V. RAMKUMAR v. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)/true copy/ani

V. RAMKUMAR, J.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Crl.R.P. No. 2934 of 2008* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 27-08-2008JUDGMENTPetitioner was one of the sureties of the accused before theJ.F.C.M. Kasaragod. The bond amount was Rs. 25,000/-.Consequent on the non-appearance of the accused before Court, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the othersurety under Sec. 446 Cr.P.C. as M.C. 8 of 2000. To the showcause notice issued to the sureties in Form No. 48, they to Schedule II Cr.P.C. had no valid explanation to offer. Thereuponthe learned Magistrate imposed the bond amount of Rs. 25,000/-as penalty to each of the sureties. Eventhough the revisionpetitioner filed Crl.A. 363 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, since the appeal was filed out of time that courtdismissed the application without condoning the delay. Hencethis Revision. 2. There might have been some laches on the part of thesureties in not producing the accused before court. But there isno case that the sureties were actively or passively assisting the Crl.A. No. 2340 of 2007-:2:-accused to go abroad and thereby help the accused to flee fromjustice. Under these circumstances, the revision petitionerdeserves some leniency particularly in view of the fact that theaccused for whom he stood as surety has subsequently beenacquitted. Accordingly, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-which the petitioner shall deposit before the trial court withinone month from today failing which recovery proceedings shallbe initiated against him. This Revision is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)/true copy/ani.