KESAVAN MOOSAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-1963-2-4
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on February 27,1963

KESAVAN MOOSAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TEEKA AND KABOOL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The Revision Petitioner and another were convicted under S.447, 379 and 506(2), I. P. C. by the Kozhikode District Magistrate. In appeal he was acquitted of all the offences he was charged with, but was convicted under an entirely different section S. 424. I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The petitioner challenges that conviction and sentence by means of this revision petition.
(2.)The prosecution case is that on 7-5-1961 at 7 A. M. both the accused trespassed into the Neelangadi and other nilams belonging to and in the possession of one Ammalukutty Amma examined as Pw. 1 in the case and committed theft of coconuts worth Rs. 25/-. When Pw. 1 objected, she was intimidated and threatened with death by show of a pen knife by the accused.
(3.)This criminal case is the offspring of some civil disputes which arose soon after the death of one Narayanan Moosad. By Ext. P 1 will Pw. 1 who is the sister inlaw of Narayanan Moosad and her children claim to have inherited Moossad's property. By a subsequent unregistered will Ext. D 2 Moossad's brother [appellant], brother's son and Moossad's second wife set up a rival claim. The matter soon reached the civil court. The petitioner's party filed O. S. 535 of 1960 in the Kozhikode Munsiff's Court to declare their title and possession and for a permanent injunction to restrain Pw. 1 and her children from entering the properties. The plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction which was refused on 21-9-1960 on the ground that they have not proved prima facie title or possession. They have preferred an appeal which is pending in the District Court. The next move of the plaintiffs was an application to get a receiver appointed which was allowed on 27-1-1961 on the ground that both parties have not proved the possession set up by them and there is a scramble for possession between them. Pw. 1 preferred an appeal and the District Judge passed an interim order staying the implementation of the order appointing the receiver. It is in this background that this criminal case arose.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.