Kerala Court November 1950 Judgments
Cheriyan Joseph Vs. the Right Reverend Dr. James Kalacherry and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ394
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. This is a petition presented on behalf of the plff. in O.S. No. 156 of 1124 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff's Court of Alleppey for taking action for contempt of court against the respondents who are two in number. The first respondent is described as the Bishop of the Diocese within whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides. The second respondent is the Vicar of the St. George's Church of Pachakara, Koyilkukku Pakuthy, Ambalapunha Taluk, The petitioner describes himself as a parishioner of this Church. He had tiled a suit for a declaration that an edavaka Yogam stated to have been held on 25.6.1946 was not validly held is that the resolutions passed at that yogam are null & void & not binding upon the Church aforesaid or the parish in which the petitioner resides. He prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defts. from acting in pursuance of such resolutions. The respondent 1 is deft. 4 to that action. The respondent 1 is not a party thereto...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-27-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ1089
Kunhi Raman, C.J 1. This petn. which was originally brought as a Criminal Revn. Petn. has been subsequently permitted to be converted into a criminal misc. petn. on the appln. of the petnr. It purports to be presented under Section 402, Travancore Cr. P. G, for the issue of a writ of the nature of a Habeas Corpus- The Advocate-General appears on behalf of the State who is the resp.2. The petnr. was ordered to be detained in the Central Prison at Trivandrum for a period of three months under the Preventive Detention Act (Act IV 4. of 1950). The order of detention was passed by the Dist. Mag. of Quilon on 21-10 1950. By a later order passed on 26th of October the grounds on which the detention order was made were communicated to petnr as required by Section 7 of the Act. The prayer in the present petn. is that this Ct. may be pleased to direct that the petnr. may be released from custody as the detention is not legal. The original order passed by the Dist. Mag on 20-10-1950 is worded as ...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Varkey Vs. Idicula John
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-22-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ1250
ORDERKoshi, J.1. The revn. is directed against an order of the Division First Class Mag. of Kottayam, making absolute a conditional order passed Under Section 130, Travancore Cr. P.C. The order was challenged on. the ground that the Mag. had not in making the first order final conformed to the procedure prescribed by the provisions in chap, 10.2. On receipt of the preliminary order the present petnr, appeared before the Ct. & filed a written statement denying the existence of the public right of way claimed by the petnr. before that Ct. Thereafter the case was posted for the evidence from the side of the latter & ultimately on 6-5-1950 the Ct. passed the final order after declaring the present petnr. who was absent ex parte & recording the evidence of the petnr in the Ct. below. The learned Mag. would seem to have omitted to notice Section 187 (139A under Cr. P.C.) altogether, Under that section when a person against whom the preliminary order is made appeared before the Ct. the Mag ha...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Velappan Kochunny
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-14-1950
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1087
ORDERGovinda Pillai, J.1. This petition Is filed on behalf of the State to revise an order passed by the Second-Class Magistrate, Kanayannur, Emakuiam, granting bail to the accused in C.R. 105 of 1950 of Ernakulam North Police Station and to set aside the order. At the time the Magistrate granted bail the Police had not laid tile charge against the accused. Subsequently the charge sheet was filed.The prosecution case was that the accused who was a Police Constable attached to the Ernakulam North Police Station was going in mufti after duty at about 8.30 P.M. on 1.9.1950 to take his meals, that he was then informed by the first witness in the charge that gambling was going on in one Govindan Kesavan's house near the Padmana Talkies, that he straightaway went there, entered the house and demanded of the persons there to place the money they had before him, that all except two persons there believed him to be a thief and so raised an alarm, that Govindan Kesavan who was taking his meals i...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamad Pillai Saithu Muhammad and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-13-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ874
1. Accused 1,6 & 2 are the applts. Accused 1 & 2 were convicted under Sections 376, 453, 609 (ii) & 341, T. P.C. & sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, under Section 376, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 453 & another 6 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 509 (ii). They were also given a sentence of simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341, T. P.C. Accused 6 was convicted under Section 453, 509 (ii) & 341, T. P.C. & sentenced to rigorous imprisonment,, for 6 months under Section 453, another 6 months under Section 509 (ii) & simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341, T. P.C. The sentences were directed to run consecutively. In convicting accused l & 2 under Section 509 (ii), & 341, Section 28, T. P.C. was also applied. Accused 3 to 5 were acquitted & set at liberty.2. The prosecution case was follows: P. W. 1 who was a young girl of 19 had been married to P. W. 2 a goldsmith on 20 7-1124. After marriage they wer...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Nadankutty Nadar
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-10-1950
Reported in: 1953CriLJ69
ORDERKoshi, J.1. These are two applications by the State for enhancement of the sentences the Stationary First Class Magistrate of Kuzhithura passed against the accused in C.C. Numbers ll3 and 117 of 1125. Both the cases arise under the Prohibition Act and the accused in either case pleaded guilty. In C.C. No. 113 the Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 15/- and in C.C. 117 a fine of Rs. 25/-. These sentences are grossly inadequate when the punishments prescribed by the Act for the offences concerned are taken into account and the State was therefore perfectly justified in making these motions. I would however think that the State's purpose in making these motions would be served by this Court pointing out to the Magistrates functioning in the prohibition areas of the State that unless deterrent sentences are awarded for those found guilty of contravening the provisions of the Prohibition Act, the successful working of the Act will be seriously hampered. This Court expects the Magistracy ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ouseph Chacko and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-08-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ654
Kunhi Raman J.1. This reference is made by the Taluk Second Class Magistrate of Changanacherry under Section 281, Travanoore Cr. P.C.2. In C. C. No. 83 of 1121 on the file of his Court, two persona Ouseph Chacko and his Servant Kunjan Panky were charged under Section 823, Travancore Penal Code, for causing hurt to P. W 1. The second accused Panky was discharged under Section 256, Travancore Criminal P.C. The Magistrate found that the first accused was guilty and ho, therefore, convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.3. The reference is made to the High Court for the alleged reason that the first accused who is deaf and dumb could not be made to under, stand the proceedings against him. Section 281, Travancore Criminal P.C. under which the reference is made, is warded as follows:It the accused, though not insane, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuriakose Chacko Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-06-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ470
ORDERKoshi, J.1. This is an application to ravise an order of the stationary First Class Magistrate, Moovattupuzha, passed in P. E. NO. 17 of 1134, on the file of his Coart overruling an objection of the accused that the prosecution against; him is premature. The charge is that the accused harboured an 'offender' and thereby committee an offence punishable under Section 207, Travanoore Penal Code, The preliminary objection raised before the Magistrate was that as the 'offender' concerned has not been apprehended or tried or convicted, the present prosecution is premature. It would appear that there are as many as four cases pending against that 'offender.' Apparently the learned Stationary Magistrate would seem to have been of the view that the objection was without substance and his order is that the question can be considered only at the close of the prosecution evidence. Reading the order as a whole it is, however, doubtful whether it was the consideration of the preliminary point r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›