SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ker) 359

A.HARIPRASAD
Shymesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Rajeev, K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Justin Jacob, Public Prosecutor.

Judgment :

1. Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.143/CR/OCW-III/PKD of CBCID, has approached this Court with the following prayer :

"In the above circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.143/CR/OCW-III/PKD of CBCID Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram as it is an abuse of process of court."

2. Facts in brief, are as follows:

Petitioner is an Indian citizen, now working in a bank in Dubai. He is implicated as accused in the above crime alleging an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967( in short 'the Act'). Prosecution case is that the petitioner willfully changed his name and educational qualification in the application for passport with a view to obtain a passport with fictitious identity. Prosecution contended that the petitioner having actual name as 'Shyamesh', wrongly stated his name as 'Shymesh' and obtained a passport. Further, he had passed S.S.L.C at the time of making the application. But he suppressed that fact and had shown his educational qualification as 8th standard. Prosecution contended therefore that these
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None identified. The provided case law excerpt does not contain any language indicating that the case has been overruled, reversed, criticized, or otherwise treated as bad law. It appears to be a procedural or argumentative excerpt without reference to subsequent judicial treatment.

Followed / Affirmed:

No explicit indication from the excerpt that this case has been followed or affirmed by later courts.

Distinguished / Cited:

The excerpt does not mention any subsequent case that distinguishes or cites this case, so no categorization can be made here.

Criticized / Questioned:

There is no language suggesting that this case has been criticized or questioned in later decisions.

Reversed / Overruled / Abrogated:

The excerpt does not contain any language indicating that this case has been reversed, overruled, or abrogated.

Therefore, based solely on the provided information, the case appears to have no explicit judicial treatment pattern or subsequent treatment noted.

The treatment of this case is unclear because the excerpt provided is limited and does not include references to subsequent judicial treatment or citations that would indicate how it has been viewed later. Without additional context or case law references, it is not possible to determine whether it has been overruled, followed, or criticized.

**Source :** Mohammed Hussain Pangadan VS State of Kerala - Kerala Oseela Abdul Khader VS State of Kerala - Kerala

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top