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

2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7059

BENNY ABRAHAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM), SRI.PRASANTH M.P2) T.M.JOSEPH

ORDER

Petitioners are accused Nos.5 and 7 in C.C. No.634 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothamangalam. They are alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Sections 17 and 18A of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1998 and Section 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on certain facts. But it is seen that under Section 9 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, Chief Judicial Magistrate has exclusive jurisdiction to try the case. So the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothamangalam had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. The order taking cognizane is liable to be quashed.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of as follows. The order taking cognizance is quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to return the final report with instructions to file it before the competent court. The competent court may decide whether the facts of the case are sufficient to take cognizance of the offences.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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