Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378 to 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396Nominal IndexAmal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379Sakeer v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 380The Federal Bank Ltd. V Federal Bank Officer's Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 381Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases,...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378 to 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
Nominal Index
Amal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
Sakeer v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Federal Bank Ltd. V Federal Bank Officer's Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Smitha v Anil Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
P. Ummer Koya v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
State of Kerala v Ajayakumar V., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Jayasree v Indrapalan and Another, 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 388
Rajesh K. The District Geologist and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
:JTPAC v Maradu Municipality, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
Reghunadan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
Murali @Muralidharan V State Of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
P.B.Sourbhan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
Hena Khatoon and Another v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
Shalet v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Amal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for possession of over 100 gms contraband, noting that the Investigating Officer had mixed the content found in three separate packets.
Justice C. S. Dias cited Section 52A of the Act which requires the Investigating Officer to draw separate samples from "each of the packets", that too in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate and then, send the representative samples from each packet for chemical analysis.
The bench said that an infraction of the statutory provision by the Investigating Officer had prejudiced the accused and therefore, the rigour on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted.
Case Title: Kishore Kumar J V Additional Chief Secretary & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that there is no fair process of enquiry if unexplained delay has occurred in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee, since it causes him significant prejudice.
The Court further stated that the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, which should be ensured not only in criminal cases but also in all cases where procedures are required to indict an individual.
In the facts of the case, a charge memo was filed against an officer in 2022, alleging dereliction of duty in the investigation of a crime he had investigated in 2001, during which he wrongfully arrested innocent persons.
Case Title: Sakeer v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court has held that in exceptional cases, the High Court by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can even quash even criminal proceedings alleging the commission of an offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen quashed the proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Special Court for the Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence Against Women and Children (POCSO).
In the present case, the Court found that there were financial dealings between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. It also observed that a case was filed against the de facto complainant by the wife of the accused. The Court thus stated that criminal proceedings could be quashed when prosecution materials do not attract the offence alleged to be committed.
No Fundamental Right To Protest Anywhere The Agitator Pleases: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Federal Bank Ltd. V Federal Bank Officer's Association
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Bank filed a suit before the Munisff for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining it's employee union, its members and supporters from obstructing the bank officials and customers from dealing with the bank.
The Single bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held that the right under Article 19 is not absolute and it must be exercised in a way as not to interfere with the right of the employer to carry on their lawful business. Court said freedom of speech and expression cannot interfere with the right of someone else to enjoy property or carry on business.
Case Title: Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court has held that the guardian of a minor or owner of a vehicle driven by a minor can be prosecuted for offence under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even in the absence of finding of guilt of the minor.
The provision prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years.
Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said though commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is an essential ingredient of Section 199A, however, a finding regarding the commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is not a sine qua non for initiating proceedings against the guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under the said section.
Case Title: S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
The Kerala High Court recently observed that families can often become sites of violence and control for LGBTIQA+ individuals who they need protection from rather than guardianship.
The Court observed that LGBTIQA+ persons face defiance in society and are subjected to stigma, violence and discrimination from an early age due to societal beliefs and cultural norms.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj made the observation while dealing with the plea filed by parents of a 23-year-old woman stating that their daughter was illegally detained and living in a 'toxic' relationship with a person of the same gender.
Case Title: Smitha v Anil Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court has held that under Section 120 of the Evidence Act, a husband is permitted to testify in lieu of his wife and vice versa even without a written authority or power of attorney.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that the Trial Court had wrongly rejected the request for examining the plaintiff's husband for and on her behalf in the trial of a suit.
Case Title: P. Ummer Koya v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court has held that merely because a person had moved to Pakistan in search of a job does not make him an enemy under Rules 130 and 138 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 unless he was trading with an enemy.
Court thus quashed the proceedings initiated under the Enemy Property Act, against a property formerly held by the petitioner's father, who had worked at a hotel in Pakistan.
Case Title: Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court today held that while considering allegations of terrorism and related offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Courts should not get carried away by confirmation bias that might creep in based on ideological biases and false narratives prevalent in the society.
The Court was considering the criminal appeals moved by 26 persons belonging to Popular Front Of India (PFI) who were accused of allegedly murdering RSS Leader Srinivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Ajayakumar V
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court has stated that Home Guards are appointed on a daily wage basis and their recruitment and selection process differed from that of a Civil Police Officer. The Court further observed that Apex Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2015) had not declared that Home Guards shall be treated at par with Civil Police Officers.
In this case, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in granting parity in pay to Home Guards with that of Police Constable, the State Government has approached the High Court with an appeal.
Case Title: Jayasree v Indrapalan and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw(Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment observed that a former wife, though divorced cannot be evicted from a shared household except through a procedure laid down by law.
The Court observed that even though a divorced woman had no right over the shared household, if she was staying there during or after divorce, she could be evicted only through a procedure established by law.
Case Title: Rajesh K. The District Geologist and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court declared that a person need not seek permission while extracting minerals on his property when the mineral is not transported outside the premises of the property. The Court said that he only needs to inform the concerned authorities and pay them a royalty fee for using the granite for construction.
Case Title: JTPAC v Maradu Municipality
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
The Kerala High Court directed the Municipality under whose jurisdiction a music concert was held to refund the entertainment tax levied on unsold tickets.
Justice Gopinath P. stated that entertainment tax could only be charged under Section 3 of the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act, 1961 towards sold tickets and not on unsold tickets.
Case Title: Reghunadan v State of Kerala
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal as abated after the death of a man convicted for the murder of his wife.
Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. said that the man's children would not be interested in coming on record to continue the appeal since in a sense, they are also victims of the alleged crime.
Case Title: Murali @ Muralidharan V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court has held that a complaint filed before a lawful authority would not amount to instigation or abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, since filing such a complaint is not intended to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Case Title: P.B.Sourbhan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High Court held that a property register maintained in a public office is not confidential or a record of proceedings to be protected from disclosure as per Rule 225 of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982.
The petitioner has approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of his application for obtaining a certified copy of a property register in relation to a property produced in a criminal trial in the Court. His application was dismissed stating that it is a register kept in the office of the court and is a confidential non-judicial record as per Rule 225.
Case Title: Hena Khatoon and Another v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court observed that a petition filed at a later point seeking a re-examination of a witness, an examination of a new witness or a summons of new documents can be allowed only to meet the ends of justice. It should not be used to fill the lacuna of evidence, to give advantage to one party or as a disguise for a re-trial, the court said.
Case Title: Shalet v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Police Chief to issue suitable instructions to ensure that citizens are not illegally arrested and detained based on the wrong identity.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner was wrongly detained and arrested by the police in a case of mistaken identity.
Justice Gopinath P. ordered that the identity of persons should be clearly established before police officials arrest or detain citizens to prevent any illegal invasion into the life and liberty of innocent citizens.
Credit Available On Advance Tax Paid For Stock-Transferred: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner will be entitled to credit for the entire amount paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 for the goods in question, which were stock-transferred to its branch office in Pollachi.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that a combined reading of the provisions of Circular No. 50/2006 and the definition of input tax in Section 2(xxiii) of the KVAT Act indicates that the tax paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 cannot assume the character of input tax.
Other Developments This Week
Case Title: Siby Mathews v K K Joshwa and Others
Case Number: WA 841/2024
The Kerala High Court has stayed the prima facie observations made by its single bench against former DGP Siby Mathews for commission of an offence under Section 228A IPC by allegedly revealing the identity of the Sooryanelli rape victim in his autobiographical novel 'Nirbhayam'.
The book was published back in 2017. Pursuant to the single judge's order, an FIR was registered.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun said if the observation is not stayed, "there would be no alternative for the investigating agency to proceed further, in accordance with law, in connection with the FIR registered in this case."
Case Title: Rahul P. Gopal v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.M.C. 5187/2024
The Kerala Police has opposed the quashing petition filed by Rahul P Gopal, accused in the infamous Pantheerankavu domestic violence case, stating that his wife was seriously injured when she came to the police station and the alleged compromise between the parties must be an outcome of pressure and threats.
Rahul allegedly attempted to strangle his wife using cable wire, after she failed to fulfil his dowry demands. The 29-year-old and his family are booked under Sections 324, 498A, 307 and 212 of IPC. His wife however uploaded a YouTube video stating that the allegations against her husband are false.
Case Title: Y. Sleebachan v State of Kerala and Another
Case Number: Coml. A. 6/ 2024
The Kerala High Court in a recent order held that appeals will lie in the Commercial Appellate Division of High Court when the order is passed by Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge or by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon said, if the order is passed by a Commercial Court below the level of a District Court, it has to be challenged before the Commercial Appellate Court. Any Act passed by the State Government fixing pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Courts would not be tenable.
Case Title: Rudranath A S v State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC No. 23297/ 2024
A 22-year-old, 40 per cent physically disabled citizen has moved the Kerala High Court stating that he has been denied the opportunity to take part in the driving license test.
It is stated that the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 And 21 have been denied by violating his right to equal opportunity. He stated that his right to reputation and right to livelihood is threatened due to the denial of right to participate in the driving license test.
Case Title: Adithya Kiron v Station House Officer and Others
Case Number: WP (Crl.) No 704/ 2024
A Habeas Corpus petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court alleging that a trans woman is being forced to undergo conversion therapy in Amrita Hospital, Kochi.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice Easwaran S. ordered to produce Elida Rubielle before the Court on Monday. The Court also directed that no surgeries should be performed on her in the meanwhile.
Case Title: Adv Sunil Kumar A G v State of Kerala & Ors
Case Number: WPC 22966/2024
A lawyer has moved the Kerala High Court against the dumping of garbage and plastic waste in forest areas, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, Tiger reserves in the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in combating plastic pollution into ecologically sensitive and forest areas to prevent environmental pollution.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun issued notice to the respondents. The Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the State Government, State Police Chief, Department Of Forest, Ministry of Environment and Kerala Forest Development Corporation. The Standing Counsel of the Pollution Control Board took notice for the State Pollution Control Board.
Case Title: Baburaj Thottukara v State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: WP(C) 23171/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 to the extent to which it excludes voters from filing petitions before the State Election Commission for disqualification of an elected member on the grounds of defection.
Kerala High Court Appoints New Special Commissioner For Sabarimala
Case Name: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: DBP No: 44/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has appointed Sri. Jayakrishnan R., who is currently the Special Judge for the Trial of Scheduled Caste/ Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Case, Kottarakara as the new Special Commissioner to Sabarimala. This post would be in addition to his duties as the Special Judge.
Case Title: M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited V Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: WPC 15757/2024
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted before the Kerala High Court that officials of Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL), a public limited company committed cognizable offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and cheated the general public by misappropriating large amounts of public money. It was stated that the proceedings based on the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the ED against the officials of CMRL cannot be quashed since the inquiry is only at a premature stage.