Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

P.R.Ayoob vs Roger Victor Roche on 26 September, 2017

Author: Alexander Thomas

Bench: Alexander Thomas

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                    PRESENT:

                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

              TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/4TH ASWINA, 1939

                                       Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 774 of 2003 (C)
                                            --------------------------------


             ST 23/1995 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,TIRUR
                                                    ----------------
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------

                     P.R.AYOOB.,
                     S/O. PULIKKAPARAMBIL MUHAMMED, PAINKANNOOR DESOM, TIRUR
                     TALUK, BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.P. IIYAS S/O.
                     KUNHIMOHAMMED PULIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANKANNOOR P.O.,
                     MALAPPURAM DISTRICT


                     BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
-------------------------------------

                ROGER VICTOR ROCHE.,
                S/O. M. R. BERNARD, BERNAD ROCH &
                COMPANY, GOPAL STREET,CANNANORE- 670 001


            THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
             ON 26-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:




sdr/-



                 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
                  ----------------------------
                     Crl.R.P.No.774 of 2003
                  ----------------------------
        Dated this the 26th day of September, 2017

                            O R D E R

This revision petition has been admitted as early as on 25.03.2003 and notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent. Inspite of that process fee was not remitted by the petitioner for a very long time. This can be seen from the endorsement dated 5.06.2015 of the Registry. Later, notice was sent to the respondent (accused) by Speed Post on 11.06.2015 with hearing date on 26.03.2015. The registry has now reported as per endorsement dated 25.09.2017 that even till date notice has not been returned and petitioner has not taken any further steps for completion of service of notice on the respondent (accused).

Therefore in the light of these aspects, the revision petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE //True Copy\\ P.A to Judge IAP