IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No.2234 of 2006 (B) -------------------------------- SC.26/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT: ACCUSED -------------------------- C.K.MOHANDAS, S/O.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, UKKINI HOUSE, EDAVAKA AMSOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. MAKKOLIL SHYNI, D/O.LUICE, AGED 22 YEARS, EDAVAKA AMSOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.2234 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C.26/02 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)II, Kalpetta assailing the judgment of the court below convicting him of offence under Sections 341, 448, 376 and 493 IPC. S.C.26/02 is a case committed to the Sessions on the basis of a private complaint filed by PW1. After filing of this appeal on 01/01/06 the appellant has filed Crl. Appeal No.158/07 from prison where he is undergoing sentence as Convict No.3914. The de facto complainant is not impleaded in Crl. Appeal No.158/07 though she is impleaded as the first respondent in this appeal. However, notice has not been served on the first respondent who is the de facto complainant. It is felt necessary that the de facto complainant who is the first Crl. Appeal No.2234 of 2006 -2- respondent in this appeal is also served with notice, but there is no representation by the counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2234/06 and counsel appointed on State Brief in Crl. Appeal No.158/07 alone is present. Counsel appointed on State Brief submits that he will take steps to implead the de facto complainant as well and will take steps for notice being issued to her. Hence, the counsel on State Brief is permitted to take steps to implead the de facto complainant as a respondent in Crl. Appeal No.158/07 and to have notice served on her in the said appeal. In view of filing of Crl. Appeal No.158/07, I dismiss this Criminal Appeal which is not desired to be prosecuted by anyone. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-