Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Kumar & Others vs State Of Kerala And Others

Sugathan vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2012

But, this decision has not been considered as by the subsequent decisions rendered by this Court namely Sunil and Others v. State of Kerala and Another 2014 (1) KHC 469. So under the circumstances since there are conflicting views expressed by two benches of this Court and considering the important Crl.M.C. No. 3634 of 2012 5 question of law raised on the subject, this Court feels that it is necessary that the correct principle of law has to be resolved by a larger bench, since there are two contradictory decisions rendered by two Single Benches of the same Court on the same question of law involved. So the following question has to be considered for reference.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Sasindran vs Chairman on 15 October, 2020

On 31/12/2016 the Mayor, Corporation of Kannur convened a meeting of leaders of political parties of the Council, Circle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority and among other things, resolved to grant city permit to autorikshaws which were allotted parking in the Corporation limit by assigning KC number, which stands for Kannur Corporation, substituting KMC number, abbreviation of Kannur Municipal Corporation. It appears that the above change in the nomenclature became necessary after the Kannur Corporation was formed taking portions of the Kannur Municipality. It was also resolved that the above resolution shall be sent to the Regional Transport Officer for follow-up action. Thereafter, on 03/03/2017, the Regional Transport Officer, Kannur sent an intimation requesting the District Information Officer which suggests that, on the basis of the decision of the Corporation, facilitating the assignment of KC numbers, applications will be W.A.No.2655/2017 :4: invited from 08/03/2017 onwards. It was also stated that the applications should be accompanied by a testimonial from the Corporation Councilor as well. Aggrieved by the above, three registered trade unions, claiming to be representing the interests of autorikshaw employees, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the above said resolution and the communication dated 03/03/2017, branding it as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. They contended that Exts.P4 and P5 documents usurp into the powers of the Regional Transport Authority under Rule 133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. They also placed reliance on the decision reported in Sunil Kumar and others v. State of Kerala and others [2015 (3) KHC 230].
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ali P.P vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2008

Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.578 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor. He filed a complaint alleging that second respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalady Police Station committed offences under section 167 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the complaint is that on 3.6.2004 at about 6.55 p.m. second respondent intercepted the lorry loaded with sand owned by the petitioner and even though the driver of the vehicle showed the pass, he did not release the lorry and wrongfully confined the lorry and the driver to the police station till the driver was released at 1.30 p.m. and lorry was produced before the District Collector and petitioner filed writ petition 1755 of 2004 to get the vehicle released and second respondent committed the offences alleged. When learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, second respondent filed M.P.3331 of 2006 for an order of discharge contending that the act was done in performance of his official duty and in discharge of his official CRRP3406/08 2 duty and he is entitled to the protection under section 197 of Cr.P.C. and without sanction he cannot be prosecuted. Learned Magistrate on the materials dismissed the applicaiton stating that it is a matter to be decided after recording the evidence. Second respondent challenged the order before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. R.P.1 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence found that the act alleged was done in discharge of his official duty as Sub Inspector of police, Kalady and therefore sanction under section 197(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the decisions of this Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala (2007 (4) KLT 359) and Shoukkathali v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 634). Revision and M.P.3331 of 2006 were allowed and the proceedings were dropped as against second respondent. This revision petition is filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Nambiar - Full Document

Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2017

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the decision reported in Sunil & Others v. State of Kerala & Another (2014(1) KHC 469), that the Act Crl.M.C.5652/13 2 will apply only in case it is conducted in a common gaming place. Any place can be a common gaming place, if it is thrown open to or accessible to others. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that secret information was received and the second petitioner is an outsider. After investigation, final report has been laid and the matter is pending as S.T.No.3816 of 2013 as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. Essentially, these are questions of fact to be appreciated and established by the prosecution in evidence. Hence, I am not inclined to invoke section 482 Cr.P.C at this stage.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document
1