Kerala Court August 2001 Judgments
Raghunathan Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ337
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J. 1. The question which arises for consideration is whether before registering a crime on the basis of a private complaint forwarded to the Vigilance Special Cell for investigation under S. 156(3) Cr. P.C. from the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, is it mandatory that the Vigilance Special Cell has to conduct a preliminary enquiry.2. The petitioner is the accused in a Crime registered by VACB Special Cell, Kozhikode. The above crime was registered by the Superintendent of Police, VACB, Special Cell, Kozhikode on the basis of a complaint forwarded from the court under S. 156(3) Cr. P.C. for investigation. The private complaint was given by the second respondent in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Kozhikode and it was from that court, it was forwarded to the police for investigation. At the time of registering the crime, Annexure B F.I.R was prepared by the Superintendent of Police.3. The allegation ag...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttappan Vs. Vijayamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC27
ORDERG. Sasidharan, J.1. This petition is filed by the respondent in M.C. No. 31 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Chengannur. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the above case under S. 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance. The learned Magistrate passed an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- each. The petitioner filed revision in the Additional Session Court, Mavelikkara as Crl. R.P. No. 36 of 1996. The above revision was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge finding that there was no reason for interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate.2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed an Execution Petition. C.M.P. No. 2755 of 1999 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for realisation of maintenance arrears from 7.5.1996 to 7.7.1999 for respondents 1 and 3 and from 7.5.1996 to 7.11.1997 for the second respondent. The petitioner filed objection to the above petition contending that the Executio...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Vs. Circle Inspector of Police
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-24-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)546
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The novel question that arises for consideration in this case is the scope and ambit of Section 50(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). If the offender is of the fairer sex, should the search too be conducted by a female officer, who is herself competent to make search under Section 42 of the Act? If not, should the search be supervised or over seen by the authorised male officer? Should the search be done in strict privacy? In that case, should the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, whose presence might be demanded and secured, should also be a female officer? These are the various aspects that mainly fall for consideration in the present case.2. The appellant-Amina, according to the prosecution, was found in possession of 45 grams of ganja made into 22 small packets and concealed inside M.O. 1 polythene bag kept at her waist underneath the sari and skirt worn by her when her body was examined by PW.1- Excise ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanapalan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR513(Ker)
Kurian Joeseph, J. 1. Purchase of peace by putting an end to disputes was the noble idea in introducing the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. It sounds irony, the case has paved way for a new controversy on the application of the Scheme itself. Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 was introduced in the Fiance act, 1998. The Scheme makes an offer by the Government for settling tax arrears, locked in litigation, by giving substantial discount. S. 95 of the Finance act, 1998 contemplates ceratin categories which are not entitled for the benefits under the Scheme. To the extent is relevant for the purpose of resolution of the issue raised in the Original Petition, the provision is quoted below: '95. The provisions of this Scheme shall not apply- (i) in respect of tax arrear under any direct tax enactment,- (a) in a case where prosecution for concealment has been instituted on or before the date of filing of the declaration under S. 88 under any direct tax enactment in respect of any assessment year,...
Tag this Judgment!Jayaram Vs. Vijayamma
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)452
ORDERM.R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 89 of 1994 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha is aggrieved that based on a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein charge under S. 496 of the IPC has been framed against him.2. In the complaint filed before the trial court on 31.10.1990, the respondent, who is a professor in English in the S.N. College, Cherthala, alleged that during the pendency of her marriage with one P.R.R. Babu who was her colleague in the same college, the present petitioner made advances to her which ultimately resulted in the performance of a customary marriage on 17.9.1975 at the residence of one Sadanandan, who was a close friend and relative of the petitioner; that the accused was fully aware of the fact that the said marriage was not a legal one in so far as both parties thereto had been legally married earlier and that through the petitioner and the first respondent lived together as husband and wife until 1988, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. George Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: [2002]126STC82(Ker)
M. Ramachandran, J.1. Proceedings evidenced by exhibit P3 notice issued to the petitioner, by the third respondent-Sales Tax Officer, in exercise of the powers under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Entry Tax Act') are in challenge. The petitioner has been called upon to pay entry tax in respect of his car, registered as PY-01-J/9273, The said vehicle was purchased from a dealer of Pondicherry and registered there on August 26, 1997. A proposal for imposition of penalty as well has been communicated by exhibit P2, by the Intelligence Officer. The petitioner, though has responded to the notices, nevertheless seeks to set aside the said proceedings on the plea that the proposal and demand is unwarranted and not authorised by law.2. The petitioner, so far as his contentions show, has his business at Angamali, and has office at Pondicherry, and the car is used for his business, in both places. The law does not prohibit him to use the vehicle thro...
Tag this Judgment!C. Dhanapalan Vs. Cit
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN304(Ker)
Purchase of peace by putting an end to disputes was the nobel idea in introducing the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. It sounds irony, the instant case has paved way for a new controversy on the application of the Scheme itself. The Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (the Scheme) was introduced in the Finance Act, 1998. The Scheme makes an offer by the government for settling tax arrears, locked in litigation, by giving substantial discount. Section 95 of the Finance (No. s) Act, 1998 contemplates certain categories which are not entitled for the benefits under the Scheme. To the extent it is relevant for the purpose of resolution of the issue raised in the original petition, the provision is quoted below :'95. Scheme not to apply in certain cases The provisions of this scheme shall not apply,(i) in respect of tax arrear under any direct tax enactment,(a) in a case where prosecution for concealment has been instituted on or before the date of filing of the declaration under section 88 under an...
Tag this Judgment!B.G.R. Enterprises Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-22-2001
Reported in: [2003]132STC466(Ker)
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These two revisions are filed against the common Order in T.A. Nos. 666 and667 of 1998. They relate to the assessment year 1988-89 and 1989-90. Assessee isM/s. B.G.R. Enterprises. It is running a Vegetarian Hotel at Ernakulam. For the year1988-89, the petitioner conceded a taxable turnover of Rs. 50,55,429.90. The AssessingAuthority rejected the accounts and issued a pre-assessment notice proposing tocomplete the assessment to the best of his judgment on a taxable turnover of Rs. 61,62,570by adding 10 per cent of the conceded turnover. For the year 18=989-90, the petitionerconceded a taxable turnover of Rs. 54,30,482.15. The accounts were rejected andthe petitioner was assessed for a taxable turnover or Rs. 62,44,960 by adding 5 percent to the conceded turnover. The reasons on the basis of which the accounts wererejected are as follows:'(1)Sales turnover conceded for 1988-89 is much less thanthat for the previous year even when there is increase in purchase of ra...
Tag this Judgment!Viswam Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR607]
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Public Service Commission issued notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in the Kerala Municipal Common Service with the following qualifications.1. S.S.L.C.2. Sanitary Inspectors Certificate of Bombay or Madras, ORHealth Inspectors Certificate, Thiruvanthapuram Medical College, ORSanitary Inspector Certificate of All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay, ORThe certificate in Sanitary Inspectors Course awarded by the National Council for Rural Higher Education, ORSanitary Inspectors Training Course conducted by the Rural Institute, Thavanur.Appellants and several other persons applied on the basis of the said notification. Appellants possess the qualification of Sanitary Inspectors Certificate by the All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay. Public Service Commission conducted written test on 19.2.2000. Appellants noticed that may of he persons who were not qualified were also c...
Tag this Judgment!Sasi Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-21-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALT(Cri)383; 2002(81)ECC645
J.N. Koshy, J.1. An important question of law was referred to the Division Bench by Justice M.R. Hariharan Nair disagreeing with the view taken by the Single Judge in Soumini v. State of Kerala (2001 (2) KLT 546 = 2001 (2) KLJ 37). According to the above decision, the notification empowering all the officers in the police department of and above the rank of S.I. etc. to exercise the power of entry, search-seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization mentioned under S. 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) cannot be acted upon as the same is not placed before the Legislature and made it a Rule. S. 42 of the NDPS Act (wrongly mentioned in the above judgment as Rules) reads as follows:'42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization: (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue, int...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »