State of Kerala (Karukachal Police) vs Cyril Joseph — 920/2018

Case under Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interst Act, 2012 Section 3,9,(1)(a). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLKT190018382025

Filing Number

303838/2025

Filing Date

27-Dec-2018

Registration No

920/2018

Registration Date

28-Apr-2025

Court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-2, Kanjirappally

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

539

Police Station

Karukachal Police Station

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interst Act, 2012 Section 3,9,(1)(a)
Money Lenders Act 1958 Section 17, 18(a),6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala (Karukachal Police)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Cyril Joseph

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    The court acquitted Cyril Joseph of charges under sections 17 & 18 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and sections 3 & 9 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was regularly engaged in money-lending as a business, since key witnesses turned hostile, the primary investigating officer did not testify, and no evidence linked him to multiple lending transactions as required by law. The court held that casual or isolated lending transactions do not constitute money-lending business under the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  9. 17-Feb-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  11. 28-Jan-2026

    Appearance of Parties

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  12. 15-Jan-2026

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  13. 15-Dec-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  14. 11-Dec-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  15. 01-Dec-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  16. 12-Nov-2025

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  17. 07-Nov-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  18. 17-Oct-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  19. 24-Sep-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  20. 09-Sep-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  21. 12-Aug-2025

    To Summon Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  22. 08-Jul-2025

    BW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  23. 20-Jun-2025

    To Summon Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  24. 28-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 27-Dec-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 920/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted Cyril Joseph of charges under sections 17 & 18 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and sections 3 & 9 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was regularly engaged in money-lending as a business, since key witnesses turned hostile, the primary investigating officer did not testify, and no evidence linked him to multiple lending transactions as required by law. The court held that casual or isolated lending transactions do not constitute money-lending business under the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case