Roshanthomas, the accused in CC 241/2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of Pathanamthitta, challenges the continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The FIR/charges relate to alleged offences under IPC sections 294(b), 447, 341, and 323 arising from an incident on 31.01.2020 near Ambady Granites, where the accused allegedly abused the complainant, attempted trespass, restrained him, and caused injuries. The petitioner contends that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, the complainant has stated there are no lasting grievances, and the third respondent has filed an affidavit supporting withdrawal of prosecution. Accordingly, they seek quashing of the proceedings in the High Court. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, concedes that there are no other crimes against the petitioner, that the complainant has no enduring grievance, and that there is a record of the complainant’s statement. The High Court refers to State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to articulate that 482 CrPC quashing is permissible for non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where the dispute has been resolved, subject to exceptions for serious or public interest offences. After weighing the gravity of the offences, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable relationship, the court concludes quashing would not adversely affect society and would serve ends of justice. Result: petition allowed; Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.109/2020 and all further proceedings in CC 241/2020 quashed. Order issued by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Single Judge.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2868 OF 2004 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition filed by Satheesan challenging a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The accused was held guilty by the Trial Court for possessing approximately 4 litres of arrack on 6 March 1997 and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with a Rs. 25,000 fine (in default two more months). The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence in Cr. App. No. 334 of 2001, which led to the revision petition before this court. The High Court scrutinizes several supervisory defects in the prosecution’s case: unexplained delays in producing the seized contraband and records before the Excise Range office and the court; absence of a specimen impression on the seizure mahazar; forwarding notes lacking the name of the Excise Guard; no property list; absent arrest memo and arrest intimation; and lack of clarity about the sample’s chain of custody for chemical analysis. It cites controlling precedents—Moothedath Sivadasan; Kumaran P; Ramankutty; Baburaj; Rajamma—to emphasize the chain-of-custody and arrest-procedure requirements in narcotics/forfensic contexts. The court concludes that these irregularities render the prosecution’s case unreliable, sets aside the judgments of conviction, and acquits the petitioner under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., with bail cancelled and liberty granted. The decision underscores strict adherence to procedural requirements for seizure, sample integrity, and arrest documentation in Abkari cases.
Philip A Mullakkal, the accused in S.T. No. 1551/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, challenges a private complaint filed by the Avanoor Grama Panchayath under Section 210 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for alleged non-payment of building tax for a structure in Velakode Industrial Estate. The petitioner contends that the building lies within an industrial area exempt from Panchayat taxation, and that the amendment to Section 1(2) of the Act (as per the Kerala Panchayat Raj Amendment Act, 2014) restricts the Panchayat’s jurisdiction to non-industrial zones only; it is argued that the amendment’s retrospective effect, deemed to have come into force on 14 June 2010, cannot be used to create liability. The petitioner also argues that Rule 14 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Taxation, Levy and Appeal) Rules, 1996 requires a notice before enforcing Section 210, and that the notice issued during the earlier regime cannot be retroactive. The State and Panchayat defend that the amendment retrospectively extends taxability to industrial areas and that notice under Rule 14 validly preceded enforcement. The High Court emphasizes Article 20(1) protections against retroactive penal statutes and the requirement of a proper Rule 14 notice, ultimately concluding that the complaint is unsustainable and quashing the proceedings on the ground that retroactive application cannot create liability and the notice was not properly applicable.
This matter (DBP No.27 of 2022) arises from an Ombudsman-vigilance based inquiry into alleged corruption within the Temple Advisory Committee of Peroor Sree Krishna Swami Temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The Ombudsman’s report, based on Complaint No. 3/2022, prompted scrutiny of actions by Devaswom Board officials after a prior 2020 complaint and a 2021 closure order. The petition by R. Sunil Kumar contends that the Vigilance Report exposed serious irregularities and that the Devaswom Commissioner failed to take corrective action, with several committees (Ad-hoc and Temple Advisory) questioned for improper formation and continuance of office-bearers, including the 3rd respondent, M.K. Devarajan. The court exhaustively reviews statutory provisions governing Temple Advisory Committees, notably Section 31A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, along with Clause (11) of the Rules and the enabling Section 35(2)(a) for rule-making. It relies on Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2021) and Sunil Kumar C. v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2022) to address term limits, extensions, and the need for proper procedure. Ultimately, the court disposes the DBP with directions to terminate the Ad-hoc Committee, commence a Mandalam election on 02.09.2022, and obtain audit reports from the Finance Commissioner before finalising actions against the 3rd respondent, ensuring due process and timely accountability.
CRL.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 This is a consolidated judgment of the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) delivering on appeals against convictions arising from the long-drawn Maradu/Chandrasekharan murder case. The core incident occurred on the night of 04 May 2012 when T.P. Chandrasekharan, a political leader, was hacked to death at Vallikkad, allegedly following a conspiracy among CPI(M) leaders and associates and with involvement of others. The trial court had convicted several accused under IPC sections including 120B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 143/147/148 (unlawful assembly with weapons), 149 IPC (common object), and under the Explosive Substances Act; it also dealt with charges under 201/212 IPC and various provisions of the Explosives Act. The High Court examined the evidence, including eyewitness accounts (PW1 Praseeth and PW3 Maneesh Kumar), circumstantial evidence, weapon recoveries (MO1 swords), blood/DNA analysis, and voluminous Call Data Records (CDR) admitted under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, after considering issues of admissibility (65B), reliability of witnesses, and the role of political enmity. The bench upheld many convictions, held conspiracy established under Section 120B for a number of accused, and imposed life sentences with a 20-year non-remission rider, enhanced compensation, while setting aside some acquittals and maintaining others. The judgment emphasizes the “rarest of rare” framework for capital punishment, ultimately refusing death sentences in this case and balancing reformation prospects with public interest in accountability for a crime affecting democracy.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition filed by Damu challenging a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act r/w Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules and Section 15 of the Abkari Amendment Act 1997, arising from a 1998 incident in which Metropolitan police conducting Abkari checks seized five 375 ml bottles of Extra No.1 Golden Star Brandy and five bottles of Aristocrat Brandy. The trial court convicted, and the first appellate court (CRA 597/2001) partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence to one year’s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The revision petition argues serious procedural lacunae: unexplained delay (22 days) in producing the contraband before the court; absence of a specimen seal on the seizure mahazar; missing details in the forwarding note about the person who sent the sample to the chemical examiner; and lack of evidence showing the sample’s journey and tamper-proof custody to the laboratory. Relying on multiple precedents emphasizing strict compliance with Abkari Act formalities and chain-of-custody requirements (Baburaj; Sathi; Ramachandran; Vijayan; Nadarajan; Moothedath Sivadasan; Sasidharan; Vijay Pandey; Daulat Ram), the High Court holds that these gaps undermine proof beyond reasonable doubt and sets aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the accused and cancelling bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2131 OF 2023; 2149 OF 2023 This is a consolidated bail petition before the Kerala High Court (Single Judge) arising from Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram in Crime No. 17/2023. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in BA 2131/2023 and accused No. 7 in BA 2149/2023 are sought to be enlarged on bail under Sec. 439 CrPC, in connection with allegations of forming an unlawful assembly at 3:00 a.m. on 08.01.2023, with common intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, wrongfully restraining the complainant, and assaulting him while he traveled in a car, along with others. The prosecution charges include multiple IPC sections (143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 342, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 427, 120B, 326, 307 r/w 149) and Arms Act Section 27. Accused 1 and 2 have substantial prior criminal antecedents; accused 7 has none; some others are not yet arrested. The prosecution alleges serious injuries to the complainant and witnesses, with sustained injuries to others as per the case diary. The court noted the accused’s custody since 21.01.2023, the age of the investigation, and potential risks of recidivism, but concluded that bail with stringent conditions is warranted to balance liberty with public order. The order grants bail to accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 subject to specific bond, non-interference with witnesses, co-operation with investigation, regular appearances, and prohibition on committing further offences during the bail period.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 326 of 2021) arises from a dispute over a unilateral cancellation deed. The respondent/plaintiff (N. Ravikumar) had filed OS 414/2010 before the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor seeking cancellation of a cancellation deed and to declare a settlement deed executed in his favour as valid, following earlier partition and release deeds. The Trial Court decreed in his favour by declaring the cancellation deed (No. 773/1/2006) null and void and granting title and possession. The District Court, Pathanamthitta, on appeal (AS No. 25/2013), altered the decree to grant a mandatory injunction compelling defendants 2 and 3 to vacate the plaint schedule building within three months and, on failure, to enforce the order through the Court. The appellants challenged this in RSA 326/2021. The counsel for the appellants argued lack of notice and opportunity to defend, with ex parte proceedings having occurred; they prayed for a chance to defend and for considerations based on the appellants’ health and family circumstances. The court canvassed a line of precedents: Pavakkal Noble John v. State of Kerala; Hamsa P.A.; Thotta Ganga Laxmi; and Santhosh Antonio S. Netto, emphasizing that unilateral cancellation of a registered deed is void or meaningless. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, but with a vacating schedule and stay of execution to protect the parties’ interests.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.C No.1979 of 2022) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging an order under Section 107 CrPC issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Irinjalakkuda, on 18 February 2022. The SDM had required the petitioner to appear and show cause why she should not execute a bond for keeping the peace for one year with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, based on an involvement in Crime No. 385/2018 of Kodakara Police Station and a general assertion that she was likely to endanger public peace in Kaprassery Kara. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no live link between the 2018 crime and the proposed action, no material indicating imminent danger or disturbance, and that the order did not satisfy the procedural requirements of Section 111 CrPC. He stressed the need for cogent material and the magistrate’s reasoned satisfaction before issuing such an order, warning against using Section 107 as punishment for past conduct. The Public Prosecutor contended that Section 107 is preventive and based on credible information from police, justifying action to maintain public peace. The High Court held that the impugned order lacked the requisite grounds and material, failed to record proper satisfaction, and did not follow due process. Consequently, Annexure-1 order was quashed and all further proceedings against the petitioner were set aside.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1503 OF 2012 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition (CRL.RP No.1503/2012) filed by T. J. Thomas, the third accused, challenging the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adulteration of banana chips with tartrazine. The trial court, and later the Appellate Court, had held him guilty under sections 16(1-A)(i) read with 7(i) and 2(ia)/(j) and Rule 29 of the PFA Rules, based on a sample analysis by a Public Analyst. The case focuses on the admissibility and reliability of the Public Analyst’s report Ext P10, obtained from a laboratory not notified under Section 23(1-A)(ee). The petitioner’s counsel invoked the Supreme Court’s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and a Kerala Division Bench decision Rasheed v. Food Inspector, arguing that prosecutions dependent on analyses from non-notified laboratories must fail. The State opponent contends Pepsico’s ratio is not universally applicable, noting Section 8 enables appointment of Public Analysts and that Kerala has its own designated analysts. The judgment traces a line of authorities, including Rasheed’s expansive interpretation post-Pepsico, and determines that where the analysis is from a non-notified laboratory, the prosecution cannot succeed. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the lower judgments are set aside, the petitioner is acquitted, and bail bonds are cancelled.
Mar Basil Granites and Metals, a partnership engaged in mining and quarrying, approached this Court seeking to quash Ext. P4 final order under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 17,07,648 for unauthorized connected load. The petitioner contends that it had a High Tension connection with a sanctioned load of 145 KW and a contract demand of 150 KVA under HT1A tariff. An Anti-Power Theft Squad inspection on 14.12.2022 revealed an additional 59 KW load beyond the sanctioned level, leading to provisional assessment (Ext. P2) and a subsequent objection (Ext. P3). The final order (Ext. P4) was issued by the 4th respondent. The petitioner argues that energization approval had been granted and the actual connected load was below sanctioned load; further, the penalty should be based on demand charges for a High Tension consumer, not merely the connected load. The respondents pressed that the remedy lies in Section 127 of the Electricity Act (appeal) and relied on Regulation 99 of the Supply Code; they also invoked precedents including Seetaram Rice Mill (Southco) and Thomas Joseph to justify penalties and tariff interpretation. The Court ultimately held that exhaustion of statutory remedies is required and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue a Section 127 appeal before the State Electricity Board Appellate Authority within four weeks, with coercive proceedings deferred for four weeks.
CRL.R.P. No. 3064 of 2006 Baiju, Sunil and Rajesh (the revision petitioners) challenge the judgment dated 19.10.2005 in CC No.509/2002 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adimaly, as affirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha, in Crl.A. No.303/2005. The trial court convicted the petitioners for offences under IPC Sections 323 (causing hurt) and 341 (wrongful restraint) and acquitted them under Sections 326 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. PW2, the injured, supported the prosecution, with Ext. P4 (wound certificate) correlating with injuries. PW3 and PW9, the wife and son of PW2, testified in favour of the prosecution; PW1, the first witness, did not support it. The prosecution relied on PW2’s testimony, corroborated by Ext. P1 FIS and other witnesses. The defence contended that PW2’s oral evidence is not reliable and that PWs 3 and 9 are interested witnesses. The court discusses the ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., noting it is limited and not an appeal, citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and related principles, and reiterating that interference requires perverse or untenable findings. The court ultimately finds no reason to alter the conviction but, applying sentencing principles from Gurmukh Singh, reconsiders the sentence. The revision is partly allowed; the conviction stands, but the sentence is modified to a Rs. 1,000 fine per accused, payable to the victim under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C. No. 6247 of 2013 Ambalal V Patel, the second accused and MD of Centurion Laboratories (a division of Centurion Remedies Pvt. Ltd.), moves under Crl.M.C. 6247/2013 challenging the committal of CC No.84/2011 (SC No.856/2013) from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode to the Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The complaint under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleges that drugs manufactured by the petitioner were not of standard quality, i.e., offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d). The petitioner argues that after the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act, 2008, jurisdiction to try such offences remains with the Magistrate’s Court where the drug is not of standard quality; the decision in Zest Pharma v. Drug Inspector (2013) 4 KLT 462 supports this, and Section 36AB’s Special Courts carve-out only applies to clauses (a) and (c) of Section 27. The respondents contend that Section 36AB enables Special Courts for adulterated or spurious drugs and that 32(2)’s non-obstante clause confines certain offences to the Sessions Court. The High Court analyzes the Act’s provisions (Sections 16-18, 27, 32, 36AB) and the 2008 amendment, distinguishing Zest Pharma. The court allows the Crl.M.C, quashes the committal, and retransmits SC No.856/2013 to the CJM Kozhikode forthwith.
WP(C) No. 21486 of 2021 & conn. Cases The judgment consolidates several writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 21486/2021 and connected cases) filed by SR Medical College and various students challenging orders of the Admission Supervisory and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) directing refund or payment of tuition/lag fees. The Court groups the petitions into three “bunches.” The first bunch comprises writ petitions filed by SR Medical College challenging AFRC orders; the second and third bunches involve students seeking refunds or enhanced refunds and, in some cases, challenging calculation of lag fees when semesters were not cleared. After hearing counsels and considering submissions, the Court reiterates the framework of the Kerala Medical Education Act (2017) and the AFRC orders, and notably relies on Najma & others v. Union of India to direct revenue recovery actions if debts are not paid, while also directing refunds where appropriate. The judgment ultimately disposes of the second and third bunch petitions in petitioners’ favour by directing SR Medical College to deposit AFRC-quantified amounts within one month and disposing of other petitions (8878/2022, 8851/2022, 8832/2022) by dismissal, with further directions to recover amounts and to protect petitioners from coercive actions for a minimum period. The decision provides a structured mechanism to resolve refunds, recoveries, and future payments.
This is a first appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(j) CPC challenging an order of sale in execution proceedings. In E.P. No. 150 of 2018 in O.S. No. 115 of 2015, the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, had on 07 February 2022 put to auction three attached items belonging to the judgment debtors. The bid was won by BRD Finance Limited. The appellants argued that the proclamation of sale, the upset price and the extent of sale were improper, resulting in a price far below market value (Rs. 27,00,100 bid versus purported value around Rs. 99,30,000). They contended that the proclamation lacked proper valuation and that the court failed to determine what portion of the property should be sold to satisfy the decree, violating the principle that only a portion sufficient to meet the decretal amount should be brought to sale. They relied onAmbati Narasayya v. Subba Rao to claim that the sale was vitiated by irregularities causing substantial injury, justifying setting aside. The respondent-decree holder countered that inadequacy of price is not automatically fatal to a sale and that objections before sale may not invalidate the sale; they cited Kayjay Industries and related authority. The Kerala High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, holding the sale illegal and setting it aside, while directing that E.P.150/2018 proceed to enforce the decree accordingly.
All these Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from four connected petitions filed in OP(MV) Nos.1044/2010, 1045/2010, 1046/2010 and 1246/2010, concerning a collision between a Maruti car and a Tavera in Kollam district. The Tavera was driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent, and insured by the 3rd respondent (Reliance General Insurance). The Tribunal held negligent driving by the Tavera driver and allocated liability to the insurer for compensation. The claimants challenged the quantum of compensation. The High Court, applying decisions such as New India Insurance Co. v. Pazhaniyammal (police final report can establish negligence under Sec.166 M.V. Act in the absence of contrary evidence), Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Syed Sadiq, and Pranay Sethi, reassessed loss of dependency, future prospects, and other heads of damages. For the death of a 57-year-old welder (OPMV 1045/2010), the Court found the Tribunal’s notional income too low and, after adjustments (income up to Rs.20,000/month; 50% deduction for overseas living; multiplier 9; 10% future prospects), awarded higher compensation and corrected Pain & Suffering, Loss of Estate, and Loss of Love & Affection heads per Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur principles. Similar recalculations were carried out for OPMV 1044/2010, 1046/2010, and for a minor injured in OP(MV) 1246/2010 under a lump-sum approach. The appeals are allowed in part; enhanced amounts (Rs.5,60,896; Rs.3,82,896; Rs.2,14,102; Rs.71,500) are directed with interest and costs. Negligence is not disturbed. This was decided by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 29.11.2023.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P1 notification dated 19.01.2022 issued by the Malabar Devaswom Board (MDB) inviting applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees of Sree Vairamkode Bhagavathi Devaswom, Thirunavaya. The petitioners, devotees of the temple, seek mandamus to (i) direct the Commissioner to appoint non-hereditary trustees strictly adhering to Clauses 3(a)–(j) of Ext.P1, (ii) appoint an Observer to supervise the selection process and report, (iii) preventing appointment of non-hereditary trustees with disqualifications and to select by merit, (iv) bar respondents 5–7 from appointment, and (v) conduct interviews and disclose results. The MDB had earlier deferred the process due to interim orders, while certificate verification under Ext.P1 was scheduled. The court analyzes the constitutional and statutory framework: Article 226, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Sections 39(5) and 39(2)), and the scheme under Section 58, with Ext.P1’s disqualifications and eligibility. It cites and relies on decisions including Gopalakrishnan Nair; Gopinatha Menon; Sreedharan Nambeesan; Parameshwaran Namboothiri; Chathu Achan K.; Suresh K.; Anantha Narayanan; and A.A. Gopalakrishnan, to emphasize that the appointment must be merit-based, exclude active politicians, and follow fair procedure. The petition is disposed of with directions that the 2nd respondent Commissioner and MDB proceed strictly in terms of Ext.P1 and the cited precedents, and within a month from certified copy, potentially after modifying the application format to reflect eligibility criteria.
The appellants are legal heirs of late Mohammed Ibrahim who died following a road accident on 16.12.2015 when the motorcycle ridden by him collided with an offending vehicle. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, awarded Rs 21,18,777 in O.P.(MV) 991/2015, while the appellants sought a higher compensation of Rs 51,05,000 claiming substantial loss of dependency and other heads. The challenge before the Kerala High Court (MACA No.1838 of 2018) focused on the adequacy of quantum and the notional income adopted by the Tribunal. The appellants argued Ext.A18 (Income Tax Returns) showed a gross annual income of Rs.2,50,120, which should have translated into a higher monthly notional income; they pressed for enhanced losses under dependency and claimed substantial constellations under loss of consortium, while the insurer contended that the Tribunal’s award was correct and that certain heads like Pain and Suffering and Love and Affection should be limited per recent Supreme Court precedents. The learned Judge extensively reviewed evidence, cited Pranay Sethi for caps on funeral and estate heads, and applied Sangita Arya and others for a Rs.14,000 monthly notional income, with 40% future prospects and a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses. The judgment ultimately revised several heads, increased the loss of consortium, and directed payment of enhanced amounts with 8.5% interest, while striking down certain heads. The order also permits funds to be released for minor education, with two months’ deposit to the Tribunal.
CRL.R.P. No. 1581 of 2012 This is a criminal revision petition by Venugopalan challenging the conviction of offences under Sections 55(a), 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. The accused was found in possession of four litres of illicit arrack on 26.10.2004 and was convicted by the trial court, later affirmed in part on appeal with reduced sentence. The High Court scrutinizes the procedural compliance under the Abkari Act and the chain of custody for seized contraband, emphasizing stringent adherence to statutory formalities given the harsh penalties. The petitioner contends lack of specimen seal description in Ext P2 mahazar, delay in investigation (from seizure to complaint), and non-compliance with sample handling guidelines, arguing these defects undermine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court surveys a line of authorities—Baburaj; Sathi; Vijayan; Nadarajan; Moothedath Sivadasan; Sasidharan—and many others on the necessity of tamper-proof sampling, proper lab correlation, and prompt investigation under Section 50. It acknowledges that delays and custodial lapses can be fatal to prosecution, citing Chandran, Surendran, Kumaran, Krishnan H., among others. Ultimately, the court finds the prosecution’s link between seizure, sample analysis, and the accused not established, acquitting the petitioner and setting aside the conviction and sentence; bail bonds are cancelled and he is released.
This Kerala High Court bail petition (B.A. No.2166/2023) arises from ED’s money-laundering investigation linked to the Life Mission project funded by UAE Red Crescent. The 9th accused, M. Sivasankar, is charged under the PMLA with offences relating to money laundering, with predicate offences including corruption allegations against other officials and a bribe-based scheme connected to a MoU with Unitac Builders & Developers. The prosecution contends that money was laundered through foreign currency and parallel bank accounts, with proceeds allegedly routed via Sivasankar’s influence as the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. The petitioner contends innocence, asserts political overtones, and seeks regular bail under Section 439(1) CrPC read with Section 45 PMLA on grounds of illness and humanitarian concerns, citing medical conditions and prior bail in a related case. The respondents argue he is the kingpin behind the scheme, with three distinct offences (gold smuggling, bribery, and money laundering) and that releasing him could jeopardize witnesses and ongoing investigations. The court reviews the statutory rigour under Section 45, the proviso for the sick/infirm, medical evidence, and the risk of tampering or flight, ultimately dismissing the bail application due to gravity of the offences, impact on the investigation, and absence of established sick/infirm status warranting relaxation of the rigour.
