Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1952CriLJ930
Joseph Vithayathil, J.1. The question raised in this petition relates to the jurisdiction of the High Court to review or alter its judgment in a criminal case. The Petition is filed by the State under Section 470 of the Travancore Code of Criminal procedure to modify the direction in the judgment in Referred Trial No. 20 of 1123 and Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1123 on the file of the erstwhile Travancore High Court. The judgment in that case was by a Bench of that Court consisting of Sankarasubbier & Habeeb Mohammed, JJ. The accused was convicted by the Sessions Court of Parur of offences punishable under Sections 301, 326 and 324, T.P.C., for murdering his wife's brother and for causing grievous hurt to his wife and simple hurt to another brother of his wife, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 301, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 326 and rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 324, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3166; 2005(2)KLT895
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the Finance Minister of State of Kerala. He was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala till 4.9.2004. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P-6 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 and Ext.P-7 summons issued to the petitioner.2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 arraying Sri. A.K. Antony, the then Chief Minister and Sri. Oommen Chandy, the present Chief Minister describing him as the Convenor of United Democratic Front (as he then was). It was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused fabricated a Fax Message purporting to be one issued by Sri. Ahammed Patel, General Secretary of All India Congress Committee to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT343
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) have come up with these appeals aggrieved by the common judgment in W.P.C. No. 27289 of 2003 and O.P. No. 23400 of 2002 quashing all proceedings in C.C. No. 513 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Appeals have also been filed by the widow of Maniyeri Madhavan, the complainant.2. Counsel appearing for the CBI Sri. S. Sreekumar submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has the effect of nullifying the decisions of the Apex Court in Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police, (1994) 1 SCC 536, Prem Shankar v. CBI, 1998 (2) KLT 103 and K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector General of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87, and the various directions contained therein with regard to the same subject matter.3. Senior Counsel Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, appearing for the respondents in W. A. No. 1979 of 2004 as well as the counsel app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ587Ker
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. Though a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 788 expressed their displeasure and sorrow by the unseemly controversy between the Advocate General (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.G.' and the Director General of Prosecution hereinafter referred to as 'the DGP') and disposed of the said case with a fond hope that the unhappy episode will be forgotten and not allowed to recur to sully the image of the two offices, the controversy, which appears to have been simmering, has come to the surface again.2. The root cause for the current controversy is the office direction issued by the Director General of Prosecution under Ext.P-1 dated February 5, 1998 informing the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and the High Court Advocates Clerks' Association that copies of all criminal cases may be directly forwarded to his office with memo (after the cases are numbered in the registry section of the High Court and before sent to the Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT226
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.1. These five writ petitions, though from different districts, raise same issues of facts and law, and hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. These petitions are filed in public interest by the petitioners who are practising advocates in different districts of Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Wayanad and Trissur. The petitions impugn Rules 7 and 8 of the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 as also the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases (Amendment) Rules, 2002.3. The Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 (hereinafter called the '1978 Rules') were prescribed by the Government of Kerala purportedly in exercise of its powers under Section 2(1) of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. These rules prescribe the manner of appointment, duties and responsibili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2351; 2004(1)KLT859
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether this Court in the absence of any miscarriage of justice, is bound to interfere in the order of a Magistrate allowing amendment of a petition filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') in the absence of specific provision for amendment of pleadings in the Code of Criminal Procedure is the question considered in this case.2. First respondent herein filed a petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. According to her claim, the counter petitioner in the M.C. has promised a mahar of 28 grams of gold ornaments and it was given. At the time of evidence, the counter petitioner (husband) deposed that out of the mahar promised, only 14 grams of gold was given. Contention of the husband was that since the marriage was not consumated, he has obligation only to give 50% of the mahar promised. According to the wife, the marriage was already consumated. She filed a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2001CriLJ81
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. This writ Appeal is filed against the Order in C.M.P. No. 35930 of 1998 in O.P. No. 12701 of 1998. Fourth respondent in the C.M.P. is the appellant. He is the fourth respondent in the Original Petition also. According to the appellant, he is a tenant of a building called 'Jaya Building,' Main road Kollam. The tenancy was given by one Durairaja Reddiar by executing an agreement of lease dated 6-1-1994. This lease deed enabled him to make alterations in the building. Accordingly, he effected some alterations in the building. When it was found that alterations were effected, the appellant received, from the Kollam Municipality, an order directing him to demolish the structure, which according to the Municipality, is unauthorised.2. Against the order of the Municipality, petitioner approached the Government. The Government issued an Order dated 22-6-1998, which is produced as Ext. P-5 in the Original petition directing the appellant to submit an application through t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006CriLJ4391
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. A partnership firm with the name and style 'M/s. LIS, Ernakulam' is said to be conducting the business of making available Government lottery tickets to the public under the Multi Level Marketing principle in partnership. As per its own showing, the partnership has registered three lakhs members in the scheme evolved by it. Though it is not mentioned in sufficient details in the writ petitions or criminal miscellaneous case, but as revealed during the investigation and not disputed during the course of arguments, the managing committee of the trust stated to be P.V. Chacko, Kuriachan Chacko and Joy John met on 11-11 -2002 and decided to permit Kurian Chacko to conduct lottery ticket business in the brand name LIS. Kurian Chacko was to conduct the business of his own either as a proprietary concern or as a partnership or as a limited company. Kuriachan Chacko had to make available necessary funds for the trust and its members. In pursuance of the resolution, Kuriachan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT154
ORDERK.T. Sankaran, J.1. Soofia Madani, accused No. 10 in Crime No. 469 of 2005 of Kalamassery Police Station has filed this Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail.2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections l20-B, 121-A, 436, 364, 323 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the PDPP Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.3. The prosecution case is that as a result of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused to commit an offence, on 9.9.2005, some of the accused persons boarded a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu Government Road Transport Corporation bearing registration No. TN-01 N 6725 from the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand at Ernakulam and some others followed on motor bikes and when the bus reached in front of the Kalamassery Municipal office, the accused persons hijacked the bus, threatening the driver under knife and gun point. There were 32 passengers in the bus. The bus was taken to an is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2009(16)KLJ831
ORDERM. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Petitioners in Crl. M.C, 1468/2009 are the accused in C.C. 494/2007 on the file of Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Third respondent is the de facto complainant there in, She is the petitioner in Crl. R.P. 2068/2009. respondents therein are the petitioners in Crl. M.C. 1468/2009. Crl. M.C. 1468/2009 is filed to quash Annexure D First Information Report No. 55/2006 of Medical College Police Station, registered on receipt of Annexure C complaint filed by the third respondent before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate. After investigation Annexure E final report was filed alleging that petitioners in Crl. M.C. 1468/2009 committed the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 of India Penal Code. It is the admitted case that first petitioner married third respondent on 18.1.2004 at Thiruvananthapuram. It is the case of the rev...
Tag this Judgment!