← Library
High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/2674/2003disposed of

Mathachan v. The State

2015-08-19Honourable Mr. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/28TH SRAVANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2674 of 2003 --------------------------------- CRL.A 46/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA CC 671/1996 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COUR,,SULTHANBATHERY REVISION PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------------------------- MATHACHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE, RESIDING AT FAIR LAND COLONY, SULTHAN'S BATHERY VILLAGE AND TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- THE STATE REP. BY THE ASST. WILD LIFE WARDEN, KURICHIAT RANGE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.G.LISHA SPL.PP SRI. M.P. MADHAVANKUTTY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. 2674 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 19th August, 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORDER

1.

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C.671 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthan Bathery. As per the judgment dated 23.5.2000, the petitioner along with others, were convicted u/s 9, 29, 31, 40(2) r/w 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Against the above conviction and sentence, petitioner herein preferred Crl.A.46 of 2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Kalpetta and as per judgment dated 23.5.2003, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the learned Magistrate.

Crl.R.P.2674/03 2.

When the case came up for hearing, Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted on instructions that the revision petitioner is no more and he does not wish to pursue with the revision petition any further. In view of the same, the revision petition has become abated.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as abated.

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V.

Judge Mrcs //True Copy// P.S.To Judge