Kerala High Court
Vikraman Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2014/13TH CHAITHRA, 1936
CRL.A.No. 2402 of 2006 ( )
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 909/2000 of ADDL.
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC I), KOLLAM DATED 01-02-2006.
APPELLANT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 & 2::
----------------------------------------
1. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, S/O. GANGADHARAN PILLAI,
MANGOTTUKIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,
KADATHOOR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE.
2. BINU, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI,
PANICKAVEEDU, KADATHOOR, THAZHAVA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN.
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER::
-------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM (SUO MOTO
PROCEEDINGS) THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03-04-2014,ALONG WITH CRL.APPEAL NO.37/2007, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
amk
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal Nos.2402 of 2006 & 37 of 2007
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2014.
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
These appeals are filed under Section 449 Cr.P.C. Appellants are arrayed as counter petitioners in M.C No.14/2006 in S.C No. 909/2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc I), Kollam. It is seen from the records that the first counter petitioner in the M.C (first appellant in Crl.Appeal No.2402/2006) was the accused in Crime No.49/2000 of Karunagappally Police Station for allegedly being involved in an offence under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. Counter petitioners 2 and 3 (2nd appellant in Crl.Appeal No.2402/2006 and the sole appellant in Crl.Appeal No.37/2007 respectively) stood sureties for the accused. They undertook to produce the accused as and when directed by the court and executed a bond in terms of the provisions in Section 441 Cr.P.C. Later, the accused absconded. First surety was reported to be in Gulf when a notice was issued to him. Second surety Crl. Appeal Nos.2402 of 2006 & 37 of 2007 2 though served with a notice remained absent. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order directed them to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. Aggrieved by this finding, the accused and the sureties have come up in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.2402/2006. There was no representation for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.37/2007. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
3. I have carefully perused the records. It is seen that the accused absconded pending trial and the sureties could not produce him before the court as agreed to by them as per the terms of the bond executed. The amount indicated in the bond as penalty for breach was Rs.25,000/-. Court below without mentioning any reason directed the appellants to remit Rs.10,000/- as penalty. The court below did not consider their paying capacity and the possible reasons for the breach. True, Crl. Appeal Nos.2402 of 2006 & 37 of 2007 3 the accused abstained from court and the sureties could not produce him before court. Therefore, the bond has been forfeited by the breach committed by the appellants. However, the penalty amount appears to be slightly on higher side. Therefore, the appeals are disposed with following directions :
The impugned order is partly set aside. Findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the appellants committed breach of bond conditions in the above cases and the bond had been forfeited are confirmed. However, the penalty is reduced to the extent that each appellant shall pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as penalty, failing which it shall be recovered as if it were fine under Section 431 Cr.P.C. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True Copy//
P.Ato Judge