UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the sureties for the first accused in S.C. No. 365 of 2010 on the file of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ad hoc Court No. III, Palakkad and as the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties absconded, after jumping over the bail condition, the trial court is constrained to register MC No. 17/2011 under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. and finally imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - each on the appellant by the order of the trial court dated 25.11.2011 in M.C. No. 17 of 2011. Thus, the challenge in this appeal is against the above order imposing penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not in a position to produce the said accused as the whereabouts of the said accused are not known to them. It is also the submission of the counsel that as the petitioners are coolie workers, a Crl.A. No. 1165 of 2012 lenient view may be taken.

(2.) I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and I have perused the order impugned. From the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that as the first accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties is not available for trial, the case against him is split up and the trial being proceeded against the available accused. The appellants, being the sureties of the first accused, are contractually obliged to produce the said accused as and when required by the court below, but in the present case, the appellants miserably failed in discharging their contractual obligation. Therefore, according to me, the learned Judge of the trial court is fully correct in fixing the liability against the accused under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel, it can be seen that the learned Judge imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - on each of Crl.A. No. 1165 of 2012 the appellants, an amount equivalent to the bond amount, which according to me, is not proper in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case. Therefore, considering the request of counsel for the appellants, according to me, the penalty amount can be reduced to Rs. 10,000/ -. Accordingly, in modification of the order impugned, while confirming the liability of the appellants under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C., the penalty amount is modified and reduced to Rs. 10,000/ - and accordingly, each of the appellants is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ -, being the penalty under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that each of the appellants has already deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - in terms of the order passed by this Court in Crl. M.A. No. 6005 of 2012 while condoning the delay and the said amount may be ordered to be adjusted against the above penalty amount. According to me, it is only just and proper to consider the above request positively.