Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Revision Petitioner In ... vs The State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2011

Mohammed Shafi Maricar vs State By on 7 September, 2021

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment in Crl.MC.No.5941 of 2015 [Faisal Vs. State of Kerala] passed by the Kerala High Court, wherein, the allegation against the petitioner was that a juvenile aged 16 years was found employed in a petrol pump ran by the petitioner therein. In the said case, the Kerala High Court has held as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Mohd Aftab vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 10 December, 2021

8. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any compensation after compounding the offence. This Court also does not find any weight in the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner [P. Ramdas v. State of Kerala (supra)] as that case pertains solely to waiver of the sentence related to imprisonment and does not interfere in the finding of conviction of the Appellant therein. Furthermore, the directions rendered in the same regarding compensation that was deposited before the Ld. Trial Court being transferred to the Appellant therein in lieu of suspension of sentence form the obiter dicta of that judgement. Those directions, passed in the facts of that case, cannot be said to be the law of the land that are to be followed in every case, and therefore, are not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds it unfortunate that precious judicial time is wasted in adjudication of such petitions that are meant to wholly subserve the avarice of a few individuals.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Abdul Sathar vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2024

8. Two more decisions of this Court, viz., [2003 KHC 943 : 2003(4) SCC 46 : AIR 2003 SC 1639 : JT 2003 (2) SC 243 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 775 : 2003 CriLJ 1539], Uday v. State of Karnataka; [2018 (3) KHC 263 : 2018 (2) KLD 40 : 2018 (3) KLT SN 16 : 2018 (3) KLJ 663], Jinu Thomos v. State of Kerala & Ors. and the order dated 03.11.2022 in Crl.M.C.No.7450 of 2022 [XXX v. State of Kerala & anr.] were also placed in this regard.
Kerala High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mathew George vs State Of Kerala on 19 October, 2015

The same view has been taken by this Court in another case of similar nature in Crl.M.C.No.779/2015 4 Crl.M.C.No.2235 of 2016 [Ajay Kumar v. State of Kerala] dated 08.04.2015 and directed the Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate orders on that question. In the order, it is mentioned that he has not produced any valid document to substantiate that he is the owner of the vehicle. He claims that the vehicle has been obtained by him on the basis of a sale agreement. However, it is seen from the order that no such document has been produced before that court.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

Sri.G.Saseendran Nair vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2017

Crl.R.P.No.831 Of 2017 Ernakulam v. State of Kerala, reported in 2015 (4) KHC 897 = 2015 (4) KLT 251. It has been clearly held therein that if warrant is issued after service of summons or after the appearance of the accused, the complainant may not be mulcted with the obligation to pay any process fee and that in such a case dismissal of complaint under Sec.204(4) of the Cr.P.C on the ground that the complainant had not paid the process fee for serving non bailable warrant to the accused cannot be a justifiable ground for dismissal of the complaint. It will be profitable to refer to paras 15 & 16 of the above said decision, which read as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

Hamza M.K vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his client was falsely implicated in the subsequent crime with the objective of getting his bail cancelled. It is pointed out that the petitioner was granted bail in the second crime as per Annexure A3 order, and the application for cancellation of bail in the first crime was filed thereafter. Referring to Annexure 3, it is submitted that the Prosecutor did not raise serious objection in granting bail to the petitioner in the second crime. It is contended that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a casual manner, as has been done by Annexure 4 order. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Godson and Another 2025:KER:57739 CRL.MC NO. 4698 OF 2025 4 v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 672] to point out that mere violation of bail condition cannot result in automatic cancellation, and for that, the court should be convinced about the intervening circumstances which require denial of the liberty already granted.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Sanis Mk vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2025

3. The petitioner contends that he was not served with a preliminary order under Section 126 of the BNSS. Even in Annexure-I order the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not set forth the substance of the information, which is mandatory under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the BNSS, and the law laid down by this Court in Moidu 2025:KER:82343 CRL.MC NO. 8542 OF 2025 4 vs. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139). Therefore, Annexure- A1 order may be quashed.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

Abdul Salam Va vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2025

3. The petitioner contends that he was not served with a preliminary order under Section 126 of the BNSS. Even in Annexure-I order the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not set forth the substance of the information, which is mandatory under Section 126 read with Section 130 of the BNSS, and the law laid down by this Court in Moidu 2025:KER:82344 CRL.MC NO. 8543 OF 2025 4 vs. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139). Therefore, Annexure- A1 order may be quashed.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document
1