Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15045
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945 CRL.APPEAL NO. 2020 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 IN MC NO.20/2021 IN SC NO.613 OF 2019 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.618/2015 OF Badiadukka Police Station, Kasargod APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/SURETIES: 1 ABDUL NIZAR.A. AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED, FIRDOUS HOUSE, EDANAD, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671321. 2 AYSHA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, FIRDOUS HOUSE, EDANAD, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671321. BY ADV P.MAMATHA RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT AND RECOVERY OFFICER: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031. 2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR MANJESWARAM TALUK, MANJESWARAM, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671323. SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Appeal No.2020 of 2023 P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.2020 of 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2024
The court has the power to forfeit the bond and impose a penalty on the sureties if the accused fails to appear before the court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 449 - APPEAL - FORFEITURE OF BOND - SURETIES - PENALTY - MODIFICATION
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were sureties for an accused in a criminal case. They failed to produce the accused before the court and also failed to pay the bond amount. The trial court ordered them to pay a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the trial court was justified in ordering the appellants to pay the penalty. However, the High Court reduced the penalty amount to Rs.15,000/- each, considering the financial condition of the appellants.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in ordering the appellants to pay the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court was justified in ordering the appellants to pay the penalty, as they had failed to produce the accused before the court and had also failed to pay the bond amount. However, the High Court reduced the penalty amount to Rs.15,000/- each, considering the financial condition of the appellants.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the penalty amount to Rs.15,000/- each.
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the counter petitioners in M.C.No.20 of 2021 in S.C.No.613 of 2019 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Kasaragod initiated suo moto proceedings on finding that the appellants violated the conditions of bond executed by them to ensure presence of the accused before the court and thereby forfeited the bond. As per the impugned order, the appellants were directed to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/- each. The said order is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The appellants were sureties of the accused-
Shabeer Ahammed in S.C.No.613 of 2019. They had executed bond binding themselves to produce the accused before the court and on failure to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the Government. On 05.12.2022, the trial court listed the matter for the appearance of the appellants. They filed an application seeking more time for furnishing explanation. Opportunities were given to the appellants by listing the matter on 10.01.2023, 31.01.2023, 28.02.2023, 15.03.2023, 31.03.2023, 10.04.2023 and 29.04.2023. The appellants not only failed to produce the accused within that period, but also failed to furnish any reasonable cause for not paying the bond amount. The trial court, in the circumstances, ordered penalty of Rs.20,000/- each.
4. On the materials on record, I find no reason to hold that the impugned order is vitiated for any reason. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that considering the financial condition and plight of the appellants, they are entitled for a more lenient view. The 1st appellant is a conductor by profession and the 2nd appellant a housewife. Rs.20,000/- alone is the penalty imposed; while the bond amount is for Rs.1 lakh. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the penalty amount can be reduced to Rs.15,000/-.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 in M.C.No.20 of 2021 is modified and the appellants are directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- each as penalty.
The appeal is allowed to that extent.
