IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

CRL.A.No. 530 of 2014 ()

-------------------------

AGAINST ORDER DATED 17.12.2012 IN M.C.NO.18/2012 IN S.C.NO.121/2012

ON THE FILES OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM

APPELLANT(S)/1ST SURETY:

-------------------------

SURESH @ SURESH KUMAR,

S/O.A.K.DAS, AGED 38 YEARS, AYILOOPARAMBIL,

KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE

KANJIRAPPALLY KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE

SRI.K.C.THOMAS (PALA)

SRI.BIJU GEORGE (VADASSERY)

SRI.M.P.RAJU

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

--------------------------

STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.G.LISHA

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

15-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.A.No. 530 of 2014 ()

------------------------

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.12.2013 GIVEN BY THE

APPELLANT TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

Pn

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

-------------------------------------------

Crl. Appeal No. 530 of 2014

-------------------------------------------

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The appellant is the 1^st surety of an accused in S.C.

No.121/2012 of the District and Sessions Court, Kottayam. The

appellant along with another surety had executed a bond

undertaking to procure the presence of the accused on all posting

dates and in case of default, to forfeit the bond and to pay

penalty subject to the maximum of 30,000/-. It is an admitted

₹

fact that the accused did not appear. Thereafter MC proceedings

were initiated against the sureties. In spite of service of notice on

the appellant, he did not appear and show any cause as to why

the penalty as fixed by the Court shall not be deposited. The

Court below by the impugned order imposed a penalty of

30,000/- without granting any remission. This is under challenge

₹

in this appeal.

2.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

3.

It is admitted by the appellant that he had executed

the bond and that the accused did not appear before the Court

below. It is further not in dispute that in spite of service of notice,

Crl. Appeal No. 530 of 2014

2

he did not appear before the Court below to show any valid cause

as to why penalty shall not be imposed. The accused was

charged with offence under Section 119A of the Kerala Police Act.

According to the appellant, since the accused did not appear, a

written information was given to the Police Department evidenced

by Annexure A1, Informing about his latest residence. The

learned counsel on instructions submitted that the accused had

since appeared before the Court below and is facing the trial.

However, there is nothing to show that in fact Annexure A1 had

been sent.

4.

The learned counsel relying on Annexure A2 and A3

contended that he belonging to the BPL group and is a 'coolie

worker'. It was submitted that he is unable to have both ends

meet. Hence he sought for a lenient view.

5.

Having regard to the entire facts, I feel that the

petitioner is entitled for a lenient view, especially considering the

age of the petitioner and the social circumstances in which he is

put now. I feel that a penalty of 5,000/- will serve the interest of

₹

justice.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned

Crl. Appeal No. 530 of 2014

3

order is modified to 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable

₹

by the appellant. He is granted one months time to remit the

above amount.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P. A. to Judge

Pn