Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1951CriLJ654
Kunhi Raman J.1. This reference is made by the Taluk Second Class Magistrate of Changanacherry under Section 281, Travanoore Cr. P.C.2. In C. C. No. 83 of 1121 on the file of his Court, two persona Ouseph Chacko and his Servant Kunjan Panky were charged under Section 823, Travancore Penal Code, for causing hurt to P. W 1. The second accused Panky was discharged under Section 256, Travancore Criminal P.C. The Magistrate found that the first accused was guilty and ho, therefore, convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.3. The reference is made to the High Court for the alleged reason that the first accused who is deaf and dumb could not be made to under, stand the proceedings against him. Section 281, Travancore Criminal P.C. under which the reference is made, is warded as follows:It the accused, though not insane, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1953CriLJ752
ORDER No. S. 5-9214/50/CS dated 9.10.1951.1. Sri P. Joseph John was the Electrical Engineer of the Travancore State at the time of integration of Travancore with Cochin and continued as the head of the Electricity Department until he was placed under suspension in Government Order No. A-8-9024/49/SD dated 26.12.1949. The suspension was the result of confidential preliminary enquiries which established prima facie certain charges against him. Sri K. Sankaran, Judge, High Court, was appointed as Commissioner under Section 3, Travancore Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 11 of 1122, to conduct a formal and public enquiry into the case. There were 26 charges framed against him. The Commissioner has enquired into all these charges & forwarded his report. Of the 26 charges, charges XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXV were dropped and the irregularity in charge IX was condoned. The articles of charge and a summary of the findings on the various charges are given in the enclosu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker72; (1958)IILLJ399Ker
Sankaran, J.1. The petitioner is an attender in the University Intermediate College at Trivandrum. The University started proceedings against him for being a party to the malpractice committed by a candidate who had appeared for the Intermediate Examination held in September 1954 and whose register number was 817. The charge against the petitioner was that he helped this candidate to substitute his answer paper in English paper III, by another answer paper got ready outside the examination hall by handing over to the candidate at about 1 p. m. on 16th September 1954.The handing over of the answer book brought from outside to the candidate and getting back from him the answer paper written by him in the examination hall, were noticed by the College peon Yohannan who was on duty in the examination hall and he made a report of the same to the Principal of the College through one Mr. T. S. Ramakrishnan who was Assistant Superintendent in connection with the examination. Copy of the peon's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker374; (1958)IILLJ724Ker
M.S. Menon, J.1. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer who has been placed under suspension by Ext. P-7 dated 2-7-1957 and regarding whom a formal and public inquiry has been ordered by Ext. P-9 dated 21-11-1957 under Sec. 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows: 'If, after a preliminary inquiry or otherwise, our Government are of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for making a formal and public inquiry into the truth of any imputation of misconduct by any person in the service of Our Government not removable from Office without their sanction, our Government shall cause the substance of the imputations to be drawn up into distinct articles of charge and shall order a formal and public inquiry to be made into the truth thereof.' It is clear from the section that the foundation for ordering a formal and public inquiry is the Government's SATISFACTION that there are sufficient grounds for making such an inquiry into the truth of any ...
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 : 1959CriLJ464
ORDER No. H/4-28800/57 Home (A) 'Sanction is accorded to the Public Prosecutor, Trivandrum, under Sub-section (3) of Section 198B of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to make a complaint against Sri K. Karthikeyan, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Newspaper 'Pothujanam' before the Court of Session, Trivandrum for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code for having published a news item in its issue dated 21-8-1957 under the caption (words in Malayalam omitted), and also the reply of the correspondent under the caption (words in Malayalam omitted.) and the Editorial in the issue dated 23-8-1957 which are highly defamatory of the Minister for Law in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. (By order of the Governor) Sd/N.E.S. Raghavachari. Secretary to the Council of Ministers and Chief Secretary'. 37. Now it is quite apparent from its wording, and, in particular from the recital 'By order of the Governor' under which the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ611Ker
ORDERN. Varadaraja Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Mr. M.V. Itticheria, assistant engineer, in the service of respondent 1, State of Kerala, questioning the validity of certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.2. There were certain irregularities alleged against the petitioner in connexion with the construction of a particular road in Trivandrum East Subdivision within his jurisdiction. Accordingly on 2 July 1957 Government placed him under suspension and on 21 November 1957 ordered a formal and public enquiry into the truth of the imputations under the Public Servants Enquiry Act XI of 1122. Section 2 of that Act contemplated only inquiries into imputations of misconduct as distinguished from irregularities. So on a writ motion by petitioner in O.P. No 24 of 1958, the High Court by order, dated 19 March 1958 quashed the inquiry. The order of suspension was on 25 June 1958 later quashed by the High Court in fresh writ motio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker279; (1960)IILLJ398Ker; (1960)IILLJ398Ker
ORDERS.Velu Pillai, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P-6, an order dated 24-1-1959, passed by the respondent, the Government of the State of Kerala removing him from service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. A petition of complaint against him for alleged misconduct, was presented to the then Minister for Law by one Radhamma, upon which, pending enquiry, he was suspended from service on 17-2-1958. Preliminary enquiries having been made thereon, Government ordered, by notification dated 7-3-1958. 'a detailed departmental enquiry under the Kerala Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957', which may be referred to hereafter as the Kerala Rules, to be held on the complaint for 'indecent behaviour and misconduct' on his part, and committed the enquiry to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge who may he referred to hereafter as the Commissioner. Upon the complaint, the Commissioner framed a char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker294
ORDERS. Velu Pillai, J. 1. The petitioner, who had been a Range Officer in the former Travancore-Cochin State service, has tiled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to set aside the order Ext. P1, passed by the respondent, the State of Kerala, on 4-7-1958, reducing him in rank and barring his promotion for a period of two years, He had been ordered to be punished on the same allegations against him by an earlier order Ext. P2, passed by the Government of Travancore-Cochin; but at the hearing of Original Petition 310 of 1956, which had been preferred by him to this court to quash Ext. P2, counsel for the contending parties agreed, that the case against the petitioner might be examined by the Government after consulting the Public Service Commission and that the petitioner might move again under Article 226, should the need arise; the contentions raised were left undecided. Now that the second order also has gone against the petitioner, he has filed this petition.2. Havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker350
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. In this revision petition two questions were raised:first, whether Shri T. R. Velunni, District Magistrate at Trichur at the relevant time, who was also the Commissioner of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, referred to hereafter as the Act, was competent to prefer the complaint and secondly, whether under the proviso (aa) to section 200, Crl. P. C. his examination by the Magistrate on taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, could have been dispensed with. I see no difficulty whatever in answering the first question against the revision petitioner, for the complaint in this case fulfils the definition of the term 'complaint' in Section 4(1)(h), Crl. P. C. and the Magistrate is competent under Section 190(1)(a), Crl. P. C., to take cognizance of the offence. This was also conceded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.2. On the second question, the answer would depend on whether, the complainant in preferring the complaint, ...
Tag this Judgment!