Manikuttan vs State Of Kerala

K.Haripal, J

Appellant in both these appeals are one and the same. Both appeals are filed under Section 449 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the correctness of the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge III, Manjeri. Crl.A.No. 810 of 2020 is preferred against an order dated 11.07.2018 in M.C.No. 28 of 2018. In that case, the appellant and another had taken the 3rd accused in S.C. No. 397 of 2015 on bail after executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/-. But the 3rd accused went absconding and thus proceedings under Section 446A of the Cr.P.C.were initiated against him. The order dated 11.07.2018 produced along with the appeal indicates that, even though a notice was served on the appellant asking to show cause as to why the bond amount shall not be realized from him; but he did not respond and thus that Criminal Miscellaneous Case was disposed of slapping the entire bond amount as penalty. In other words, he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Appellant is the 2nd respondent in the Miscellaneous Case.

Crl.A.No. 508 of 2021 is directed against the order dated 11.07.2018 in M.C.No. 27 of 2018. That Miscellaneous Case was taken when the appellant failed to produce the 2nd accused in S.C.No. 397 of 2015 before Court for trial. Here also, a show cause notice as provided under Section 446A of the Cr.P.C. was served on the appellant. But he did not respond and thus the entire bond amount of Rs. 50,000/- was directed to be paid as penalty.

I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the appellant has brought to my notice a Judgment of this Court in Crl.A. Nos. 884 of 2019 and 885 of 2019 which were preferred by another surety in the very same Sessions Case, S.C.No.379 of 2015. There also the grievance was that entire bond amount was slapped as penalty. The learned Judge who heard the appeals, though confirmed the order of the Session Court modified the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. According to the learned counsel the appellant may be given a similar treatment.

As indicated earlier, the appellant is the 2nd respondent in both the Miscellaneous Cases. Both the cases were registered after the appellant had failed to produce accused 3 and 2 respectively in S.C. No. 397 of 2015 before Court even though he had taken them on bail. Both the orders imposing penalty of Rs.50,000/- each was passed after giving him sufficient notice. Despite service of show cause notice he failed to appear before the trial Court nor showed cause to why so much amount shall not be realized. He also did not give any reason for getting any portion of the bond amount remitted. In the circumstances, the trial Court was left with no option but to impose the entire bond amount as penalty.

Now the learned counsel has submitted that later, the accused persons have surrendered before the trial Court, faced trial and then were acquitted by judgment dated 12.10.2018. This is evident from the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No. 884 of 2019 as well. In the circumstances, the appellant is entitled to get indulgence of this Court.

Having regard to the facts and also the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No. 884 of 2019 the order under challenge can be confirmed. I do so. However, taking into account the fact that the presence of the accused persons for whom the appellant had stood surety have faced trial, a lenient view can be taken. Thus the penalty imposed on the appellant can be modified into Rs. 5,000/- each. In other words, in both the Miscellaneous Cases the appellant is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- each, (total Rs. 10,000/-) failing which he shall be liable to be sent to civil prison and also liable to face revenue recovery proceedings.

Criminal Appeals are disposed as of above.