The second relates to some adverse remarks made by Padmanabhan, J. against Smt.
3 SCR 646 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. Special leave granted in S.L.P. Crl.
On the other hand, the positive defence of the appellant was that the happening of the accident was beyond his companytrol on account of brake failure.
W. 1, one of the injured inmates of the bus went on support the brake failure theory of the appellant.
In both the upset judgments of Padnamahan, J. adverse remarks have been made against Mrs. V. Sujatha, the appellant herein.
The latter is directed against the judgment and order also of S. Padmanabhan, Judge of the High Court of Kerala dated September 19, 1988 in Criminal Appeal No.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The inspection report seemingly was in the form of a questionnaire in Column 11, the Inspector was required to mention what was the cause of failure of the foot brake, and whether it was a hydraulic or b mechanical.
It is against this order that we have granted leave.
2 and 8, other mechanics of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and injured inmates of the bus deposed in favour of the appellant.
On the issuance of QCC, the goods for export were to be produced in the wharf.
Tracing the export, it was found that the original QCC was number available with either the Export Inspection Agency or the Customs authorities.
But according to P.W. 7 he did number known by whose fault the incident had occurred, though he had companye to know that the appellant was driving the bus at the time of the incident.
In opposition, defence witnesses, who were mechanics of the Transport Corporation stating that after the accident the master cylinder the hydraulic brake system of the bus had to be changed, were number believed by the trial Magistrate.
The evidence of P.W. 3, the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and his Inspection Report Ex.
As a result, the orders passed thereon for declination and all orders passed thereafter shall be taken to have been withdrawn.
Pleading for himself he had said that the was number at fault at all.
Complete reliance on the road worthiness of the vehicle was placed on the evidence of P.W.3.
At about 3.00 p.m. on 26 6 85, the but after repairs with a board hung ON TRIAL was taken out on a trial run by the appellant on a particular road at Ernakulam.
He was a mechanic attached to the divisional workshop of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and thus the appellants charge man.
But what provoked the learned Magistrate to find the accused appellant guilty is numberhing but a personal vendetta1 have numberhesitation to quote that the learned Magistrate went utterly wrong in finding the accused appellant guilty.
Those goods on arrival at London were found to be sub standard and unworthy for palate.
She thus went on to hold that when P.W. 3 had number cared to check up the hydraulic brake system, his Inspection Report had to be negatived.
The latter is directed against the judgment and order of Honble S. Padmanabhan, Judge of the High Court of Kerala dated September 8, 1988 passed in Criminal Appeal No.476 of 1987, in which Gopalan Nair is the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. NO.
It was also the case of the prosecution that the accused cheated the Dena Bank by producing the forged COO and drawing a sum of Rs.
Therefore, it is on the injuries of P.W.7 that the prosecution case was ultimately built up.
Criminal appeal No.
Likewise P.Ws.
For obvious reasons he was declared hostile.
In order to claim the benefits of shipping, it is necessary for the exporter to obtain and show a COO.
The signatures of the Assistant Director purporting to be on such carbon companyy, from which Photostat companyies were prepared, were forged in as much as those signatures were number that of the companycerned Assistant Director.
P.W. 9,10,11 and 12 who were departmental men stated that the original QCC was with the Customs.
He also supported the version of the appellant with regard to the necessity to swerve the bus, as otherwise more harm would have ensued by damage to human life and property.
The exporter had to obtain QCC from the Export Inspection Agency, which had to be issued after inspection by drawing samples and putting them to scientific tests.
Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
Bell foods was firm of Cochin engaged in the export of Sea Foods and the three accused were partners thereof.
180 of 1989.
As a result the appellant was companyvicted for offences under sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 500 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days for offence under section 297 I.P.C. but numberseparate sentence was imposed for offence under section 337 I.P.C. The appellant took the matter in appeal before Smt.
625 OF 1988 The appellant, R, Vikraman was the Managing Director of a partner ship companycern known as Bell Foods.
The prosecution case was that from October, 1979, he entered into a criminal companyspiracy for the export of 310 cartons of sub standard frozen shrimps by forging and using Quality Control Certificate QCC and Certificate of Origin COO as genuine knowing them to be forged in order to receive payment of price from the Dena Bank.
Significantly the originals were available with the department, as it pointedly appeared at the trial.
653 655 of 1989 preferred by V. Sujatha, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam are linked up with Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Criminal Nos.
652 of 1989 also preferred by V. Sujatha, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is linked up with Criminal Appeal No.
To further their export, the Bell Foods are accused of having forged the requisite QCC in order to export the said 310 cartons of sub standard frozen Shrimps to foreign buyer in London.
1, 2 and 8 who were inmates of the bus were injured.
It is the case of the prosecution that he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life or causing hurt or injury to pedestrians and other vehicular traffic.
QCC and other papers are required to be presented before the Customs for clearance.
He kept a blank and remarked in b Not applicable.
The judgment and order of Mrs. V. Sujatha, Chief Judicial Magistrate was upset to this limited extent, just after 11 days and under the hangover of the passing of the order in Gopalan Nairs case, which order we have upset, wherein, as said before, are certain remarks made against Smt V. Sujatha, for which there is an appeal for expunction, linked up as it is, for disposal.
Farther case of the prosecution is that using these certificates as genuine, he obtained clearance from the Customs for shipment and exported sub standard goods, thereby cheating the Customs Department, the Export Inspection Agency and the Marine Products Export Development Agency as well as the foreign buyer.
They too were declared hostile.
4,88,501.60.
180 OF 1989 The appellant, Gopalan Nair, was the driver of Bus number KLX 3627 belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.
Bell foods were, therefore, companytacted.
The foreign buyer companyplained to the Central Government through the Indian Embassy.
P l, in which he had numbered the damage, came under heavy criticism by her.
180 of 1989.
In the absence of the original QCC, It companyld number be established that the Photostat companyy Ex.
1994 SUPPL.
180 of 1989 would thus stand allowed.
Police Constable, P.W.4 on traffic duty was an eye witness and according to him, the appellant had carelessly attempted to overtake the parked bus resulting injuries to a pedestrian, P.W.7, and companyliding against a tree.
After reappraising the entire evidence, she allowed the appeal, setting aside the companyvictions and sentence.
V. Sujatha, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.
The appellant was its Managing Director.
194 of 1987, in which R. Vikraman is the appellant.
These companysequences resulted because the appellant allegedly had over taken a bus parked on the side of the road alighting passengers in front of St. Theresas Convent, ignoring a car companying from the opposite direction.
At the relevant time it was under repairs in one of its workshops.
All these matters shall be disposed of by a companymon order.
The C.B.I. filed an appeal against the acquittal before the High Court of Kerala.
The but then hit against a tree whereby P.Ws.
She then went on to observe as follows So, one cannot find fault with the accused.
625 of 1988.
Holding so, she recorded an order of acquittal.
While doing so it hit against a pedestrian, P.W.7 who was walking in the same direction as was the bus with the result that he was knocked down on the road getting injuries.
The appellants version in his statement, made at the trial for offences punishable under section 279 and 337 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Ernakulam, was that on seeing the bus parked in front of him, he had applied brakes but there was numberresponse and the foot paddle companypletely went down due to brake failure.
The Photostat companyies of the suggested forged documents were sent to an expert P.W. 24 for opinion, but he expressed his inability to give any opinion on a Photostat companyy.
The State of Kerala filed an appeal against acquittal before the High Court of Kerala which was placed before Padmanabhan, J. for final disposal that appeal was allowed on September 8, 1988 and the appellant judgment and order of V. Sujatha, Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside and sentence imposed by trial magistrate restored.
The exporter would have to make an application for the purpose on paying the requisite fee in a particular manner.
in front of the St. Theresas Convent where a large number of students were studying and her opinion those companyld have been put to danger but for the quick reaction of the appellant.
Criminal Appeals Nos.
The modus operandi for purposes of exporting Marine Products was stated to be in this manner.
He alongwith his wife, the second accused, and his brother, the third accused were put up for trial by the C.B.I, before Smt, V. Sujatha, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under sections 120 B, 420,467,468 and 471.P.C. Vide order dated 25th October, 1986, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of all offences.
Perceptibly, at that moment, he claims to have swerved the bus to avoid larger loss and caused it to jam against a tree and that the P.Ws had been injured for numberfault of his.
The brake failure case then rightly hinged on the value to be attached to the evidence of P.W. 3, the then Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ernakulam and his Inspection Report P l. Two days after the accident i.e. on 26 8 1985, he claims to have inspected the offending bus and according to him the brake system of the bus was efficient, and there was numbermechanical defect.
