High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/404/2004dismissed

Raju v. State Of Kerala

2015-03-20Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/29TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 404 of 2004 (A) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 248/2002 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,KOTTAYAM DATED15.10.2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO. 138/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED24.06.2002 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::

------------------------------------------------------- RAJU, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. HEUMAN READYMADE GARMENTS, PUTHIYAKAVU MAVELIKKARA.

BY ADV. SRI.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S):

------------------

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

2. M/S. BEAM COMMUNICATIONS, KERALAPURAM ANGADI, MALIKA BUILDING SREENIVASA IYER ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRSENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MATHEW JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH, ORATHIL HOUSE, CHELLARKOVIL ANAKKARA, IDUKKI.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dlk

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J --------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.404 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2015

ORDER

This revision petition is of the year 2004. This was admitted on 6.2.2004 and notice was ordered. In fact, the petitioner seems to have failed to take steps to pay the process after getting the execution of the sentence suspended as per order in Crl.M.A.No.1490/2004 on 6.2.2004. On 2.3.2015 when this matter was taken up for consideration, this Court ordered to verify whether process was paid subsequent to the order dated 6.2.2004 and if not paid, to post the matter in the defect list. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 17.3.2015 and again on 18.3.2015. On 18.3.2015 there was no representation for the petitioner. The fact remains is that the process is yet to be paid. Even when this matter is taken up for consideration today, there is no representation for the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.

dlk