High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/655/2005dismissed

Chackochan v. State Of Kerala

2015-07-29Honourable Mr. Justice P.D.Rajan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 655 of 2005 ( ) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 118/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM DATED 21-02-2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 724/1999 of J.M.F.C.-I,KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 20-02-2001 REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

------------------------------- CHACKOCHAN, ILLAMTHURUTHIYIL CHERUVALLYKULAM, MURINJAPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.DILIP MOHAN SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR (KADAYANICKADU) RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

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

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

2. ANNAMMA KURUVILA, CHERAMVERIYIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM.

* 3. LALITA TOMY, CHEMMANAVELIL HOUSE, MUNDAKKAYAM. * 4. MANOJ KURUVILA, CHEMMANAVELIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM. * 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 by PP SMT SAREENA GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.D.RAJAN, J .........................................

Crl.R.P.No.655 of 2005 .......................................

Dated 29th July, 2015

ORDER

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.

2. 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.

P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk