Kerala Court July 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.
State Vs. Govinda Pillai Gopala Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-30-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1558
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. This appeal is brought on behalf of the State from the order of acquittal made by the learned Sessions Judge of Quilon in Sessions Case No. 14/50. The accused was charged with murder under Section 301 of the Travancore Penal Code. The learned trial Judge on hearing the evidence reached the conclusion that death was caused in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence and that consequently the accused has not committed the offence of murder. He has passed an order of acquittal.2. The facts will have to be stated briefly in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties. The accused was not on good terms with the deceased. About 19 days prior to the date of occurrence, that is to say on 26.7.1124, while they were engaged in playing cards in the house of a mutual friend, they quarrelled. This was followed by the deceased taking a plank of wood that was nearby and hitting the accused severely on the right side of his face as a result of which the accused ' ...
Mahesh Chander Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-17-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ943
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of 'habeas corpus' directing Onkar Singh 'alias' Mahesh Chander now under arrest in Alleppey and under Police custody to be released from such custody on the ground that the arrest and detention of this person are illegal and unwarranted. The learned Public Prosecutor Sri Balakrishna Iyer appears in response to the notice taken by the Advocate-General when the petition came on for hearing on 3rd July 1951. It is conceded by the Public Prosecutor that the arrest of the individual mentioned in the petition was made by a Sub-Inspector of Police of the State pf Jammu and Kashmir who is not a Police Officer competent to make an arrest under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has been extended to this State.The Police Officer referred to in Section 54 must be an Officer who is a member of the Police force enrolled under the Indian Police Act V of 1861. That Act has not been extended to the State of Jammu and Kashmir...
State Vs. Cheloor Manakkal Narayanan Ittiravi Namboodiri and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-16-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ766
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. This appeal is brought on behalf of the State from the order of acquittal made by the Special First Class Magistrate of Trichur in C.C. No. 1/1125. There were three accused persons who were tried by the Magistrate. They were Ittiravi Namboodiri, T.A. Ramachandra Iyer and Kesavan Nambudiri. The first two were joint receivers of the Sitaram Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Trichur appointed by the High Court of Cochin in O.S. 2/1123 with effect from 2.7.1123 M.E. The third accused is a nephew of the first accused. In the charge framed by the Magistrate accused 1 and 2 were alleged to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by public servants under Section 389 of the Cochin Penal Code corresponding to Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The third accused was alleged to have abetted the commission of this offence by accused 1 and 2 and to have been present when the offence was committed by them. He was, therefore, charged under Sections 389 and 109 of t...
Aravendan Krishnan Vs. Govinda Shenoy Narayana Shenoy and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-04-1951
Reported in: 1954CriLJ218
ORDERSubramania Iyer, J.1. The complainant in C. C. No. 168/1950' on the file of the Second Class Magistrate's Court Sherthallai, seeks revision of the order passed by the Court below dismissing his complaint under Section 201, Travancore Criminal P. C., corresponding to Section 203 of the Indian Code.2. On presentation of the complaint, the Magistrate took the statement of the complainant on path and directed an investigation into the subject-matter of the complaint by a police officer. On receipt of the said police officer's report, the Magistrate considered the whole matter and dismissed the complaint as, in his judgment, there was not sufficient ground for proceeding therewith, recording his reasons for so doing.3. The only point raised by the petitioner before me is that after receipt of the police report, no opportunity was given to the complainant to substantiate his complaint : Reliance is placed upon Criminal Circular No. 18/1066 (Travancore) which provides as follows:It is or...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›