Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)R.Haridas vs The State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2010
10. Again, the issue came up for consideration
before this Court in the decision reported in Haridas v. State
of Kerala (2015 (1) K.L.T. 958), wherein it was held as follows:
Saji @ Kochumon vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010
identical situation as in the case on hand was considered in
the said decision also. There also the final report was laid by
an incompetent officer. The question is whether that by itself
is sufficient to vitiate the proceedings and the trial. Therein
this Court held as follows:
Varkey Joseph vs State Of Kerala, Represented Bythe ... on 27 April, 1993
7. The Division Bench of this court in Varkey v. State of
Kerala (1993 (1) KLT 72) following the earlier Division Bench
Crl.A.35/2006.
Prabhakaran vs Excise Circle Inspector on 4 September, 1992
decision in Prabhakaran v. Excise Circle Inspector (1992 (2)
KLT 860) held that when the Excise Inspector who filed the
complaint has no authority to file the complaint, court has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance or frame charge or try the
accused and "the trial which followed the said charge must be
treated as non est, because it was done without jurisdiction.
Subash M. Varghese vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 6 April, 2011
A later
Division Bench in Subash v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT
1047) held that when the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the case on a report filed by a person
other than an Abkari Officer as defined under S.50 of the
Abkari Act, there is total lack of jurisdiction for taking
cognizance of an offence if cognizance is taken on a final
report not submitted by an Abkari Officer and it is not an
irregularity covered by Chapter XXXV of Code of Criminal
Procedure but a total illegality and therefore, the cognizance
taken, trial conducted and the conviction and sentence are all
illegal.
Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010
It is followed by a learned Single Judge in
Subrahmaniyan v. State of Kerala (2010 (2) KLT 470). In view
of the legal position, it can only be found that cognizance
taken on the final report submitted by PW7 the Sub Inspector
of Police, Veeyapuram who has no authority to file a final
report in the case and the cognizance taken, charge framed
and the trial and consequent conviction and sentence
awarded against the petitioner are illegal and non est. Hence
it can only be set aside."
U.Narayanankutty vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2011
11. If any further authority is required in the
matter, it is furnished by the decision in Narayanankutty v.
State of Kerala (2015(2) K.L.T. SN 18), wherein it was held as
follows: