High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-08-18Disposed of; penalty reduced to Rs.35,000 per p...

Mani Deepa and P. Vasumathi v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.R.P.No.2245 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2010-08-18
Court Decision / Holding: Penalty reduced to Rs.35,000 per petitioner; payment within one month; if default, trial court to take coercive steps for realization. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; penalty reduced to Rs.35,000 per petitioner, payable within one month; coercive steps available for recovery on failure to pay.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mani Deepa
P. Vasumathi

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor of the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Sunil Nair Palakkat
• Sri. K.N. Abhilash
• Smt. R. Leela

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Sri. Venugopal M.R.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision petition, examines the penalty imposed on two sureties in a vehicle-release case. Mani Deepa and P. Vasumathi challenge an order in CMP 2707/2009 in CRA 433/2009 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, and CMP 5595/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur. The trial court had ordered penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the sureties for not producing a vehicle released under Section 451 Cr.P.C., which was released in favour of Manoj following a remand in a connected matter. The appellate court reduced the penalty to Rs 50,000 for each applicant, while confirming the trial court's order. The petitioners contend that the cited decisions on bail release (Rajpal and Sajitha) are inapplicable to the present case since the obligation stems from the release of the vehicle and the purpose of the bond has already been served by the vehicle being produced. The petitioners also argue that Annexure A1 records the directions, and that the stay order and production were not properly executed. The High Court, after considering the arguments, holds that the petitioners indeed failed to discharge their contractual obligation to produce the vehicle, but uses its discretionary power to reduce the penalty further to Rs 35,000 each, directing payment within one month, with coercive steps permissible if default occurs. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 451 Cr.P.C.Section 452 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the lower courts’ penalty reduction and the basis cited by the prosecution rely on decisions primarily concerned with bail releases, which are not applicable here. They argue the release of the vehicle under Annexure A1 created a contractual obligation, and the petitioners’ failure to produce the vehicle is a breach. They emphasize that Annexure AI directed production of the vehicle and that the stay order and proceedings did not excuse non-compliance. The counsel submit that the contract arises from the bond for Rs.1 lakh and that the purpose of producing the vehicle has not been met, thereby justifying the penalty.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the appellants failed to discharge their contractual obligation arising from the release of the vehicle. They rely on the order releasing the vehicle, the bond, and subsequent proceedings to argue that the penalty is warranted and that the decisions cited (Rajpal and Sajitha) are not applicable as they deal with bail-related releases, not with vehicle-release obligations. They contend the appellate court correctly quantified the liability and that the High Court should not overturn it entirely but may modify it within justified limits.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajpal and another v. State of U.P.	2009 KHC 174	Distinguished	The decision concerns bail-release contexts and is not applicable to the vehicle-release contractual obligation in this case; hence distinguished.
Sajitha and another v. State of Kerala	2010(2) KHC 700	Distinguished	Like the first, it relates to bail releases and does not control the vehicle-release scenario; thus distinguished.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mani Deepa and P. Vasumathi v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2245 of 2010()** **------------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.2707/2009 IN CRA.433/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CMP.5595/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR ....................** ## **PETITIONERS/APELLANTS:** **------------------------------------------** **1. MANI DEEPA, D/O. KANNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PULLIANDI HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **2. P.VASUMATHI, D/O. KUNHIRAMAN, ARIPPA HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA.** **RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:** **--------------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL.M.R.** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 2245 of 2010 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of August, 2010** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred challenging the order dated 5.4.2010 in Crl.A.No.433 of 2009. 2. The revision petitioners are the appellants in Crl.A.No.433 of 2009 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery. By the impugned order, the appellate court, while confirming the order of the trial court imposing penalty against the appellants, reduced the amount of penalty from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.50,000/-.Thus, each of the revision petitioners is directed to pay penalty to Rs.50,000/-. 3. From the impugned order, it appears that M.C.No.192 of 2008 is a proceedings initiated by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur against the appellants, who are the sureties of the petitioner in CMP No.5655 of 2007, which was a petition preferred before that court for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 13L 3321 Indigo car. The learned Magistrate allowed the above petition which was preferred ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** ## **:-2-:** under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and released the vehicle in favour of one Manoj, who is the petitioner therein and towards the release of the said vehicle, the appellants executed bond for Rs.1 lakh. 4. It is also discernible from the order impugned that the petitioner in CMP No.5595 of 2007, who is a rival claimant, has filed Crl.M.C.No. 1124 of 2008 before this Court against the order in CMP No 5655 of 2007. This Court remanded the matter and consequently, the learned Magistrate passed Annexure A1 order releasing the vehicle in favour of the petitioner in CMP No.5595 of 2007, viz., Mr.Prasanth, as evidenced by Annexure A1 order. Annexure A1 order was passed by the learned Magistrate after hearing both the claimants and the counsel representing them. The operative portion of Annexure A1 reads as follows:- “20. So the vehicle bearing No.KL.13.3321 Tata Indigo Car shall be put in possession of the petitioner in CMP 5595/07 u/s.452 Cr.P.C.” 5. After the date of Annexure A1 order, though the ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** **:-3-:** petitioner in CMP No.5655 of 2007 preferred Crl.M.C.No.3161 of 2008 before this Court and obtained stay order on 19.8.2008, subsequently, the said Crl.M.C. was withdrawn on 5.12.2008. Thus, it can be seen that, this Court passed the stay order on 19.8.2008. Whereas the appellants failed to produce the vehicle in terms of Annexure A1 order dated 24.7.2008. Thus, the order imposing penalty against the appellants was passed on 11.8.2008. 6. Subsequently, the revision petitioners herein preferred Crl.A.No.433 of 2009 and by a detailed order, the appellate court, while upholding the correctness of the order imposing penalty against the revision petitioners, modified the penalty amount and reduced the same to Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, each of the revision petitioners is ordered to pay Rs.50,000/as penalty. 7. On the strength of the decisions reported in **Rajpal and another** v. **State of U.P.** (2009 KHC 174) **Sajitha and another** v. **State of Kerala** [2010(2) KHC 700], the learned ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** ## **:-4-:** counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the orders of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court are incorrect and illegal and liable to be interfered with. The above two decisions relied on by the counsel are not applicable in the present case especially, for the sole reason that the above two decisions are connected with the release of the accused on bail. In the present case, the contractual obligation arose out of the release of vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle has subsequently been produced and therefore, the purpose is served and therefore, the order issued by the court below is liable to be set aside. I am quite unable to entertain such argument. As and when the revision petitioners execute the bond and record their undertaking, they are entering into a contract for the production of the vehicle and in this case, they miserably failed to produce the vehicle when a direction was given to them to produce the same. Learned counsel submitted that there is no specific direction to the revision petitioners to ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** **:-5-:** produce the vehicle. The above submission also is not tenable. It can be seen that Annexure AI order was passed after hearing the petitioners and their counsel and it cannot be said that the counsel who appeared for the petitioners in the court below failed to understand the direction contained in para 20 of the order impugned. However, the lower appellate court, after considering the entire matter, interfered with the amount quantified by the trial court as penalty and reduced the same from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.50,000/-. In the light of the facts stated above, I am of the view that the revision petitioners have miserably failed to discharge their contractual obligation in producing the vehicle and therefore, I find no illegality in the order issued by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. However, considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the amount now modified and fixed by the lower appellate court is modified and reduced to **Rs.35,000/-** and each of the revision petitioners is directed to pay penalty of Rs.35,000/-, in ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** ## **:-6-:** modification of the order issued by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, within one month from today and in case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioners in paying the revised penalty amount within the time limit, the trial court is free to take coercive steps for realisation of such amount. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above **.** **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** **:-7-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** ## **:-8-:** DATED: -2-2010 ## **Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010** **:-9-:**