Dismissed

Chackochan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jul 2015Crl.Rev.Pet/655/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by an accused convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act. The petition was dismissed due to the non-prosecution of the legal representatives of the deceased complainant, despite a specific direction to cure the defect. The matter was remanded for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution of additional respondents.

Chackochan Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 655 of 2005 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 118/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM DATED 21-02-2003

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 724/1999 of J.M.F.C.-I,KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 20-02-2001

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

CHACKOCHAN, ILLAMTHURUTHIYIL

¶10

CHERUVALLYKULAM, MURINJAPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.DILIP MOHAN SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR (KADAYANICKADU)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ANNAMMA KURUVILA, CHERAMVERIYIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM.

¶16

1. LALITA TOMY, CHEMMANAVELIL HOUSE, MUNDAKKAYAM.

¶17

1. MANOJ KURUVILA, CHEMMANAVELIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM.

¶18

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6.1.2004 IN CRL.M.A.61 OF 2004 IN CRL.MA.10649 OF 2003 IN CRL.R.655/2005

¶19

by PP SMT SAREENA GEORGE

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

P.D.RAJAN, J

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.655 of 2005

¶23

....................................... Dated 29^th July, 2015

¶24

This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in Crl.A.No.118 of 2001 of Additional District and Sessions Judge Adhoc-I, Kottayam. The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.724 of 1999 and he was convicted under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Against that, he preferred the above appeal where the conviction under Section 138 of N.I.Act was confirmed and the sentence modified.

¶25

After filing this revision petition, second respondent, who is the defacto complainant died. In the circumstance, his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4. After impleading the additional respondents 3 and 4, this court directed to take steps against them. On 20.7.2015, this court directed to cure the defect within one week failing which the revision petition shall stand dismissed. After specific directions, no steps were taken. Therefore this revision petition is dismissed for non prosecution.

¶26

P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE

¶27

lgk

Chackochan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chackochan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mubarack Vs Saji & State

R.v.Sanal Kumar Vs P.Prem Kumar

P.Abdul Nazer Vs K.Babu

Ganesh Rao Vs Ashok Sing T.G.

M/S.Videcon International Limited Vs Raju.S.

Damodaran Vs State of Kerala