This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No. 7311 of 2015) pending in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petition concerns accused Nos. 1-12 and 14-21 in CC No. 2484 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class III, Thrissur, who were charged with offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the Kerala Gaming Act, 1960. The prosecution alleged that on 15 August 2015 at the Regency Club in Ollur (Thrissur), accused persons engaged in a game of cards in a “members only” room, with others present at another table, constituting gaming activities. The petition challenges the legality of the registration of Crime No. 1484/2015 and the ensuing proceedings under Section 5 of the Kerala Gaming Act, contending that there is no material to prove the place as a ‘common gaming house’ and that the search and seizure were not properly conducted in compliance with Section 5. The petition cites Kunhikannan and Ors. v. Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, Danykutty v. State of Kerala, Sunil and Ors. v. State of Kerala, and Sugathan v. State of Kerala (2018 (4) KHC 45) to stress the necessity of credible information and recording the reasons for belief prior to entry. The High Court, after hearing the Public Prosecutor, held that there was no material establishing a common gaming house and that Section 5 was not complied with, thus granting the petition and quashing the final report (Annexure-B) in Crime No. 1484/2015 and all further proceedings in CC No. 2484/2015.
WP(C) No. 7735 of 2020; WP(C) No. 14557 of 2020; WP(C) No. 16299 of 2020 These connected writ petitions in the Kerala High Court seek higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, specifically the 2014 amendment. The petitioners, retired employees linked to Matsyfed and allied fisheries bodies, contend they are entitled to enhanced pension under the amended scheme. The Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the 2014 amendment in Sunil Kumar B. (reported in 2022 (7) KHC 12), and the respondents rely on that decision to argue for fresh applications under the amended scheme. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, petitioners may file a fresh application for enhanced pension, which should be considered under the amended framework and the Court’s directions. The Kerala High Court, noting the apex court decision, disposes of the petitions by directing petitioners to submit appropriate applications seeking enhanced pension under the amended scheme; such applications are to be considered by the appropriate EPFO authority without delay. The petitions were admitted on 26.09.2023 along with connected cases. The order clarifies that relief is to be granted by processing fresh applications under the amended scheme rather than granting immediate relief in the present proceedings.
WA Nos. 48/2020, 1562/2019, 2/2020, 314/2020, 323/2020, 324/2020, 328/2020, 332/2020, 333/2020, 339/2020, 342/2020, 343/2020, 361/2020, 365/2020, 379/2020, 383/2020, 385/2020, 394/2020, 398/2020, 399/2020, 400/2020, 402/2020, 412/2020, 431/2020, 437/2020, 447/2020, 448/2020, 449/2020, 451/2020, 459/2020, 463/2020, 467/2020, 475/2020, 477/2020, 480/2020, 481/2020, 487/2020, 490/2020, 497/2020, 512/2020, 514/2020, 516/2020, 518/2020, 520/2020, 539/2020, 540/2020, 541/2020, 542/2020, 551/2020, 562/2020, 567/2020, 568/2020, 569/2020, 571/2020, 574/2020, 580/2020, 587/2020, 589/2020, 591/2020, 596/2020, 606/2020, 607/2020, 611/2020, 615/2020, 617/2020, 621/2020, 628/2020, 629/2020, 630/2020, 643/2020, 652/2020, 662/2020, 669/2020, 703/2020, 722/2020, 742/2020, 785/2020, 877/2020, 892/2020, 912/2020, 986/2020, 1019/2020, 1528/2020, 1558/2020, 3/2021, 7/2021, 8/2021, 10/2021, 48/2021, 51/2021, 52/2021, 75/2021, 94/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 117/2021, 142/2021, 143/2021, 245/2021, 284/2021, 1056/2021 This batch of writ appeals challenges the validity and retrospective/prospective operation of amendments to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT) introduced through the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 in the wake of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The Kerala High Court, after referring to a string of authorities on the nature of retrospective amendments and the constitutional distribution of taxing powers (notably Article 246A and the 101st Amendment), held that the 2017 amendment replacing five years with six years for reopening assessments under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was prospective in operation, thereby barring reassessment for earlier periods where time-bar had already expired. It also examined the legality of the 2018 amendment (to the third proviso) and its constitutional competence to govern the KVAT regime post the KVAT repeal and the advent of GST, ultimately upholding the batch’s conclusions and dismissing the appeals. The judgment discusses vested/ accrued rights, savings provisions, and the ongoing interplay between pre-GST and GST-era taxation frameworks.
WA No. 48 of 2020 (and connected batch) This batch judgment from a Kerala High Court Division Bench deals with the re-opening of assessment under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) after amendments introduced by Kerala Finance Acts 2017 (11 of 2017) and 2018 (5 of 2018). The petitions challenged notices issued under Section 25(1) of KVAT for reassessment for years 2010-11 and 2011-12, arguing that amendments to Section 25(1) and its third proviso were either retrospective or beyond legislative competence. The court undertakes a detailed constitutional and statutory construction, examining (i) whether the substitution of ‘five years’ with ‘six years’ for the limitation period and the extended period for proceedings to determine assessments (including extensions under Section 25B) were meant to operate retrospectively; (ii) the effect of the 2017 amendment on accrued rights and on reassessment; (iii) the legislative competence to amend KVAT Act post-CAA 2016 and after repeal of KVAT in light of Article 246A and Entry 54 of List II. The judgment concludes that the 2017 amendment is prospective (i.e., not retroactive to revive reassessment rights that expired by 31.03.2017) and that the 2018 amendment to the third proviso of Section 25(1) lacked constitutional competence. Consequently, the batch of writ appeals is dismissed. The decision engages a spectrum of authorities on retrospective legislation and saving clauses under a republic GST regime.
CRL.A. No. 355 of 2020 & Crl.A (V) No. 631 of 2017 These are consolidated criminal appeals arising from S.C.No.604 of 2015, Thrissur, where ten accused faced charges for a murder and related offences in Pazhuvil Centre, Thrissur district, on 24 March 2015. The trial court acquitted all ten. The State of Kerala (and, in the companion appeal, the victim’s wife Varsha Deepak) challenged the acquittals. The High Court, noting that the prosecution adduced eyewitness accounts (PW1 Sajeev and PW2 Stalin), their identification parades, medical and forensic evidence (including MO4 knife; MO1–MO3 swords; hair and blood analysis; DNA comparisons), and the recovered vehicles and weapons, undertook a meticulous re-appraisal of the evidence. It rejected the acquittal as perverse, concluded that there was a criminal conspiracy among all ten accused (though with limited reliance on some witnesses), and held that the charges under Sections 120B, 109, 324, 326, 307, 201, and 302 read with 34 IPC were established beyond reasonable doubt for Accused 1–5. Accordingly, it reversed the acquittals, convicted 1–5 of murder (302/34 IPC), convicted 2 of 324 IPC, and convicted 4 of 326 IPC; while 2 and 5 were given benefit of 467(2) BNSS 2023. Sentences included life imprisonment for 1–5, 2 years for 324, and 3 years for 326, with concurrent terms for some. The court also directed warrants, production for sentence, and compensation measures for the victim’s legal representatives.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 355 OF 2019; CRL.REV.PET NO. 379 OF 2019 These two criminal revision petitions challenge an order dated 04.12.2018 in CMP No. 6734 of 2017 in CC 2339/2015 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hosdurg, Kasaragod, discharging the accused in the pending case. The background involves a 22 cents land dispute, where forged documents impersonating late U. Raghavan were created (document No.359/2007) in the name of Gracy Jacob, followed by sale transactions culminating in Rs.22 lakh received by the 4th accused Mohammed Kunhi and subsequently conveyed to the 2nd respondent Hashim. The complaint filed by Hashim alleged offences under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with 34 IPC. The petitioners allege that two FIRs were registered for the same incident and that discharging them was improper; they rely on several precedents (e.g., Mathews Mar Ivaniose, Upkar Singh, Surender Kaushik, and related SC/Kerala decisions) to argue that the second FIR should be barred as an abuse of process. The High Court, however, reviews the matter under the narrow ambit of Section 397 CrPC (Amit Kapoor) and, after examining rival authorities, concludes that the two FIRs relate to differing facts—impersonation versus fraudulent sale—and that the charge in CC 2339 of 2015 is maintainable. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the trial court’s proceedings.
Ex.FA Nos. 9/2021, 11/2021, 12/2021, 13/2021, 14/2021, 15/2021 These six Execution First Appeals arise from a common order passed by the III Additional District Court, Thrissur, on 19.11.2020 in EP 139/2012 (OS 1233/1980) lifting attachments under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The attachments pertained to properties owned by six claimants who claim title through transfers executed in 2012. The decree holder Cotton Corporation of India Limited challenges the lifting of attachments and contends that the matter should be governed by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, which would permit protective measures to secure the decree. The respondents/claimants contend that attachments are protective in nature to safeguard enforcement of a decree and cannot be treated as a mere defence; they invoke the legislations and doctrines surrounding constructive notice and the rights of purchasers/claimants post-transfer. The court discusses whether belated applications under Section 53 can be entertained, referencing a line of authorities, including a cited Shriman Shamrao Suryavanshi case, but ultimately concludes that such applications cannot be maintained if time-barred. It emphasizes that an attachment is a protective mechanism rather than a defence, and that Section 53 cannot be invoked after long delays. The Kerala High Court ultimately dismisses all six appeals, holding that the common order lifting attachments should stand and that the appeals are to be dismissed without costs.
The petition before the Kerala High Court, OP(LC) No. 15 of 2023, challenges Ext. P5, an order of the Labour Court Kollam (ID No. 13 of 2020) denying the workman the option to be represented by a legal practitioner under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman sought reinstatement after termination in ID No. 13/2020 and withheld consent for representation by a lawyer; the Labour Court restricted representation to non‑legal representatives. Counsel for the petitioner (the employer) relies on Pardip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (1977) to argue that consent is a crucial threshold and that the ID Act’s special welfare goals justify allowing legal representation, especially where health issues and sympathy for the petitioner are concerned. The respondent workman is represented by Jayaprakash, a trade union leader, and argues that Section 36(1)-(3) allows representation by trade union officials connected with the industry. The court traces Section 36, emphasizes the ID Act’s special status, and notes conflicting precedents from a two-judge bench about Pardip. Ultimately, the Judge affirms the Labour Court’s Ext. P5 order, holding that representation by those listed in Section 36(1)-(3) is permissible, but not by a practicing lawyer absent consent of the other parties, and declines to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed with Ext. P5 upheld.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.R.P. No.3194 of 2006) filed by Pavithran, Jayan and Bhaskarankizha... challenging the judgment dated 31.05.2006 in Crl.A.No.453 of 2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta, in respect of C.C. No.380/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. The prosecution alleged illegal storing of 2800 litres of spirit in a building owned by the 3rd petitioner (A3) and let to the 1st petitioner (A1) by the 2nd petitioner (A2). A1 was charged under Section 55(a) Abkari Act for possession of the contraband; A2 and A3 were charged under Section 64A for permitting storage. The trial court convicted A1 and A2 under 55(a) and 64A respectively, and A3 under 64A, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines. The appellate court re-appraised and modified A1’s conviction to Section 58 Abkari Act, while upholding others. The High Court scrutinized various defects: lack of identity proof, hostile witnesses (PW1, PW2), missing specimen seal in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, absence of a forwarding note with Ext.P8 list, unexplained delay in chemical analysis (Ext.P9), and the “one-man show” investigation by PW3. Relying on Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala (2020 KHC 5296) to condemn the “one man show,” the court concluded the prosecution’s case was unreliable, acquitting all petitioners and cancelling bail. The decision emphasizes procedural rigor and the danger of tainted evidence in excise cases.
This is a criminal revision petition filed by Jose.T.J challenging the concurrent verdicts convicting him for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Trial Court at Perumbavoor found the petitioner guilty for selling food articles (banana chips) adulterated with tartrazine, based on a sample analyzed by a Public Analyst who reported adulteration in Ext P12 Form III. The designated Magistrate sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default sentence of three months. The Appellate Court, in Crl.A. No. 522/2011, dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The revision petition before the Kerala High Court argues that the prosecution must fail because the sample was analyzed in a laboratory not recognised under Section 23(1A)(ee) of the PFA Act, a point derived from PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and Rasheed v. Food Inspector. The Public Prosecutor counters that PepsiCo’s reasoning should be re-considered in light of statutory provisions enabling public analysts and laboratories, notably Section 8 of the Act and Rule 4(9) of the PFA Rules. The judgment traces these authorities and agrees with the Division Bench’s approach in Rasheed, holding that failure to analyze in a laboratory notified under Section 23(1A)(ee) undermines the prosecution. In the instant case, the Public Analyst’s laboratory was non-notified, leading to acquittal. The High Court ultimately allows the revision petition, setting aside the lower judgments and acquitting the petitioner.
CRL.RC No. 611/2018 (and connected cases) This is an order dated 12 June 2024 by the High Court of Kerala (Single Judge, Justice P. Somarajan) in CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected cases arising from Suo Motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee's resolution of 18.09.2017. The batch comprises several criminal revision petitions challenging orders of Judicial Magistrates of First Class Kollam from 2013–2014 that stopped or disposed of cases under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The core issue is whether the Magistrates could stop proceedings in these matters under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which permits stopping proceedings in certain summons-type cases where the accused cannot be secured and the costs of securing attendance would exceed the maximum prescribed fine, with reasons to be recorded. The court examines the statutory framework and cites a Kerala High Court Online decision (2023 KHC OnLine 821) where Division Bench considered Section 258 in summons cases arising in Suo Motu matters, extracting the relevant portion for reference. The court concludes that the present matters squarely fall under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and that stoppage of proceedings by the Magistrate deserves no interference. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed and closed, with the operative order recording the initiation of Suo Motu proceedings and the final disposition as a non-interfered stoppage of proceedings.
WP(Crl.) Nos.236, 237 & 238 of 2023 These three writ petitions challenge provisional attachment orders issued under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) by a Tahsildar against movables and immovable properties. Petitions 236, 237 and 238 target Ext.P12, Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 respectively, seeking mandamus to prevent attachment without hearing, to refrain from taking further steps against petitioners’ properties, and to quash the orders (or dispense with translations) while ensuring due process. The petitioners contend these provisional attachments violate principles of natural justice since they were issued without an opportunity of hearing or adequate notice. The respondents—state authorities and the competent statutory officers—argue that the BUDS Act authorizes provisional attachment and that petitioners have a statutory remedy to challenge such orders. During hearing, the Public Prosecutor informed the Court that provisional attachments were issued on 26.12.2022, indicating the petitioners’ remedy under the Act. The High Court disposed of the petitions by common judgment, granting liberty to petitioners to challenge the provisional orders and directing the competent authority to inform the provisional order to the designated court, while excluding the period of interim relief from statutory timelines. This harmonizes due process with the Act’s framework and preserves petitioners’ rights to a lawful challenge.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3100 OF 2006 This criminal revision petition, arising from a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, challenges the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused for possession of illicit arrack (2 litres) found near the Valacodu railway overbridge on 29.08.1995. The trial court sentenced six months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default, three months’ simple imprisonment. On appeal, the conviction was maintained. The High Court, upon admission of the revision petition, scrutinizes several alleged technical defects in seizure and the chain of custody: (i) absence of specimen seal imprinted on Ext. P1 seizure mahazar and lack of evidence that a sample was taken; (ii) absence of a forwarding note when sending the sample to the chemical examiner and unexplained delay in forwarding; (iii) lack of arrest memo/arrest intimation and absence of a property list; (iv) delay in the occurrence report’s arrival at court. Relying on several precedents (including Moothedath Sivadasan, Rajamma, Suresh, Baburaj, Ramankutty), the Court finds these defects material and fatal to the prosecution. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., with bail cancelled and liberty granted.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 387 OF 2019 This is a Kerala High Court revision under CrPC 397/401 by Sunil Nair, accused No.1 in CC 172/2015 at Kalamassery. The Magistrate had discharged discharge petitions by the other accused in 2019 for alleged offences under IPC sections including 403, 405, 406, 408, 415, 420, 460, 468, 471 and 477 read with 34. The prosecution contends misappropriation and creation of forged documents in the accounts of the Ponekkara Regional Office of G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. from 2012-2013, with a total misappropriated amount around Rs. 29.6 lakh, supported by vouchers and audit observations. The petitioner argues the final report lacks direct knowledge against him, and the evidence is insufficient to establish misappropriation or forged documents; there is no audit report submitted to identify expenditures, and no witness directly ties him to the alleged acts. The Public Prosecutor maintains the documents themselves prove misappropriation and forgery. The High Court, by allowing the revision, holds that the evidence produced does not establish grave suspicion, and that without corroboration, misappropriation cannot be proved; the magistrate’s discharge order is erroneous. It sets aside the discharge and allows the petition, discharging the accused. Precedents on framing charges, discharge, and grave suspicion are relied upon to justify the order.
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition (CrR.P No.982 of 2012) by the accused Sivan challenging his conviction under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act, affirmed by the Sessions Court and the subsequent appellate court. The prosecution case rests on a 26 August 2006 raid near Chinnar junction where PW1 (a preventive officer) and his team allegedly found the accused in possession of a 10 litre can containing 5.8 litres of illicit arrack. The contraband and seized samples were forwarded to the chemical examiner, and the accused was convicted after trial. The revision challenges procedural irregularities and defects in the chain of custody and sample analysis. Specifically, it questions PW5’s competence to register the crime, lack of documentary proof that he held the charge of Excise Inspector, the absence of an affixed and dated specimen seal on the sample, and the absence of a clear link showing that the sample seized at the scene actually reached the laboratory in the same condition as tested. The court examines these defects in light of established Kerala High Court authority on chain-of-evidence in liquor seizures, citing Moothedath Sivadasan, Sasidharan, Madhavan, and Kumaran P. The High Court ultimately sets aside the conviction, acquits the accused, cancels bail, and directs liberty.
Balakrishnan and Jenny Thankam, the appellants, challenge the decree and judgment of the Munsiff Court, Ponnani (O.S. No. 229 of 2007) and the subsequent confirmation by the Additional District Judge, Tirur (A.S. No. 92 of 2017) in a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The suit claimed easement by prescription over plaint B schedule pathway, asserting a right of easement by prescription for the dominant tenement. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved a right of easement by prescription; it noted that the predecessor in interest did not have a right of way through the plaint B schedule property, and that twenty years of uninterrupted, as-of-right enjoyment within the period preceding the suit was not established. The first appellate court likewise dismissed. The High Court emphasizes settled law on easement by prescription, citing Mercy v. Agnus Maria E.J. (2023 KHC 828) and extracting eight ingredients under Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 that must be pleaded and proved. It finds that the 20-year period was neither pleaded nor proved, sustaining the concurrent findings. The Court holds that no substantial question of law arises and, accordingly, dismisses the second appeal as meritless, with all interlocutory applications disposed of.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC challenging the conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant lent Rs.7 lakh and Rs.1 lakh to the accused in 2012; to discharge the liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.8 lakh dated 07.12.2013, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court convicted him under NI Act, resulting in three months’ simple imprisonment and payment of Rs.8 lakh as compensation, with default imprisonment. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction and modified the sentence to a day’s imprisonment till rising of the court and the same compensation. The revision petition argues misappreciation of evidence and seeks expert opinion on cheque entries, alleging that the complainant had only a signed blank cheque and that the case could be foisted. The High Court assesses the evidence, noting PW1’s testimony alongside Exts.P1–P7, and reiterates the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, which are rebuttable. Relying on Rangappa v. Sri Mohan and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, the Court clarifies that the onus to rebut is on the accused, to be proven by preponderance of probabilities. Citing Kalamani Tex and Kishan Rao, Sanjay-sinh Chavan and other precedents, the Court concludes the conviction and sentence require no interference. The petition is dismissed; the petitioner is given two months to pay the compensation, with a scheduled appearance and default consequences.
Kerala High Court's order in CRL.MC No. 8141 of 2023 deals with quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from Crime No. 1160/2019 (Punalur Police) and S.C. No. 61/2023 (FTSC-POCSO, Punalur). The petitioner, accused of offences under IPC 450 and 376(2)(h)(n), along with multiple POCSO and SC/ST Act provisions, seeks to terminate the case in the public interest and to protect the victim’s well‑being after the couple reportedly married and began living as husband and wife with two children. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the accused and the victim were in a relationship for some time and, after the victim reached majority, they solemnized marriage on 14 July 2022, with annexed marriage certificate. The defense argues that continuing the prosecution would frustrate the victim’s happiness, citing Vishnu v. State of Kerala (2023 (4) KHC 1) to support quashing under 482 Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor responds that because the case involves SC/ST offences, the defacto complainant must be notified, but the victim’s statement confirms marriage and cohabitation. The court reviews the cases and emphasizes that quashing is permissible if continuing proceedings would cause greater injustice to the victim and the children, while recognizing that grave offences must not be compromised. There is no blanket rule; each case turns on its facts and the best interests of the child. The result is that the petition is allowed and all further proceedings are quashed against the petitioner.
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of the Sub Court, Manjeri dated 15 February 2022 in O.S. No.31/2018, which held that the objection raised by the petitioner regarding stamp duty on the agreement produced by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance was resolved against him. The petitioner, defendant Sainaba Beevi, contends that the document is only an agreement for sale and does not pass title; under the Transfer of Property Act a contract of sale does not confer an interest in the immovable property, save for a statutory charge under Section 55(6)(b) for amounts paid in advance. The petitioner relies on Om Prakash v. Lakshmi Narayan and others (2014) to urge that admissibility of a document under stamp law turns on the recital within the instrument, and that the definition of conveyance in the Kerala Stamp Act is not pari materia with the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Act. The respondent contends that a contract of sale does not by itself convey property and does not create an interest that would be read as a conveyance for stamp duty purposes; resort to the recital-based admissibility principle is limited to the Stamp Act framework. The judgment discusses the recitals doctrine, Sections 33, 35 and 38 of the Stamp Act, and the lack of a title transfer in a mere agreement to sell. Ultimately, the court concludes the Sub Judge’s view was correct, and this original petition is dismissed, leaving the impugned order intact and directing compliance by the lower court.
Malabar Kodungallur Sona Bazar Private Limited filed WP(C) No. 8027 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to lift the debit freeze on its bank account No. 921030043304894 held with Axis Bank. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent bank froze the account following a requisition from the 3rd respondent police, rendering the petitioner unable to operate its business, and that the action is illegal and arbitrary. The bank later lifted the debit freeze but marked a lien of Rs. 31,000 per the police requisition, while the total freeze appears to have ended. The respondents advocate that the account was entirely froze and a lien placed, though the freeze has since been relaxed; the lien remains due to the police requisition. The court relies on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768) to urge that freezes be confined to the amount specified in police orders and that the police inform banks whether continuing the freeze is required and for how long. It also cites Supreme Court-guided interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 BNSS 2023) through State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. The court issues directions to implement these principles and to inform banks and police of compliance within specified timeframes, and directs service of this judgment to the relevant authorities. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
