This is an appeal filed under Section 449(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order dated 22/01/2011 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Abkari Act Cases, Neyyattinkara, Trivandrum District in M.C.13/2010 registered in S.C 544/2003. The appellants who stood as sureties of the accused in S.C.544/2003 in the Crime No.107/2000 which arose out of C.P.No.2/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (II) Neyyattinkara.
2. The accused was released on bail and the appellants stood as sureties for him by executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each for ensuring the appearance before the Court. The accused later failed to appear before the Court below when the case was included in the list for examination. And hence the bail bond executed stood forfeited. When the accused still failed to appear, the appellants were issued notices. And there also appellant failed to appear before the Court below. Thereupon notices were issued to the appellants calling upon them, either pay penalty stipulated in the bail bond or to appear and show why payment of the said amount shall not be enforced against them. The appellants appeared and submitted that the first appellant is a lady with financial difficulty. The Court below orders penalty for the forefeiture of the bond by CRL.A.NO.963 OF 2011 2 directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- each after remitting the balance amount. It is this order under challenge in this appeal. It is further stated that later the Court below acquitted the accused as per Annexure A2 judgment rendered by the Court below on 9/2/2011 in S.C.No.544/2003.
3. Heard Sri. Vinod, J, Dev the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
4. The appellants urged that they have financial difficulties and that it is very difficult for them to raise such huge amounts, and that the first appellant is a lady who has no independent means of income at all. More over the acquittal of the accused as per Annexure A2 is also pointed out.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that as the accused has been acquitted of offences in the Sessions case as per Annexure A2 judgment of the Court below, it is only just and proper to take a lenient view in this case. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of Justice that the impugned order is set aside. Criminal Appeal stands allowed as above.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS iap JUDGE CRL.A.NO.963 OF 2011 3