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.

Jojan Mathew vs Roy Joseph

Jojan Mathew vs Roy Joseph

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 20, 2023
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1409429

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.Rev.Pet/1593/2018

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jojan Mathew

Respondent

Roy Joseph

Excerpt

.....powdikonam p.o., thiruvananthapuram.respondents/complainant and state: 1 roy joseph pazhayachirathekkethu house, thrikodithaanam.p.o., changancherry. 2 state of kerala represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala. r2 by smt.seena c., public prosecutor this criminal revision petition having come up for final hearing on 20.11.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:p.g. ajithkumar, j.--------------------------------------------------- crl.r.p.no. 1593 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------------- dated this the 20th day of november, 2023orderthe accused in s.t.no.2263 of 2011, who stands convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, by the judicial magistrate of first class, thiruvalla, is the revision petitioner. the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. the learned counsel for the petitioner relinquished vakalath and therefore a notice directing the petitioner to appear in person or through counsel was given to him. despite receipt of notice, he did not choose to appear before this court. in the said circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed for default. sd/- p.g. ajithkumar, judge dkr appendix of crl.rev.pet 1593/2018 petitioner annexures annexure 1 true copy of the judgment dt. 30.6.2016 in st.no. 2263/2011 in the file of the jfcm thiruvalla annexure ii certified copy of the judgment dt.12.9.2018 in crl. apl. no. 36/2016 on the file of the court of the addl. district and sessions judge-ii pathanamthitta

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1593 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2018 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.36 OF 2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, PATHANAMTHITTA AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2016 IN S.T.NO.2263 OF 2011 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THIRUVALLA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: JOJAN MATHEW AGED 62 YEARS S/O. LATE V.G. MATHEW, VETTUKAAD HOUSE, SRA C3, MANNATHALA, KERLADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: 1 ROY JOSEPH PAZHAYACHIRATHEKKETHU HOUSE, THRIKODITHAANAM.P.O., CHANGANCHERRY. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY SMT.SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 20.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

--------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1593 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2023

ORDER

The accused in S.T.No.2263 of 2011, who stands convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla, is the revision petitioner. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner relinquished Vakalath and therefore a notice directing the petitioner to appear in person or through counsel was given to him. Despite receipt of notice, he did not choose to appear before this Court. In the said circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed for default. SD/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1593/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30.6.2016 IN ST.NO. 2263/2011 IN THE FILE OF THE JFCM THIRUVALLA ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.

12.9.2018 IN CRL. APL. NO. 36/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-II PATHANAMTHITTA

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial