ABDUL RAZAK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS in the two appeals, the parties are the same, though the challenge is against different order, but passed by the same court in the same Sessions Case, according to me, these two appeals can be disposed of together.

(2.) CRL.A.No.738 of 2012 is preferred by the sureties for accused No.2 in S.C.No.71 of 2012 against whom M.C.No.153 of 2012 is instituted under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. whereas Crl.A.No.757 of 2012 is preferred against the order in MC No.152 of 2012 in S.C.No.71 of 2012 in which the appellants stood as sureties for the first accused in the very same sessions case. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are relatives of the accused for whom they stood as sureties. As the accused had gone out of State in search of job, according to the counsel, the appellants were not in a position to produce them as and when required by the trial court. Thus, the counsel submits that there is no negligence on the part of the appellants in producing the accused and the accused were beyond their control. Therefore, the counsel submits that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of penalty.

(3.) IN both the appeals, it is relevant to note that while fixing the penalty amount, the trial court directed each of the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which is an amount equal to the bond executed by each of them, which approach, according to me, cannot be supported in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case. Therefore, according to me, the penalty amount fixed by the court below requires modification and an amount of Rs.6000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while confirming the liability of the appellants under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C., as fixed by the trial court, each of the appellants in each of the appeals is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C.