Kerala Court December 2010 Judgments

Pratheesh. Vs. Easy Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: ILR2010(4)Ker971

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will pay or deposit Rs.10,000/- on or before 31.1.2011. It is also stated that another sum of Rs.10,000/- will be paid or deposited by the petitioner on or before 28.2.2011. The said submission is recorded. The warrant issued against the petitioner shall stand recalled. The Decree Holder is also at liberty to proceed against the petitioner if balance amount is still due to be realised from the Judgment Debtors. The Decree Holder is at liberty to withdraw the amount paid or deposited before the executing court. 2. In case the petitioner fails to pay or deposit the amount as ordered above, the Decree Holder can proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law....

Rajeswari. Vs. K.Sivakumar, and anr.

Court: Kerala

1. In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No. 2909 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Palakkad, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was 20,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is 20,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner re-iterated the contentions in support of the Revision. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. And that the Revision Petitioner/accused failed to make the payment withi...

Ullas. Vs. the State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.593 of 2010 of Sreekaryam Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that no final report has been filed even after 60 days of judicial custody of the petitioner. If so, by virtue of the proviso to Sec.167 (2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays. 2. The petitioner shall not enter the limits of Sreekaryam Police Station except for the purpose of complying with Condition No.1. 3. The petitioner shall not influence o...

Binu Krishnan. Vs. Chellappan Pillai, and ors.

Court: Kerala

1. These revisions under Sections 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") and Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arise from orders passed by the learned Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara on various applications preferred by the petitioners in the revisions in E.P. No.80 of 1979 in O.S. No.67 of 1957 of that court. Judgment debtors, aggrieved by the respective orders against them have filed the revisions while additional decree holder No.3 who is respondent No.1 in the revisions has filed W. P(C) No.28525 of 2010 aggrieved by that part of the order against him. Parties are referred to as petitioners (in the revisions) and respondent No.1 (petitioner in the Writ Petition). 2. Punnakkulathu tarwad, in Neyyattinkara Taluk owned large extent of properties. While so, Easwara Pillai Krishna Pillai of the tarwad created mortgage over a plot of land called "Charivuvila Purayidom" comprised in Sy.No.478/1B and belonging to the said tarwad in favour of one Padman...

Daveed. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

1. In this Petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Cr.No.447/2010 of Peermade Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 31.10.2010. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the present stage of investigation of the case and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail w.e.f 27.12.2010 on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall surrender before the Dy.S.P., Kattappana Police Station between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all...

Girish C.Joseph. Vs. Sunny Manuel.

Court: Kerala

1. This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C No. 3 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur. The first respondent herein is the accused in that case, which was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of the said amount, he issued Ext.P1 cheque. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. Therefore the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the amount. Inspite of the said notice, the accused did not repay any amount. Hence the complaint. 3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the complainant PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No evidence was adduced from the defence side. The learned Magistrate, on consi...

Cherian Mathew. Vs. K.N.Sasidharan.

Court: Kerala

1. This Revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 492 of 1999 on the file of J.F.C.M.Court, Idukki. The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, involving a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs. 2. In the Trial Court, the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month more. The appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A.No. 119 of 2001 before the Addl. Sessions Court, Thodupuzha was allowed in part and the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was confirmed and the sentence to undergo S.I. for three months is set aside and the fine of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the court below was enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month and the fine, if recovered, will be paid to the complainant as compensation. Against that judgment the complainan...

Vella Rajesh. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

1.In this Petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is accused No.5 in Crime No.349/2010 of Puthukkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 3.11.2010. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offences, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the present stage of investigation of the case and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail w.e.f 29.12.2010 on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner s...

Sandeep. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

1. In this Petition filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.356/2010 of Marangattu pally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 394 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 3.11.2010. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the duration of judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the present stage of investigation of the case and the other circumstances of the case etc., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail w.e.f 20.12.2010 on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all...

Dhiju, and ors. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court: Kerala

1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.542 of 2010 of Thumpa Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 448, 427, 294(b), 323, 324 & 308 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 3. After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Crl.Appeal No. 2271 of 2010), I am of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature, since the investigating officer has not had the advantage of interrogating the petitioners. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail allowed by the Magistrate or the Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall s...