Kerala Court January 1966 Judgments
M.A.K. and Sons (by Partner Haji Tar Mohamed) Vs. Kumara Pillai (P.) a ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-31-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ628Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. I, therefore, proceed to judgment.2. Respondent 1 in this original petition was a salesman employed under the petitioner-firm. For having sold an umbrella on 9 May 1961, without a bill and appropriated the same price to himself, the petitioner framed a charge against him and proposed to hold an enquiry into the same on 26 May 1961 at 3-30 p.m. Notice of the charge and of the proposed enquiry was given to respondent 1 on 19 May 1961. Respondent 1 by letter dated 23 May 1961 (copy filed as Ex. P. 1) informed the petitioner that he did not propose to participate in the enquiry as he did not expect justice at the petitioner's hands. The enquiry proceeded on 25 May 1961 in the absence of respondent 1. One Sundar Singh, a salesman of the petitioner's shop, and one Sulaiman, the cashier, were examined. On their evidence, the petitioner held the charge proved and passed orders dismissing respondent 1 from service.3. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal under Section 41 ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz (K.M.) Vs. Deputy Inspector-general of Police and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-29-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ396Ker
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, J.1. The petitioner is a sub-inspector of police who was suspended from service by respondent 1 pending enquiry Into the allegation of assault on one Varkey Joseph, who was P.W. 1 In Crime No. 1 of 19665 of Edathawa Police Station. A copy of the order of suspension is Ex. P. 1. A memorandum of charges dated 24 February 1965 was served on the petitioner by respondent 2. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence (copy Ex. P. 3). Respondent 2 who was authorized by respondent 1 in that behalf inquired into the allegation against the petitioner and submitted his report, a copy of which has been produced as Ex.P. 4. The said report was accepted by respondent 1 and by a notice (copy produced as Ex, p. 5), the petitioner was asked to show cause against the proposed provisional punishment of removal from service. This original petition has been filed to quash Exs. P. 1, P. 4 and P. 6 and for consequential reliefs.2. Three grounds were urged by the counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Aliyarukunju Hamsakutty and ors. Vs. Food Inspector, Mannancherry Panc ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker240; 1966CriLJ1134
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J. 1. The petitioners (accused 1, 2 and 5) were tried by the District Magistrate, Alleppey for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly stated the Act). The first accused was found guilty and convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- Accused 2 and 5 were convicted under Section 16 (1)(a)(ii) treating this as a second offence the second accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and the fifth accused the firm was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- the minimum fine prescribed for a second offence 2. Pw. 1 the Food Inspector of Mannancherry Panchayat visited the shop of the accused on 24-3-64 and purchased 750 grams of dhall from the first accused, out of a stock of 11 3/4 kgs. exposed for sale in a gunny bag and paid the price and obtained the receipt Ex P 2. The dhall that was purchased was duly sampled and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjayyappan Kattuparambil Mamu and ors. Vs. Mariam W/O. Puthussery Pa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker15
T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. For more reasons than one the decision of the lower appellate Court has to be vacated and the decision of the trial Court restored 2. The parties to the suit agreed to settle the suit by oath as contemplated by Order XXIII, Rule 3-A of our Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-respondent examined eight witnesses on her side, after which she closed her case. Thereafter, the first defendant (the first appellant) entered the box; and he was cross-examined at length by the counsel of the respondent. Just before the cross-examination was closed on 4th January, 1963, the counsel threw out a challenge to the witness whether he was willing to take oath before the Bhagawathi temple, Cranganore and was willing to have the suit decided on oath. The first appellant agreed; and the suit was consequently adjourned to 8th January for filing the oath agreement. On that day the oath statement containing the agreement of the parties as well as the actual oath to be taken was filed....
Tag this Judgment!K. Gopala Panicker Vs. Kumaran Kesavan Nediyaplankalavila Veedu and or ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker243; 1966CriLJ1138
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This revision by the complainant in Calendar Case 377 of 1964 is to set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Neyyattinkara discharging the accused (respondents 1 to 10) under Section 253 (2) on the ground that the charge was groundless. All the respondents except the fourth respondent was served with notice in this revision petition. In spite of various attempts the fourth respondent could, not he served and so the case against him was split up and separately numbered as Crl. R. P. 3/66 So this order is only in respect of respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 10.2. The case against the accused was under Section 148 and Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 149, I. P. C., in that they trespassed into the property which had been delivered over to PW 1 through the civil court. All the accused except accused 3 and 4 appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, but the whereabouts of accused 3 and 4 were not known and summons could not he served on them. Th...
Tag this Judgment!The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation, Calicut Vs. Karuvattavil Appu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker238; 1966CriLJ1012
P. Govinda Menon, J.1. This appeal is by the Calicut Corporation against the judgment of theDistrict Magistrate, Kozhikode acquitting theaccused who was prosecuted for contraventionof Rule 60 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, an offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a) of Act 37/54. That the accused isactually conducting a trade without a licenceis amply proved and is in fact not disputed,The only contention was that he had appliedfor a licence and remitted the licence fee, butfor no valid reason it was refused by the corporation. Learned District Magistrate accept-ed the plea and acquitted the accused on theground that it appears that the licence was refused not on proper grounds, The order ofacquittal is clearly wrong and unsustainable inlaw. It was for the licensing authority prescribed in Rule 50 to decide whether the requisite conditions are satisfied and whether itis a fit case for the grant of licence. If therefusal to grant licence is in the legitimateexercise of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Abraham Vs. Pothen Kuruvila and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Ker112
1. This is an appeal from an order dismissing writ application 2500 of 1966. The petitioner in that writ application challenged an order marked Ext. P-3 in the proceeding by which temporary permits were granted to respondents 1 to 8 in the writ application pending their applications for variation of the permits held by each of them. The said three respondents held three different permits and those enabled the respondents to operate services on three routes which all ended at one place, called Pulikkeezhu, on the Thiruvalla-Thattarambalam route on which route the appellant was operating. The prayers in the applications for variation of the permits held by those respondents were that their services be extended from Pulikkeezhu to Thattarambalam. 2. The Regional Transport Authority ob-served in Ext. P-3. 'Decided that Secretary may issue temporary permits in those cases.' 3. The Secretary then passed the following order: 'As per the above decision, I, the Secretary, R. T. A. find that app...
Tag this Judgment!Kochanuvelli Kunhammad Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker242; 1966CriLJ1136
ORDERP.T. Raman Nayar, J. 1. The information of dacoity given by the petitioner to the police was, on investigation, found to be false: and the police forwarded a final report accordingly under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the magistrate having jurisdiction, having, of course, sent a report earlier under section 157. The petitioner did not repeat his charge before the magistrate although he was duly served with notice under section 173(1)(b). The magistrate did not lake cognizance of the alleged offence and the only order he made on the final report was to record approval of the action taken by the police. Now, the only proceedings in Court with regard to this mutter were these two reports by the police: and, in respect of neither can it be said that, in Court or in relation to any proceeding in Court, the petitioner instituted or caused to be instituted any criminal proceeding against any person or that he charged any person with having coin-milted an offence so as to...
Tag this Judgment!Pallasanna Haneefa Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker229; 1966CriLJ1007
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. This case has been laid before me under Sections 378 and 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, on a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges Anna Chandy, J. and Govinda Menon, J. who constituted the Division Bench which heard it in the first instance. Haneefa the appellant and Nabissa his deceased wife were mazdoors in a tea estate called the Sentinal Rock Tea Estate in South Wynad. The appel lant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to death for having caused the death of his wife by cutting her with a pruning knife, at about noon on the 19th January, 1965, in a paddy field, near a culvert situated between tea-fields or blocks, as they are called, Nos. 17 and 19 which arc all marked in the plan Ext. P--6.2. The appellant and his wife with their child, then about three months old, were living with his parents in a room in one of the 'lines as they are called, in which the mazdoors and maistrics of the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Parameswara Kurup Vs. N. Krishna Pillai
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Ker264; 1966CriLJ1269
ORDERP. Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a petition under Section Section 561A Cr. P. C. to quash the charge framed by the First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum against the petitioner under Section 500 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The petitioner, Sri. M. K. Parameswara Kurup, is a practising advocate of the Trivandrum Bar. He is the fifth accused in Calendar Case 697 of 1964. The complaint was that in the counter statement Ex. P-10 filed by the first accused in some proceeding in the sub court, Trivandrum certain allegations were made against the complainant which were false and per se defamatory, that similar defamatory imputations were made in the counter Ex. P-11 filed by accused 2 to 4 in the same matter and in both, the petitioner being their lawyer had attested the counter statements before they were actually put into court. During the pendency of the case accused 1 to 4 compounded the offence with the respondent and on the compromise petition being put in court, they were ordered to be a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »