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.

M.V.Joseph vs Chacko Devasia

M.V.Joseph vs Chacko Devasia

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 18, 2023
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1338212

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.A/1041/2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.V.Joseph

Respondent

Chacko Devasia

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.somarajan monday, the 18th day of september 2023 / 27th bhadra, 1945 against the judgment dated 31.01.2005 in crl.a.no. 396/2004 of additional district and sessions court (adhoc -iii), kollamc.c.no. 869/02 of judicial first class magistrate court-1, punalur petitioner/1st respondent/complainant: m.v.joseph malekkunnel, aryankavu p.o., kollam. by adv sri.s.muhammed haneeff respondents/appeallant & 2nd respondent/accused: 1 chacko devassia, kaithamattom ,urukkunnu p.o., kollam district. 2 state of kerala,represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. r1 by adv. sri.m.s.unnikrishnan r2 by adv. sri.c.n.prabhakaran, sr. public prosecutor this criminal appeal having come up for hearing on 18.09.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentthe appeal is by the complainant against theorder of acquittal in proceedings under section138 of the negotiable instruments act. during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant passed away. nobody came up to continue the appeal in the place of the original appellant. the time available for impleading is also elapsed. hence, the appeal stood abated. the appeal is dismissed as abated. sd/- p.somarajan judge spv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2005 IN CRL.A.NO. 396/2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC -III), KOLLAM

C.C.NO. 869/02 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, PUNALUR PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: M.V.JOSEPH MALEKKUNNEL, ARYANKAVU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENTS/APPEALLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: 1 CHACKO DEVASSIA, KAITHAMATTOM ,URUKKUNNU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appeal is by the complainant against the

order of acquittal in proceedings under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant passed away. Nobody came up to continue the appeal in the place of the original appellant. The time available for impleading is also elapsed. Hence, the appeal stood abated. The appeal is dismissed as abated. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial