Loading...
Responsive image

M.K.Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
M.K.Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL A No. 476 of 1998(B)



1. M.K.THANKACHAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY

 Dated :14/02/2007

 O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY, J.

———————–

Crl. Appeal No. 476 of 1998

———————–

Dated this the 14th day of February, 2007

Judgment

This appeal is filed against an order of

acquittal. Notice was ordered on 20.7.1998. No effective

steps were taken to send notice. Process was not filed and

defects were not cured. Finally, defects were cured and

notice was sent. Notice was returned with the endorsement

that the shop was closed and left the place two years prior

to the issuance of the notice. If notice was served on

20.7.1998 when notice was ordered in this case, notice

would have been served, but, process was filed only on

29.3.2006 for the first time for the notice ordered on

20.7.1998. Anyway, on 4.10.2006, this court further gave

two weeks’ time as last chance for curing the defect.

Instead of two weeks, two months have passed, but, no steps

at all were taken. No steps were taken after 4.10.2006. It

is stated by the counsel for the appellant that steps are

being taken thereafter, but, that also is in the old

address, even though it is seen when notice was returned

earlier that addressee is not residing in that address.

Without serving notice on the accused and without taking

effective steps to serve notice on the accused the appeal

cannot be decided in favour of the appellant. Apart from

Crl.A.No.476/98 2

the above, the trial court noticed that several

adjournments were given to file correct address of

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and in spite of directions, correct

address was not furnished. That ended in acquittal of the

accused. It cannot be stated that the view of the trial

court is unjust or illegal as without furnishing the

correct address and details of service of notice, case

cannot be prosecuted and the criminal case cannot be kept

pending for long. There is no merit in the appeal and the

appeal is dismissed.

J.B. KOSHY

(JUDGE)

vaa

Crl.A.No.476/98 3

J.B.Koshy J.

———————–

Crl.A. No. 476 of 1998

———————–

Judgment

14-2-2007

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information