The Court dismissed Crl.A.No.751 of 2010 for non-prosecution. Despite multiple adjournments and notices over three years, the appellant failed to appear or take steps to cure defects in service, resulting in the appeal being struck off the record.
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
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/26TH BHADRA 1934
CRL.A.No. 751 of 2010 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST.511/2009 of J.M.F.C.- I, OTTAPPALAM, DTD.31.12.2009
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT:
K.P.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE PONNAN NAIR, PALLATH VEED, MUNDAMUKA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNAN
BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:
1. C.V.KHADER, S/O.V.P.ABDUMASTER,
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
BY ADV.SMT.LALIZA T.Y., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ami/
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.A.No.751 of 2010
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2012.
Though the above appeal was admitted as early as on 26.5.2010 and ordered notice to R1 by speed post, the service is not complete, even after 3 years. When the case was posted before the Registrar (Judicial) on 12.7.2010, there was no representation. However, the case was again posted before the Registrar on 26.7.2012 and on representation, one week's time was granted to cure the defect. But no step was taken and thus the matter again posted in the defect list before this Court on 13.9.2012 on which date, there was no representation and therefore this Court suo motu adjourned the case to this date as last chance. Today also, the counsel for the appellant is not present but he is represented by another counsel who seeks time. I am not convinced with the grounds for
2
Crl.A.No.751 of 2010
seeking further time. The impugned order is issued under section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. which fact itself is sufficient to show that the appellant/complainant was negligent in prosecuting the matter. The same is the position before this Court as well. In the above circumstances, the above appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN,
ami/
//True copy// P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal should be allowed or dismissed due to lack of prosecution by the appellant.
Whether the failure of the appellant to prosecute the matter within the granted time justifies dismissal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.P.RAMANKUTTY NAIR
C.V.KHADER
STATE OF KERALA
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
