Kerala Court April 1985 Judgments
Yadav Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Philomina and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-03-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1798
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. An order passed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', as distinguished from one passed under Section 452 of the Code, is undoubtedly an interlocutory order. It is actually not a disposal of property, but only an interim arrangement for proper custody I pending conclusion of trial or enquiry. Disposal | of property by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming entitled to possession or otherwise arises only at the conclusion of trial. Sale or otherwise disposing of property pending trial under Section 451 of the Code will arise only if it is subject to speedy or natural decay or if otherwise, the Court thinks it expedient to do so and that too, if necessary, after recording such evidence required. Normally, though not in all cases, preservation of property pending trial is necessary because it may be required for the purpose of evidence, identification or otherwise during trial. An order un...
Tag this Judgment!Santhosh and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ756
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Narakkal in his official capacity filed two complaints before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parur against six persons each for an offence punishable Under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code. They were petty cases Nos. 23 and 24 of 1983. The Magistrate took them to file as S.T. Nos. 125 and 126 of 1983. The present petitioners are invoking the inherent powers of this Court Under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the above two cases. Cri.M.C. 190 of 1983 relates to S.T. 125 of 1983 and Crl.M.C. 188/1983 relates to S.T. 126 of 1983.2. In both the cases the allegations revealed from the complaint as summarised in the petitions are that on the evening of 14-1-1983 the respective accused persons played cards and made noise sitting on the public road at Pazhangad Bazar, Edayanakkad and thereby caused annoyance to the public. Accused 1 and 3 to 6 in S.T. 125 of 1983 are the petitioners in Crl. M.C. 1...
Tag this Judgment!V. Parakashan Vs. K.P Pankajakshan and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ951
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Petitioner is the registered owner of Bus No. KLN 97 plying between Tellicherry and Chendayad. Route permit is also in his name. The bus got involved in Crime No. 351 of 1984 of the Tellicherry Police Station. First respondent was the accused therein and the case was registered at the instance of the petitioner. The allegation was that the first respondent drove bus KLN 97 rashly in order to dash it against the petitioner's car in an attempt to murder him. The bus was seized by the police and produced before Court. Both the petitioner and the first respondent applied, Under Section 451 of the Criminal P.C., for interim custody of the bus. The Magistrate rejected both the applications on the ground that the Sessions Judge alone could order release of the bus inasmuch as the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Both of them applied before the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. The Sessions Judge ordered interim custody of the bus to be given to the fir...
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Bavenna Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1126
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. On a complaint by the Food Inspector, Kanhangad Circle, the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7(1) and (2)(la)(m) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and Rr. 44(b) and 50(1 a), Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' as well as Rule 10, Kerala Food Adulteration Rules, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg, who sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The charge against him was that on 21-11-1979 at about 2 p.m. he was found having exposed for sale adulterated buffalo milk for humaji consumption at the premises of the Kanhangad Co-operative Milk Supply Society bearing No.VI/561-B of the Kanhangad Panchayat without licence. In Crl. A. No. 69 of 1982, the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry acquitted him. The case was taken up in calendar revision. Notices were issued. Both sides were hea...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Mayadevi Vs. K.C. Rajan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Ker147
Paripoornan, J.1. The petitioner, in O. P. No. 1302 of 1985, a bus operator, is the appellant herein. The 3rd respondent, R.T. A., Palghat, by Ext, P5 order dated 20-9-1984, granted a stage carriage permit, in the route Palghat-Pazhambalakode to the 1st respondent, rival operator. Ext. P5, was confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Ext. P13 order dated 25-1-1985. Petitioner's challenge against Exts. P5 and P13 orders was unsuccessful before a learned single Judge. And hence this Writ Appeal.2. The crux of the controversy is as to whether the route Palghat-Pazhambalakode is a medium route or a short route. If it is the former, i.e. more than 40 Kms., the petitioner should succeed and if it is the latter i.e. less than 40 Kms. the preference given to the 1st respondent is justified and beyond challenge. This Court appointed Advocate Sri P.K. Suresh Kumar as Commissioner, to get the distance of the route measured. He did so on 23-2-1985. According to the said report, the d...
Tag this Judgment!Thayyanbadi Meethal Kunhiraman and anr. Vs. S.i. of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1111
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. A simple but interesting question of importance is projected in this petition. The point for decision is whether the assistance of the Court by way of an order under Section 438 of the Criminal P.C. could be sought against an anticipated arrest on a possible accusation of a non-bailable offence resulting from some action which the petitioners are intending to do believing it to be legal.2. 29 cents of land in R. S. No. 27/2 of Panoor Village is claimed both by the first petitioner and one Manni. Both claim title and possession. First petitioner lays claim on the basis of a registered assignment deed dated 28-7-1984 and Manni claims by document No, 15 of 1963. Second petitioner is the climber who is intended to be engaged by the first petitioner for plucking coconuts from the property. For having trespassed into the said property and plucked coconuts Crime No. 31 of 1985 was registered against the first petitioner and he is on bail. On the strength of his alleg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›