High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/1311/2002dismissed for default

P.P. Raman v. State

2015-06-10Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/20TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1311 of 2002 --------------------------------- CRL.A 105/2000 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, PALAKKAD CC 259/1995 of J.M.F.C.-III, PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

---------------------------------- P.P.RAMAN, S/o.KORU, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, EDATHARA P.O., PALAKKAD.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA SRI.ROY THOMAS (M) SRI.P.BIJU SRI.TOMY LUKOSE SMT.USHA MENON SRI.SUMITH.P.PRASAD SRI.ARUN.C.ROY SRI.DIPU.R SRI.THOMAS SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

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

2. M/S. OASIS CHITS AND INVESTMENTS PALLIPURAM, PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS MANAGER.

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

STU

K.HARILAL, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1311 of 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2015

ORDER

As per order dated 12.11.2012, the revision petitioner was given two weeks' time to cure the defect on condition that he shall pay cost of 500/- to Kerala State Mediation and ₹ Conciliation Centre, and produce receipt thereof, within one week from the date of order, failing which, this revision petition will stand dismissed for non-prosecution. But, the revision petitioner has not paid the cost. Even after that order, the petitioner was given another opportunity to cure the defect within two weeks from 25.05.2015 as last chance. There was no representation for the petitioner on 25.05.2015. The petitioner has not cured the defect within the specified time. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, it could be reasonably presumed that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the revision petition. Consequently, this revision petition will stand dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE.

stu //True copy// P.A to Judge