The court dismissed a criminal appeal filed against an order of acquittal for non prosecution, noting the appellant failed to cure procedural defects regarding service of notice despite multiple opportunities.
The criminal appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934
CRL.A.No. 693 of 2005 ( )
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.724/1999 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEYYATINKARA, DTD.4.12.2004)
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
C.V.PADMAKUMAR, RAJ BHAVAN, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
2. M.SUBRAMANIYAN, AGED 54,
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ami/
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.A.No.693 of 2005
Dated this the 4th day of September, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The above appeal, which pertains to the year 2005, is against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused who faced the prosecution for the offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act and under section 420 of IPC at the instance of the appellant/ complainant. It appears that the appeal was admitted as early as on 5.6.2007 and the steps was taken and notice sent on 25.8.2008. When the above appeal posted in the defect list on 22.6.2012, the counsel for the appellant submitted that defect will be cured within a week. The above submission was recorded and the matter was posted after 10 days. Again on 9.7.2012, the counsel sought one week time to cure the defect and time granted as prayed for and it is again posted after 10 days if the defect
2
Crl.A.No.693 of 2005
subsists. Thus finally, the matter was posted in the defect list on 27.7.2012, on which date also, the counsel sought time to cure the defect by furnishing correct residential address of the respondent. Accordingly 10 days time was granted. Now the Registry has reported that no steps have been taken to furnish the correct residential address of the respondent to serve notice. From the above endorsement made by the Registry and from the proceedings recorded by this Court on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel, it is crystal clear that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant to take effective steps to cure the defect and to serve notice on the respondent. So far no step is seen taken, inspite of the time sought and granted. Since the matter pertains to the year 2005, especially when the challenge is against the order of acquittal and particularly when the appellant has failed to take steps to cure the defect eventhough sufficient opportunities were taken, I am of the view that, it is not proper to grant further time since
3
Crl.A.No.693 of 2005
there is no bonafides in the submissions of the counsel for the appellant. In the above circumstances, this appeal is
dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge
ami/
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant further time for curing defect and serving notice in a criminal appeal.
C.V.PADMAKUMAR
THE STATE OF KERALA
M.SUBRAMANIYAN
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
