Kerala Court September 1955 Judgments
Pich Rowther Hameedu Rowther Vs. the Pampady Fanchayath and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ105
Varadaraja Iyengar, J.1. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by two different persons, calling in question the restraint imposed more or less similarly, on their trade or business by two different Panchayat authorities respectively.2. These Panchayats have been constituted by Government under the Tranvancore-Cochin Panchayats Act 2 of 1950 with a view to make better provisions (or the administration of village affairs. Their functions, powers and property are dealt With in Chapter 3 of the Act under 8s. 43 to 51. Of these it is enough for us to note the general provision in Section 44 and also the Clause (d) thereof, as follows:Subject to such rules as may be prescribed a Panchayat shall also make arrangements for carrying out the requirements of the panchayat area in respect of the following matters, namely :...(d) control of offensive and dangerous trades.Chapter 5 contains provisions as to public safety, convenience and health under various sub-heads....
Tag this Judgment!Esakki Madan Nadar and Nesamony Nadar Vs. the State
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Sep-13-1955
Reported in: 1956CriLJ419
ORDERVithayathil, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 300 of 1953 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Padmanabhapuram is the Revision Petitioner. He was convicted by that court of offences under Sections 448 and 354, I. P. C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal filed by him in the Sessions Court of Nagercoil met with no success. Hence this Revision Petition. 2. P. W. 5 who is a mid-wife working in the Public Health Department was at the time of the alleged occurrence living with her husband and child in a rented building belonging to the accused. The building was also used as her office. P. W. 4 is her husband.The prosecution case is thus: On 28-7-1953 at about 8 A. M. when P. W. 4 had gone out with the child and P. W. 5 was cleaning vessels at the back-side of the house, the accused opened the front door and entered the house. When P. W. 5 came to the front room the accused asked her whether her husband was there and on being told that he was not t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›