SURESH ANTONY Vs. CHERIAN A CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.No.1604 of 2018 in Crl.R.P.No.1240 of 2003 This is an application filed by the revision petitioner/accused to recall the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 rendered by this Court disposing Crl.R.P.No.1240 of 2003.

(2.) The above Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the applicant/accused to impugn the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court which has been affirmed by the appellate Sessions Court. When the Criminal Revision Petition was listed for hearing, there was no representation on the part of the revision petitioner/accused. Notice issued on the Criminal Revision Petition on the respondent/complainant was not served and thereafter, the petitioner/accused had not taken any steps to serve notice on the respondent/complainant. This Court after consideration on the merits of the matter had disposed of the Criminal Revision Petition. Now it is stated in the above application that earlier one Sri.Biju.M.John, Advocate, was engaged by the revision petitioner/accused as his counsel for the institution and conduct of the above Criminal Revision Petition. It was only much later that the accused could know that his counsel had stopped practice and had gone abroad and this aspect was never known or intimated to the petitioner and the petitioner was totally unaware that the petitioner's counsel had not taken any steps for completing service of notice on the respondent/complainant and that the petitioner/accused was unrepresented at the time of final hearing and disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition. Notice on the above Crl.M.A.No.1604 of 2018 as well as on Crl.R.P.No.1240 of 2003 has been duly served on the respondent/complainant through the competent police authorities who have reported that the respondent/complainant is now abroad and that his mobile number has been traced out and that he has been duly intimated about the pendency of the present application and further that notice has been duly served on the respondent/ complainant through affixture. When the matter had come up for consideration on 20.3.2018, this Court had noted that notice has been duly served on the respondent/complainant, but had listed the case to today and had adjourned the case to a day after summer vacation to ascertain whether the respondent/complainant could enter appearance in the meanwhile. Today also when the matter has been taken up for consideration, there is no representation for that party though notice has been duly served on that party.

(3.) Heard Sri.Renny Augustine, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.