Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.39 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Kerala Police Act, 2011
Section 142 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Veeramani Chettiar vs Davis on 6 April, 2001
30. It is the case of the plaintiffs that
A.S.Nos.541 & 550 of 1998 :30:
Neelakantan was a harmless elephant reared and loved
by Hindus in that locality and there was no
circumstance warranting interference of police. We
are unable to countenance the said arguments, in view
of the judicial precedents on this point. It is to be
remembered that this Court in Veeramani Chettiyar v.
Davis and others [2012 (4) KLJ 375], relying on various
judicial precedents, held that elephant is a dangerous
wild animal (ferae nature). In our view, since the
elephants are dangerous wild animals, it made no
difference that a particular elephant is highly trained
or harmless and the harmfulness of an offending
animal has to be adjudged not by the particular
training or habit, but by reference to general habit of
the species to which it belonged.
Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960
The State Of Rajasthan vs Mst. Vidhyawati And Another on 2 February, 1962
In support of the
argument, the learned counsel for the appellant cited
State of Rajasthan v. Mst.
The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
N.Nagendra Rao & Co vs State Of A.P on 6 September, 1994
So the said
case will come under the distinction made by the Apex
Court in Nagendra Rao's case (supra). But, in the
instant case, there is no case of the breach of
fundamental right. Here the allegation is that the
decision taken by the respondent was an error in
judgment resulted in monetary loss only. The
respondents have no case that the appellants have
acted negligently or without power or authority
delegated to him by the sovereign. The only allegation
is that the decision taken by the appellant was not
proper in the given situation.