Kerala Court November 1953 Judgments
Kadutha Kadutha Vs. Kunjupanicken Kesaven and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-17-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1423
Sankaran, J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate at Kottayam inviting the opinion of this Court on the question of the legality of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, at Kottayam acquitting accused 2, 3 and 4 in C. C. 635/1951 on the file of his Court. It was a case registered on the basis of a private complaint. The case put forward by the complainant is that accused 1 to 4 wrongfully entered into a cocoanut garden in Sy. No. 197/48 of the Kottayam Patkuthy comprising of 14 cents in his possession and enjoyment and committed theft of 150 cocoanuts on 10-10-1951.The Magistrate accepted the complaint and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 11-10-1951, and issued summons to all the four accused persons, obviously indicating that the Magistrate was satisfied that there was a case to be enquired into. On 19-11-1951 all the accused appeared before the Court and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is seen to have proceeded straightway to record the s...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Narm Pillal Janardhanan Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-12-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1130
Govinda Pillai, J.1. The case was referred to this Court by the District Magistrate, Quilon for appropriate orders. The letter referring the case gives the necessary facts required for the disposal of the reference and it is reproduced below:I am forwarding herewith the original records in C. C. No. 601 of 1953 on the file of the Stationary First Class Magistrate, Kottarakara and to inform you as follows:The Taluk Second Class Magistrate, Kottarakara entertained the case as C. C. No. 118 of 1953 and after closing the prosecution evidence framed charges under Sections 457 and 380, I, P. C. and finding that the accused has to receive a punishment more severe than that which he is empowered to inflict, forwarded the accused and the original records to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Quilon under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Quilon filed the case as C. C. No. 69 of 1953 and subsequently forwarded the original records and the accused to the Stati...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Philipose Philip
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-11-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ669
M.S. Menon, J.1. By O. P. No. 93 of 1952 accused Nos. 1 and 2 In O. O. No. 156 of 1950 of the Division First Glass Magistrate's Court, Kottayam, moved this Court for a withdrawal of the said case to this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution on the ground that the case involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The prayer was allowed by Vithayathil, J. and the facts of the case and the questions that arise for consideration are set out as follows in his order dated the 4th August 1953:This is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of India for withdrawing to this Court Calendar Case No. 256 of 1950 on the file of the Division First Class Magistrate's Court, Kottayam, on the ground that that case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The charges against the petitioners are under Sections 14 and 73 of Act V of 1950. Section 14 of the Act makes it an offence to contravene any order noti...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Chacko Vs. Kottayam Municipality
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Nov-04-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1138
ORDERSankaran, J.1. The legality of the proceedings in Summary Trial No. 88 of 1125 on the file of the Bench Magistrate's Court at Kottayam is the question raised in this Revision Petition. The accused in that case is the revision petitioner. For the non-payment of the professional tax due from him for the year 1121 to the Kottayam Municipality, the said prosecution was launched against him by the Municipality under Clause 2 of Rule 3 of Schedule II of the Travancore District Municipalities Act (Act XXIII of 1118). The majority of the Magistrates who took part in the proceedings held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a case against the accused and accordingly he was convicted of the offence charged against him and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 90/- inclusive of the professional tax of Rs. 77 Chs. 4 found to be due from him to the Municipality. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. On behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›