High Court of KeralaCRL.A/1009/2015partly allowed

Manikkoth Moidu v. Sub Inspector Of Police

2015-10-16Honourable Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/24TH ASWINA, 1937 CRL.A.No. 1009 of 2015 (A) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 3/15 IN S.C.1081/14 ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE DATED 07.05.2015.

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED:

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

1. MANIKKOTHU MOIDU, S/O KUNHABDULLA, VADAYAM AMSOM, NITTUR DESOM, NITTUR PO, KOZHIKODE

2. NADUKANDIYIL AMMAD, S/O AVULLA, VADAYAM AMSOM, NITTUR DESOM, NITTUR PO, KOZHIKODE

3. NADUKKANDIYIL SOOPPY, S/O ABDULLA, VADAYAM AMSOM, NITTUR DESOM NITTUR PO, KOZHIKODE

4. KUNHAMMAD, S/O KUNHABDULLA MUSALIYAR, VENKALLULLAPARAMBATH, VADAYAM AMSOM NITTUR PO, KOZHIKODE BY ADVS.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SRI.V.A.VINOD RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

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

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTTIADY POLICE STATION - 673 001

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM-682 031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.G.LISHA.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.A.No. 1009 of 2015 (A) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC 3/15 ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE Pn

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred by the sureties of the accused in S.C. No.1081/2014, aggrieved by the order in M.C. No.3/2015. The appellants were the sureties for the accused. They had executed a bond for a sum of 25,000/- undertaking to ensure the ₹ presence of the accused on all posting dates and in case of default to pay a penalty of 25,000/- each. Admittedly, the ₹ accused remained absent and M.C. proceedings were initiated. They did not appear and showed any valid cause regarding the non-forfeiture of the bond amount. Consequently, the Court below imposed a penalty of 25,000/- each payable by each of ₹ the appellant.

When the matter came up for admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, it appears that the matter can be disposed of on the basis of the available materials itself. 3.

It is an admitted fact that the appellants stood as sureties for the accused. They had executed a bond undertaking

to ensure the presence of the accused and in case of default to pay penalty of 25,000/- It is also admitted that, the accused ₹ remained absent and even though notice was served on them in the M.C. proceedings they did not appear and showed any valid cause. Considering these facts, the Court below was perfectly justified in law to impose the penalty which the Court below felt appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.

However, the learned counsel for the appellants relying on paragraph 2 of the appeal memorandum contended that, accused had thereafter appeared and got them released on executing fresh bond with new sureties and that the matter is now pending trial before the Court below. There is nothing on record to show otherwise. Having considered this fact, I feel that a lenient view is liable to be taken. A sum of 10,000/- each ₹ payable by each of the appellant would serve the interest of justice.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified by directing each of the appellant to pay a penalty of 10,000/-. The above amount shall be remitted ₹ within a period of one month from today. If any amount is

deposited in excess of this amount, it shall be refunded to the appellant through his counsel. Remission is granted with respect to the remaining amount. Each of the appellant is granted one months time to remit the amount and till that time further proceedings in respect of recovery shall remain deferred. Thereafter, the Court below will be free to proceed with the legal steps, in case of non-remittance.

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.