Sarasamma Vs. the Excise Range Inspector

Sarasamma vs The Excise Range Inspector

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 29, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1013416

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1013416
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan
Decided On: Jan 29, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarasamma

Respondent

The Excise Range Inspector

Excerpt

.....of the seizure mahazar stating that he has not witnessed the seizure and denying the signature in the seizure mahazar and annexure-2 medical certificate prepared and issued by the doctor showing that the petitioner has undergone cataract surgery and also drawing the attention of this court to the signature in the mahazar, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations have been cooked up and she had not committed any act as alleged. the petitioner claims that she has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive.2. the learned public prosecutor submits that the contraband articles was in fact seized from the house of the petitioner and therefore she cannot be plead ignorance.3. after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor and after b.a. no.9146 of 2012 -2- having applied the mind of this court in the facts of the records made available, it is difficult to accept the claim of the petitioner that she is innocent and false allegations are made against her. suffice to say that it is not a fit case, where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. the petition is accordingly dismissed. however, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer on or before 5.02.2013, who after interrogation, shall produce him before the jfcm court concerned. if the petitioner moves an application for regular bail before the said court, the learned magistrate shall consider and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, on the same day itself. sd/- p. bhavadasan judge //true copy// p.a. to judge shg/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 9TH MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 9146 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (EXCISE O.R. NO. 240/2012 OF ADOOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ---------------------------- PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- SARASAMMA, AGED 5 YEARS, W/O.LATE THULASI,PANANILKUNNATHIL THEKKETHYIL, ANGADICAL VILLAGE AND ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, ADOOR EXCISE RANGE,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERANKULAM .PIN-682 031 R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P. BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.9146 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2013

ORDER

Relying on Annexure AI affidavit filed by one of the witnesses of the seizure mahazar stating that he has not witnessed the seizure and denying the signature in the seizure mahazar and Annexure-2 medical certificate prepared and issued by the doctor showing that the petitioner has undergone cataract surgery and also drawing the attention of this court to the signature in the mahazar, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations have been cooked up and she had not committed any act as alleged. The petitioner claims that she has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contraband articles was in fact seized from the house of the petitioner and therefore she cannot be plead ignorance.

3. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after B.A. No.9146 of 2012 -2- having applied the mind of this Court in the facts of the records made available, it is difficult to accept the claim of the petitioner that she is innocent and false allegations are made against her. Suffice to say that it is not a fit case, where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 5.02.2013, who after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM Court concerned. If the petitioner moves an application for regular bail before the said court, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, on the same day itself. Sd/- P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Sarasamma vs The Excise Range Inspector Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan