This appeal instituted under Section 449(ii) of Cr.P.C. arises out of the impugned order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara, in M.C.No.21/12 in Sessions Case No.23/2011 (NDPS) on the file of that Court. The appellants are the sureties of the accused in S.C.No.23/11 on the file of the aforementioned court. The accused had been released on bail after executing bonds for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each. It is averred that after the release, the accused had regularly appeared before the court below without fail and the case was posted for framing charge. On the date of framing the charge, the accused was absent and warrant was issued against him and subsequently, notice was issued to the sureties after cancelling the bail bonds. In the absence of appearance of the appellants and the accused, the court below imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- each from the appellants in the aforementioned M.C.No.21/2012 as per the order dated 12.12.2012. It is this order passed in M.C.No.21/2012 that is impugned in the present appeal. 2. It is the specific plea of the appellants that they have not actually received any notice or communication from the court below in regard to the proposed proceedings in the above said M.C. and that it is only when the village officer had contacted the appellants during the last week of May, 2014, for recovery of the penalty amount imposed in the impugned order, that the appellants could get intimation. That it is only then they could come to know that the accused was in judicial custody during the relevant period and that he was disabled from appearing before the court below in this case. They place reliance on the materials referred to in Annexure I.
3. Heard Sri.K.V.Sabu, the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
4. In view of the specific averment of the appellants that they could not avail of a reasonable opportunity before the court below, as it is stated that both have not actually received notice or communication in that regard, this Court is inclined to allow this Crl. Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, so as to facilitate the appellants to avail a reasonable opportunity before the court below. Accordingly, the impugned order in M.C.No.21/2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below so as to pass fresh orders. The appellants shall appear before the court below in person or through counsel on 28.10.2014. The appellants will be at liberty to place necessary materials before the court below in order to establish their case. Thereafter, the court below will pass orders afresh in the above said M.C. after affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the M.C. may be passed without any further delay, at any rate, within two months from 28.10.2014.
The Crl.Appeal stands allowed as ordered above.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge