The Kerala High Court hears a writ appeal by legal heirs of one partner of the partnership firm M/s. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. challenging the sale of two partnership properties under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to liquidate dues under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST). The sale, conducted by Revenue Recovery authorities, covered Vadakkevila and Mundakkal properties; the purchasers (R8 and R9) obtained the two plots. The appellants contend multiple RR Act irregularities: publication of notice not in the prescribed mode, lack of attachment prior to sale, Form-16 notices issued in the name of the deceased partner and the firm, failure to notify the legal heirs of the deceased partner, valuation allegedly far below market value, and non-consideration of Section 62. They argue that the surviving partner and the legal heirs of the deceased partner were not properly informed; dissolution of the firm (1982 compromise) and the resulting rights over property should have affected notice and proceedings. The learned Single Judge dismissed, upholding the sale. The Division Bench ultimately agrees that notice to the firm suffices, given the dissolution and death of a partner, and that the Revenue Department need not publish in Gazette or newspapers mandatorily. It notes that there was substantial auction realization, and it finds no valid basis to set aside the sale for lack of substantial injury. The writ appeal is dismissed with no costs.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal concerns a fatal motorcycle accident on 10.06.2011, in which Subrahmaniam died leaving behind his wife Chandralekha (appellant 1), his son Abinav S. (appellant 2, represented by his mother), and Pushkala (appellant 3). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Pathanamthitta, held the first respondent driver negligent and the insurer liable, fixing compens ation at Rs. 29,95,000 with 9% interest. The appellants challenged the quantum, arguing that the deceased earned far more than the Tribunal’s Rs. 12,000 monthly assumption and that Exts. A14–A25, including IT returns, establish a regular income. They relied on Malarvizhi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to support using IT returns for calculating income, and urged applying the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi framework (40% future prospects) rather than the Tribunal’s approach. The appeal also sought proper consideration of heads such as funeral expenses, loss of consortium, and love and affection. The court undertook a re‑assessment, revised several components to align with Pranay Sethi and related precedents, corrected certain heads, and ultimately fixed the total compensation at Rs. 32,52,424, to be deposited within three months by the insurer.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a mandamus to compel the 1st respondent, the Special Tahasildar (LR), to conduct an expeditious enquiry and dispose of S.M. No.3049/2016 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam. The suo motu proceedings were initiated under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970 for the assignment of the right, title and interest vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and for issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K read with Rule 14, in respect of 5.60 acres of land in Sy. No.340/2, Block 21, Vilayur Village, Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad District. The petitioner, a 74-year-old senior citizen, asserts the urgency of disposal since delay affect her rights and loan prospects, while the respondents point to a large pendency of suo motu cases (2434) in the Land Tribunal Ottappalam. The court cites Narayanan Namboodiri v. The Special Tahsildar (LR) and another (W.P.(C) No.28398 of 2017) establishing that cases must be decided in seniority order and that government guidelines (GO 9/2018/RD) may facilitate faster processing via Village Officers. The court directs the Land Tribunal to dispose of S.M. No.3049/2016 strictly in accordance with law, following Narayanan Namboodiri’s directions, and to do so consistent with these principles, with no order as to costs.
WA 811/2020 (and connected cases) These writ appeals arise from judgments in WP(C) Nos. 10107/2019; 29541/2019; 6345/2019; and related petitions, challenging the entitlement to higher pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and its amendments. The petitions contended that pension should be computed without a cap on pensionable salary, i.e., on actual salary, with periodic contributions to the pension fund. The Division Bench’s reference order noted that Sasikumar P. v. Union of India (ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614) had held that no cut-off date could fix the option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme. The reference also cited RC Gupta v. RPFC (2018) 14 SCC 809 and Pawan Hans Ltd. v. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana (2020) 13 SCC 506, among others. The Full Bench observed that Sasikumar P requires reconsideration to the extent it struck down the 2014 amendments (G.S.R. 609(E)) and to the extent it permitted remittance on actual salary for exempted/covered establishments, noting actuarial viability and corpus growth. The court ultimately disposed of the appeals in terms of the Sunil Kumar line of authority (AIR 2022 SC 5634), directing EPFO to reconsider higher pension entitlements consistent with those Supreme Court directions, extended a limited period for options, and requiring central actuarial valuation. The order preserves those who contributed regularly and cautions against erosion of the corpus.
WP(C).No.5996 of 2021 (Y) Archana Varghese, owner of 39.37 cents of land in resurvey numbers 136/1, 136/2, 136/8-1 and 136/13 in Peringanad Village, seeks relief against denial of building permission and seeks reclassification of land from Nilam to dry land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Though the land is classified as Nilam in revenue records, it is not included as paddy land in the data bank, and building permits were issued by the Pallickal Grama Panchayat prior to the challenge. The petitioner had earlier challenged the competent authority’s stance under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU order) in W.P.(C) No.29182 of 2014, which this court disposed of by holding that permission under the KLU order is not necessary to use land converted prior to the Act. Ext.P1 embodies that judgment. The petitioner sought reassessment of the land as dry land and directions to revenue officials to change its classification. The Respondents argue that lands not included in the data bank but Nilam remain within the KLU framework and require permission under Section 27A to alter use. The court ultimately holds Ext.P1 to be a permission under the KLU order and directs reassessment accordingly, while noting amendments under Act 29 of 2018 establishing Sections 27A and 27C for such changes.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 7 to provide adequate protection for the smooth functioning of its business and to ensure a peaceful working atmosphere for its managers, as well as protection of the petitioner’s property/products from interference by the 8th respondent and its members. The petition alleges that the 8th respondent association obstructs field visits, with its members appearing at hospitals in large numbers, abusing managers, and threatening them to withdraw orders relating to transfers and terminations of medical representatives. The petitioner submitted several complaints (Ext. P2, P4, P6, Ext. P8, Ext. P10, Ext. P12) to the respective Station House Officers during March 2021 seeking protection, and subsequently approached the High Court. The court references the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Chapter II) and Sections 3 and 4 on police duties, citing Lord Denning’s Due Process of Law and principles from Manohar Lal Sharma and Ankush Maruti Shinde for police’s protective and investigative roles. Gujarat Steel Tubes is cited to reaffirm the right to unionise and the right to strike as part of collective bargaining within lawful parameters. The Court disposed of the petition with directions: SHOs 3–7 must ensure no threat to law and order; police protection to be provided on request; actions to be swift; the petitioner to cooperate with pending conciliation before the District Labour Officer; protests to be democratic and non-obstructive.
WP(C) Nos. 3493/2018, 7858/2019, 19531/2017 This is a common judgment of the Kerala High Court by Justice Sunil Thomas dealing with multiple writ petitions filed by contract/temporary employees of the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation (KSMDFC). The petitioners in 3493/2018 and 19531/2017 challenged their termination and sought relief against the appointment of new provisional employees. They argued irregularities in the selection process, lack of recruitment rules, and possible mala fides, alleging that the corporation used contract appointments to circumvent regular rules and to deny them employment opportunities. They claimed bias in the interview process and questioned decisions such as Ext.P6, Ext.P9, and Ext.P10, which involved interviews, rank lists, and cabinet decisions. The petitioner in 7858/2019 challenged the regularization/appointment of certain new employees and sought similar relief. The respondents asserted that the posts were sanctioned and filled on contract/deputation per government policy; KS & SSR Rules did not apply to the newly formed corporation; selection was transparent; and petitioners cannot challenge a process in which they participated. The court examined the record, considered precedents on contract appointments, estoppel, and mala fides, and ultimately dismissed the petitions, closing the related matter in 7858/2019.
W.A. No. 1172 of 2017 (and connected cases) This Kerala High Court writ appeal concerns the time limits for completing assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and its CST Rules, read with the KVAT Act, 2003. The core issue is whether Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules permits completing assessments within a ‘reasonable time’ or whether a fixed statutory period (four years) applies, particularly in the context of assessments of escaped turnover under Rules 6(7) and (8). The petition traces the transition from the KGST Act’s four-year framework to the KVAT regime, where Section 21 deems assessment complete on filing the return accompanied by prescribed documents, and Section 25 provides a five-year window for initiation of proceedings for escaped turnover. The writ petitions challenged notices and orders issued beyond purported time limits. While the Single Judge had held that reasonable time could not exceed the four-year window, the Division Bench overruled the earlier view in light of developments under KVAT and rules, holding that a five-year reasonable period for initiating CST Rule 6(5) proceedings is appropriate. The court cites authority from Parisons Foods, Abdul Majeed P.A., and Punjab v. Bhattinda Milk, distinguishing or overruling prior positions and emphasizing expedition in tax administration. The judgment ends with a directions- cum- costs order.
WP(C).No. 18646 of 2018 (E) Petitioner N. Sheela, a cashew-exporter, challenged a Debt Recovery Tribunal order and the bank’s retention of security after partial repayment. The borrower contends that the bank had orally permitted sale of the hypothecated car after notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and that she had paid off the car loan and sought a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to transfer the vehicle. The Bank filed OA No.119/2018 seeking leave to sell the car and other security; the Tribunal granted IA 740/2018 to attach the vehicle and appointed an advocate-commissioner, who could not locate the car as it had reportedly travelled to Chennai. The Bank filed IAs 918/2018 and 919/2018 to injunct sale and direct surrender; the petitioner also filed IA 951/2018 for an NOC after clearing the loan. Ext.P4, an order passed by the Tribunal on 18.05.2018, directed the Bank to release the charge and issue a No-Due certificate for the vehicle loan to the petitioner so it could be entered in the RC book. The petitioner sought mandamus to enforce Ext.P4 despite pending DRAT appeals. The Court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is discretionary and that the Tribunal’s procedure is guided by natural justice; it did not grant relief, noting that the matter lies with DRAT and that interim observations must be treated cautiously. It declined to issue mandamus and closed the petition, with no order on costs.
RP.No.905 of 2017 in MACA 737/2013 This is a Kerala High Court review petition filed by five appellants (Sumathy, Aswathi, Abhilash, Janaki, Appukuttan) challenging the MACA 737/2013 judgment of 16 September 2017, which had enhanced the compensation awarded in a motor-accident claim. The appellants contend the appeal was decided in their absence and that compensation for future prospects was not awarded. The Tribunal’s original award was Rs. 4,59,000 on a claim of Rs. 6,00,000; the High Court, though the appellants were unrepresented at hearing, proceeded to grant an additional compensation of Rs. 4,36,000 with 8% interest from the date of the petition to realization, describing this as just compensation. They argued that no addition for future prospects had been considered in determining the deceased’s income; the Court notionally fixed Rs. 4,500 as income, aligning with Ramachandrappa, while the claim had asserted Rs. 4,500 as earnings from cooking and selling food in a toddy shop. The review petition relies on Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh to argue for future prospects; however, the Apex Court’s later Pranay Sethi decision clarified entitlement to future prospects and rejected the Rajesh line of authority. The Court notes that loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 25,000, respectively. In the result, the review petition is dismissed.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the delay in disposal of suo motu proceedings initiated before the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam, under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970. The Land Tribunal’s suo motu proceeding, S.M. No. 300/2019, seeks assignment of the right, title and interest vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K read with Rule 14 of the Rules, in respect of 0.0465 hectares of land in Re.Sy.No.293/18, Block 19, Thenkurissi-II Village. The petitioner, an 85-year-old senior citizen, contends for an expeditious enquiry and disposal of the matter, highlighting her age and need for timely relief, especially in the context of mortgage loans requiring a purchase certificate. The respondent counters with the substantial pendency at the Land Tribunal (2434 cases). The Court cites Narayanan Namboodiri v. The Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and another (2018), noting directions to dispose of senior-citizen cases on priority and on seniority, and to obtain reports through Village Officers when needed. The judgment directs the Land Tribunal to follow the Narayanan Namboodiri directions, including prioritizing senior citizens, preserving seniority, and completing pending matters within defined timeframes, while adhering to lawful procedures and GO 2018 directives. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs, directing expeditious disposal in compliance with the cited precedent.
ANANTHU MANILAL, the appellant, filed O.P. (M.V.) No.197/2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, seeking compensation for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 09.08.2011. The Tribunal held the driver negligent, assessed a total compensation of Rs.96,700, and directed the insurer to pay. The appellant challenged the quantum, asserting the income fixation by the Tribunal was erroneous and notional income should be aligned with Supreme Court guidance. The evidence consisted of Exts A1–A9; the appellant contends eligibility for enhanced compensation in light of established precedents such as Ramachandrappa (notional income for a coolie), Pranay Sethi (future prospects), and Sarla Verma (multiplier). The appellant upheld the 8% permanent disability noted by the Tribunal and argued for appropriate addition for future prospects, loss of earning, and head of pain and sufferings, among others. The respondents admitted the accident and policy but disputed negligence; they argued the Tribunal’s income figure was reasonable. The Kerala High Court, after considering the injuries (including 8% disability), future prospects, and appropriate heads of compensation, partially allows the appeal, recalculating and increasing the total to Rs.3,64,936, and directing deposit by the insurer with interest and costs.
This MACA arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, where the parents and a brother of Namitha, a nine-year-old girl who died in a road accident on 11 May 2013, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Innova car with registration KL-35/A9999, allegedly owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent, was insured with the third respondent. The Tribunal held rash and negligent driving and that the insurer was liable to indemnify the owner, awarding a total of Rs 2,67,500 with interest at 9% per annum from 31 August 2013 and proportionate costs. The appellants challenged the quantum, especially under the head of loss of dependency, arguing for a notional monthly income of Rs 5,000 for the deceased, who was a minor. The Tribunal had fixed the deceased’s notional annual income at Rs 30,000, with a 50% deduction for personal needs and a multiplier of 15, resulting in Rs 2,25,000 under dependency. Citing Kishan Gopal, Vijayan (New India), and Reshma Kumari, the High Court recalculated: the notional annual income remains Rs 30,000, but for children up to 15 years the deduction should be 1/3, with multiplier 15, yielding Rs 3,00,000. After subtracting the Rs 2,25,000 already awarded, an additional Rs 75,000 is due under dependency. The court also awards Rs 1,00,000 for loss of love and affection, making the total additional compensation Rs 1,75,000, with 8% interest from the petition date and a direction to deposit within one month. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, with no costs.
These are consolidated writ petitions (WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024 and connected cases) challenging freezing of petitioners' bank accounts by various banks in the course of cybercrime and other investigations. Filed from multiple parties across Kerala and other states, the petitions allege disproportionate, blanket freezes that cripple business and daily life. The petitioners seek judicial protection limiting freezes strictly to the amounts specified in police requisitions or orders and to ensure petitioners can operate unfrozen funds. The Kerala High Court, presided by a single judge, heard these petitions together with a view to balancing law enforcement needs with due process and financial rights. The court issued interim directives, then disposed of the petitions with directions: banks must confine freezes to the exact amounts mentioned in police orders and communicate limits to petitioners; banks should permit transaction of funds beyond the frozen amount; police authorities must inform banks about the continuation or modification of freezes; if no information is received, petitioners may approach the court again with their contentions reserved. The judgment cites Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661) for the principle of proportional freezing and references orders in other related WPs (e.g., WP(C) 28155/2023) to justify limiting financial harm while preserving investigatory efficacy. The decision thereby adopts a uniform, policy-driven approach to reconcile anti-fraud measures with constitutional and human-rights considerations.
ITA No. 881 of 2009 & ITA No. 1294 of 2009 This Kerala High Court judgment addresses a double ITA appeal arising from reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1995-96. The Department (Revenue) challenges the ITAT Cochin Bench’s order in ITA No.161/2006, which partially allowed the assessee’s appeal. The core legal issue concerns the burden of proof regarding the source of income and whether the Appellate Authority (Commissioner of Appeals) can enhance or bring to tax income not originally considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 251, and the appropriate handling of ‘new income’ discovered in reassessment. The court reviews a string of conclusions: (i) the onus on the source of cash credits lies with the assessee; (ii) the Appellate Authority has wide powers under section 251, but not to create entirely new sources of income outside the AO’s original contemplation; and (iii) the 22,15,116 of income from abroad, not considered by the AO, cannot be sustained as “new income” under section 251, although other items of unexplained income (notably deposits of 5,00,000 and 2,00,000) require consideration. The decision also traverses precedents (Sardari Lal, Union Tyres, Nirbhheram Daluram, among others) to delineate the scope of appellate powers. Ultimately, the court partly allows the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.881/2009 and dismisses ITA No.1294/2009, upholding the appellate tribunal’s stance on penalties and confirming certain additions while reversing others as noted above.
This Division Bench of the Kerala High Court hears MACA No. 2336 of 2013, filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against an award in O.P.(MV) No.1150/2010 (Vatakara MACT). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,29,000 for the death of a 9-year-old child in a 7 January 2010 accident, using a notional monthly income of Rs.4,000. The insurer challenged the award on two grounds: (i) Rs.4,000 monthly income for a minor is not sustainable; (ii) an addition for future prospects for a child is inappropriate. The claimant-parents contended, citing Lata Wadhwa (AIR 2001 SC 3218) and the Sarla Varma doctrine, that higher compensation is permissible and that jurisprudence supports following the Supreme Court guidance. The court references RK Malik (schedule to Section 163A) and Ramachandrappa to highlight that the schedule for nonearning persons must guide calculation, avoiding an earnings-based figure for a dependent child. It ultimately reassesses compensation: notional annual income Rs.24,000 (Rs.24,000 × 15 = Rs.3,60,000 for loss of dependency), funeral Rs.25,000, transport Rs.3,000, love and affection Rs.1,00,000, pain and suffering Rs.5,000, awarding a total of Rs.4,93,000 with interest at 8% per annum from the petition date, to be paid within two months, after deducting any permissible Section 140 amount; no costs awarded.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) from the Kerala High Court, arising out of a MACT award in OPMV 330/2010 at Kottayam for a death in a road accident on 25.12.2009 involving an autorickshaw and a bus. The appellants are the deceased’s parents and sisters seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal awarded ₹4,03,000 with 7.5% interest. The appellants challenge several aspects: the court’s fixation of monthly income, the use of a multiplier based on parents’ ages rather than the deceased’s age, and the quantum under heads like loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. The High Court relies on Ramachandrappa (for guiding monthly income) and Sarla Verma (multiplier with reference to the deceased’s age), noting the Tribunal used the average age of parents, not the deceased, contrary to the cited doctrine. The court fixes the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,100 after applying adjustments (including a 30% addition for cost of living and a 50% personal expenses deduction for a bachelor). It applies multiplier 17 (age 26–30) and recalculates loss of dependency, resulting in ₹9,28,200 under that head. It also awards ₹25,000 for funeral expenses and ₹15,000 each to four dependents for loss of love and affection (total ₹60,000, with ₹20,000 additional). The cumulative enhanced compensation is ₹6,38,200. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount with 8% interest within two months, and the apportionment is 20:40:20:20 among appellants.
This Kerala High Court appeal arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur award dated 23 January 2008 in OP(MV) 737/2005, concerning the death of Binil Krishnan in a motor vehicle accident on 12 February 2005. The deceased, nine years old, was riding a bicycle when a bus (KL-8/C-3004) owned and driven by the first respondent and second respondent respectively struck him. The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased, contended that the Tribunal’s compensation was inadequate under heads including death, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, and that the vehicle was operated without valid third‑party insurance. The Tribunal found liability and awarded ₹1,54,500, directing the owner to deposit with 9% interest and costs, while noting lack of insurance. The High Court, while deciding issues on quantum, relied on evolving jurisprudence and fair valuation in cases involving minors and death. Noting the accident occurred in 2005 and the deceased’s age at death, the Court reassessed notional income and applied a multiplier suitable for a minor, ultimately enhancing compensation by ₹1,70,000 beyond the Tribunal’s award, and requiring the owner to deposit this amount with interest. The judgment also underscores the school’s responsibility to insure its vehicle and calls for government action against unauthorised use of educational buses in public roads.
This MACA arises from an appeal by the parents and sister of Sunil challenging the MACT Perumbavoor award in an MV Act Section 163A petition filed after Sunil’s death in a road accident on 1 May 2006. The Tribunal computed compensation by applying the multiplier-multiplicand method for loss of dependency, which the High Court finds improper for Section 163A. The court reiterates that compensation under 163A must be determined according to the structured formula in the Second Schedule, focusing on the deceased’s age and monthly income, with the final figure adjusted by a 1/3 deduction for personal living expenses. Sunil was 23 years old and reportedly earned Rs 3,000 per month, yielding an annual income of Rs 36,000 and a corresponding Second Schedule figure of Rs 6,48,000. After applying the 1/3 deduction the amount for “death” is Rs 4,32,000. The Tribunal’s earlier award of Rs 4,08,000 is thus adjusted; moreover, under 163A the concept of loss of dependency is not applicable. In addition, the Court recognizes general damages under Note-3 of the Second Schedule: since Sunil was a bachelor, there is no loss of consortium, but Rs 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs 2,500 for loss of estate are permissible, totaling Rs 26,500. The court directs payment of the additional amount, with interest at 8% from the petition date to realization, and holds the third respondent liable for indemnity. The appeal is allowed in part; costs are denied.
CRL.A.No.590/2010 and 545/2012 In Crl.A.No.590/2010 and 545/2012, the Kerala High Court hears appeals against an III Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam judgment (SC 114/2006) convicting six accused in a 2005 dacoity and murder at Koshy’s house. The prosecution’s case relied on a violent sequence: a conspiracy to commit dacoity; entry into the house; murder of Koshy and Karuppuswamy; robbery of cash, jewelry, mobile and other valuables; and associated injuries to PW1 (Koshy’s wife) and PW2 (PW1’s daughter-in-law). The trial court convicted the accused under Secs 120B, 302, 396, 397, 399, and 449 IPC read with Sec.34, while acquitting some charges under Sec.201 and Sec.307 IPC. On appeal, the High Court evaluated the eyewitness accounts (PW1 and PW2), the autopsy evidence (PW27, PW28), and material recoveries (MO1–MO22) along with forensic and fingerprint analysis. The bench rejected defense arguments challenging identification, finding the identification credible and supported by other evidence including oral testimony, circumstantial evidence, and science. The court held that conspiratorial acts were proven by circumstantial evidence and corrected several sentencing issues: setting aside the Sec.120B conviction, directing Sec.397 to run concurrently with the life sentence, and imposing a separate Sec.399 sentence of two years with fine, while affirming the life, Sec.302, Sec.396, Sec.449 convictions and sentences.
