Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008CriLJ742
ORDERK. Hema, J.1. Can the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (hereafter referred to as 'the Special Judge'), on receipt of a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Court', for short), issue an order to the officers of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ('VACB', for short) to conduct a 'preliminary enquiry' or 'vigilance enquiry' while forwarding a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code? Can such direction be issued, as per the provisions contained in the Code or the Vigilance Manual? Can such enquiry be ordered, following the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras . These are the main questions to be examined in this revision.Facts, Briefly:2. A complaint was filed by revision petitioner against respondents 1 to 4, under Section 190 of the Code, alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the P.C, Act', for short) and also under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE10H DAY OF APRIL201520TH CHAITHRA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 31 of 2013 () ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.1561/2010 IN C.C.NO.306/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - III, KOTTAYAM DATED0610.2012. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- V.G.VINODKUMAR, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA, (FORMERLY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST) BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682031.2. SAINABA NAZEER, EDATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR ARMED RESERVE CAMP, KEEZHUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM686001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.H.JASMINE. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1796
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Essential Commodities Act, Trichur and was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act read with Section 3(2)(c)(d) of the said Act and Clauses 29 and 50 of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966. The appellant appeals against the conviction and sentence.2. The appellant was tried along with two other persons. Originally the police filed final report against accused 1 and 2. The gist of allegation against these two accused was that the 1st accused unlawfully removed 611 Kgs. of rice from a. ration shop and sold this ration rice to the 2nd accused. The prosecution alleged that accused 1 and 2 committed offences punishable under Clauses 5 and 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act read with Section 3(2)(c)(d) of the said Act. Trial commenced against accused 1 and 2 and 6 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. At thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE16H DAY OF MAY201426TH VAISAKHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 30554 of 2013 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- A.X.VARGHESE, ADVOCATE, NIYAMAVEDI, XL/5344, 3RD FLOOR, EDASSERY BUILDING, BANERJI ROAD ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS : ----------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE-673 001.3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, PIN-673 311.4. MAR REMEGIOSE INCHANANIYIL BISHOP OF THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 573. ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED :5. BAISIL ATTIPETTY @ BASIL A.G., AGED56YEARS, S/O. GEORGE ATTIPETTY HOUSE,NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI - 682509 ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DT165/2014 IN IA. NO. 2956/2014. R1 TO R3 BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. K.P. DENDAPANI ADDL. R5 BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SMT.BIMALA BABY ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ45Ker
B.N. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner, an employee of the Rubber Board, Kottaym (2nd Respondent) which is a statutory Body constituted and governed under the Rubber Act, 1947, has prayed for issue of a direction to quash Exts. P3, P7 and P9 and by a subsequent petition he has also prayed for restoration of his seniority in the promotion post which was overlooked when his juniors, namely Respondents 4 to 26, were promoted.2. By Ext.P3 penalty of withholding the increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner . By Ext. P7 his appeal against the penalty imposed in the disciplinary proceeding was dismissed by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi (1st Respondent). By Ext.P9 the appeal against the order of promotion of Respondents 4 to 26 in supersession of his claim to the post of Upper Division Clerk, from that of the Lower Division Clerk was rejected. Since, during the pendency of the Original Petition he was promoted to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT391
J.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether Secretary of the Vigilance Department can grant sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for taking cognizance of offences against officers who are working under other departments is the question of law referred by the learned Single Judge in these appeals. In all these cases charge-sheets were issued before the introduction of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:'6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3A) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction,-(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas490(Ker)
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, a scheduled bank as defined in the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, is 'a corporation' or 'any other financial agency not being a private agency' within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act lists the entities to whom the Act does not apply. The question arises out of the facts stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 below.2. I. The facts.--The petitioner instituted Suit No. 280 of 1976, for recovery of Rs. 71,836.66 secured through mortgage of lands of the respondents. A final decree was made. In E. P. No. 182 of 1979, the property of the respondents was brought to sale. However, the respondents filed E. A. No.414 of 1981, for postponement of the sale under Rule 83 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The first accused in C.C.No.29/1998 on the file of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI-II), Ernakulam is the appellant in Crl.A.No.434/2001, while Crl.A.No.439/2001 was filed by the second accused in the same case. Both the accused were charge sheeted by the Inspector of Police, (SPE/CBI), Kochi in R.C.5/A/95/CBI/SPE/KER under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act') and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the first accused was working as the Principal in Regional Vocational Training Institute for Woman, Kazhakkoottam (hereinafter referred to as 'RVTI' in short), while the second accused was his friend and both of them conspired together to demand bribe from PW1 for the purpose of providing employment of peon in the institution for which he was shortlisted for appointment and on account of the conspiracy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker311; 1959CriLJ1172
ORDERRaman Nayar, J. 1. These three petitions may be disposed of together since they raise the same question -- in fact two of them are from the same case.2. The petitioners are some of the accused persons in C. C. Nos. 1 and 2 on the file of Shri T. R. Balakrishna Iyer, one of the two special fudges appointed under Section 6 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, XLVI of 1952 for the whole State of Kerala and specified under Section 7 (2) of the Act as the judge to try these cases. (Crl. R. P. No. 44 is by accused 1 and 2 and Crl. R. P. No. 65 by the 3rd accused in C. C. No. 1; and Crl. R. P. No. 45 is by accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 2). 'Objection was taken to the trial on the score of want of territorial jurisdiction, but by two separate orders, dated 18-1-1958, the learned special judge overruled the objection and proceeded to frame charges under Section 251-A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners seek to set aside those orders and to quash the charges, the principal gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT621
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the Ombudsman appointed under Chapter XXV B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 competent to proceed against a Municipality or Municipal Corporation? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P.No. 9483 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The Municipal Corporation of Cochin and its Mayor are the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the order dated April 2, 2002 passed by the Ombudsman. By this order observations have been made against 'the entire body of elected members and officials'. No new projects can be executed without the approval of the Ombudsman. The petitioners allege that the order is without jurisdiction. The Ombudsman created under the Panchayat Raj Act has no jurisdiction 'over areas within the limits of the Corporation of Cochin'. The Act does not extend to Municipal Corporations. A body ...
Tag this Judgment!