SASIDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the counter petitioners in M.C.No.9/2012 in S.C.No.493/09 of the court of Additional District & Sessions court (Ad hoc)-II, Kollam, and the learned Judge of the trial court as per the order dated 19.1.2012 in the above proceedings imposed penalty of Rs.15,000.00 on each of the appellants/counter petitioners. It is the above order that is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that, the 1st appellant herein, who is the 1st counter petitioner in the impugned order, went abroad during the pendency of the trial and therefore he could not appear before the court and as such there is no negligence on his part and therefore a lenient view may be taken. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the 1st appellant/the 1st accused is now available for trial.

(3.) IN the light of the submission of the learned counsel and from the impugned order it appears that, the 1st appellant who is the 1st counter petitioner is one of the accused in S.C.No.493 of 2009 which was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 149 of IPC and as the 1st appellant was not available, the case against him was split up and the trial was proceeded against the rest of the accused, which terminated in the acquittal of all those accused. However, from the impugned order it appears that, though the trial court issued NBW against the accused, the same was not executed as he left for gulf and the appellants 2 and 3 had failed to produce the accused inspite of notice served on them. It was under the above circumstances, the learned Judge of the trial court fixed the liability under section 446 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the liability fixed upon the appellant under section 446 of Cr.P.C.