The petitioners, Rajeevkumar M., Rajeshkumar M. and Sarojini, approached the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash the Final Report/Charge Sheet (Annexure-D) in Crime No.194/2013 of New Mahe Police Station, Thalassery, which had led to C.C.No.1/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery, under offences including Section 498A IPC. The core background is matrimonial: the first petitioner’s wife, the first respondent, lodged the FIR, and the parties later arrived at an amicable settlement, with the couple pursuing mutual divorce (OP No.130/2013) in the Family Court, Thalassery, based on Annexure-E dated 23.12.2013. The parties and their counsel contended that continuing criminal proceedings would defeat justice in a matter of private disputes and that quashing would prevent miscarriage of justice and conserve judicial resources. The petition cites Supreme Court jurisprudence (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi) to emphasize that High Courts may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C where disputes are private or personal and have been settled, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences arising from matrimonial disputes. After considering the submissions, the court found the offences to be personal in nature, the complainant had no grievance, and continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process and waste of time. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. was allowed and the Final Report/Charge Sheet was quashed, quashing all further proceedings.
A writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court by 17 retired employees of the Fertilisers and Chemical Travancore Limited seeks pension benefits under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and the treatment of their Joint Option Forms under the EPF framework. The petitioners rely on the Supreme Court judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another v. Sunil Kumar B. and others (2022) to contend that the amended pension scheme provisions and directives in R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018) 14 SCC 809 must be applied to their cases. They contend that delays in processing their claims violate those judgments, and they urge the court to direct the first and second respondents to process Joint Option Forms and complete all necessary steps to grant pension calculated on the average of the last 12 months’ salary preceding retirement or exit from membership of the fund. The respondents submit that Joint Option Forms can be considered in light of the Apex Court judgment, but information from the employer is required. After hearing, the court reiterates the Supreme Court’s conclusions in EPFO (Supra) and relies on Article 142 to justify a further extension, noting changes to the scheme and interpretations of paragraph 11(3) and 11(4). The court ultimately disposes of the petition by directing respondents to process the Joint Option Forms within five months in accordance with the Apex Court’s directions, thereby granting pensionary benefits to the petitioners.
S.C.No.650/2023; B.A.No.8027/2023; B.A.No.9090/2023; Crime No.612/2023 This common order of the Kerala High Court (Single Judge) arises from two bail petitions filed by accused Nos. 2 and 4 in Crime No. 612/2023, Ernakulam Town North Police Station, currently pending as S.C.No. 650/2023 before the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The petitions were heard on 18.12.2023 and pronounced on 12.01.2024. The prosecution alleges that on 29.03.2023, a secret information led police to Room 317 of Sidra Pristine Hotel, where 294 grams of MDMA were seized on 30.03.2023. All four accused are said to have participated in a joint venture, transporting the contraband in a car and keeping it in the hotel for sale, under NDPS Act sections 22(c) r/w 29. The petitioners contend innocence: accused No.2 and accused No.4 allegedly did not have conscious possession; the 4th accused is a student, and the 2nd accused is a neighbour of the 4th. They argue that final report does not link 2nd and 4th to the possession or purchase of the contraband. The Public Prosecutor maintains the joint liability and that the Sec. 37 rider under the NDPS Act applies to cases involving a commercial quantity, requiring two conditions: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he will not commit an offence while on bail. The court surveys precedents (Kesari; Paulsamy; Nodira; Abdulla; Mon; Malik; Niyazuddin; Rajesh; Jitendra Giri) and concludes that the available materials do not satisfy the twin conditions, hence the bail petitions are dismissed. The order is a single-judge, common disposition, refusing regular bail in both petitions.
This writ petition challenges the disciplinary action taken against Rajeev S. Nair, who was employed as a Junior Superintendent at the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. He was issued a show‑cause notice for unauthorized absence from 11 January 2021 to 30 January 2021 and, following a preliminary inquiry and a formal departmental inquiry, the charges were adjudged by the Enquiry Officer with findings that Charges 1 and 3 were proved while Charge 2 was not fully proved. The Enquiry Officer considered that the petitioner allegedly met with a motor accident on 9 January 2021, but medical evidence, including Dr. Archana Devaki’s statement, did not corroborate the claimed injuries; this was contested in the course of the proceedings. Based on these findings, the District Judge (Disciplinary Authority) sought to impose a severe penalty of compulsory retirement, which was later substituted by a lesser punishment—reduction to a lower post for two years under Rule 11(v) of the Kerala Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1960. The petitioner challenged the punishment order Ext.P11 and the appellate order Ext.P14. The respondents maintained that the absence was unauthorized, supported by the enquiry findings and that the penalty was proportionate. The High Court, after examining the record and distinguishing cited precedents, concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the factual findings and upheld the punishment. The writ petition was dismissed. The court cited Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank and others, as distinguished, and also noted Krushnakant B. Parmar and T.P. Murali as authorities referenced by counsel.
W.P(C).No.26104 of 2010(K) This writ petition (W.P.(C).No.26104/2010) challenges an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam (I.D. No.238/2006) dated 26 April 2010, which dismissed the workman for alleged misconduct and directed reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. The underlying incident involved the alleged removal of two cheque leaves from a cheque book and a consequent withdrawal of Rs 2,20,000 on 11 June 1994, allegedly after forging a customer’s signature. The disciplinary authority relied on an enquiry report (Exhibit P3) finding the workman guilty, and the matter was referred to the Tribunal, which initially considered the validity of the enquiry and then allowed fresh evidence, ultimately passing Exhibit P9 directing reinstatement with back wages. The management asserts the award is illegal and unjustified, challenging the Tribunal’s reception of fresh evidence and seeking a different outcome based on the evidence of four witnesses (MW1–MW4) and the custody and handling of cheque leaves. The High Court accepts that the enquiry’s validity was a preliminary issue decided against the management but focuses on whether the evidence suffices to prove misconduct. It ultimately upholds the Tribunal’s award, holding that the workman is entitled to full back wages due to exoneration, and dismisses the writ petition, with reinstatement and back wages to be effected within three months, costs ordered to be borne by the parties.
Roopesh @ Praveen, the first accused in SC No.3 of 2016 before the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, challenges an order dated 18 January 2024 allowing recall and re-examination of two prosecution witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The High Court of Kerala, sitting as a two-judge bench, heard this Crl. Appeal from the dismissal of the trial court’s recall order. The prosecution sought recall because PW89 testified that he did not take the Hash Value of devices, and PW90 said he did not receive the Hash Value, whereas Ext.P134(a)-(d) and Exts.P119 and P135 show that Hash Values were obtained automatically and provided to PW90 for data extraction. The appellant argued that recalling witnesses would reopen cross-examination and would not enhance the evidence, while the respondent argued the appeal concerns an interlocutory order and Section 21 of the NIA Act makes only certain orders appealable, with the necessity to re-examine to bridge documentary gaps. The court cited Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Hussain and Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam to explain the limited appealability of interlocutory orders under the NIA Act. It held that the petition challenges are interlocutory and not appealable, dismissed the appeal, and directed that any re-examination be confined to the matters stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the petition. The bench comprised P.B. Suresh Kumar and Johnson John, JJs, and the judgment is dated 1 March 2024.
The petitioner, Dr. Azad Moopan, co-owner of 43.83 cents of land near the Kozhikode District Jail, challenges Exts.P7 and P8—the building permit and NOC refusals by the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation and the District Collector. The sequence starts with the Kochi case style: after initial rejection, a 2010 report from the PWD suggested reducing the building height to below 21 meters, and the petitioner submitted a revised plan in 2013. Despite the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions directing reconsideration, the Corporation again refused, insisting on NOC citing the Prison Manual. The petitioner argues that under Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, NOC is required only if the site falls within a defined “security zone,” which must be gazette-notified by the Local Self Government Department as per Rule 2(cs). There is no gazette notification establishing a security zone and the Prison Manual has no statutory force. The court examines the definitions and concludes that the area is not a security zone under the KMBR; thus the NOC is not mandatory. The writ petition is allowed, Exts.P8 and P9 are quashed, and the District Collector is directed to reconsider the application for a building permit without insisting on an NOC within two months of copy of the judgment.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under MACA No.1594 of 2010 arising from the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in O.P.(MV)No.1082 of 2006, pertaining to the death of Sasidharan, husband of the first appellant, at age 54, due to a bicycle–motorcycle collision on 15.08.2006. The motorcycle, KL-2/W-6938, was driven by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent insurer, which admitted coverage but contested negligence and certain claim particulars. The Tribunal held the accident’s cause to be rash and negligent driving by the rider and directed the insurer to indemnify. It awarded Rs.2,57,012 (rounded to Rs.2,57,100) with 7.5% interest from 14.11.2006, distributing the compensation among the appellants: Rs.1,00,000 to the first appellant (deposit in bank for 5 years), Rs.50,000 to the second and third appellants in bank for 5 years, Rs.30,000 to the fourth appellant, and the balance to the first appellant. On appeal, the appellants challenge the quantum, alleging under-determination of income, lack of future prospects, and improper deductions for personal living expenses, urging adherence to the modern framework of just compensation. The High Court re-evaluates the income and applies standardization principles from Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and subsequent decisions, re-fixing the deceased’s notional monthly income at Rs.6,050 and applying a multiplier of 11, along with enhanced conventional heads, resulting in a substantial uplift in total compensation and a directive to the insurer to satisfy the enhanced amount with interest. The appeal is dismissed with final orders passed directing payment of enhanced compensation and related costs without further order as to costs.
MACA No. 112 of 2013 & MACA No. 1645 of 2013 This is a pair of Motor Accident Claims Appeals arising from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, challenging the award dated 06.11.2012 in OPMV No. 1357/2007. The original petitioner (Shaju) sought enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motorcycle collision on 8.8.2007. The Tribunal assessed and awarded Rs. 58,682 with recovery rights against the insurer, despite several heads of compensation being contested. The appellate court reexamined the evidence and, while upholding the core findings, enhanced several components: loss of earnings was increased from 2 to 4 months, with monthly earnings fixed at Rs. 5,000 in light of Ramachandrappa; disability benefits were recalculated accordingly, resulting in an additional Rs. 51,408; pain, suffering, and loss of amenities were also augmented (Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively). A crucial issue was whether the insurer remains liable where the driver held a learner’s license at the time of the accident. The court reviewed Section 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and related case law, ultimately holding that a learner’s license does not automatically render the driver “duly licensed” unless conditions under Rule 3(b) are satisfied and policy conditions are respected. Consequently, the insurer’s pay-and-recover obligation extends to the insured. The result: MACA1645/2013 dismissed; MACA112/2013 allowed in part with Rs.83,408 enhanced compensation and modified award with accrued interest.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from a motor-vehicle accident that occurred on 01.04.1996, where the appellant Balakrishnan Pillai, a forest guard then aged about 49, sustained grave injuries after a mini lorry (KL 7A-3931) allegedly driven negligently by the second respondent struck him while he was alighting from a bus at Muvattupuzha. He was hospitalized for a prolonged period, suffered memory loss, and remained bedridden for about eight months, receiving treatment at Government Hospital, Muvattupuzha and Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery. He claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking Rs. 6,68,000, though the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,49,294. During the appeal, the original appellant died and his wife was impleaded as Additional 2nd appellant. The respondents—the lorry owner and insurer—did not contest liability; the insurer admitted coverage. The High Court examined the quantum, income, multiplier, and disability. It fixed the notional monthly income at Rs. 3,200 (instead of Rs. 3,000), adopted a multiplier of 11 (instead of 8) on the reasoning that there were cogent reasons to apply the split multiplier due to the pensionable tenure remaining, and assessed disability at 12% (per Ext.X1) with reference to Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar. The court enhanced compensation for loss due to disability, future treatment, and bystander expenses, and directed the insurer to deposit Rs.46,038 with 8% interest and costs of Rs.4,000, to be paid to the Additional 2nd appellant in accordance with law. The decision, delivered by Justice C.S. Dias, partially allowed the appeal. A final order for disbursement followed.
Ex.FA Nos.3/2018 & 26/2020 This High Court of Kerala, in two Execution First Appeals (Ex.FA Nos. 3/2018 and 26/2020), arises from a money decree obtained against G. Gopalakrishna Pillai and sought to be enforced against his widow and heirs, as well as a third party under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC (via a claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC). The claimant obtained a valid sale deed in 2003 four years before the suit. The claim petition under Rule 8 was not pressed due to mistaken advice, and two Rule 97 applications were dismissed as premature. The court held that such inadvertent acts by counsel cannot bar the claimant’s rights over the immovable property and that a late or mistaken press of a petition cannot derail the proper adjudication of the claim. Relying on Verizon Builders and Developers Ltd. v. Jyothi Susan John (Full Bench) and Gopalakrishna Pillai v. Syam Kumar (2017), the court restored the claim petition and remanded the matter to the trial court for disposal under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC after addressing the claim on merits, with an opportunity for the parties to appear on 05.10.2021. The appeals are allowed; the orders under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC are set aside.
Pentagon Healthcare Private Limited, which runs the Little Flower Hospital and Research Centre’s diagnostic facility at Angamaly, challenged penalties imposed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT) and related tax regime for the periods 2009–10 to 2013–14. The petitioner argued that it had no taxable turnover under KVAT and CST Acts, India, and that it had maintained books of accounts audited by chartered accountants. The first respondent issued summons and later proposed penalties under Section 67(1) of KVAT for alleged suppression of sales arising from taxable purchases, despite the petitioner showing payment of tax on purchases (exts. P2–P3) and a lack of sale. The petitioner filed a rectification petition (Ext. P6) which remained unconsidered, prompting the writ petition. The counter-affidavit, on the other hand, claimed the petitioner was a “dealer” under Section 2(xv) of KVAT and that a scanning centre uses taxable consumables; it referenced a prior decision (Aswini Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer) to support the revenue’s stance and argued the petitioner had efficacious remedies under KVAT. The court found the penalty orders non-speaking and not duly considering Exts. P2–P3, violated natural justice, and allowed the petition by setting aside the penalties and directing a fresh hearing with an opportunity to adduce documents and judgments within two months.
This DBP petition before the Kerala High Court concerns a proposed revision of the Prathal Vazhipadu rate at Vaikom Sree Mahadeva Temple, a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). The Board sought sanction to raise the rate from Rs. 3,500 per Para, fixed in 2016, to Rs. 5,000 per Para with a bifurcation: Rs. 3,340 for Supplier Cost, Rs. 460 for Sramadhakshina, and Rs. 1,200 for Muthalkootu. The Administrative Officer and other temple officers prepared a detailed Proposal Statement explaining the need, citing a heavy rise in prices of groceries, vegetables, and related items, and enumerating the 28 grocery items and 21 vegetables required to prepare the Prathal Vazhipadu, plus ancillary costs (curd, plantain leaves, incinerator-related issues, waste disposal). Annexures A–E, with reports from Deputy Commissioner Vaikom, Assistant Commissioner, and Finance & Accounts Officer, supported these changes. The Ombudsman issued Report No. 45 of 2023, endorsing the Board’s stance to exclude Prathal Vazhipadu from SCSR and to revise rates. The State Audit Department submitted remarks, acknowledging increases and endorsing the exclusion from SCSR. The High Court, applying the principle laid down in Suresh Kumar, held that the revision was not per se perverse and granted permission for the proposed rate increase. The decision reflects balancing temple tradition, finances, and governance oversight under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.
WA Nos.1029 & 1342 of 2013 These writ appeals arise from WP(C) No.17646 of 2012 concerning serious allegations of sexual harassment against Praveen M.V., the Co-Ordinator of Biotechnology at Union Christian College, Aluva. The Governing Body of the college referred the matter to the College’s Complaints Committee, established under the Vishaka guidelines, to conduct an inquiry. The writ petitioner challenged the enquiry, seeking (a) quashing and setting aside the enquiry, (b) a mandamus to provide a copy of the alleged complaint and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and (c) such other relief as proper. The single judge noted that this was not a domestic inquiry with a show-cause notice but an information-driven process under Vishaka, and that the Committee could disclose the details of the complaint only when submitting its report. It held that the Committee could decide whether to supply a copy of the complaint and that the inquiry was at a preliminary stage; the petitioner’s delay in prior communications was a factor. The Division Bench reversed, holding that the enquiry must be transparent and timely, with the Committee fixing a hearing date in December 2013, providing copies of complaints and statements, allowing cross-examination, and completing the inquiry expeditiously, while ensuring natural justice and compliance with Vishaka guidelines. The decision underscores the balance between an internal disciplinary mechanism and the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing.
CRL.A.(V).168/2017 & connected case This is a criminal appellate challenge (Crl.A.(V).168/2017 and connected matters) from Neyyattinkara, Kerala, where the appellant Nirmala challenged an order of acquittal in a mass assault case arising from a dispute over a stolen fishing net. The trial court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran, restates Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) (4) SCC 415) to frame the governing principle: an appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider evidence in acquittal appeals, with no automatic constraint, yet there is a double presumption in favor of the accused. The court emphasizes that if two reasonable conclusions are possible from the record, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal. After detailed consideration of ocular evidence (PW1–PW6, PW8) and circumstantial evidence (MO1–MO9, Exts. P5, P6, P9, P23, P46), the court finds substantial inconsistencies, unreliability in identification, and belated weapon recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. References to Thampi Sebastian v. State of Kerala (1988) and State of Kerala v. Saji @ Dada Saji (2021) are cited to address improper joint confessions and government-direction considerations for appeals. The court ultimately upholds the acquittal and dismisses the State’s appeal, including rejecting suo motu revision, with the order of dismissal “Ordered accordingly.”
CRL.A.No.1592 of 2005 (F) Vijayan @ Maniyan was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Thiruvananthapuram, for an offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for possession of 20 litres of wash and equipment used for distilling liquor found on 19-08-1997 at Manikkal, Pullampara, near Thiruvananthapuram. The trial court convicted him under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act and imposed three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of 1 lakh, in default of which a further year’s imprisonment was to be served. On appeal, the High Court examined the proof of arrest, seizure and the samples, the place of occurrence, and the admissibility/chain-of-custody of the chemical analysis (Ext.P5). The court noted significant deficiencies: Ext.P3 (intimation of arrest) inconsistently places the arrest at the appellant’s house rather than at the place of occurrence; no Scene Mahazar was prepared to corroborate the location; the chain-of-custody linking the sample to the chemical examiner was not established, and Ext.P5 was rendered doubtful by lack of link-evidence. The investigation showed an inordinate delay, violating Section 50 of the Abkari Act; the absence of timely reporting to the Magistrate further undermined credibility. Relying on precedents such as Rajamma v. State of Kerala and Ravi v. State of Kerala, the High Court held that the evidence did not establish a tamper-proof link for the sample, and acquitted the appellant. The appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside, with bail bond cancelled.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenges the continuation of C.C. No. 419/2022 arising from Crime No. 430/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station. The petitioners, accused in the Magistrate court, are charged with offences under Sections 323, 341, 506, and 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused restrained the victim, assaulted her, and used filthy language. The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled between the parties, and there is no further desire to pursue prosecution; affidavits from the victims support the settlement. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing based solely on a settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The court examined the matter in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence — State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab — and noted the principles that (i) quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible for non-compoundable offences with civil character when disputes are private and settled; (ii) such power is not available for heinous/serious offences; (iii) not appropriate for offences under special statutes or involving public servants; (iv) offences like S.307 IPC or Arms Act are generally treated as crimes against society; (v) antecedents and conduct of the accused may be considered. After considering the records, the court held the dispute to be private in nature, accepted the settlement, and allowed the petition. Accordingly, all further proceedings in C.C.No.419/2022 were quashed. The order reflects a careful balance between private settlement and public interest, relying on established Supreme Court doctrine to permit quashing when appropriate.
This writ appeal challenges the order of a learned single judge rejecting jurisdiction to consider nominations for the Managing Committee of the Thiruvalla Primary Co‑operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. The appellants contend that the Returning Officer (RO) acted illegally by accepting nominations from respondents 1–9 despite documentary materials indicating disqualification (Exhibit P4) and notwithstanding objections (Exhibit P6). They argue that such acceptance undermines fair election processes and should be examined in a writ petition, not merely by resorting to Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The respondents and supporting authorities contend that Section 69 provides an exclusive mechanism for disputes related to elections; many issues are questions of fact, and challenging acceptance of nominations after scrutiny is more appropriate in an election petition/arbitration rather than a writ, especially given the potential to disrupt the electoral process. The court surveys precedent on the balance between judicial review and election disputes, distinguishing cases where nominations were illegally rejected, and acknowledging that disputes over eligibility are often treated as matters to be resolved after elections, in the election petition route or through the Cooperative Arbitration Court. Ultimately, the court upholds the single judge’s conclusion that the questions raised involve disputed facts or are more suitably resolved via election dispute mechanisms, and the writ appeal is dismissed.
BALU @ BALAKRISHNAN, the appellant, was convicted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod, for importing arrack manufactured in Karnataka into Kerala. The High Court of Kerala, while hearing Crl. Appeal No. 1130 of 2005 on 8 July 2014, scrutinized whether the seizure and the chemical analysis complied with the required evidentiary standards for conviction. The prosecution case rests on the 25 May 1999 seizure near Kumbla Bridge of 9000 packets of arrack; samples were drawn from the bulk and subjected to chemical analysis (Ext. P6) while the remainder and the vehicle were seized (Ext. P1). The record contains Ext. P2 FIR, Ext. P3 List of Property, and Ext. P4 Scene Mahazar; however, key items were not promptly produced before the court, raising questions about the chain of custody and the integrity of the evidence. The defence contends that the sample tested may not be the same as that seized, and that the delay in presenting properties before the court was inadequately explained. Relying on Ravi v. State of Kerala and Rajamma v. State of Kerala, the court stressed the necessity of a proper, satisfactory explanation for delays and a verifiable link between the seized contraband and the analysis. Finding the link lacking, the court set aside Ext. P6 and the conviction, acquitting the appellant. The appellant died during pendency of the appeal, with no further orders required.
Melbin K. Thomas, an agriculturist and businessperson, sought an arms license under the Arms Act, 1959, for agricultural protection. He moved the High Court after delays in processing Ext. P1, and the court, by Ext. P2, directed the 2nd respondent to decide the application in light of pertinent statutory provisions and binding precedents. Following those directions, the 3rd respondent rejected Ext. P1 (Ext. P3). The petitioner challenged this order in W.P.(C) No. 587/2023 and the court disposed of that petition through Ext. P4, which relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, while noting that the findings could at most be illegality subject to appellate correction. After appealing to the Land Revenue Commissioner under Ext. P4, the 1st respondent confirmed the 3rd respondent’s Ext. P3 order via Ext. P5. The petitioner contended that the appellate orders were passed without regard to binding binding precedents, notably Aboobker V.T. and Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner, TVM. & Others (2022 (2) KHC 170 (DB)). The High Court concluded that Exts. P3 and P5 failed to reference binding precedents and set them aside, remitting the matter to the 3rd respondent to decide Ext. P1 in accordance with statute and binding decisions, with a two-month deadline and liberty for the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.
