Hajarumma v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/14TH PHALGUNA, 1936 CRL.A.No. 2223 of 2011 ( ) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN M.C.8/2011 IN SC 440/2009 OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM DATED 22-07-2011 APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

------------------------ 1.

HAJARUMMA W/O. ABDUL KARIM PUTHENVILA VADAKKETHIL, KOTRAMKARA CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM 2.

SHEEBA, PUTHENVILA VADAKKETHIL, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPPE, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -31 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA R.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A. No.2223 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The appellants were the sureties of the accused in Sessions Case No.440/2009 on the file of the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kollam. On the failure of the accused to appear in court it recorded forfeiture of the bond and initiated proceedings against the appellants. Though notice was served on them, they failed to respond. The court ordered them to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/- each and the balance was remitted. This order is challenged in this appeal.

2.

The grounds alleged in the appeal memorandum are (1) there was no willful negligence or laches on the part of the appellants, (2) the accused has already appeared before the court and (3) the appellants were not given sufficient time.

3.

Forfeiture of the bond automatically takes place when the accused fails to appear in court. The court only

Crl.A. No.2223 of 2011 -2records it. Negligence or laches on the part of the sureties is not at all relevant. Subsequent appearance of the accused before the court does not affect the liability of the appellants. There is no law which requires that the sureties should be given opportunity and time to produce the accused. So the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are not at all valid. There is nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/