Kerala High Court
Thulasidharan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2012
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2012/13TH ASHADHA 1934
CRL.A.No. 824 of 2012 ()
------------------------
(CRMC.NO.18/2010 IN SC.146/2010 of ADDL.DISTRICT
& SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM)
APPELLANT:
----------
THULASIDHARAN NAIR,
S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, VAKAYIL HOUSE,
KANAMALA KARA, ERUMELY SOUTH VILALGE.
BY ADV MS.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM) &
SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
RESPONDENT:
-----------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI P.M. SANEER.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-
2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.A No.824 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated the 4th day of July, 2012
JUDGMENT
The sole appellant herein is the 2nd surety for the accused in S.C.No.146/2010 of the court of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, and in this appeal he challenges the order dated 13.9.2010 in Crl.M.C.No.18/2010 in the above Sessions Case, by which the learned Judge imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant under section 446 Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the accused, for whom the appellant stood as one of the sureties, subsequently appeared before the trial court and cooperated with the trial which ended in acquittal of the said accused. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the liability fixed by the trial court on the appellant is factually and legally incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside.
3. I am unable to sustain the above contention. The appellant, being one of the sureties, is bound to produce the accused for whom he stood as surety, as and when required by CRA 824/12 :-2-:
the trial court. The failure on the part of the appellant in not producing the accused attract the liability under section 446 Cr.P.C. The subsequent appearance of the accused or the outcome in the trial is not a matter to be considered in a proceedings under section 446 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below fixing the liability upon the appellant under section 446 Cr.P.C.
4. However, in the light of the submission of the learned counsel, it can be seen that, the accused failed to appear in the trial court, and consequently proceedings were initiated against the appellant and subsequently he appeared before the trial court and the trial ended in his acquittal. Therefore, according to me, while confirming the liability under section 446 Cr.P.C against the appellant, the penalty amount requires modification and a sum of Rs.12500/- is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly while confirming the liability under section 446 Cr.P.C., the penalty amount is modified and reduced to Rs.12500/-. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.12500/- under section 446 Cr.P.C..
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in terms of the order dated 3.4.2012, in Crl.M.A. No.2592/12, the CRA 824/12 :-3-:
appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.12500/- as evidenced by receipt dated 3.5.2012 issued from the Sessions Court, Kottayam and therefore, the said amount may be ordered to be adjusted against the penalty amount now revised and fixed. I find no reason to reject the above submission. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the trial court that an amount of Rs.12,500/- deposited in the trial court as per receipt dated 3.5.2012 in terms of the order dated 3.4.2012 in Crl.M.A.No.2592/12, shall be adjusted against the penalty amount now modified and fixed by this court. As the appellant/petitioner has already deposited the revised penalty amount, coercive step if any initiated against him shall stand cancelled.
The Crl.Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-
CRA 824/12
:-4-:
kvm/-