Skip to content

Kerala Court September 1972 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Sep 13 1972

State of Kerala Vs. K.S. Balakrishnan

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Sep-13-1972

Reported in: 1973CriLJ1554

V. Khalid, J.1. Against the judgment of the Additional First Class Magistrate's Court, Ottappalam, in C.C. No. 85 of 1971, a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Food Inspector, Mannarghat, has come up in appeal as the accused therein was acquitted. P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, purchased 300 grams of coffee powder on 20-7-1971 from the accused which, on analysis was found to be adulterated and hence the prosecution.2. The only question that falls for consideration in this case is the construction of Rule 22-A of the rules framed under the Act. The case of the accused is that the coffee powder purchased by P. W. 1 which Was in three packets, each containing 100 grams, was not mixed together when it was sent for analysis and hence the result of the analysis cannot be acted upon.3. The learned Magistrate held relying on that the sampling was not proper and hence acquitted the accused. The need for mixing up the three packets, ac...


Sep 13 1972

Helen Rubber Industries Kottayam and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Sep-13-1972

Reported in: 1973CriLJ262

ORDERV. Khalid, J.1. The refusal by the Learned District Magistrate, Ernakulam to exempt the personal attendance of the accused in some cases under the Companies Act that came before him has resulted in these revision petitions. The petitioners before me were proceeded against for non. submission of the returns and balance sheet for offences under sections 159-162, 614A, 220(1) and 220(3) of the Companies Act. Against most of them there are two cases for two separate offences. In all these cases, except one. they indicated their intention to plead guilty and receive sentence. The proper exercise of discretion in these cases, in the interests of justice and expeditious disposal of cases, would have been to exempt personal attendance of the accused, accept the plea of guilty and impose such sentence as the Court felt necessary in the circumstances of the case. The learned District Magistrate thought otherwise, Hence I am constrained to consider the question involved in some detail and la...


Sep 08 1972

Sankara Warrier and ors. Vs. Sreedevi Warrasyar and ors.

Court: Kerala

Decided on: Sep-08-1972

Reported in: AIR1973Ker250

K. Sadasivan, J.1. Defendants 2 and 4 to 6 are the appellants. The plaintiffs sued for partition of their 7/9 share in the A schedule properties and B schedule movables and for recovery of shares with mesne profits. The 1st plaintiff is the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 5 and additional plaintiffs 6 and 7 were bora to the 1st plaintiff subsequent to the institution of the suit. 1st plaintiff and the second defendant are sister and brother and the 1st defendant is their mother. The parties are Variyars by caste. The 4th defendant is the wife and defendants 5 and 6 are the children of the 2nd defendant. Third defendant is the lessee of the plaint A schedule properties from the 2nd defendant. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 constituted a Variyar Tarwad. A schedule properties Were obtained by the tarwad under partition of the family properties on the 5th of Maka-ram 1106. Besides plaintiffs 2 to 7, the 1st plaintiff had two other children, Baby and Babu (twins) who died in 1960. With the dea...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial