Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3742
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant/accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. Admitting the incident, he pleaded exercise of right of private defence. That was also found in his favour by the Court below. But the Court below was of the view that he exceeded that right and therefore had committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder to fall under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.2. This conviction is assailed in this case contending that having found that he was exercising the right of private defence, the Court ought to have found that he did not exceed that right, as there were only three injuries on the deceased as disclosed in Ext. P-1 post-mortem certificate issued by PW-1, the doctor who conducted autopsy. Threat on the accused by the deceased had been found by the Court below. That threat was using MO. 4 iron rod. He was also injured as i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : II(2005)BC582; 2005(1)KLT118
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. Reversing the conviction ordered by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kochi, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam acquitted the1st respondent. Therefore the appellant/complainant has come up with this appeal against the acquittal.2. The offence alleged are that punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Under Section 420 of the IPC. The subject matter was Ext.P2 cheque dated 5.5.1993 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- issued by the accused/1st respondent. When the cheque was presented to the bank, it bounced. So the offence as alleged has been committed by the 1st respondent. Reversal of the conviction is therefore bad; the appellant submits.3. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that Ext.P2 cheque was issued as a security and therefore does not attract Section 138, now cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer, 2002 (3) KLT 218. Even a cheque issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT599
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.P.(C) No. 16221/041. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking inter alia, a direction to therespondents to allow her to open her shop and to sell the tickets of on-line lotteries ofthe States of Sikkim, Karnataka and Arunachal Pradesh. The brief facts of the case,as stated by the petitioner, are the following :2. The petitioner is running a retail outlet of M/s. Playwin, which is the sole selling agent of M/s. Tashi Dalek Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ultra Entertainment Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kenlot Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd., who are the marketing agents of online lottery tickets of the States of Sikkim, Karnataka and Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner was running the said retail outlet from 30.8.2002. The room, housing the retail outlet, was also being used for the sale of packaged drinking water Bislery and Valvoline Lubricants, Oils Filters etc. The State of Kerala, by framing the Kerala State Lotteries and On-line Lotteries (Regulation) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT91
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 58/1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-II, Hosdurg. A complaint filed by him alleging an offence punishable Under Section 500 I.P.C. against the respondents did not succeed and they were acquitted. Hence this appeal.2. The respondents are Printer and Publisher of an Evening Daily named 'Jenmadeshom'. In its issue dated 22.12.1993, a news item that the appellant/ complainant, a teacher in an aided school, has been transferred as he had misbehaved to a girl student of 7th standard was published. According to the appellant, this is defamatory and belittled him among the students and his colleagues. Therefore, the respondents committed an offence punishable Under Section 500 IPC.3. The complaint was contested by the 2nd respondent who admitted before the Court below that he was the Editor-in-Charge of Jenmadeshom Evening Daily and that he had published Ext. P1 issue dated 22.12.93 of the said dail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : I(2005)DMC495; 2004(3)KLT1036
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment in O.P. No. 6500 of 2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition and the respondents herein are the respondents in the Original Petition.2. The petitioner Thomas K.Varghese and the second respondent Asha Mary Alexander are husband and wife. They professed the Christian religion and their marriage was solemnized at Jerusalem Marthoma Church, Nanthencode, Thiruvananthapuram on 25th May, 1995. The petitioner has his permanent residence at Ernakulam and he has been residing at Palarivattom, Ernakulam along with his parents in their own house. At the time of marriage the petitioner was employed at Ernakulam as Civil Engineer with M/s. Penta Group. The second respondent filed O.P. (I.D.A.) No. 942 of 1997 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the husband. She filed the case before the Family Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT1025
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The petitioner is a U.S. citizen. She has approached this Court with this Writ Petition seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or direction commanding respondents 2 to 4 to produce two infants named Roshan and Nishant before this Court and to handover their custody with their passports to the petitioner, their mother.2. According to her, herself and 2nd respondent Jamshed Ahamed Abdullah got married while in United States. Thereafter, both of them went to Behrain in connection with the employment of the latter. While in Behrain she gave birth to the said two children, twins. Because of the shift of his employment, they went back to the State of Texas in United States and settled there. According to the petitioner, their married life was not happy, as there was domestic violence from the part of the 2nd respondent. This resulted in a criminal case. Finally, the matter was patched up. Unfortunately, the second respondent lost his employment in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2005]139STC15(Ker)
G. Sivarajan, J.1. These two writ petitions raise the question regarding the liability to entry tax on the import of 'day-old-chicks' from the nearby States under section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners in both these cases are stated to be the owners of poultry farms in the State for rearing chicks. They are also registered dealers both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act' and 'the CST Act') respectively. According to the petitioners, they are not liable to pay entry tax on the import of 'day-old chicks' from the nearby States for the purpose of rearing them in their farms since their sales of chicken so reared and its meat are exempted from sales tax by virtue of the Notification S.R.O. No. 1090 of 1999 as amended by S.R.O. No. 7 of 2002. Their grievance is that in spite of the above legal position the check-post authoriti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005CriLJ974; 2005(1)KLT61
K.A. AbduI Gafoor, J.1. Appellants/accused faced conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C. First accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and second accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304B read with Section 34 I.P.C. They are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-respectively. The conviction is appealed against.2. The marriage between the first appellant and deceased Soudha is not disputed. It was on 28.8.1997. Immediately after one month of the marriage, first accused, the husband of the victim, left for Gulf. Thereafter she was alone except for a few occasion with 2nd accused, her mother in law. Immediately after the marriage, both 1st accused and the victim visited her parental house. There was demand for dowry in the form of 25 cents said to be promised by PW.l, father of the victim. There was frequent demand thereafter. That 1st accused returned from Gulf after n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT542
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) is bound to pay revised pension and pensionary benefits to its retired employees as per the Government Service Rules (K.S.R.) on par with pensioners of Government service without fixing a different cut off date is the question that is to be considered in these appeals. Earlier, this Court answered the above question in the affirmative. In appeal, the matter was remanded as according to the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court had considered only the entitlement of the pensionary benefits and not regarding the legality of fixing a different cut off date. Apex Court also noticed that reliefs claimed in the Writ Appeals were not identical. There are two classes of employees in all the Writ Appeals: (1) erstwhile Government employees who were transferred and absorbed by the Corporation and (2) employees who were appointed after the formation of the Corporation. The Apex Court also held that this Court has not con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT251
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of residential flats in a multistoreyed building named 'Kannarkat Condominium', constructed by the 7th respondent, which is a partnership firm. Presently, the said building has eight storeys with 16 flats. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P1(A) exemption order issued by the Government in favour of the 7th respondent under Rule 5 of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 and also Ext.P10(B) permit issued by the Corporation of Cochin, based on that Government Order. The brief facts of the case are the following:-2. The petitioners and the Managing Partner of the 7th respondent were colleaguesin the Indian Navy. When the 7th respondent started the construction of a residentialbuilding complex named 'Kannarkat Condominium', the petitioners purchased oneflat each. The construction of 8 floors of the building was completed in the year 2001and presently, the petitioners are residing there. They submit, the various faciliti...
Tag this Judgment!