Rs.50,000 each was reduced to Rs.15,000 each.

Chellamma Keshavan Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

CRL.A NO. 1175 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.0/0 OF , Kottayam

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.05.2022 IN MC NO.23 OF 2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM

¶8

APPELLANT/S:

¶9

1 CHELLAMMA KESHAVAN AGED 74 YEARS VADAKKATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 686562

¶10

2 BINOY VARKEY AGED 48 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, KATTUVELIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 686562 BY ADVS. BLESSEN GEORGY MATHEWS RONY AUGUSTINE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SEENA C...GP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.Appeal No.1175 of 2022

¶17

¶18

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

…....…................................. Crl.Appeal No.1175 of 2022 …........................................................ Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2024

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This is an appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶22

2 . The appellants assail the order dated 17.05.2022, by which they were directed to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each.

¶23

3 . Heard the learned counsel for he appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

4 . Relying on Annexure B, the learned counsel for the appellants would urge that not on account of any fault but for reasons beyond their control, the appellants could not produce the accused before the trial court. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

¶25

5 . The learned Public Prosecutor made available for my perusal, a copy of the judgment in SC No.74 of 2018 and the report of the Station House Officer, Ettumanur Police Station. It is seen from Annexure B that the accused for whom appellants stood as sureties was in jail at Visakhapattanam in connection with another case. When the accused was thus under detention on 14.01.2021, the appellants could not be faulted for non production of the accused before the court during the period of detention. But that exemption can be only during the period when the

¶26

Crl.Appeal No.1175 of 2022

¶27

¶28

accused was in jail. The appellants failed to produce any materials to show when the accused was released from the jail at Visakhakpattanam. From the report of the Station House Officer and the copy of the judgment in SC No.74 of 2018, it is seen that the case against the accused (SC No.466 of 2021) was clubbed with the main case and tied together, and that ended in acquittal of all the accused. From the said judgment also it is note known when the accused was released from the jail at Visakhapattanam. It is stated in the impugned order that the appellants, despite receipt of notice under Section 446(1) of the Code, failed to appear before the court and offer any explanation. Having regard to the said circumstances, I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶29

6 . Be that as it may, the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties appeared before the court and stood trial. He was acquitted also. Apparently, without much delay after the date of the impugned order, the accused appeared before the trial court. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the appellants deserved leniency in the matter of imposing penalty. Hence the order of the trial court is modified and the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.

¶30

The appeal is allowed to the above extend.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶33

Dxy

¶34

Crl.Appeal No.1175 of 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1175/2022

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶38

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C NO: 23 OF 2021 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM Annexure B COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.12.2021 IN S.C NO: 466 OF 2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-V, KOTTAYAM. Annexure C COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.02.2022 IN M.C NO: 23 OF 2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT-V, KOTTAYAM. Annexure A1 ORDER DATED 16.11.2022

Chellamma Keshavan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellamma Keshavan 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

Shahanas Vs State of Kerala

Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rashid B.A Vs Fathimath Suhaila

Abdul Salam Vs the State of Kerala

Highrich Online Shoppe Private Limited, Vs the Competent Authority