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.

Manager, vs Tomy Joseph,

Manager, vs Tomy Joseph,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 03, 2024
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1291147

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
Case Number
Crl.L.P./222/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manager,

Respondent

Tomy Joseph,

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice p.g. ajithkumar wednesday, the 3rd day of january 2024 / 13th pousha, crl.l.p. no. 222 of 2019judgment dated 31/12/2018 in c.c.no.138/2014 of judicialmagistrate of first class,changanasserry petitioner/complainant: manager, branch office, esi corporation, kottayam. by advs. sri.adarsh kumar sri.shashank devan respondents/accused:1 tomy joseph, m/s.ksrtc canteen, hotel hilda, changanasserry, residing at valiyaparambil, thuruthi.p.o., changanasserry-686535. 2 m/s.ksrtc canteen, hotel hilda, changanasserry-686535. 3 state of kerala, rep. by its public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, kochi-682031. this criminal leave petition having come up foradmission on 19.12.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:p.g. ajithkumar, j.dated this the 3rd day of january, 2024order1. this is a petition for leave to appeal filed under section 378(4) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.2. the notice issued to the 1 st respondent wasreturned with an endorsement 'expired'. the learned counsel for the petitioner confirmed the fact and submitted that the 1st respondent expired on 16.06.2022. the 1st respondent represents the 2nd respondent/concern. since there is no one else to represent the 2 nd respondent, on account of the death of the 1 st respondent, who is the 1st accused, the charge stands abated. in the circumstances, this petition for leave has become infructuous. accordingly, recording the fact that the 1st respondent/accused who represents the 2nd respondent/concern, expired, this petition is dismissed as infructuous. sd/- p.g. ajithkumar judge pv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, CRL.L.P. NO. 222 OF 2019

JUDGMENT DATED 31/12/2018 IN C.C.NO.138/2014 OF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,CHANGANASSERRY PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ESI CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:

1 TOMY JOSEPH, M/S.KSRTC CANTEEN, HOTEL HILDA, CHANGANASSERRY, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL, THURUTHI.P.O., CHANGANASSERRY-686535. 2 M/S.KSRTC CANTEEN, HOTEL HILDA, CHANGANASSERRY-686535. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR

ADMISSION ON 19.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2024

ORDER

1. This is a petition for leave to appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The notice issued to the 1 st respondent was

returned with an endorsement 'expired'. The learned counsel for the petitioner confirmed the fact and submitted that the 1st respondent expired on 16.06.2022. The 1st respondent represents the 2nd respondent/concern. Since there is no one else to represent the 2 nd respondent, on account of the death of the 1 st respondent, who is the 1st accused, the charge stands abated. In the circumstances, this petition for leave has become infructuous. Accordingly, recording the fact that the 1st respondent/accused who represents the 2nd respondent/concern, expired, this petition is dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE PV

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial