COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
petitioner's revision petition dismissed due to lack of interest in further 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 408 of 2006 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO.22/2002 OF I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 10-03-2003. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC. NO.738/1999 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (E&O), ERNAKULAM DATED 11-12-2001.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SABINA ABRAHAM, W/O. ABRAHAM, N.G.O. QUARTERS, FLAT NO.IA 9/106, KAKKANAD, BMC P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. T. CHANDRAN, D. NO.43/1BC, CITIZEN ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-15.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Crl.R.P.No. 408 of 2006
==================
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2017 O R D E R
Sri.C.A.Chacko, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not furnished any instructions to him the matter, especially on the subsequent developments in the matter. The conviction for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rendered as early as on 11.4.2001, the appellate judgment was rendered on 10.3.2003, and the revision petition was filed on 31.10.2005. The delay in filing the revision petition was condoned on 1.2.2006. Thereafter, the matter has been coming up in the admission list on 3.2.2006, 9.3.2006, 16.3.2006 and 24.3.2006 and it has been adjourned frequently. Even at this point of time, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not furnished instructions to the counsel as to whether the impugned sentence has been executed or not. In the light of these aspects, it is only to be noted that the revision petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter any further. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
///True Copy///
P.S. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision petition should be disposed of given the petitioner's lack of interest in further prosecution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SABINA ABRAHAM
T. CHANDRAN
STATE OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
