Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2835; 2007(1)KLJ616
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. The petitioners are accused and an F.I.R. has been registered against them, inter alia, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have, in these circumstances, come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the F.I.R. registered against them.2. What are the reasons? Two reasons are urged. First of all, it is said that the F.I.R. does not specifically reveal that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste or that the accused do not belong to any Scheduled Caste. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manohar M. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra 2005 Cri LJ 4653, it is contended that when the First Information Statement is bereft of such vital details, the F.I.R. can be quashed.3. Secondly and alternatively, it is contended...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ630
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the offence under Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act prior to amendment in 2002 which inter alia carried a punishment of transportation for 14 years, one exclusively triable by a Court of Session? This is the short point for consideration in this Crl. M.C.2. The petitioner is the accused along with others in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 435 read with 149 I.P.C. The case against the co-accused has already been committed to the Court of Sessions as per order dated 09-12-2002 in C.P. 67 of 2001 passed by the learned Magistrate, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-VI. As the petitioner (accused No. 3) was not available for committal, the case against him has been refiled as C.P. 57 of 2002. On coming to know of the proceedings against him, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate and has now been enlarged on bail as per order of the Sessions Court, a copy of which is produced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ545
K.M. Joseph, J.1. Case of petitioners, in brief, is as follows:They are Post Graduates in Politics and International Relations. First petitioner is holder of M.Phil. Degree in International Politics from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (hereinafter referred to as JNU). Second petitioner's M. Phil. Is in Chinese Studies from JNU. They are qualified to be appointed as Lecturers in Internationa] Relations in the Universities in Kerala. They are holders of Ph. D. from JNU. A vacancy of Lecturer in the School of International Relations and Politics arose in the first respondent University, when one Dr. K.N. Harilal, Lecturer got relieved from the University to join the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram. The University is duty bound to appoint Lecturers by following the procedure under Clause 3 Chapter III of the MG University Statutes. It reads as follows:Appointment of teachers:Teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Syndicate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ910
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.1. Appellant is the only son of deceased Velliyattu Narayanan. Appellant filed O.S. 169/81 before Munsiff Court, Payyannur on 7-9-81 with his maternal uncle as his next friend. The suit was subsequently returned for presentation before proper court and was represented as O.S. 318/82 before Sub Court, Thalassery. Later it was transferred to Sub Court, Payyannur, and numbered as O.S. 83/87. The suit was for partition of twelve items of properties scheduled in the plaint. His mother was the second defendant and grandmother (mother of Narayana) was first defendant. It was contended by appellant that plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Narayanan and on the death of Narayanan, it devolved upon his wife, second defendant, mother first defendant and son, plaintiff and each of them are entitled to one share and though Ext. A8 partition deed was executed by defendants 1 and 2, it was against the interest of plaintiff and second defendant did no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007CriLJ2908
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Seven accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 398 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A5 and A6 were absconding and their cases were split up. Case of A3 was also split up as he was not found originally and that was separately tried in S.C. No. 41 of 2004. A1, A2, A4 and A7 faced trial in SC No. 221 of 2002. The Court charge is as follows:The That at about 7.30 p.m. on 7-6-2000 all of you in furtherance of your common intention to commit dacoity came in a Maruthi van bearing Registration Number IN 9450 and that you had restrained the deceased Ganapathi and his son the de facto complainant, who were proceeding to their house after closing their jewellery shop, in their scooter No. KL-10E 28 and that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 among you had stabbed Ganapathy with a knife on his chest, back and neck and inflicted fatal injuries and that he had succumbed to the injuries at Government Hospital, Thirurangadi, and that accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007]8STT33; (2007)7VST323(Ker)
K. Balakrishnan Nair J.1. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the sustainability of two circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under the said provision are the points, that arise for decision in these writ petitions. Since same points arise for decision in all these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007 is treated as the main case.W.P. (C) No. 2844 of 2007:2. The petitioner, which is a firm, is a dealer in glass sheets. It is an asses-see on the files of the third respondent, Sales Tax Officer, Manjeri, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The fourth respondent, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued Circular No. 50 of 2006, in exercise of his powers under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (16A) of Section 47 of the KVAT A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker203; 2007(2)KLJ89
ORDERK. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent as Member of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, overlooking his claim. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram. The Kerala Government invited applications from eligible person for appointment as Members of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by notification dated 22-2-2006. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The selection was made by a committee, consisting of the President of the State Commission, the Law Secretary of the Government of Kerala and the Secretary to Government, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. By Ext. P1, the petitioner was called for an interview on 28-2-2006. Later, the said interview was adjourned and held on 2-3-2006. The petitioner submits, he performed well in the interview and his name was recomme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR301]
S. Siri Jagan, J.1. A question of law which had gained the attention of the Supreme Court of India in several cases including a Constitution Bench decision, has again been raked up by a management in an industrial dispute relying on an observation by a recent Supreme Court decision by a bench of lesser strength.The issue relates to the point of time at which a management has to seek opportunity to adduce fresh/additional evidence for justifying the disciplinary action taken against a workman, in the event of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management, on the basis of which punishment was imposed on the workman, is held to be not valid and proper. The question is whether such an opportunity should be requested for by the management at the threshold of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, namely at the time of filing of written statement itself by the management, or whether it is sufficient if the request for the opportunity is made at any time before the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4005
K. Thankappan, J.1. The common questions involved in these appeals are (i) whether the court below was justified in acquitting the accused in the Calendar Cases against which the appeals are filed and (ii) whether the sanction order given by the Secretary, Vigilance Department to prosecute the accused in the above cases under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is legally correct or not. 2. The acquittal orders passed in the Calendar Cases were on the basis of the finding entered by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikde to the effect that the Secretary, Vigilance Department was not competent to issue the sanction order to prosecute the accused in the above cases. The grounds urged in the appeals are (i) the impugned orders are not sustainable on the ground that the trial Judge has no power to acquit the accused in view of the defective sanction granted by an incompetent officer and (ii) the trial Judge went wrong in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2007)2CompLJ483(Ker); [2007]78SCL180(Ker)
ORDERV. Ramkumar, J.1. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 2, respectively, in CC 380 of 2004 on the file of JFCM-I, Kozhikode, are the petitioners in these miscellaneous cases filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In these proceedings, the petitioners seek to quash the complaint pending before the JFCM-I, Kozhikode, where the case is pending as CC 380 of 2004 after cognizance has been taken for an offence punishable under Section 108-I of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for the alleged contravention of Section 108 of the said Act. The said complaint was filed by the common first respondent, namely, K.P. Sethumadhavan, a former director of a public limited company by name Al-Ameen (P.) Limited.2. The case of the complainant can be summarised as follows:2.1 The company is having a paid up capital of Rs. 1,00,000. The paid up capital was raised by the company by way of sale proceeds of the shares to the shareholders. The complainant has 2.5 per cent of the shares in ...
Tag this Judgment!