Dismissed

P.K.Musthafa v. Sarth Kumar

Kerala HC27 Sept 2012CRL.A/1016/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging an acquittal under s. 138 of the NI Act. The appeal was abandoned because the appellant failed to cure a defect regarding service of notice and expressed lack of interest in prosecuting the matter.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to prosecute and the lack of instructions from the client.

P.K.Musthafa Vs Sarth Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/5TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1016 of 2005 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST.457/2002 of C.J.M.,KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

P.K.MUSTHAFA, S/O.MOHAMMED KOYA, KANANCHERI HOUSE KANDAMKULAM P.O., ERANHIKKAL, CALICUT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1. SARATH KUMAR, S/O.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, UDAYA CHEMISTS & DRUGGIST PALAKOT HOUSE, HOUSE NO.28/3369, PALAZHI ROAD

¶12

P.O. NELLIKODE, CALICUT-16.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.S.HYMA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ami/

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶18

Crl.A.No.1016 of 2005

¶19

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2012.

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The above appeal pertains to the year 2005, which is preferred challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the respondent/accused under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. who faced prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the NI Act at the instance of the appellant. Though the above appeal was admitted as early as on 22.6.2005 and ordered notice, so far the service of notice on the respondent is not complete. On 25.6.2012, the counsel sought time to cure the defect and ten days' time was granted. Again on 16.7.2012, the counsel sought further time and accordingly one week time was granted as last chance to cure the defect. Today, Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the counsel for the appellant submitted that though he contacted the party concerned, no

¶22

¶23

Crl.A.No.1016 of 2005

¶24

instruction is received so as to cure the defect and proceed with the appeal. The above submission of the learned counsel is recorded. The facts stated above and from the submission of the counsel, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting this matter. Therefore, the above appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.

¶25

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶26

ami/

¶27

//True copy// P.A. to Judge

P.K.Musthafa v. Sarth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Musthafa v. Sarth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby Toonkuzhy Vs Joy Thomas

Sherry Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

D.Gopakumar Vs Edwin.C.P.

Federt Chitties India Pvt.Ltd., Vs S.R.Prasadh and Another

B.Prasanna Vs Satheesan Y.