Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 16-22, 2024
Tellmy Jolly
22 Sep 2024 1:00 PM GMT
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 579-587]
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
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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).
