Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Bavajee Fakkir Muhammed And Anr. vs The State Of Kerala And Anr. on 14 September, 1966

Christy Adima vs Union Of India on 30 January, 2020

3. Thereafter, the petitioner may move an appropriate criminal miscellaneous petition in the Calender Case CC NO. 232/2018 before the JFMC Njarakkal, seeking permission to travel abroad and for other consequential prayers, whereupon the said learned Magistrate will consider the said plea and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the learned Prosecutor, will pass appropriate orders thereon, in the light of legal principles well settled by this Court in a series of cases as in Muhammed Vs. State of Kerala & Another [2012 (4) KHC 553] Mohammed Rafeek vs Union of India 2011 (3) KLT 117, Midhun Vs. State of Kerala & Another 2019 (5) KHC 177 etc. At that point of time, the petitioner may produce a certified copy of this judgment along with the afore stated reported judgments of this Court and any other applicable case laws, while he submits the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the learned Magistrate for due consideration.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

K. Choyi, Income-Tax Officer, ... vs Syed Abdulla Bafakki Thangal And Anr. on 11 July, 1972

13. Bavajee Fakkir Mohammed v. State of Kerala : In that case a person was arrested by the police when he was carrying a sum of Rs. 25,000 and was found in suspicious circumstances. He was, with the amount, produced in court. Later on the police recovered another sum of Rs. 11,000 as a result of the investigation conducted on the information received from that person. The second person also was arrested and produced before court with the money seized. Ultimately, the police filed a statement before court to the effect that no crime cognizable by the police could be detected and that the accused were suspected to be members of an international gang acting in violation of the foreign exchange laws. When the police filed this statement, the persons, from whom the amount was seized, filed a petition for the return of the amount to them ; but in the meanwhile the Enforcement Officer intervened and claimed that the documents may be made over to him for purpose of investigation. The learned Sub-Magistrate passed an order directing the documents and the currency notes to be made over to the Enforcement Officer. It was against this order of the learned Magistrate that the revision petition was filed in the High Court. While disposing of the criminal revision petition, Madhavan Nair J. held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Krishnan Sukumaran vs Enforcement Officer, Cochin on 14 November, 1967

11. The very question, which has been raised in this case, arose for decision in Bavajee v. State of Kerala, 1966 Ker LT 97? = (AIR 1967 Ker 282). In this case, the police seized from the petitioners currency notes of the value of RS. 36,000 and produced the same before the Magistrate. After investigation, the police reported that the case involved contravention of the Act, and not any offence which it could take cognisance of. The petitioners moved the Magistrate for return of the currency notes. The respondent intervened, and moved for the delivery of the currency notes to him stating that they were required as evidence of contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Magistrate ordered the delivery of the currency notes to the respondent. In revision before this Court, it was contended among other things, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code to order the delivery of the currency notes to the respondent. This contention was rejected by Madhavan Nair, J. slating : --
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Krishnan Sukumaran vs Enforcement Officer on 14 November, 1967

11. The very question, which has been raised in this case, arose for decision in Bavajee v. State of Kerala 1966 Ker LT 977 : AlR 1967 Ker 282. In this case, the police seized from the petitioners currency notes of the value of Rs. 36,000 and produced the same before the Magistrate. After investigation, the police reported that the case involved contravention of the Act, and not any offence which it could take cognisance of. The petitioners moved the Magistrate for return of the currency notes. The respondent intervened, and moved for the delivery of the currency notes to him stating that they were required as evidence of contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Magistrate ordered the delivery of the currency notes to the respondent. In revision before this Court, it was contended among other things, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code to order the delivery of the currency notes to the respondent. This contention was rejected by Madhavan Nair, J. stating:
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohammad Kunhi And V. Mohanlal vs S. Mohammad Koya And Ors. on 13 October, 1972

In fact, it has been held by different High Courts in India that if a property which an Officer is entitled under the law to seize is in custody of a Court, what the Officer has to do is to move the Court for handing over possession of the property for any lawful purpose, and it is the duty of the Court to hand it over to the Officer if it does not require it for some lawful purpose--vide Bavajee Fakkir Mohammed v. State (1966) K.L.T. 967 : (1966) K.L.J. 1071 : AIR. 1967 Ker.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohamad Shafi vs Regional Passport Officer on 27 March, 2017

I have also come across the judgment of this Court in 'Muhammed v. State of Kerala & another' [2013 (1) KLJ 185], wherein also the same notification was taken into account in the context of challenge made against the dismissal of application filed seeking permission to go abroad. Therefore, on a reading of the judgments rendered by this Court above, the concerned judgments were basically rendered on peculiar facts involved in the said cases. Here, in this case, petitioner has not produced any document before this Court to establish that he has secured any employment abroad for a specified period to have a passport with a long duration. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has not specified any period to travel abroad, or issued any order restricting issuance of the passport for a specified period, and in that circumstances, as discussed above, clause (a)(ii) will come into play, whereby the respondent is statutorily restricted to issue a passport only for a period of one year.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - S P Chaly - Full Document

Raju Kattakayam vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2025

In Muhammed v. State of Kerala and Another (2012 (4) KHC 553: 2012 (4) KLT 655: ILR 2012 (4) Ker. 835: 2013 (1) KLJ 185) it was held that the gravity of the offence alleged cannot be the sole basis to decline permission to go abroad for a short period and the OP(CRL.) NO. 324 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:40962 Magistrate can allow the application to travel abroad by imposing adequate safeguards for securing the presence of accused for trial.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next