Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALAN versus DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BALAN v. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR - Crl Rev Pet No. 2442 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 251 (17 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 2442 of 2006()

1. BALAN, S/O. APPUKUTTY MOOPPAN,
... Petitioner

2. CHANDRAN, S/O. KUNJAN, AGED 40 YEARS,

Vs

1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.)
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC

For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :17/07/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2442 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2006

O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against an order passed in proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are sureties to an accused, who faced indictment in a prosecution under the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. The accused started absconding. The petitioners, though they received notice, were not able to produce the accused before the court. It is thereupon that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order under Section 446 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners to pay the entire bond amount of Rs.20,000/- each as penalty. An appeal was taken and in the appeal the learned Judge reduced the penalty amount to Rs.8,000/- each. It was submitted before the learned Appellate Judge that the accused person has already been arrested and is undergoing the sentence. But evidence to that effect could not be produced. It is in these circumstances that the learned Appellate Judge reduced the quantum Crl.R.P.No. 2442 of 2006 2 of penalty and directed payment of Rs.8,000/- each as penalty.

2. The petitioner has produced a certificate from the Superintend of Police, Central Prison, Viyyur, which shows that the accused in question has already been arrested and has been released after serving the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. The learned counsel submits that further leniency may be shown to the petitioners, the accused already having been arrested.

3. The breach of the bond is proved. But I am satisfied that there is merit in the prayer for leniency in as much as the accused has subsequently been made available before the authorities to serve the sentence imposed. The subsequent apprehension of the accused cannot obliterate the breach committed. But I am satisfied that leniency can be shown.

4. This revision petition is accordingly allowed in part. The penalty amount imposed on the petitioners is reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.4,000/- If the recovery were found to be impracticable, the petitioners shall undergo imprisonment in civil prison for one month each. The petitioners shall have time till 1.9.2006 to pay the penalty amount. If the petitioners do not pay Crl.R.P.No. 2442 of 2006 3 the penalty amount by that time, the learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps for execution of the modified order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.