Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 446 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

User Queries
Kerala High Court
Pathrose,S/O.Scariah, Aged 65 ... vs The District Collector, Idukki on 13 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 25497 of 2010(Q)

1. PATHROSE,S/O.SCARIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, ... Petitioner

2. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.SANKARAN,

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI

... Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR(RR),DEVIKULAM TALUK,

3. VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :13/08/2010

O R D E R

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

---------------------------

W.P.(C). No.25497 OF 2010

--------------------------

Dated this the 13thday of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are sureties of the accused in C.C. No.231 of 1997 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala. On default of the accused to appear on the hearing date fixed, the bond executed by him with the sureties was cancelled and proceedings for forfeiting the amount fixed thereunder were initiated under Section 446 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners/sureties. It appears that the learned Magistrate imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/-, the amount fixed under the surety bond, against each of the sureties. At present, it is submitted that revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of the penalty imposed are in progress. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the learned Magistrate imposing penalty of the sum indicated above, of which recovery proceedings, as stated, are in progress. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal preferred against the orders passed under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. along with a delay petition is pending before the Sessions Court Kotayam. Since the delay has not been condoned so far, no effective orders could be obtained against the revenue recovery proceedings, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners for entertaining this writ petition, which in fact is one seeking for a direction or order to stop all further revenue recovery proceedings on the basis of Ext.P1 order.

2. Prima facie, a writ petition to challenge the order imposing WPC No.25497/2010

2

penalty cannot be entertained. But having regard to the submission made by the counsel that an appeal has already been preferred but that could not be taken up for the reason it was belated, I find indulgence is called for. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that further proceedings from Ext.P1 shall stand suspended for a period of three months on satisfaction of the condition that each of the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards penalty imposed by the court below. In default of deposit of the sum by the petitioners, as directed above, on the expiry of the time limit fixed subject to the orders, if any, from the superior court, effective steps shall be taken for realisation of the penalty. Petitioners can work out their remedies in the appeal for appropriate reliefs as provided by law. Handover a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,

(JUDGE)

vps

WPC No.25497/2010

3

WPC No.25497/2010

4