Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Raju Vs. State

Raju vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 14, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1018377

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raju

Respondent

State

Excerpt

in the high court of keralaat ernakulam present: the honourable mr. justice b.kemal pasha wednesday, the 14th dayof august 2013 23rd sravana, 1935 crl.rev.pet.no. 1234 of 2003 ( ) --------------------------------- against the judgment in crl.appeal no. 60/1994 of additional sessions court(adhoc-i), pathanamthittadated 27 02-2003 against the judgment in cc 475/1989 of j.m.f.c.,ranni dated 25 06-1994 revision petitioners/appellants/accused: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. raju, s/o.raghavan, nirvel veedu, omathakkuzhi mumaranperoor, thekkekara muri vadasserikara village.2. madhu, s/o.raghavan, - do - - do - 3. vasandharan, s/o.karunakaran ayakuttiyil veedu, playickal, thalachira.4. vikraman, s/o.padmanabhan, pannamoottil veedu - do - - do - by adv. sri.s.muhammed haneeff respondent/respondent/complainant: --------------------------------------------------------------- stateof kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala ernakulam by public prosecutor smt.sheeba m.t this criminal revision petition having been finally heard on 14-08-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: b.kemal pasha, j.````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` crl.r.p. no.1234 of 2003 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` dated this the 14th day of august, 2013 order ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in spite of repeated letters and intimations, the petitioners have not turned up to assist him. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he does not know whether the petitioners are even alive or not. it seems that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the matter. hence, this crl.r.p. is dismissed for non prosecution. sd/- (b.kemal pasha, judge) aks/14/08 // true copy // pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAYOF AUGUST 2013 23RD SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1234 of 2003 ( ) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 60/1994 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC-I), PATHANAMTHITTADATED 27 02-2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 475/1989 of J.M.F.C.,RANNI DATED 25 06-1994 REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJU, S/O.RAGHAVAN, NIRVEL VEEDU, OMATHAKKUZHI MUMARANPEROOR, THEKKEKARA MURI VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE.

2. MADHU, S/O.RAGHAVAN, - DO - - DO - 3. VASANDHARAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN AYAKUTTIYIL VEEDU, PLAYICKAL, THALACHIRA.

4. VIKRAMAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PANNAMOOTTIL VEEDU - DO - - DO - BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- STATEOF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA M.T THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.R.P. No.1234 of 2003 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of August, 2013 ORDER

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in spite of repeated letters and intimations, the petitioners have not turned up to assist him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, he does not know whether the petitioners are even alive or not. It seems that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/14/08 // True Copy // PA to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial