Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3848; 2005(3)KLT770
..... of sessions, the magistrate shall follow the procedure prescribed under section 207a of the code of criminal procedure, 1898. section 208 dealt with proceedings instituted otherwise than a police report. sections 207a(b) and 208(2) of the repealed code conferred right on the accused to cross examine the witness examined by the prosecutor. the prosecutor' ..... made in the backdrop of a grievance raised by the accused therein that he did not get sufficient time before the committal court to inspect the voluminous police records running into about 20000 pages and the thrust of the argument was that the accused has a right of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses before ..... of the offence mentioned in the complaint. if, however, the magistrate, instead of proceeding under chapter xv cr.p.c., decides to forward the complaint to the police for investigation under section 156(3) cr.p.c. or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker257
Shamsuddin, J. 1. Petitioner in O.P, (Lunacy) No. 159 of 1980 on the files of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. 2. Appellant filed the above application under Sections 40, 41, 42, 62 and 63 of Indian Lunacy Act IV of 1812 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking to declare that his father's sister, Pathummal Beevi Kunju is a lunatic and to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of her person and properties. There is also a prayer in the petition to declare that the decree passed in O.S. NO. 91 of 1975 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Nedumanged is void and will not bind the lunatic or her properties. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge stating that questions were put to her by him and on a perusal of the answers given by her, he was not satisfied that she was of unsound mind. In this M.P. Appeal, appellant has challenged the order of the court below. 3. The aforesaid Pathumal Beevi Kunju is a widow. The father of the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1980Ker109
Subramonian Poti, J. 1. A question of some importance arises for decision in this case. It concerns the consequence of the repeal by Section 7 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule. One of the Acts so repealed is the Travancore Nair Act 2 of 1100. That Act provides among other things, for dissolution of a marriage solemnised under the Act. It specifies grounds for dissolution of marriage and also prescribes the procedure by which the right to seek dissolution is to be exercised. The court to which proceedings would lie is also specified. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 provides in Section 13, for dissolution of Hindu Marriages. The grounds for dissolution are specified in this Act and the procedure for seeking dissolution is also specified in the Act. The grounds for dissolution under the Hindu Marriages Act are not identical with the grounds for divorce in the Nair Act 1100.2. Notwithstanding the commencement of the Hindu Marri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1970Ker98; 1970CriLJ688
..... . m. on the 24th, pw 1 made the statement, ex. p1, to the head constable pw 7, on which the case was registered and investigated. the accused appeared at the police station at 9.15 p.m. on 28-3-1967 with the knife m. o. 1. he was arrested by the head constable pw 8, and the knife was seized .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker111
..... taken against the person accused. if, therefore, a complainant does not go beyond giving what he believes to be correct information to the police, and the police without further interference on his part (except giving such honest assistance as they may require), think fit to prosecute, it would be improper to make him ..... pillai (i. l. r. (1903) 26 mad 362), it was observed by a division bench that if the defendant merely filed a complaint before the police and the police, after investigation, thought fit to prosecute the plaintiff (in the action for malicious prosecution), it could not be said that the defendant was a prosecutor; nor could ..... its application to the particular case was no doubt justified; but in the opinion of their lordships, it is not of universal application. in india, the police have special powers in regard to the investigation of criminal charges, and it depends very much on the result of their investigation whether or not further proceedings are .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA WEDNESDAY, THE3D DAY OF DECEMBER201412TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 RFA.No. 101 of 2008 ( ) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS5242005 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM DATED0501-2008 APPELLANT(S)/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------- SEETHA MOHANAN D/O.LATE NARAYANA SHENOY, 40/5695, KALARIKKAL HOUSE JEWS STREET, BEHIND PADMA THEATRE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. NARASINGHA SHENOY S/O.LATE NARAYANA SHENOY, 40/5695, KALARIKKAL HOUSE JEWS STREET, BEHIND PADMA THEATRE, ERNAKULAM.2. K.N.VENKITESWARA SHENOY, AGED62YEARS S/O.LATE NARAYANA SHENOY, 40/5695, KALARIKKAL HOUSE JEWS STREET, BEHIND PADMA THEATRE, ERNAKULAM.3. K.N.RADHA, AGED69YEARS, W/O.J.D.PAI5902, G.K.AVENUE, SOUTH GATE PAUDITHAN TEMPLE, COCHIN-2.4. K.N.VIMALA NAIK, AGED66YEARS W...
Tag this Judgment!