Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESWARI versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJESWARI v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 3014 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 662 (31 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3014 of 2006()

1. RAJESWARI, D/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS
... Petitioner

2. P.T. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :31/08/2006

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3014 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2006

O R D E R

This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Court of Sessions in an appeal filed under Section 449 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were sureties to an accused, who faced allegations under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused was not produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate issued notices to the sureties. They entered appear. They could not produce the accused. It was thereupon that the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- each. The bond was also for the same amount.

2. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs.7,500/- each. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 7.1.2006 and in these circumstances the quantum of penalty imposed is at any rate excessive. Notwithstanding the fact Crl.R.P.No. 3014 of 2006 2 that there was some delay in the accused surrendering before the learned Magistrate a lenient view must have been taken and such an excessive penalty should/need not have been imposed by the court below.

3. The plea is only for exoneration. The accused has by now appeared before the court and his presence has been secured. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the quantum of penalty can be reduced, though there is no merit whatsoever in the plea for absolute exoneration. The interests of public justice demand that the bounden and the sureties shall scrupulously comply with the terms of the bond executed in favour of the courts. Misplaced sympathy would be counter productive and would further delay the judicial process.

4. Taking all circumstances into account I am satisfied that imposition of a penalty of Rs.2,000/- each shall serve the ends of justice eminently in the facts and circumstances of this case.

5. In the result:

(a) This revision petition is allowed in part.

(b) The impugned order is upheld in all other respects. But the quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs.2,000/- each. Crl.R.P.No. 3014 of 2006 3

6. Hand over copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT) Judge


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.