Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Parameswaran vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2002
In so far as Parameswaran v. State of Kerala (1989
(1) KLT 35) which was followed in Vijayan v. Excise
Commissioner (2002 (3) KLT 646) this court has held that
the judicial proceedings can commence only when a Magistrate
take cognizance of the offence either on a complaint or a report
WPC.No.8533 /2010
:7 :
of the Police Officer. None of these judgments persuade me to
take the view that as at present the petiitoner is eligible for the
benefit of Rule 5(1)(a) or Rule 5(3)(i) of the Rules. Therefore
these judgments do not have any impact on the facts of this
case.
Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 211 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I La;Amo vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998
2. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, contended that
neither under Rule 5(1)(a) nor under Rule 5(3)(i) of the Abkari
Shops Disposal Rules 2002 can a person be excluded from
allotment of Toddy Shops for the reason that he is an accused in
a case involving offences under the Abkari Act, unless charge is
framed by the Trial Court. Apart from Exts.P4 and P5, learned
Senior Counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in
Suresh Budharmal Kalani Alias Pappukalani v. State of
Maharashtra (1998 (7) SCC 337), State of Orissa v.
Habibullah Khan (2003 (12) SCC 129) and of this Court in
Parameswaran v. State of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 35) and
Vijayan v. Excise Commisioner (2002 (3) KLT 646) in
support of this contention.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Yesudas vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 17 December, 2007
6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the issue
raised, I feel that the principle laid down in the aforesaid
judgment should apply in all respects to the case in hand and this
judgment is a complete answer to the contention that in the
absence of the court framing charge against the accused
prosecution cannot be said to be pending. In this case,
admittedly case has been registered and charge also has been
laid against the petitioner. In such a case, I am not prepared to
accept the contention that for the reason that charge has not
WPC.No.8533 /2010
:6 :
been framed by the court concerned, no prosecution is pending
against the petitioner and therefore the accused should be
eligible for the benefit of Rule 5(3)(i). If that be the case, the
petitioner suffers the ineligibility provided under Rule 5(3)(i) as
well.
Vijayan vs Excise Commissioner on 3 September, 2002
In so far as Parameswaran v. State of Kerala (1989
(1) KLT 35) which was followed in Vijayan v. Excise
Commissioner (2002 (3) KLT 646) this court has held that
the judicial proceedings can commence only when a Magistrate
take cognizance of the offence either on a complaint or a report
WPC.No.8533 /2010
:7 :
of the Police Officer. None of these judgments persuade me to
take the view that as at present the petiitoner is eligible for the
benefit of Rule 5(1)(a) or Rule 5(3)(i) of the Rules. Therefore
these judgments do not have any impact on the facts of this
case.
1