Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Kuttan Nadar Wilson vs State, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, ... on 24 July, 2002

Karadan Abdul Gafoor vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 9 October, 2007

818), Kuttan Nadar vs. State (2002(3) KLT SN 48 Case No.68), Gafoor vs. State of Kerala (1987(2) KLT 730), Umashanker vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001(3) KLT 681 (SC)). I find that none of the above decisions are apposite to the facts of the present case. A2 was having in his possession 23 dollar notes of 100 denomination. There is no explanation for the possession of the same. The suggestion that the same are fancy notes is just absurd. Mens rea is the mental condition that can be ascertained or inferred from the facts proved. There can be no objective evidence as such to prove mens rea. In the circumstances, I find that the offence under Section 489C is squarely attracted in the present matter. The conviction for the offence under Section 489C is confirmed.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K R Udayabhanu - Full Document

Narendran @ Appachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 August, 2003

10. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to Crl.A.No.1758 of 2003 15 establish the identity of A1, as the person who found in possession of the counterfeit notes. According to the counsel, the evidence of PW4 is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of sections 489(B) and (C) of IPC, since PW4, even as per his version, had came at the spot after the other witnesses caught A1 and particularly the evidence of A1 to A3 are not sufficient to hold that it was from the possession of A1, the counterfeit notes were recovered. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the prosecution has conducted no effective investigation to trace out the source of the counterfeit notes involved in this case. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that though the Police Constable attached to Vellathooval Police Station, who being an attestor to Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, was shown as a charge witness, such Police Constable is not examined. So, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the counterfeit notes involved in the present case were Crl.A.No.1758 of 2003 16 recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused and there is no evidence to that effect. Thus according to the learned counsel, in the light of the decisions reported in Kuttan Nadar Vs. State (2002(3) KLT S.N. Page 48 Case No.68), The State of Karnataka Vs. K.S.Ramdas and others (1976 Crl.L.J.228 in paragraph 27) and Gafoor Vs. State of Kerala 1987(2) KLT Page 730, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of Sections 489(B) and(C) of IPC against the appellant and therefore he is entitled to get an acquittal.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1