Ashok Bhaskar vs M.G. Rajasekharan Nair
2021 Latest Caselaw 23023 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                    CRL.REV.PET NO. 660 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2019 IN S.T.NO.94/2017 OF
        JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ALATHUR


     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2021 IN CRL.APPEAL
   NO.266/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - V, PALAKKAD


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.2/ACCUSED NO.2:

             ASHOK BHASKAR,
             AGED 52 YEARS,
             S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, 31/1337C, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
             PRISMLAB INDIA DIGITAL EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.,
             MYLAMPARAMBIL BUILDING, LALSALAM ROAD, NEAR CHRISY
             KING CONVENT, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682 019.
             BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
                      SRI.SANALDEV E.P.


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

    1        M.G. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,
             UNITED TV, ADITHYA INN, MANGODE, NENMARA P. O.,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 508.
    2        STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.


             R2 BY SMT. NEEMA T V SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS    CRIMINAL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.No.660 of    2021

                                      2




                                   ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2021

The revision on hand is filed against concurrent findings of

guilt and orders of conviction passed successively by Judicial

First Class Magistrate Court-II, Alathur (for short 'the trial court')

in S.T.No.94/2017 and Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V,

Palakkad (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal

No.266/2019.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was

unable to point out any jurisdictional error as envisaged by the

Apex Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019 (1) KHC 774

(SC)]. Therefore, the revision is not liable to be admitted and is

dismissed in limine.

3. However the learned counsel has sought for showing

some indulgence by granting further time for depositing the fine

amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, in consideration of the present

pandemic scenario. The 2nd accused alone has come up in

revision and the amount stands ordered to be paid by him being Crl.R.P.No.660 of 2021

Rs.1,50,000/-, this Court is inclined to grant two months' time.

The revision petitioner shall deposit the fine of Rs.1,50,000/-

before the trial court on or before 24.01.2022. In case of

default of the revision petitioner to deposit the fine amount as

directed above, the trial court shall proceed to execute the

sentence, forthwith. It is made clear that further extension of

time will not be granted in the matter.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

NAB