Counter petitioners in MC.51/2014 in C.C.87/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode are the revision petitioners herein. The accused in C.C.87/2014 was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.One lakh with the revision petitioners as sureties. He did not appear. So proceedings under section 446 of the Code was initiated against the revision petitioners as M.C.No.51/2014 and they appeared and expressed their inability to produce the accused. The learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each and granted remission in respect of the balance amount. Dissatisfied with the same, they filed Crl.A.No.221/2014 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/- which is being challenged by the revision petitioners by filing this revision petition. 2. Considering the scope of enquiry, this Court felt that the revision can be admitted and can be disposed of after hearing the counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Pleader appearing for the respondent. So revision is admitted, heard and disposed of today itself.
3. The counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that accused had appeared and that can be taken as a mitigating circumstance to show leniency.
4. This was opposed by the Public Prosecutor.
5. It is an admitted fact that the accused in C.C.No.87/2014 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikdoe was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. One lakh with the revision petitioners as sureties. It is also an admitted fact that he absconded and his presence could not be procured, thereupon proceedings under section 446 of the Code has been initiated against the revision petitioners as MC.No.51/2014. Even then, the revision petitioners could not produce the accused. However the court below had taken lenient view and imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- each. This was challenged by the revision petitioners by filing Crl.A.No.221/2014 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode and the learned Sessions Jude by the impugned judgment, further reduced the penalty amount to Rs.10,000/- each and further ordered that if the amount could not be paid or recovered, then they are directed to be detained in civil prison for one month each.
6. A report has been called for over phone on the basis of the submission made by the counsel for the revision petitioners as to whether the accused had appeared and report was obtained telephonically stating that the accused was present before court on 14.8.2014 and he was released on bail. So that can be taken as a mitigating circumstance to show some leniency as the revision petitioners are ladies and also considering the pathetic condition of sureties when they stood as sureties for releasing the accused and he appeared on the subsequent date. However showing too much of leniency also will result in miscarriage of justice. However, considering the circumstances, this Court feels that directing the revision petitioners to pay penalty of Rs.8,000/- each will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So the order passed by the court below modified by the appellate court is further modified as follows:
Revision petitioners are directed to pay penalty of Rs.8,000/- each and remission is granted in respect of the balance amount. If the amount is not paid or recovered from them, they will be directed to be detained in civil prison for ten days each. If they have already deposited any amount, that can be adjusted towards the penalty amount imposed. In case excess amount has been paid over and above the penalty imposed by this Court, the court below is directed to refund the excess amount so deposited to the revision petitioners on making such an application before that court. Two months time is granted to the revision petitioners to pay the amount. Till then, execution of the warrant, if any, is directed to be kept in abeyance.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge