Kerala Court September 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.
Baby John Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1273
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. (Crl. Appeal No. 14/1950) The 1st accused is the appellant in this case. The learned total Judge has convicted him under Section 135 of the Travancore P.C. for being a member of the unlawful assembly and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo-simple imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted for abetment of the offences under Sections 307, 324, 333 and 427 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo simple Imprisonment for six months. He has also been convicted under Section 509(1). We have stated earlier in the course of this judgment in connected criminal appeals that this conviction cannot stand since there is no complaint presented by an aggrieved person as required by law. There cannot be any doubt that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. The learned trial Judge finds that ...
Lekshmi Amma Kochukutty Amma and anr. Vs. Raman Pillai Kumara Pillai a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1271
ORDERKoshi, J.1. The revision petition is by the complainants who moved the authorities for initiating proceedings under Section 103 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code against as many as twelve persons. A case was registered against the counter-petitioners as M.C. 13 of 1950 on the file of the Taluk First Class Magistrate, Sherthali, and the present revision is against an order terminating the proceeding. Technically the Magistrate's order, the operative portion of which is quoted below, is not correct. The learned Magistrate said:This is a summons case and as such I order the counter-petitioners being acquitted under Section 244, Criminal P.C. and proceedings against them are discharged.The ground on which the above order happened to be passed is that the complainants or the other witnesses for the State were not appearing in Court for the several hearings to which the case stood posted. Section 115 of the Trayancore Criminal Procedure Code is the section to which the learned M...
Kandan Narayanan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1592
Kunhi Raman, C.J.1. This batch of criminal appeals is brought on behalf of the accused persons who were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Parur in S.C. No. 1 of 1951. The 1st accused was convicted of the offence of murder under Section 301 of the Travancore Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The records are submitted for confirmation of this conviction and sentence in Referred Trial No. 15 of 1951. Since these appeals arise out of the judgment pronounced by the Court below in S.C. 1 of 1951 they were all posted together, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants being practically the same, except in the case of the 6th accused appellant on whose behalf it is contended that there is an additional point to be considered by this Court regarding evidence about his identity.2. The court below tried 21 persons who were charged with various offences and acquitted four of them. The remaining 17 were convicted. After filing his appeal, accused No. 10 di...
Narayanan Neelakantan Vs. Amini Narayani and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-20-1951
Reported in: 1953CriLJ72
Vithayathil, J.1. The counter petitioner in M.C. No. 60 of 1124 on the file of the Division First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottayam, is the Revision petitioner in this case. The Miscellaneous case la one filed by the wife and minor daughter of the Revision petitioner under Section 399 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. The petition was filed on the ground, that the counter petitioner in the lower court refused to maintain the petitioners and they claimed a monthly allowance of Rs. 30 for the 1st petitioner and Rs. 10 for the 2nd petitioner. The counter petitioner in the lower court admitted that he was not maintaining the petitioners but contended that the 1st petitioner refused without any sufficient reason to live with him and offered to maintain the petitioners if they would live with him. The lower court took the view that the s burden of proving that the 1st petitioner refused to live with the counter-petitioner without sufficient reason was on the counter...
iype Punnoose Vs. Thoma Thommi and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-19-1951
Reported in: 1954CriLJ220
ORDERVithayathil, J.1. The complainant in the Court below is the revision petitioner. The revision is from an order of discharge. The complaint relates to an offence under Section 379, Travancore Penal Code. The Court below discharged the accused under Section 250 (2), Travancore Criminal P. C. corresponding to Section 253(2) of the Indian Code. Although a revision from an order of discharge should ordinarily be filed before the District Magistrate since this Court admitted the revision petition and ordered notice to the counter-petitioners I think that the petition should be disposed of on the merits.The complaint of the revision petitioner is that the Court below went wrong in discharging the accused without taking his evidence. The complainant filed a schedule of six witnesses on 21-11-1124. The complainant was partly examined on 20-2-1125 and his examination was completed on 25-9-1950. The case was then adjourned for the examination, of witnesses to 30-10-1950. There was no sitting...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›