Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 74 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2011

The State Of H.P vs Vishal Alias Vickey & Others on 17 August, 2018

60. Lastly, the learned counsel for the accused persons have placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi, vs. State of Kerala, (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 552, wherein it has been held that the High ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2018 22:58:42 :::HCHP 68 Court should only in exceptional cases interfere in appeal against acquittal. However, the case in hand falls in the category of exceptional cases and after carefully examining the evidence, the .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Shafeeq vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2014

However, in Sasi v. State of Kerala (cited supra), this Court observed that the conditions imposed by Magistrates will have to be reasonable, rational, and cannot be onerous. Here, two vehicles are involved. As per the Crl.M.C.. No. 82/2015 2 impugned order dated 04.12.2014, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to deposit 30% of the value of the vehicle. The short point for consideration is whether this condition is irrational, unreasonable or onerous. Of cource, the allegations are serious. The number of vehicles involved is two. This is not a case where just one vehicle was used once by the petitioner for such purposes. It appears that the vehicles were used for such purposes on earlier occasions also. In such a situation, the condition imposed by the court below cannot be said to be fully irrational or unreasonable or onerous. However, in the interest of justice, I feel that some slight modification can be made in the conditions. Accordingly, the amount can be reduced to 25% of the value of the vehicle. To that extent, the impugned order can be modified, and the petitioner can be given some relief.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P Ubaid - Full Document

Chalam Sheikh vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2020

17. PW3 was an excise officer in the rank of Excise Inspector. He is an empowered officer by virtue of the notification Crl.A.No.122/2019 10 issued by the Government of Kerala as G.O.(MS) No.146/90/TD dated 22.10.1990 under Section 41(2) of the Act by which all police officers in the police department of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police and all officers of the Excise Department of and above the rank of Excise Inspectors have been empowered to act under Section 42 of the Act (See Sasi v. State of Kerala : 2001 (3) KLT 396).
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The vs Unknown on 28 May, 2020

28. PW1 was an excise officer in the rank of Excise Inspector. He is an empowered officer by virtue of the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as G.O.(MS) No.146/90/TD dated 22.10.1990 under Section 41(2) of the Act by which all police officers in the police department of and above the rank of Crl.A.No.636/2019 16 Sub Inspector of Police and all officers of the Excise Department of and above the rank of Excise Inspectors have been empowered to act under Section 42 of the Act (See Sasi v. State of Kerala : 2001 (3) KLT 396).
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maju @ Manu vs State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2020

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the most vital fact that should have been proved by the prosecution in a case of this nature was the age of the victim and the same has not been proved by the prosecution. It was pointed out that Ext.P25 certificate issued by the Principal of the school where the victim girl was pursuing her studies is not sufficient to Crl.Appeal No.1331 of 2018 6 establish that the victim was a child at the time of occurrence. Placing reliance on various decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court, it was contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution should have caused the production of one of the public documents falling within the scope of Section 35 of the Evidence Act containing the date of birth of the victim and should have examined, in addition, the person on whose statement the entry regarding the date of birth of the victim was entered in that document, in order to conclusively prove the date of birth of the victim. Placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sasi v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 561], it was also contended by the learned counsel that Ext.P25 Certificate produced by the prosecution to prove the date of birth of the victim is hit by Section 162 of the Code. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the evidence tendered by the victim girl as PW1 would indicate beyond doubt that it is a case were the victim girl had eloped with the accused and the physical relationship the accused had with the girl was purely consensual. According to the learned counsel, in so far as the age of the victim girl has not been conclusively proved, the findings rendered by the court below that Crl.Appeal No.1331 of 2018 7 the accused is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, are unsustainable in law.
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - P B Kumar - Full Document

Ashkar vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2020

22. PW1 was an excise officer in the rank of Excise Circle Inspector. He is an empowered officer by virtue of the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as G.O.(MS) No.146/90/TD dated 22.10.1990 under Section 41(2) of the Act by which all police officers in the police department of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police and all officers of the Excise Department of and above the rank of Excise Inspectors have been empowered to act under Section 42 of the Act (See Sasi v. State of Kerala : 2001 (3) KLT 396).
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Faijas vs State Of Kerala - Represented By The on 3 August, 2020

16. PW3 was a police officer in the rank of Sub Inspector. He is an empowered officer by virtue of the notification issued by the Government of Kerala as G.O.(MS) No.146/90/TD dated 22.10.1990 under Section 41(2) of the Act by which all police officers in the police department of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police and all officers of the Excise Department of and above the rank of Excise Inspectors have been empowered to act under Section 42 of the Act (See Sasi v. State of Kerala :
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Antony @ Aadu Antony vs State Of Kerala By on 13 January, 2021

23. It is relevant in this context to quote Kanhaiya lal v. State of Rajasthan ( 2013 5 SCC 655) and Kilakkatha parambath Sasi v. State of Kerala AIR 2011 SC 1064) wherein it has been held that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to the prosecution. However it is obligatory on the part of the court to take notice of the delay and examine , in the backdrop of the case whether any acceptable explanation has been offered, by the prosecution and if such an explanation has been offered whether the same deserves acceptance being found to be satisfactory. Thus whether the delay creates a dent in the prosecution story and usures in suspicion has to be gathered by scrutinizing the explanation offered for the Crl.A.No.836 of 2016 18 delay in the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances. Greater degree of care and caution is required on the part of the court to appreciate the evidence to satisfy itself relating to the explanation of the factum of delay.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M R Anitha - Full Document

Trial Of Cases Relating To Atrocities & ... vs By Advs on 23 February, 2021

38. The learned counsel for the accused in this context drew our attention to Sasi v. State of Kerala [2019 KHC 465] wherein while dealing with a case charged against the accused u/s. 376 IPC it has been held that penetration cannot be inferred simply because vagina admitted one finger and hymen was torn. It was also held that finger test is not a sure test to give an opinion suggesting penetration.
Kerala High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M R Anitha - Full Document

Om Parkash vs State Of Haryana on 16 April, 2014

9. First, we shall deal with the contention pertaining to delay in lodging of the FIR. It is not in dispute that the occurrence took place about 3.00 p.m. and thereafter, the deceased was carried by a merchandised cart to the primary health centre where he was administered some treatment but he succumbed to his injuries. On being informed by the hospital staff, the police arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of the informant, Satbir Singh, PW-3, and thereafter an FIR was registered at 7.45 p.m. From the sequence of the events which include consumption of time in carrying the injured to the hospital, treatment availed of by Prabhu Dayal, information given by the concerned authority of the primary health centre and arrival of police and also taking note of the distance, i.e., 24 kilometers from the place of occurrence, we do not think that there is any delay in lodging of the FIR. That apart, it is settled in law that mere delay in lodging the first information report cannot by itself be regarded as fatal to the prosecution 8 case. True it is, the court has a duty to take notice of the delay and examine the same in the backdrop of the factual score, whether there has been any acceptable explanation offered by the prosecution and whether the same deserves acceptation being satisfactory, but when delay is satisfactorily explained, no adverse inference is to be drawn. It is to be seen whether there has been possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay. These principles have been stated in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P.1, State of H.P. v. Gian Chand2, Ramdas and others v. State of Maharashtra3, Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi and others v. State of Kerala4 and Kanhaiya Lal and others v. State of Rajasthan5.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next