Jose v. Subramanian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2015/9TH SRAVANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4630 of 2006 ( ) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 223/2005 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 22-08-2006 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 984/2003 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR DATED 26-02-2005 PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

---------------------------------- JOSE, AGED YEARS, S/O. PAILI, PARAMBI HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR, VADAKKUMKARA.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.MAJEED SMT.M.ISHA SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

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

1. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. KORUNNY, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANAPUZHA, METHALA KODUNGALLUR.

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

BY ADV. SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

acd

P.D. RAJAN, J.

------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 4630 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2015

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.223/2005 of Sessions Court, Thrissur, confirming the conviction passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kodungallur in C.C.No.984/2003. The criminal revision petitioner was the accused in the above C.C. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation of 75,000/- with 12% interest from ₹ 30.6.2003 till the date of realisation, in default, simple imprisonment for six months. Against that, he approached this Court with this revision petition.

Crl.R.P. No.4630/2006 2.

On 10.4.2007, after admitting the case, this Court ordered notice to R1. Inspite of that specific direction, no steps were taken against the 1st respondent. On 17.11.2014, there was no representation for the revision petitioner. However, this Court granted a week's time and directed that if the petitioner takes steps within a week, the office shall issue notice to the 1st respondent by speed post, otherwise, the revision petition will stand dismissed for non-prosecution.

3.

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, I have perused the case record, which shows that no steps were taken by the revision petitioner, even after specific direction by this Court on 17.11.2014.

In such circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

acd