Mohandas, Velayudhan and Bhaskaran vs State of Kerala

N.K. Balakrishnan, J.—This Criminal Revision is filed challenging the order imposing penalty on the accused and two sureties. It was not stated in the revision petition as to the case in which revision petitioners 2 and 3 stood as sureties. In other words it was not stated as to the offence with which the accused stood or was facing trial. The order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that the 1st petitioner was the accused in C.C.No:709/1993 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode, and petitioners 2 and 3 were his sureties.

It was not stated that the case against the 1st accused was only u/s 138 of N.I. Act. The order shows that the accused therein absconded when the case was posted for examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Though criminal appeal was filed u/s 449 Cr.P.C., that was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. That fact was not mentioned in this Criminal Revision Petition. In fact it was not stated that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is illegal or unsustainable.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would now submit that the 1st accused was facing trial u/s 138 of N.I. Act. On going through the order passed by the learned Magistrate it is seen that the accused absconded at the time of 313 statement. It was not at all stated whether the accused therein subsequently surrendered before the learned Magistrate or whether the case u/s 138 was otherwise disposed of.

Though the accused was absconding as can be seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, it seems he has filed an appeal before the Sessions Court u/s 449 and has also filed this revision along with petitioners 2 and 3 who are the sureties.

It is not known why the accused has not chosen to surrender before the learned Magistrate to receive the verdict of the trial court in the prosecution launched against him u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Had it been a case where the accused subsequently appeared before the learned Magistrate and participated in the trial and received the verdict, then certainly the penalty could have been reduced but the petitioners, have not chosen to place before the Court any material regarding the main case as to whether the accused surrendered before that Court or not.

It is also seen that the sureties did not offer any explanation when notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. was issued. They simply kept quiet. I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Magistrate or by the learned Sessions Judge.

This Criminal Revision Petition is hence dismissed.