Karnataka High Court
Honnaiah K vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.187/2017
BETWEEN:
1. HONNAIAH.K
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O NEELAIAH
R/O NO.67, 1ST FLOOR
REVANNA LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 039.
2. G.A.PUTTASWAMY
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LATE ANKARANGE GOWDA
R/O NO.31/1 SRIGANDHA NAGAR
HEGGANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 091.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.CHANDRAHASA RAI.B , ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY COTTONPET P.S., BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.449 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 TO REGISTER
THE CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE IN
S.C.NO.1553/2012 DATED 29.03.2016 BY THE LVIII
2
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-59)
BANGALORE AGAISNT THE PETITIONERS/SURETIES TO
RECOVER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.50,000 AS PER
ORDER DATED 20.07.2016 AND PERMIT THEM TO PAY
20% OF THE PENALTY AMOUNT BY THEM BY CALLING
UPON THE RECORDS OF THE COURT BELOW.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
There is delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. Accepting the cause shown in I.A.No.2/2017, delay is condoned and I.A.No.2/2017 is allowed.
2. This appeal is filed U/S 449 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-59) in Crl.Misc.No.2174/2016 .
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that:- the appellants herein stood as sureties for the release of accused No.2 who is accused of committing offence U/S-302 of IPC in Crime No.199/2012 registered by Cottonpet Police Station.
4. The accused having jumped the bail, Trial Court issued warrant against the accused and also 3 issued notice to the sureties namely, the appellants herein and on account of the failure of the sureties to produce the accused, Crl.Misc.Ptn.No.2174/2016 was registered against the appellants for recovery of the bond amount of Rs.50,000/-.
5. The order sheet in Crl.Misc.Ptn.No. 2174/2016 reveals that the respondent took time to secure the accused and on their failure to secure the accused moved an applications U/S 446(3) of Cr.P.C praying to grant the remission of payment of fine amount. Considering the request of the appellants, the Trial Court directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each.
6. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the said order inter-alia contending that the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law, show-cause notice as required U/S 476 of Cr.P.C was not issued to the appellants prior to the forfeiture of the bond. Further it is contended that in spite of the sincere efforts made by the appellants they could not secure the appellants and they are unable to 4 pay the entire bond amount as they do not have assets other than the immovable properties which are agricultural properties and due to draught they are unable to grow any crops in the said properties.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Kunju and another v/s. State of Karnataka, 2000 CrL.L.J.165. I do not find that the proposition laid down therein would enure to the benefit of these appellants. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-15, has considered the request made by sureties for remission of the amount and considering the facts of the said case and by referring the earlier decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted remission mainly for the reason that accusation made against the accused were trival in nature. In this case, undoubtedly the offence alleged against the accused is serious in nature. Under the said circumstances the principles laid down in the above 5 decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Nevertheless, the petitioners having expressed the inability to pay entire bond amount on account of draught and failure in crop as they do not derive income from their agricultural properties, which is stated to be sole source for their living and further on account of the facts that the petitioner have made deliberate attempts to secure the accused, in the interest of justice in modification of the order passed by the LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl. Mis. No.2174/2016 the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- each in respect of forfeiture of the bonds. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE NM/SB