Kerala Court June 1960 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Gopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Ker3
ORDER1. The order of the 1st Class Magistrate, Peermade acquitting the accused under Section 251-A (11), Cri. P. C. is clearly unsustainable and has to be set aside. The charges against the accused were for offences under Sections 143, 147, 341 and 506(ii), I. P. C. On a perusal of the records under Section 170, Cri. P. C., the learned magistrate framed charges against the accused pleaded not guilty.2. The case came up for hearing several times and for some reason or other the case was adjourned. On 10-7-1959 five witnesses including the 1st informant were present. For want of time, the learned magistrate adjourned the case and bound over the witnesses to be present for the next hearing. On that day the case was again adjourned. Finally when it came for hearing on 4-9-1959 witness No. 1 who happened to be the informant was not present, but all the other witnesses were present. Still without recording their evidence, the learned magistrate acquitted the accused.Under Section 251-A (7) t...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Health Officer and Food Inspector, Kozhikode Vs. Arthala Tea ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker84; 1961CriLJ376
P.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. This appeal brought by the complainant by special leave under Section 417(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is against the acquittal of the three accused persons in the case of offences falling under Clauses (a) and (d) of Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1934 and punishable under Clause (i) thereof.2. The complaint was laid by a Food Inspector duly appointed under Section 9 of the Act, and all Food Inspectors have been generally authorised by the State Government to iastitute prosecutions for offences under the Act. (See the notifications, P. 15 and P. 19). Nevertheless preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the accused on the score that the prosecution was not in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act, that cognizance was there-fore barred, and that the trial by the learned magistrate was altogether without jurisdiction. It is said that Section 20(1) does not contemplate a general authorisation as in Ext. P. 19, but requires a ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.S. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. T.K. Kuruvilla
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker169
Anna Chandy, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 124 of 1956 of the Alleppey Sub-Court. The suit as originally framed was tor recovery of the money due under two bundles for Rs, 9600A each executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's brother George Kuruvila and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. The defendant contended inter alia that the suit was not maintainable since the bundles which were insufficiently stamped were not admissible in evidence.A preliminary issue was raised on this contention and after hearing both sides it was held that the suit was not maintainable as the claim basedon insufficiently stamped hundies could not be enforced in a Court of law. Though it was furthercontended that the only course open to the Court was to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff who was an endorsee of the hundies was not entitled to fall back upon any cause of action based upon the Originaldebt, the Court held that the plaintiff should be given an opportun...
Tag this Judgment!Zainabey Razak Vs. Noor Mohammed Rothan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker146
Vaidiaungam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Full Bench by Mr. Justice Kumara Pillai in view of the fact that a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the same was raised by the respondent at the time of hearing. 2. The defendant in O. S. No. 52 of 1954 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palghat, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He challenges the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated 26th March 1958 holding that the suit as framed comes within the ambit of Section 7(4) A. of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended in the Madras State. 3. The contention raised by the defendant was that the suit comes within the ambit of suit provided under Section 7 Clause 5 of the said Court Fees Act. As mentioned earlier, the learned Judge overruled the objections of the defendant and held that the suit has been properly valued and court-fees paid as per the provisions of Section 7(4)A of the said Court Fees Act. It is this order th...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Nellikkai Estate Vs. Superintendent, Nellikkai Estate
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker92
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The Industrial dispute, which gave rise to this appeal related to the dismissal of five workmen of the Nellikkai Estate, Vandiperiar, by its management. It appears that on 17-7-1956 a workman by name Bharathanathan went to work in the field half an hour late. He was not given work that day though the delay was, according to him, due to the fact that he was not given tools in time. The other four workmen concerned in this case remonstrated against this attitude of the management and incited and caused their fellow workmen also to leave work for the day. Seeing this, the management instituted an enquiry against all the abovesaid five workmen. According to the 1st respondent (the management) show-cause notices, were given to the workmen concerned on the evening of 17-7-1956, the enquiry was held on the morning of 18-7-1956, and orders dismissing the five workmen were passed on 19-7-1956. The matter was then taken up by the appellant Labour Union and thereupon the Stat...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. Samuel
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker99; 1961CriLJ505
Anna Chandy, J. 1. This appeal by the State is against the judgment in Sessions case No. 1 of 1958 on the file of the Special Judge, Trivandrum, acquitting the respondent, a Forester of the Thodupuzha Range of the offences punishable under Section 5 (i) (a) and fill of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). The ease was referred by Kumara Pollai and Velu Pillai, JJ. to a Full Bench as important questions of law regarding the registration and investigation of offences under Central Act II of 1947 were raised in it and it was thought desirable in view of the several similar cases pending trial or investigation. to have an authoritative pronouncement by this Court on these questions.2. The case against the accused was that while he was functioning as Forester in the ThodupuzhaRange he took bribes from a number of persons belonging to the hill tribes who had trespassed into the Government Forest Reserve and were carrying on illegal cultivation there. It was the accused's duty a...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaramkari Devaswom Vs. Uthuppu Chacko
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker124
1. In this second appeal, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant,, his learned counsel Mr. K. Velayudhan Nair raises two contentions; (1) that in the circumstances of this case the patta for Kandukrishi lands obtained by the defendant in the proceedings evidenced by Ext. E enure in favour of his client on the principle embodied in Section 90 of the Trusts Act and therefore the view expressed to the contrary by both the subordinate courts is not sound in law; and (2) that the further view expressed by both the subordinate courts that when the patta for the kandukrishi land was granted by the Sirkar under the proceedings connected with Ext. E in favour of the defendant, it does have the effect, in law, of putting an end to the mortgagor-mortgagee relationship that exists in this case is also not correct in law.2. In order to appreciate these two contentions raised by the learned counsel, a few facts may be stated. The suit properties, which are kandukrishi lands, were held on lease by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunga and ors. Vs. Joseph Anthey and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker35; 1961CriLJ263
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the respondents filed a petition before the Executive First Class Magistrate, Cochin for issuing necessary orders to the police to render police protection so that there may not be any breach of the peace when he is constructing his compound wall The petitioners complain that the rights of the respondents are disputed and that there is no provision of law either in the Cods of Criminal Procedure or in any other enactment empowering a Magistrate to direct police to interfere in such matters. It is therefore contended that this court should interfere and quash the proceedings.2. Section 561-A comes into play only when the order impugned, is passed by a court acting judicially. If the order is passed by the Magistrate in his executive capacity and not as a court, Section 561-A will have no application. A reading of the Section would show that the High Court will interfere if...
Tag this Judgment!State of Kerala Vs. K.K. Sankaran Nair
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Ker392; 1960CriLJ1603
Ansari, C. J. 1. These revision petitions seek to vacate the order by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kottayam, sustaining the accused's objection to the admissibility of the specimen of his handwriting, which was sought to be proved by a witness. The accused has been committed in Sessions Cases Nos. 99, 100 and 101 of 1958; and the aforesaid order covers all the cases, having been passed on February 3, 1959. The prosecution case is that, with a view to cause wrongful loss to the Transport Department and make unlawful gain, the accused got printed bogus warrant form, affixed false seal on the form purporting to be that of the Superintendent of Police, entered in his own handwriting the false names and numbers of three fictitious constables, made other entries, further forged the signature of one Plathanam a Sub-Inspector of Police who had retired, by false representation induced P. O. Titus a Conductor to hand him three bus tickets, and utilised these for making unlawful gain.Each Ses...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Hegadai Vs. Vittappan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Ker54
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The suit was for recovery of excess rent stated to have been paid by him to the landlord during the period from 29-5-1950 to 20-10-1955. According to the plaintiff, he had filed an application for fixation of the fair rent in 1954 and actually fair-rent was fixed for the premises on 11-9-1957. In consequence of this fixation of fair rent, the plaintiff in this suit claimed recovery of the amounts paid by him in excess of the fair rent fixed during the period mentioned above. The suit itself was filed on 16-12-1957. The trial Court was of the view that Article 62 of the Limitation Act applies and as such held that the plaintiff will be entitled to the excess amounts paid for 3 years (viz.) from 16-12-1954 to 20-12-1955 and he accordingly decreed the claim only for this amount.2. In this C. R. P., Mr. Ranganatha Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the view of the learned M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »