Dismissed

Prasannan v. O.Sulochana

Kerala HC26 Sept 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/461/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision petition concerning a cheque-bouncing conviction where the appellant had died. Citing Pazhani v. State of Kerala, the Court held that since no near relatives filed to prosecute the petition despite the sentence involving compensation, the matter was confined to the record room.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is confined to the record room as no near relatives prosecuted it after the death of the appellant.

Prasannan Vs O.Sulochana — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 4TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 461 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2010 IN CRA 634/2009 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-IV,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

ST NO.182/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
VARKALA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

PRASANNAN,

¶10

SREENARAYANA HOUSE,
NEAR S.S.N.M.MISSION HOSPITAL,
PUTHENCHANTHA, VARKALA.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.AHAMMED
SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

1O.SULOCHANA
SURAJ BHAVAN, DELAVAPURAM,
CHERUNNIYOOR, VARKALA.

¶14

2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN
SMT.D.MINI RAJAN
SMT.RENI RASHEED
SRI.R.RAJESH VARKALA

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR PP SMT SEETHA S

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.R.P.No.461/2011

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

Dated this the 26^th day of September,2023

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petition is filed assailing the judgments passed in Crl.Appeal No.634/2009 & S.T.No.182/2007, by the Courts of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc)No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram(Appellate Court) and the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,Varkala(Trial Court), respectively, holding the revision petitioner guilty, and convicting and sentencing him for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶24

When the revision petition came up for admission on 11.02.2011, this Court had admitted the revision petition and suspended the execution of sentence subject to the condition that the revision petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.35,000/- before the

¶25

Crl.R.P.No.461/2011

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

Trial Court within one month from the date of said order.

¶28

Subsequently, when the revision petition

¶29

came up for hearing on 08.12.2016, it was represented

¶30

that the revision petitioner died on 22.07.2014. This Court had directed the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala Police Station, to produce a copy of the death certificate.

¶31

Today, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala Police Station, has produced a copy of the death certificate of the revision petitioner, which shows that he died on 17.07.2014.

¶32

In Pazhani v. State of Kerala [2017(1) KLT 341(FB)], a Full Bench of this Court has categorically declared that, if pending an appeal/revision petition, the appellant/r̥evision petitioner/accused dies and

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.461/2011

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

there is a sentence of fine imposed on the accused, then the near relatives of the deceased accused have a right to come on record and prosecute the appeal/revision petition. If no such application is filed, then the appeal/revision petition has to be confined to the record room.

¶36

In the instant case, although the revision petitioner died on 17.07.2014, his near relatives have not come on record to prosecute the revision petition. However, there is a sentence to pay compensation. Therefore, I am of the view that the revision petition is to be confined to the record room.

¶37

Following the law laid down in Pazhani (supra), and taking into account that the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a compensation of Rs.65,000/-, I order the revision petition to be confined to the record room.

¶38

Crl.R.P.No.461/2011

¶39

-:5:-

¶40

Resultantly, the revision petition is confined to the

record room.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/26.09.23

//True copy//

P.A.To Judge

Prasannan v. O.Sulochana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasannan v. O.Sulochana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dawood Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs State

Rajagopal Vs Anilkumar and Another

Victory Press (P) Ltd. Vs U.v.Louis and Another

M.P.Shamsudheen Vs N.M.Hassan Kutty Haji

Paul Varghese Vs Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi