Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sikkim Land Act, 2014
Section 3 in Sikkim Land Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Elizabeth P. George vs The State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2002
15. Elizabeth George supra is authority for the
proposition that a final report need not be filed to attract 2
Shiny A vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2009
4. There is dispute as to whether the detenu has
been detained as a depredator of environment or as a
rowdy involving himself in anti social activities. The
learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended
that inasmuch as the detenu is alleged to be a depredator of
environment cases (1) and (6) above are of no relevance
at all. If he is reckoned as a depredator of environment,
cases 2 to 5 alone have relevance and significance, argues
the counsel. On the contrary, if he is reckoned as a rowdy
under Section 2(t) of the KAAPA and consequently a goonda
WPCRL.452/2009 -4-
under Section 2(j) of the KAAPA, only cases 1 and 6 would
be relevant, it is argued. The learned counsel for the
petitioner relying on the decision in Shiny A. v. State of
Kerala, 2009(4)KHC 645 contends that by calling /naming
a rowdy answering the definition in Section 2(t) of the
KAAPA as a goonda under the latter inclusive part of the
definition of goonda in Section 2(j), prejudice cannot be
caused to the detenu.
Sathi Prasad vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 March, 1972
(o)(ii) and 2(p)(iii). We have doubted the said proposition
in two subsequent decisions, Sathi v. State fo Kerala
(2009(2)KLD 377) and Ranjini v. State of Kerala
(2009(3)KHC 431) and have referred the question to the
decision of a Full Bench. The Full Bench is yet to answer the
said reference. We must hence assume that Elizabeth
George is binding on us and covers the field now. The fact
that final report has not been filed in Case No.6 may not
hence be relevant.
1