MUHAMMED E.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the sureties for A6 who is one of the accused in S.C.No.843 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode District. THE challenge in this appeal, preferred under Section 449 of Cr.P.C., is against the order dated 04/06/2012 in M.C.No.23 of 2012 of the learned Sessions Judge of the trial court issued under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each on the appellant.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were not in a position to produce the accused for whom they stood as sureties as the said accused had gone abroad connected with his employment. THErefore the counsel submits that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant in producing the accused and therefore the order issued by the learned Judge of the trial court is liable to be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the accused will appear before the trial court without any delay and therefore a lenient view may be taken in the matter.