CRL.A/1416/2012 of REMIN RAMESH Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012

JUDGMENT

The appellants are counter petitioners inCrl.M.C.No.1466 of 2010 in S.C.No.208 of 2008 of thecourt of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II),Ernakulam, and the sureties for A1 in the above SessionsCase and as per the above proceedings the learnedSessions Judge imposed a penalty of `.25,000/- underSection 446 of Cr.P.C. on each of the appellants. It is theabove order, under challenge in the present appeal filedunder Section 449 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant andthe learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the appellantstrenuously submitted that, though the appellants werestood as sureties for A1 in the above Sessions case, thecourt below initiated proceedings against the appellants,

: 2 :

since the accused, for whom the appellants stood assureties, failed to appear before the trial court andsubsequent to the order impugned in this appeal, the firstaccused appeared before the trial court on 18/12/2012and he was again enlarged on bail upon fresh surety shipand therefore according to the counsel, the orderimpugned in this appeal is liable to be set aside or elsethe fine amount be reduced.

4. I have carefully considered the submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the appellant. On aperusal of the impugned order it can be seen that theappellants/sureties were granted sufficient time toproduce the accused but they have miserably failed toproduce the accused, for whom they stood as sureties.From the impugned order it appears that, A1 for whomthe appellants stood as sureties, allegedly committedoffences punishable under Sections 395 and 511 of 365 ofI.P.C. along with other accused. According to me, it wasunder the above circumstances, particularly when A1

: 3 :

failed to appear before the court and when the appellantsfailed to discharge their statutory obligation in producingA1, the court below constrained to issue the impugnedorder. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, the appellantshave miserably failed to discharge their contractualobligation in producing the first accused for whom theystood as sureties in spite of the fact that they weregranted sufficient time for the same. Therefore, I find noreason to interfere with the findings of the court below bywhich the liability was fixed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.upon the appellant.

5. However, in the light of the submissions madeby the counsel for the appellant, it appears that after theimpugned order dated 13/8/2010, A1 in S.C.No.208 of2008, for which the appellants stood as sureties, hadsurrendered before the court below and he was releasedon fresh bail on 18/12/2012 upon fresh surety ship. Ifthat be so, while confirming the liability of the appellantsunder Section 446 of Cr.P.C., according to me, penalty

: 4 :

amount can be modified. According to me, a sum of`15,000/- is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.Accordingly, while confirming the liability of theappellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., fixed by thecourt below as per the impugned order, the penaltyamount is modified and fixed as `15,000/-.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat, in terms of the order dated 17/12/2012 inCrl.M.Appln.No.8853 of 2012 of this Court, each of theappellants has already deposited `15,000/- in the trialcourt and accordingly, receipt No.127/12-13 dated18/12/2012 issued from the trial court has already beenproduced before this Court by memo dated 18/12/2012and the said amount may be adjusted towards the penaltyamount now modified and fixed by this Court. I find noreason to reject the above request. Accordingly, therewill be a direction to the trial court that an amount of`15,000/- already deposited by each of the appellants intermsoftheorderdated17/12/2012in

: 5 :

Crl.M.Appln.No.8853 of 2012 as evidenced by the receiptreferred to above, be adjusted towards the penaltyamount as now modified and fixed by this Court. As theappellants have deposited the modified penalty amount,coercive steps, if any, pending against the appellantsstand cancelled.

skj

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE