Kerala Court January 1953 Judgments
John Peter Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1419
ORDERGovinda Pillai, J.1. The petition is by one Mr. John Peter Thottam, the Managing Proprietor of Kalavilastal Publishing House, Trivandrum, to pass orders under Section 476, Criminal P.C. to prosecute Mr. Mathew M. Kuzhiveli the Text Book Officer of the Government of Travancore-Cochin State for the offence under Section 199, I.P.C. The petitioner had filed original petition No. 62 of 1951 on 13.6.1951 against the Travancore-Cochin State and the present counter-petitioner for such directions, orders or writs to or against the counter-petitioners as would prohibit and prevent them from further publishing or selling any copies of the book entitled 'Kerala Padya Patavali' prescribed for the fifth form and also to seize and obtain possession of all copies of the said book and to grant other appropriate reliefs.The State had appointed a committee to select books in Malayalam verses so that they may be prescribed as texts for the different grades and classes under the Education Department....
Tag this Judgment!Ouseph Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-22-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1803
1. This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence for committing murder. In Sessions Case No. 17 of 1952 the learned Sessions Judge of Trichur found the appellant, Devassy Ouseph guilty of murder in that he caused the death of his wile Eliakutty by cutting her throat with a pen-knife. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal was tiled from the Central Jail. When it first came up before us for hearing on 8.12.1952 we thought this to be a fit case why the extreme penalty of law should not be inflicted upon him. Notice was accordingly issued to him to show cause against enhancement of the sentence, The appeal and the 'suo motu' revision were heard together. At the request of the appellant he was brought over to the Court at the time of the hearing. The Court also engaged Shri P.M. Commen, Advocate, to appear on his behalf. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State supported the conviction and the motion for enhancement of the se...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kochandy Ommen
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-19-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1408
1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Division First Class Magistrate of Alleppey passed on 29.11.1951 in C.C. No. 131 of 1951 on the file of his Court acquitting the accused. The case was one started on a complaint filed by a Circle Inspector of Police as authorized by Government under Section 42, Travancore Medical Practitioners' Act, 1119 (Act 7 of 1119) for an alleged contravention of Section 39(1) of the said Act.2. Section 39(1) of the Act runs thus:No person other than a body or institution authorized under Section 38 shall confer, grant or issue any degree, diploma, licence, certificate or other document which is identical with or is a colourable imitation of any degree, diploma, license, certificate or other document granted by a body or institution authorized under Section 38.3. Sub-section (2) of the section prescribes the punishment for the offence specified in Sub-section (1). Section 38 enacts as follows:The right of conferring, granting or is...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanaprakasam Barnabas Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1777
1. In Sessions Case No. 5 of 1952 on his file, the Sessions Judge of Nagercoil convicted the appellant in this case under Sections 409 and 477A, Penal Code and Sections 53 and 55, Indian Post Office Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 409, Penal Code, six months under Section 477A, Penal Code, and one year under Sections 53 and 55, Post Office Act, directing the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal is filed against the said convictions and sentences. In the early part of 19&X; the appellant was the Post Master of the Kandanvila Branch Post Office which is under the account jurisdiction of the Neyyoor Sub-Post Office. Both these Post Offices were under the Inspector of Poet Offices, Trivandrum Sub-Division, till 31-3-1951, and. are under the Inspector of Post Offices, Nagercoil Sub-Division from 1.4.1951. P.W. 1 is the Inspector of Post Offices, Nagercoil, and P.W. 2 is ton Inspector of Post Offices, Trivandrum. P.W. 4 is a sales-man o...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Chettiar Vs. State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-16-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1334
ORDERSubramonia Iyer, J.1. Two persons, a father and son, were charged before the Special First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam under Section 7(2)(a) of Act 24 of 1946 amended up to August 1950, read with Section 17(4) of the same Act, read with Clauses 6(2) and 12(2), Sugar and Gur Control Order, 1950 and Section 3, Cochin Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning Power Act 8 of 1122, Clause 3, Sugar Control Order, 1125 and Government Notification. No. C.L. 3-5077/49/S.D, continued to be in force by the United State of Travancore-Cochin Administration and Application of Laws Act, 1124 and Section 28, Civil P.C. in that at about 1.30 p.m. on 25.11.1950 the two accused in furtherance of their common intention unauthorized sold to Kunhu-tnuhammad examined as the third witness for the prosecution a bag of sugar for Rs. 200/- which was in excess of the permissible price which was Rs. 105. The Magistrate convicted both of them and sentenced accused 1 to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in def...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Kesava Kurup and
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-12-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1246
ORDERKoshi, C.J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Quilon. He has recommended to this Court to set aside an order of discharge passed by the Division First Class Magistrate, Alleppey under Section 119, Criminal P.C., and to direct a fresh enquiry.2. Proceedings were instituted against the counter-petitioner under Section 110(e), Criminal P.C., on the ground that he habitually commits or attempts to commit offences involving' a breach of the peace. When the enquiry had proceeded some way, that is to say, when the prosecution had examined three out of the nineteen witnesses mentioned in the police charge-sheet, the learned Division First Class Magistrate passed the impugned order. On revision before him by the prosecution the learned District Magistrate made this reference recommending the quashing of the order and a direction for fresh enquiry.3. The Division First Class Magistrate's order runs thus:This is a proceeding under Section 110(e), Criminal P.C., star...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Simon Vs. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1953
Reported in: (1953)IILLJ739Ker
K. Subramania Ayyar, J1 This is an application by A. P. Simon, Chellaichen Veettil, Moolamkuzhy. asking the court (a) to issue a writ of certiorari for calling up the records and proceedings of the interim award in industrial dispute No. 18 (Central) of 1951 passed at Ernakulam on 18 December 1951 by opposite party No. 1, viz., the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Madurai, and for quashing the same, (6) that a writ of mandamus or such other direction may be issued to prohibit opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 from taking any step for the implementation of the said award and (c) that an interim injunction may be issued to opposite party No. 4, viz., the Employment Exchange Officer, Ernakulam, to restrain him from making any registration and recruitment of stevedore workmen till the disposal of this petition. There were six respondents to the petition when it was filed, they being (1) the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Madurai, (2) Sri A. S. Kunhunni, Secretary, Cochin Thura...
Tag this Judgment!James Paul Alexander Vs. James Arthur Edwards
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1953
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1566
ORDERKoshi, C.J.1. The revision petition is directed against an order of the Stationary First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai refusing to withdraw the attachment effected under Section 146(1), Criminal P.C. over the Marthandom Church and to release the same to the possession of the present petitioners. They were counter-petitioners 2 to 9 in S.C. No. 15 of 1124 which was a proceeding relating to a dispute of possession over the Marthandom Church, The lower Court found that the petitioner to that proceeding was in possession of the disputed property on the relevant date and passed an order accordingly. This Court vacated that order in Criminal Revision Petition 344 of 1124 and an order under Section 146(1) keeping the property under attachment until a competent Court determined the rights of the parties thereto or the person entitled to possession thereof was substituted in its place. The counter-petitioners to the proceeding thereafter instituted Section No. 121 of 1950 before the Kuzhit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›