Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 16-22, 2024

X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579

xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580

Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581

T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582

Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583

Sheela v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 584

Sajith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585

Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 586

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 587

Judgments/Orders this week

Victim/ Informant Must Be Communicated About Deletion Of Names From Array Of Accused In Final Report: Kerala High Court

Case Title: X v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579

The Kerala High Court has held that an investigating officer must notify the informant or victim about removing individuals from the list of accused in the final report, if they were initially named as accused in the FIR.

Additionally, the Court emphasized that upon taking cognizance of the offences based on the final report, the Magistrate must also inform the informant or victim of this change.

Allowing the criminal revision case, Justice K Babu stated thus, “The learned Magistrate shall issue notice to the informant / victim regarding the finding of the Investigating Officer that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against some of the accused.”

Accused Must Be Given A Legibile Copy Of Statement Recorded By Magistrate U/S 164 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580

The Kerala High Court held that an accused should be given a legible copy of the Section 164 statement before the start of trial as he has the statutory right to use those statements to contradict the maker of the statement during cross-examination.

Justice A. Badharudeen found that the order of the Sessions Court was not justifiable.

“Indubitably, accused has a statutory right to use 164 statement for contradicting the maker, during cross examination of the maker, with a view to shake the version. In order to enable the said purpose, the statement must be readable and legible.”

Fair Trial Has Sacrosanct Purpose, Both Prosecution And Accused Should Be Heard Before Scheduling Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581

The Kerala High Court has directed the trial court to postpone the date of a criminal trial noting that the order of the trial court did not show that the prosecution and accused were heard before the trial was scheduled.

Justice K. Babu noted that Rule 77A(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982 mandates that both sides should be heard before fixing the date for recording evidence.

Inquiry U/S 116(2) CrPC Must Be Carried Out In A Similar Manner To Summons Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582

The Kerala High Court held that the provision in Section 116(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) which says that the recording of evidence and conduct of trial in an inquiry under Section 116 shall be done 'as nearly as maybe practicable' in the manner of a summons trial would mean that the essentials of summons trial should be followed in such an inquiry.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “Section 116(2) provides that, an inquiry contemplated under Section 116 of Cr.P.C shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases. In this context, the text 'as nearly as possible' has to be understood to ensure that the essentials of summons trial should be followed.”

Defamatory Posts On Social Media Amount To "Cyber Defamation" U/S 499 IPC, Law Making It 'Cognizable' Offence Will Be Effective: Kerala HC

Case Title: Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583

The Kerala High Court has held that defamation through statements or posts on Facebook and other social media platforms comes under cyber defamation, thus justifying invocation of Section 499 of the IPC, which deals with defamation.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that even excluding the Facebook posts, the petitioner is liable under Section 509 (insulting modesty of woman) of the IPC and Section 120 (o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order through anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail, messenger ) of the KP Act for sending two defamatory postcards to the father of the de facto complainant.

Observing the lacunae in legislation to deal with defamatory Facebook posts, Justice A Badharudeen observed that Section 499 IPC is a non-cognizable offence and emphasized the need for an exhaustive law that makes such offences cognizable, accompanied by stringent punishments.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case Against Woman For Failing To Report Sexual Assault On Minors In Cottages Provided By Her

Case Title: Sheela v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 584

The Kerala High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings under POCSO Act initiated against a woman in-charge of the cottages where allegedly two minors were subjected to rape.

Justice A. Badharudeen however noted that on the alleged day of occurrence of the said crime, the license in the name of her husband had expired. At that time, the cottage was running without a valid license. The Court said that the materials collected during the investigation would prima facie show that the cottage was run by the petitioner at that time.

S. 250 BNSS | Court Has Discretion To Consider Discharge Plea Even After Prescribed Limit Of 60 Days: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajith v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585

The Kerala High Court has held that the limit of 60 days provided in Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to file a petition of discharge is directory and not mandatory. The Court further held that the period of 60 days will start from the date of supply of copies of documents to the accused.

Justice A. Badharudeen made this pronouncement while dealing with a revision petition challenging the order of the trial court dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner herein.

Donors Collecting Money From Sabarimala Pilgrims For Accommodation In Donor Rooms 'Legally Impermissible': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 586

The Kerala High Court has made it clear that donor rooms at Sabarimala registered under individual donors can be used only by the donors themselves or their family members.

The Court further stated that donor rooms associated with trusts or organizations can be occupied by its trustees, office bearers and registered members on identity verification. The Court also stated that donors cannot transfer donor passes issued to them to other third parties.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar directed the authorities to conduct regular inspections to ensure that the donors are not misusing donor passes to collect money from pilgrims.

'Right To Get Unadulterated Food Fundamental Right' : Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Examine Lacunae In Food Safety & Standards Act

Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 587

The Kerala High Court has directed the Central Government to look into the lacunae in the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 and its Regulations. The Court stated that it is the duty of the government to have a fool proof Act and Rules to ensure that citizens are given unadulterated food.

In this case, the Court was considering whether prosecution could be initiated against Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited for allegedly selling unsafe and misbranded Mint & Lemon Flavoured Green Ice Tea when the reports from the Food Analyst and Food Laboratory were divergent.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that due to the lacunae in the Act, prosecution can be initiated only when the Food Laboratory report confirms the Food Analyst's report and not when the reports are divergent.

Other Significant Developments This Week

Sakha Activities, Mass Drills, Weaponry Training Are Prohibited In Temple Premises: Travancore Devaswom Board To Kerala High Court

Case Title: Baiju v State of Kerala

Case Number: WP(C) 16359/2024

An affidavit has been filed before the Kerala High Court stating that despite the issuance of notices to RSS members and the filing of complaints with the police, the sakha activities continue to take place at the Rakthakanda Swamy Temple in Omallur, Pathanamthitta district. The Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted the counter affidavit on behalf of both the Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer.

The affidavit was filed in a plea moved by devotees and nearby residents of Sree Rakthakanda Swamy Temple, Omallur in Pathanamthitta district alleging illegal encroachment and unauthorized use of temple and temple premises for conducting conduct mass drills, Sakha activities by the members of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) (Respondents 7 to 10).

Kerala High Court To Consider Whether Entry Tax/Fee Can Be Collected At Check Posts For Bringing In Eggs From Other States

Case Title: Abdul Rahiman and Others v State of Kerala

Case Number: WPC No. 29173/2024

A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the action of authorities at the check posts for collecting entry fees/tax for bringing eggs from other States.

The plea further stated that imposing entry fees/tax on agricultural produce like eggs which are nil-rated goods is an indirect and illegal way to collect tax contrary to the provisions of the GST Act. The plea stated that essential items like egg, fruits, vegetables are categorized as GST exemption goods to make them affordable for customers.

When the matter was taken up before Justice Gopinath P, the government pleader submitted that a statement has been filed.

Kerala High Court Bans Videography By Vloggers In Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple's Courtyard, Except Marriage And Other Religious Rites

Case Title: P P Venugopal v State of Kerala and Others

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 31313 OF 2024

The Kerala High Court has directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and its Administrator to prohibit videography by vloggers in the Nadapanthal (outer courtyard) of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple located in Guruvayur.

In doing so the high court clarified that videography is only allowed in connection with marriage functions and other religious ceremonies, and is otherwise not permitted in the Nadapanthal.

The division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar observed that videography by vloggers in the nadapanthal and other interior places of the Temple cannot be permitted, adding that the temple is a special security zone.

Income Tax Authorities Have The Power To Seek Interim Custody Of Currency Notes Produced Before The Magistrate: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kasinath Rangoda Kanade v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl.M.C. No 1742 of 2024

The Kerala High Court held that income tax authorities have the power to seek interim custody of currency notes seized and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate by any other officer or authority if there is any reason to believe that the seized currency is part of any asset that has not been disclosed for the purpose of the Income Tax Act.

The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was answering a question referred to it by the Single Bench. The Single Bench had noted that there is contradiction in the High Court decisions in Union of India v State of Kerala (2022) and R. Ravirajan v State of Kerala (2023).