2025:KER:31972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 401 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2023 IN MC NO.15/2019 IN SC NO.17/2016 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 M.MARIMUTHU AGED 45 YEARS S/O MUTHAYYA THEVER, RESIDING AT OOTHUMALAYIL HOUSE, PULLOOTT AMSOM DESOM, KODUNGALOOR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680663 2 RAVI KUMAR AGED 57 YEARS S/O KANNAYAN, RESIDING AT LINGAYA THOTTAM, KURUCHI AMSOM DESOM, COIMBATORE TALUK, TAMILNADU- 641014 ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH E.MOHAMMED SHAFI PRAJIT RATNAKARAN R.MAHESH VARMA RESPONDENT/STATE: THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:31972 CRL.A NO. 401 OF 2025 2 C.S.SUDHA, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No.401 of 2025 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April 2025 J U D G M E N T This appeal under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is against the order dated 16/03/2025 in MC No.15/2019 in SC No.17/2016 on the file of the court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara, whereby the counter petitioners in the MC, who are the sureties of the accused have been directed to pay penalty of 50,000/- each. ₹ 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/counter petitioners that the appellants/counter petitioners were unaware of the proceedings and hence the reason why they were unable to appear before the court. The accused for whom they were appearing as sureties has been acquitted and therefore a lenient view may be taken and the penalty amount may be reduced. 3. The request is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 2025:KER:31972 CRL.A NO. 401 OF 2025 3 4. Heard both sides. 5. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that notice was issued to the appellants/counter petitioners which was also served on them. But, they never turned up before the trial court and hence the reason why the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity as such in the impugned order. However, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is modified and the appellants are directed to pay penalty amount of 25,000/- each within a period of one month from the date of ₹ receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE NP