Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290-302]Kripesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290 Naisam V. The Station House Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291XXX V. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 292M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 293Rajam Babu V Babu K.K,2023 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290-302]
Kripesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
Naisam V. The Station House Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
XXX V. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
Rajam Babu V Babu K.K,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
Suo Motu v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
K.R. Muhammed Nazer v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
Joshy Pereppadan V. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies (General), 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
Shyju G.J. v. State of Kerala and Visakh A. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Pulikkippoyil Sharafudheen & Anr. v. Superintendent of Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
K R Jayaprakash V. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
Vijaya K Vs. Muraleedharan K G 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Kripesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a married man, who was alleged to have committed rape on a married woman.
Justice K. Babu observed that in the present case, the prosecutrix (2nd respondent herein) was a married woman with children, and aware that the petitioner accused was also married. The Court noted that despite the same, she maintained sexual relations with the petitioner on many occasions.
"It is difficult to conclude that the prosecutrix had not given consent for the sexual relationship with the petitioner under any misconception of facts so as to hold that the petitioner is guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC," the Court thus noted.
Case Title: Naisam V. The Station House Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Kerala High Court refused to transfer the trial in the Ranjith Sreenivasan Murder case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in Mavelikkara in a petition filed by persons accused in the case.
The transfer petition was filed by 15 persons who are accused of murdering BJP leader and advocate Ranjith Sreenivasan on account of political rivalry. The accused are said to be the workers of the Socialist Democratic Party of India/Popular Front of India (SDPI/PFI).
The case of the accused person was that there was reasonable apprehension that they will not get a fair trial if the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Mavelikkara is permitted to proceed with the case.
Kerala High Court Directs State Police Chief To Sensitize Police Personnel To Mental Healthcare Act
Case Title: XXX V. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
The Kerala High Court directed the State Police Chief to ensure that Police Officers are familiar with the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 so that they can sensitively deal with cases involving mentally ill persons.
A single bench of Justice K Babu considered the suggestion made by the Amicus Curiae in the matter to direct the competent authorities to make sure that Police Officers are given proper training in the Mental Healthcare Act.
Case Title: M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
The Kerala High Court held that the challenge to an order issued by the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, for a dispute between a supplier and buyer, would lie with the High Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the Facilitation Council is located.
A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham observed that under Section 18 of the MSME Act, the jurisdiction to issue an order lies with the Facilitation Council in the place where the supplier is located and hence such an order could only be challenged in the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over such Facilitation Council.
Case Title: Rajam Babu V Babu K.K
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
The Kerala High Court held that when a wife seeks transfer of a matrimonial case to a court of her convenience, it should ordinarily be allowed by the court.
A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar passed the order relying on a catena of Apex Court decisions that held that the convenience of the wife has to be prioritised in a petition for transfer of a matrimonial dispute.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
The Kerala High Court disposed of the suo moto case initiated in the matter relating to the alleged trespass by some persons into the sacred 'Kalthara' of Ponnambalamedu, a protected forest area near the Sabarimala Temple.
Certain persons had allegedly trespassed and performed pooja in the protected area. The issue came to light after a video of the same surfaced online. The Court in this light initiated a suo motu case and took action on the report of Sabarimala special commissioner.
Case Title: K.R. Muhammed Nazer v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the appeal preferred by a Village Officer who had been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for obtaining bribe for issuing a location map for a property.
"Admittedly, the appellant was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act working in his capacity as Village Officer on the date of the alleged incident. The sequence of events and circumstances narrated above clearly proves that the appellant has accepted Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from the decoy witness by abusing his official position as public servant and availed pecuniary advantage by adopting corrupt and illegal means. Thus, the court below was absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed while upholding the sentence and conviction.
Case Title: Joshy Pereppadan V. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies (General)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
The Kerala High Court recently held that 'fifteen clear days notice' prescribed for convening a meeting for removal of the President or Vice-President of a cooperative society by a no-confidence motion under Rule 43-A(ii) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 is to be computed from the date of issuance of notice and not from the date of service of notice.
A single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that if such an interpretation is not given, people may evade the service of notice indefinitely making the provision unworkable.
Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the editor and publisher of YouTube Channel Marunadan Malayali, Shajan Skariah, against rejection of anticipatory bail by Special Court in a case against him for allegedly broadcasting derogatory news item against MLA Sreenijin.
"It is pertinent to note that the allegations levelled against the second respondent include murder and contains insinuation against the second respondent's father in law, aspersions on unnamed judicial officers and bestows the title 'Mafia Don' on the second respondent. As such, it can unhesitatingly be held that the video contains insults, which are intended to humiliate the second respondent (MLA Sreenijin) in public view," the Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed while passing the order.
Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
While refusing anticipatory bail to a Malayalam YouTube news channel 'Marunadan Malayalee' editor Shajan Skariah for allegedly broadcasting derogatory news item against MLA Sreenijin, the Kerala High Court on Friday expressed concerns over the changing character of journalism.
"The four W's of journalism that used to guide journalists in their reporting and helped in ensuring accuracy and completeness of news stories are: Who, What, When and Where. The four W's and sometimes the fifth “Why” used to serve as a framework for journalists to gather information. Videos like the one under consideration makes one wonder whether the W's have been replaced with D's; Defame, Denigrate, Damnify and Destroy," the Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun mused.
Case Title: Shyju G.J. v. State of Kerala and Visakh A. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas of the former Principal of Christian College, Kattakada, G.J. Shyju, and Student Federation of India (SFI) leader Visakh A in the case related to alleged impersonation, falsification of documents and misrepresentation during the college elections held in May 2023.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, on being informed that the accused were willing to surrender before the Investigating Officer on July 4, 2023, directed that,
"...in the event of the two petitioners surrendering before the IO on or before 04.07.2023, they shall be subjected to interrogation, and thereafter, the procedure as contemplated under law shall be complied with".
Case Title: Pulikkippoyil Sharafudheen & Anr. v. Superintendent of Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
The Kerala High Court declared that where gold that is imported illegally, is carried by different persons, all of whom had the common intention, the acts of such persons collectively can be treated as an act done by each person individually. It was thus held that the cumulative value of the goods could then be ascertained to determine whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas took note that under the erstwhile Customs Act, 1952 (hereinafter, 'Act, 1952'), all offences under the Act were bailable, as clearly stipulated under Section 104(6) of the statute.
However, the Court noted that after the enactment of the Finance Act, 2013, the said provision was amended, and Section 104(6)(c) presently states that, if good have been imported without declaration in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if the value of goods exceeds one crore of rupees, the offence would be non-bailable.
Case Title: K R Jayaprakash V. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
The Kerala High Court recently held that an award passed by the Lok Adalat which does not contain the signatures of both parties to the settlement is not valid in the eyes of law. The Court also held that the signature of the counsels for the parties would not be enough to give validity to the award.
A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham referred to Section 22C (7) of the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987, Regulation 33 of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulation, 1998 and Regulation 17 of the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations, 2009 to conclude that both the parties must affix their signatures to the award and when the parties are represented by counsels they must also affix their signatures.
Case Title: Vijaya K Vs. Muraleedharan K G
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Kerala High Court recently held that an award passed by a Lok Adalat must contain all the characteristics of a decree to make it enforceable. The Court observed that Order 20 Rules 6 (1) and (9) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which deals with the contents of a decree, must be adhered to.
A division bench of Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that
“To execute an award, it must have all the characters of a decree to enforce it. If the award is blank and only refers to the obligation without referring to the nature of the obligation to be performed, it become in-executable. The award passed by the Lok Adalat is based on the agreement between the parties. The officers, presiding over such Adalat must apply their mind while passing the award to ensure that such award is executable. They must refer to Order 20 Rules 6 (1) and (9) of the Civil Procedure Code which refers to the contents of decree.”
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case Title: P. Ardra Menon & Ors. v. The Chairman, Bar Council Of Kerala & Anr.
A group of law graduates from various law colleges of Kerala have approached the High Court with a plea to conduct enrolments as expeditiously as possible.
The issue surfaces amidst the ongoing dispute as regards the enrolment fee to be collected by the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK), which in turn, has resulted in a delay in conducting enrolments to the Bar.
The Kerala High Court had, on June 16, 2023, directed the Bar Council of Kerala to collect only Rs.750/- as enrolment fee from law graduates wishing to enrol, until the Bar Council of India (BCI) fixes a uniform fee structure as directed by the Supreme Court. The order was passed by a division bench of Chief Justice S V N Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji in an appeal filed by the Bar Council of Kerala against the order of a Single Judge restricting the enrolment fee to Rs. 750/-.
Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court reserved for orders the appeal filed by the editor and publisher of YouTube Channel Marunadan Malayali, Shajan Skariah, against rejection of anticipatory bail by Special Court in a case against him for allegedly broadcasting derogatory news item against MLA Sreenijin.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun has posted the matter on Friday for pronouncement of the Order.
The appellant-accused Skaria had telecast a news item regarding alleged mal-administration of Sports Hostel at the instance of de facto complainant in his capacity as the Chairman, District Sports Council.
The prosecution case against the appellant was that the said news item contained false, baseless and defamatory allegations against the de facto complainant, who belongs to the scheduled caste, with an intention to insult him. It was further alleged that the said news item promoted feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will against members of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.
Case Title: Alexander Vadakkedom v. Land Revenue Commissioner & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by an entrepreneur against the order of the District Magistrate rejecting the renewal of his 'Arms license'.
Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan has admitted the matter and sought the response of the State authorities.
The petitioner, who is involved in the construction activities of flats and villas in and around Thiruvananthapuram District averred that his business involves risks to his person and property due to which he had applied for an 'Arms license' involving (a) Gun (b) pistol for self-protection, and obtained the same after complying with the legal procedures. The petitioner stated that his Arms License had been issued with effect from 1992 and renewed continuously since then.
Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Kollam Doctor’s Parents’ Plea For CBI Probe Into Her Murder
Case Title: K.G. Mohandas & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
The parents of Dr. Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon who was recently killed by an injured man at a government hospital in Kottarakkara, Kollam, have approached the Kerala High Court seeking transfer of probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas on Friday considered the matter and issued notice to the respondent authorities.
The case pertains to the brutal murder of Dr. Vandana during the wee hours of the morning on May 10, while she was on duty. The young house surgeon was stabbed multiple times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors. The attacker was brought to the Kottarakkara Taluk Hospital by the police for treatment of his injuries.
Case Title: In Re Bruno v. Union of India
In light of the recent increase in instances of dog bites by community dogs, the Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to submit the details of the progress of mass vaccination drives and setting up of shelters for stray dogs by the municipal corporations in the state.
A Division Bench of Justice A. K. Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P directed the State to provide details of the steps taken by the Municipal Corporations to comply with the government order dated September 15, 2022, which was issued pursuant to the directions of the court to resolve the issues caused by stray dogs.