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.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKT190018382025
Filing Number
303838/2025
Filing Date
27-12-2018
Registration No
920/2018
Registration Date
28-04-2025
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-2, Kanjirappally
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
539
Police Station
Karukachal Police Station
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Karukachal Police)
Respondent(s)
Cyril Joseph
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
Adjourned
For Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 02-03-2026 | Adjourned |
| 26-02-2026 | For Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts