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.

Prince Joseph vs Libi John and Another

Prince Joseph vs Libi John and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Nov 25, 2021
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1628245

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 Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.Rev.Pet/1658/2011

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prince Joseph

Respondent

Libi John and Another

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice k.haripal thursday, the 25th day of november 2021 / 4th agrahayana, 1943 crl.rev.pet no. 1658 of 2011 against thejudgment dt.18.02.20211 in crl.a 153/2010 of additional district court (adhoc)-i, pathanamthitta cc 827/2004 of judicial magistrate of first class ,thiruvallarevision petitioner/appellant/accused: prince joseph aged 36 years, s/o.varkey joseph, moonnukandathil house, arpookara p.o., kottayam. by adv prince joseph (party) respondent/s: 1 libi john and another ponakadavil house, punnakunnam muriyil, kattapuzha village, thiruvalla 2 state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala,, ernakulam. by adv sri.k.n.radhakrishnan thiruvalla for r1 pp - sri. m.c.ashi for r2 this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 25.11.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following: crl.r.p.1658/2011 2o r d e rthis is a revision filed against the concurrent finding of a prosecution alleging offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. the petitioner, prince joseph who is the convict, died on 04.09.2021 and lawyers represented him also have died. a notice was caused to be served on the widow of the deceased who has stated that the cause of action had arisen prior to her marriage with prince joseph and that she is not aware of the proceedings and she is not interested in pursing the case.2. there is no representation for the respondent also. in the circumstances, the criminal revision petition is dismissed for default. sd/- k.haripal judge okb/25.11 //true copy// p.s. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1658 OF 2011 AGAINST THEJUDGMENT DT.18.02.20211 IN CRL.A 153/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-I, PATHANAMTHITTA CC 827/2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THIRUVALLA

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: PRINCE JOSEPH AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY JOSEPH, MOONNUKANDATHIL HOUSE, ARPOOKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV PRINCE JOSEPH (PARTY) RESPONDENT/S: 1 LIBI JOHN AND ANOTHER PONAKADAVIL HOUSE, PUNNAKUNNAM MURIYIL, KATTAPUZHA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN THIRUVALLA FOR R1 PP - SRI. M.C.ASHI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.1658/2011 2

O R D E R

This is a revision filed against the concurrent finding of a prosecution alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, Prince Joseph who is the convict, died on 04.09.2021 and lawyers represented him also have died. A notice was caused to be served on the widow of the deceased who has stated that the cause of action had arisen prior to her marriage with Prince Joseph and that she is not aware of the proceedings and she is not interested in pursing the case.

2. There is no representation for the respondent also. In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed for default. Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE okb/25.11 //True copy// P.S. to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial