Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Santhosh & Another vs State Of Kerala & Others on 16 August, 2010

Suo Motu vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2010

Committal of a case from the Magistrate Court to the Sessions Court cannot be equated to transfer under S.408(1) of Cr.P.C. In the case of a direction to commit a case from the Magistrate Court to Sessions Court the proviso is not a bar in exercising the power of the High Court conferred under S.407(1)(iii) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, we are in perfect agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in State of Kerala v. Annamma (2003 (2) KLT 763) and we are unable to agree with the decision in Santhosh v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 439)."
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - V K Mohanan - Full Document

State Of Gnct Of Delhi vs Harpal Singh on 31 July, 2012

12 The Kerala High court has, however, taken the opposite view in the case of "Santhosh v. State of Kerala, 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 133", wherein the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge but had subsequently moved an application for admitting his guilt. The Kerala High Court observed that undoubtedly there is no provision under the Code enabling the Court to permit an accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and to convict him on his plea of guilt subsequently. But there is also no such prohibition in the Code to record the plea of guilt in the course of trial and convict the accused on his subsequent admission of plea of guilt. The object of trial is to investigate the offence and to find out the truth. When the plea of guilt is admitted by the accused and the admission is found to be voluntary, there is no reason why the Court should not allow him to withdraw his claim to be tried and to plead guilty.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Gnct Of Delhi vs Harpal Singh on 31 July, 2012

12 The Kerala High court has, however, taken the opposite view in the case of "Santhosh v. State of Kerala, 2003 (3) RCR (Criminal) 133", wherein the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge but had subsequently moved an application for admitting his guilt. The Kerala High Court observed that undoubtedly there is no provision under the Code enabling the Court to permit an accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and to convict him on his plea of guilt subsequently. But there is also no such prohibition in the Code to record the plea of guilt in the course of trial and convict the accused on his subsequent admission of plea of guilt. The object of trial is to investigate the offence and to find out the truth. When the plea of guilt is admitted by the accused and the admission is found to be voluntary, there is no reason why the Court should not allow him to withdraw his claim to be tried and to plead guilty.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manojkumar vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2019

Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Santhosh's case supra to contend that the court below is erred in relying on the dictum to Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 558 of 2019 4 arrive at a finding of the nature. According to him, as per the dictum in the case cited supra forwarding of the second sample to the very same laboratory is barred. It is observed that the second sample prepared by the officials from the contraband seized was meant for a second analysis, not by the very same laboratory, but by a different one. The court below has misread the dictum and dismissed the application stating that the forwarding of second sample is barred.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Joseph - Full Document

Saseendran vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2012

A learned Judge of this court in decision Santhosh Vs State of Kerala 2007(2) KLT 27 held that many persons in this country may resort to that course when confronted by the police even while performing legitimate and legal pursuits. That circumstance, by itself, cannot lead to a inference even at the stage of taking cognizance that the articles in question were possessed for the purpose of illicit manufacture of liquor. In the absence of any specific allegation and averments either in the legally acceptable documents of the prosecution or in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the appellant has got sufficient knowledge and he is aware of the contents of MO1 can, evidence of as rightly held in the decision of Division Bench cited supra, the offence under Section 58 is not attracted against the appellant also. In the light of the above discussion and evidence and materials referred to above, I am of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to establish , the essentials ingredients of Section 55(a) or 58 of the Abkari Act and thereby Crl.A.No. 304 of 2007 11 to prove the allegation against the appellant. These are the findings and conviction recorded by the learned Judge of the trial court against the appellant and accordingly are set aside.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V K Mohanan - Full Document

Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2012

The facts dealt with in Santhosh's case are distinguishable on facts. There, the accused was found transporting jaggery and kareenja patta in an autorickshaw when he was intercepted by the police. Jaggery can be used for other purposes; for preparing food items etc; karrenja patta also can be used for some other purpose. Those two properties were not seen in a mixed up condition. It was not actually 'wash' that was seized from the possession of the accused. It was in that context this court held that mere possession Crl.R.P. No: 196/2003 -5- of such materials, jaggery and kareenja patta by simpliciter will not be sufficient to sustain the charge under section 55(g) of Abkari Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N K Balakrishnan - Full Document

Chathukutty vs State Of Ekerala on 11 October, 2012

In Santhosh's Case cited supra, jaggery and other articles were carried in an Crl.A. No.481 of 2005 -: 5 :- autorickshaw separately. In the case on hand it can be seen that jaggery, water and other articles were in such a mixed up condition that the jaggery and other articles had already become dissolved in water and transformed into a solution that it itself underwent the process of fermentation and that was why the liquid contained 11.13% by volume of ethyl alcohol. Therefore, it was actually wash intended for manufacture of liquor.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N K Balakrishnan - Full Document

Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2011

2. That decision of the Division Bench relied by the learned Judge reversed the decision in Santhosh v. State of Kerala (2006 [3] KLT 439) where the view taken was that where out of the same incident a sessions case arose and it is pending in the Sessions Court and a case not exclusively tribale by the court of session is pending in court of learned Magistrate the Sessions Court could direct transfer of the case pending in the court of learned Magistrate. That view was found to be not correct in view of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Under section 323 when the Magistrate in any enquiry into an offence or trial of a case is of the view that case is one which ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate is to commit the case to the Sessions Court and thereon provisions of Chapter XVIII (trial of Sessions cases) of the Code would apply. Section 193 of the Code says that except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate. In the circumstances Sessions Court cannot take cognizance of the offence involved in C.C No.1240 of 2004 unless that case is Tr.P(Crl.) No.3 of 2011 -: 3 :- committed to the Sessions Court for trial under Sec.193 of the Code.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document
1   2 Next