Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mohammed Vs. State of Kerala

Mohammed vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 13, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1097597

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohammed

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....dated this the 13th day of november, 2013. order petitioner is the 4th accused in crime no.271 of 2003 of perambra police station filed initially under sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of the code of criminal procedure. later, an offence under section 379 of the indian penal code was incorporated. case against accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 was tried by the learned judicial first class magistrate-i, perambra in c.c.no.125 of 2006 and those accused were acquitted. petitioner, who is the 4th accused, was not available for trial and therefore, the case against him was split up and renumbered as c.c.no.309 of 2009. petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings against him, contending that the substratum of the entire prosecution case has been found to be incorrect by the magistrate after trial in c.c.no.125 of 2006.2. brief allegation is that an autorickshaw owned by the 2nd respondent (pw1 in c.c.no.125 of 2006) was stolen between 10 p.m. on 20.07.2003 and 8 a.m. on 21.07.2003 by the six accused persons. autorickshaw was intercepted during that night by the police, while on patrol duty, and accused 1 to 3 were arrested on suspicion as they were in possession of the autorickshaw. later, the investigating officer implicated crl.mc no.1004/2012 2 other accused also in the crime. after trial, accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 were acquitted by the learned magistrate believing the testimony of pw1 (2nd respondent) that there was no theft of autorickshaw as alleged by the prosecution. learned magistrate, therefore, found that the prosecution case cannot be countenanced and acquitted accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6.3. considering the entire case and judgment in c.c.no.125 of 2006 (annexure-a4) i am of considered opinion that the foundation of the prosecution case itself has been eroded. therefore, petitioner need not stand the trauma of a trial. crl.m.c. is allowed. entire proceedings in c.c.no.309 of 2009 on the file of judicial first class magistrate court-i, perambra against the petitioner.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE13H DAY OF NOVEMBER201322ND KARTHIKA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1004 of 2012 () --------------------------- CC3092009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MARIGRATE-I,PERAMBRA CRIME NO. 271/2003 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED: -------------------------- MUHAMMED S/O.SOPPY HAJI, ATTUVATHUKANDI HOUSE CHANGAROTH AMSOM DESOM AVADUKKA, PANTHIRIKKARA BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ------------------------------ 1. STATEOF KERALA REP.BYITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMBRA POLICE STAITON, KOZHIKODE DIST, PIN-673525. ADDL.R2: RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KELAPPA KURUP, VEERKANDI VEEDU, MENHANNIAM AMSOM, PERAMBRA - 673 525 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER

DATED104.2012 IN CRL.M.A. NO.2048/2012 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1004/2012. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI REJI JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1311-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO.1004/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEX A1:- CERTIFIED COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DTD217/2003 IN CRIME NO2712003 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, ANNEX A2(a):- CERTIFIED COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DTD0102/2006 IN CC NO3092009 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM COURT-I,PERAMBRA ANNEX A2(b):- CERTIFIED COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE DTD0102/2006 IN CRIME NO2712003 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, ANNEXTA2(c):- TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF WITNESSES IN CRIME NO2712003 OF PERAMBRA POLICE STATION, ANNEX A3:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN CC12506 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PERAMBRA. ANNEX A4:- CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT

DTD208/2009 IN CC NO1252006 PASSED BY JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PERAMBRA. //TRUE COPY// A.HARIPRASAD, J.

-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1004 of 2012 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2013. ORDER

Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.271 of 2003 of Perambra Police Station filed initially under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Later, an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was incorporated. Case against accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 was tried by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perambra in C.C.NO.125 of 2006 and those accused were acquitted. Petitioner, who is the 4th accused, was not available for trial and therefore, the case against him was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.309 of 2009. Petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings against him, contending that the substratum of the entire prosecution case has been found to be incorrect by the Magistrate after trial in C.C.No.125 of 2006.

2. Brief allegation is that an autorickshaw owned by the 2nd respondent (PW1 in C.C.No.125 of 2006) was stolen between 10 p.m. on 20.07.2003 and 8 a.m. on 21.07.2003 by the six accused persons. Autorickshaw was intercepted during that night by the Police, while on patrol duty, and accused 1 to 3 were arrested on suspicion as they were in possession of the autorickshaw. Later, the Investigating Officer implicated Crl.MC No.1004/2012 2 other accused also in the crime. After trial, accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 were acquitted by the learned Magistrate believing the testimony of PW1 (2nd respondent) that there was no theft of autorickshaw as alleged by the prosecution. Learned Magistrate, therefore, found that the prosecution case cannot be countenanced and acquitted accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6.

3. Considering the entire case and judgment in C.C.No.125 of 2006 (Annexure-A4) I am of considered opinion that the foundation of the prosecution case itself has been eroded. Therefore, petitioner need not stand the trauma of a trial. Crl.M.C. is allowed. Entire proceedings in C.C.No.309 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra against the petitioner are hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial