This judgment dismisses a criminal appeal preferring against the acquittal of an accused in a Section 138 of N.I. Act case. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to comply with directions to take steps against a respondent.
The criminal appeal was 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 P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2015/12TH SRAVANA, 1937 CRL.A.No. 762 of 2006 ( ) --------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 91/2004 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA DATED
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT::
K.K. BASHEER, KALIKUZHACKAL HOUSE, KAITHAKODE, VENGALLOOR P.O. THODUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.GEORGE PHILIP SRI.R.ANIL SRI.RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE::
----------------------------------1. RASHEED, NAHA MANSIL (H), WOODEN FURNITURE MERCHANT NEAR SUHARA SAW MILL, CHARUMODU P.O. 2. STATE, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PP SMT SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-082015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.D.RAJAN, J
......................................... Crl. A.No.762 of 2006 ...................................... Dated 3rd August, 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.91 of 2004 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. The complainant filed the above case in the trial court under Section 138 of N.I.Act. The trial court after examining PW1 and admitting Ext.P1 to P5 and the evidence of DW1 to DW3 and Ext.D5 acquitted the accused under Section 255(1)Cr.P.C. Against that, this appeal is preferred. Leave granted. After that this court directed the appellant to take steps against R1, even after specific directions on several occasion, it was not complied. On 16.7.2015, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he will take steps within two weeks and two weeks time was granted on 16.7.2015. No further steps have been taken even after the assurance made by the counsel. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed for non prosecution.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. should be allowed or dismissed for lack of prosecution steps by the appellant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.K. Basheer
State, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Rasheed
P.D. Rajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
