KRISHNAN S/O NEELAKANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the sureties for the 7th accused in S.C.No.500 of 2009 of the trial court and they preferred this Appeal challenging the order dated 11/04/2012 in M.C.No.5 of 2012 in S.C.No.500 of 2009 of the same trial court by which the learned Judge imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on each of the appellant under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that on 07/01/2012 when the learned Judge issued order cancelling bail to A7 and A8 and notice to the appellants, A7 for whom the appellant stood as sureties was in Bombay connected with his job and the appellants were not in a position to produce him on that day. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that subsequently when the learned Judge ordered to register M.C. these appellants were present and they sought time to produce the 7th accused but ignoring such request proceeded under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellant and posted the case on 11/04/2012. According to the learned counsel the appellants produced the accused on 03/04/2012 as per Annexure-I petition but the learned Judge of the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order on 11/04/2012 overlooking the fact that A7 was produced on 03/04/2012 and granted him fresh bail. On the strength of the decision of this Court in Vikraman and Another Vs. State of Kerala 2010 (2)KHC 338 learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and no reason is assigned to impose such a huge amount being the penalty against the appellant. Therefore the counsel submitted that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN the result, this Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 11/04/2012 in M.C.No.5 of 2012 in S.C.No.500 of 2009 of the trial court and all further steps if initiated against the appellants stand cancelled.