Kerala Court October 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abdulkadir Lebba Abdul Rahiman and ors. Vs. State and Two ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1121
ORDERSankaran, J.1. All these three petitions art directed against the order passed by the district Magistrate of Trivandrum on 4.6.1124 prohibiting the use of a particular type of net by these petitioners and others for the purpose of fishing in the coastal waters extending from Vettoor to Chilakkoor in the Chirayinkizh Taluk. The order was passed by the District Magistrate in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Travancore (corresponding to Section 144 of the Indian Code). On getting notice of the order, the petitioners through their counsel appeared before the District Magistrate and moved for the cancellation of the order. They contended that they were not doing anything to occasion a breach of the peace and that there was no justification for issuing a prohibitory order against the normal pursuit of their activities in the matter of fishing in the coastal area referred to above with the aid of the more efficient types of n...
K.K. Anthrew Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-22-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ791
ORDERJoseph Vithayathil, J.1. The 1st accused in P.E. No. 13 of 1122 of the Moovattupuzha Stationary First Class Magistrate's Court is the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 145 of 1125 and the 2nd accused in that case is the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 170-1125. The accused are charged with offences punishable under Sections 410 and 469 of the Travancore Penal Code corresponding to Sections 409 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is as follows:2. The 1st accused was a license-holder for the purchase of paddy on behalf of Government from the landholders of Moovattupuzha and Kothamangalam Pakuthies in the year 1121. He was supplied with printed triplicate receipts by the Taluq Office, one of which was to be given to the seller of paddy, one to be sent to the Taluq Office and the other to be kept with the licensee. The 1st accused entrusted the 2nd accused with the work of purchasing paddy and issuing receipts therefor. It i...
State Vs. Govinda Pillai Kumara Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ798
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. The additional sessions Judge of Alleppey is responsible for this reference.2. The stationary Second Class Magistrate of (sic) an order of commitment for trial to the Alleppey Sessions Court in respect of offences committed by the accused under Sections 302 and 318 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was transferred to the file of the Addl. Sessions Court. When the trial was about to commence, the advocate for the accused raised the question as to the legality of the order of commitment. According to the reference made by the learned Judge the argument seems to have been that the order of commitment was void because it was passed by a Magistrate who was not competent to make that order. This contention seems to have found favour with the Court. The result is the present reference. In the course of the order, the learned additional Judge reads Section 215 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure as also Section 532 of the same code. He records his conclusion in the fo...
Ukkan Chakku Thomas Vs. Thomokutty and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-18-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ658
Koshi, J.1. This is an application under Section 3(1) of the Cochin Contempt of Courts Act, XXXII of 1111, invoking this Court's jurisdiction to commit the twenty-nine respondents herein for Contempt of the Court of the Second Class Magistrate, Trichur, on the ground that they held a meeting of the parishioners of the Trichur Chaldean Syrian Church in violation of an order passed by the said Court under Section 125 of the Cochin Criminal Procedure Code (Section 144 of the Indian Code) prohibiting any such meeting. The petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof show that during recent years there started serious dissensions among the parishioners of the said Church and that they are now divided into two hostile camps. The petitioner belongs to one faction while most, if not all the respondents belong to the opposite faction. When the respondents wanted to call together a meeting to decide certain questions affecting the church and issued the necessary notices in that behalf sev...
Haridas Pillai and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-17-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1387
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. The appeal is presented on behalf of the six accused persons who were tried in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1951 in the Sessions Court at Anjikaimal. The learned Judge after hearing the evidence for the prosecution found that all the six persons were guilty under Sections 129, 346 and 456 of the Cochin Penal Code. Section 129 corresponds to Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code Which refers to an unlawful assembly consisting of five or more members. Section 346 corresponds to Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment for abducting a woman to Compel her to illicit intercourse. Section 356 of the Cochin Penal Code corresponds to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment for rape.After convicting them under these sections, the learned Judge has sentenced accused 1, 2 and 4 to 6 to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 100/- with a direction that in default of payment of fine they should undergo rigorous imprisonmen...
V.K. Mohammed and anr. Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-11-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1380
ORDERVithayathil, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 244/1124 on the file of the 2nd Class Magistrate of Cochin are the revision petitioners in this case. The accused who are two in number were tried for offences punishable under Section 4(1)(d) read with rules 27 and 28 of the Cochin Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (XIV (14) of 1109). The prosecution case is that the 1st accused who is the owner of shop No. ,140 in the Mattancheri Town offered for sale in his shop adulterated 'ghee' containing 15 per cent, of pure 'ghee1 and 85 per cent, of fat. The 2nd accused who is an employee of the 1st accused sold such 'Ghee' to P.W. 1 the Sanitary Inspector of Mattancherri on 28.3.1124. The complaint was filed by the Sanitary Inspector as per order of the Municipal Commissioner of Mattancherry who is for Local Food Inspector for the town. Both the accused were found guilty and the 1st accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 85 and in default to mearge simple imprisonment for one and a half mon...
State Vs. Gangadharan Ramachandran
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Oct-04-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1584
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. This is an appeal presented on behalf of the State by the learned Public Prosecutor from an order of acquittal made by the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Trivandrum City. It appears from the order made by the court below that there was a police report submitted to the Magistrate about the commission of an offence by the accused under Section 352 of the Travancore Penal Code and Section 53 of Act XXII of 1115. Admittedly, the case was a summons case because the punishment provided in both these sections does not exceed three months' imprisonment. On the date to which the case was posted, the Magistrate has stated in his order, the complainant was found to be absent and although his name was called out both at the commencement of the sitting of the Court and at the time the court rose for the day, there was no response. In the circumstances, professing to act under Section 244 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate has passed an order of ac...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›