This writ petition challenges the legality and consequences of a provisional promotion to Administrative Officer (AO) in the Kerala State Film Development Corporation (KSFDC) and seeks restoration of retirement benefits and higher-grade pay. The petitioner, M.K. Radhakrishnan, served from 18.01.1986 and was provisionally promoted to AO in 1993, pending Government sanction. The Government never ratified that promotion, yet the petitioner continued in the promoted post for years, with pay in the higher scale until a retrospective reversion to Assistant Administrative Officer in 2011. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and various orders (Exts P9, P16, P17, P18, P22, P23) followed, culminating in a 2021 judgment directing reconsideration of Ext. P16 and delaying action, while not pursuing disciplinary proceedings. In 2021, the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P26 upholding the reversion but disbursing retirement benefits, effectively ending the disciplinary matter. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking quashment of related orders (Exts P14, P24, P26–P28), and to treat the petitioner as having retired on 30.11.2011 with two higher grades and back pay. The court held that the Government’s failure to sanction the provisional promotion rendered the post illegitimate, the lien lay in the original post, and the petitioner could not obtain higher-grade benefits; the petition was dismissed.
The petitioners, Mohammed Harees and Teena Harees, approached the Kerala High Court, Criminal Misc. Case No. 1820 of 2022, seeking to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.159/2022 of the Alappuzha North Police Station. The FIR (and subsequent investigations) allege offences under sections 376(2)(n), 354, 420 and 506 read with section 34 of the IPC, premised on the petitioners’ alleged exploitation of the second respondent/victim. The case centers on the first petitioner allegedly engaging in sexual relations with the victim after representing himself as a divorcee and promising to marry, while physically remaining married to another. It is further alleged that the petitioners induced the victim to pay Rs.18,00,000 and to part with gold ornaments worth Rs.2,00,000, in expectation of a business partnership, only for it to be unfulfilled. The petition claimed that, since the crime was registered, the parties had settled their differences, and that a settlement was in fact the basis for seeking quashing. The court’s chronology includes interim orders staying arrest (29-08-2022), directives for the victim’s appearance in January 2023, and subsequent developments where the victim denied any settlement. While considering related anticipatory bail proceedings (BA No.1862/2022) and other orders, the court noted concerns about the veracity and durability of the alleged settlement. Ultimately, relying on the principles that settlement cannot nullify heinous offences (Gian Singh) and finding no concrete grounds for relief, the Court dismissed the Crl.M.C, thus allowing the ongoing investigation to proceed toward a final report.
This judgment deals with a batch of writ petitions challenging actions affecting Unit Run Canteens (URCs) run for armed forces personnel, including ex-servicemen and dependents. The petitioners contend that URCs form part of the defence welfare setup and should be treated as State or their instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution, or at least be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge termination, SOP amendments, or conversions to contract employment. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that URCs are private undertakings created by Army orders AO/19/2003/QMG, financed by regimental non-public funds, and governed by SOPs issued by the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). They argue there is no deep and pervasive government control and no funding from the Consolidated Fund of India, so URCs cannot be treated as “State” or “other authority” under Article 12, making writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable. The court surveys Ajay Hasia, Ramana Dayaram Shetty, and other tests for state instrumentality, cites Zee Telefilms and Rudani, and concludes that URCs do not fall within Article 12’s ambit. It dismisses the petitions, holds URCs are not State or instrumentality, and directs petitioners to pursue Industrial Disputes Act or other remedies, with no costs awarded. The judgment analyzes the creation, funding, and control aspects and cites multiple related precedents.
CRL.A Nos.685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, 790/2018 This Kerala High Court judgment concerns five criminal appeals arising from a single trial in SC No.421/2009, Thalassery, where accused Nos. 2–11 were convicted for conspiracy and multiple violent offences (IPC Sections 143, 341, 307, 302 read with 149; with additional offences under 147/148). The prosecution’s case rests on ocular evidence of the injured PW2 and two other occurrence witnesses (PW3, PW4), supported by medical and forensic evidence, and corroborated by recoveries under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act. The defense challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses, highlighted minor contradictions, questioned the consistency of injury locations, and attacked the investigation’s conduct (FIR timing, scene-mahazar, and disclosure statements). The court, after detailed analysis, held that the injured witness and corroborating witnesses are credible, that medical and forensic evidence aligns with the narrative, and that recoveries were properly corroborated. While acknowledging some investigation lapses, the bench emphasized that the rest of the evidence remains trustworthy and sufficient for conviction. The appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentences upheld for all accused on record.
WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024 & connected cases This is a consolidated judgment of the Kerala High Court dealing with a batch of writ petitions (WP(C) 10612 of 2024 and numerous connected cases) filed by various petitioners whose bank accounts had been frozen by police/cyber-crime authorities under central and state agencies across multiple states. The Court, presided by a Single Judge (Justice T.R. Ravi), notes that petitioners allege illegality and hardship arising from freezing of their bank accounts in investigations into cyber-financial fraud and related criminal proceedings. The petitions consolidate grievances against freezing orders issued by police/cyber-crime authorities, and seek relief, protection of financial rights, and directions to limit freezes to the amounts in dispute. After hearing, the Court issues a unified operative order across the set of petitions, directing the banks to confine the freeze to the specific amounts mentioned in police requisitions and to promptly inform the respective police authorities whether freezing will continue, and if so for what period. The Court also prescribes that any continuation of freeze shall not exceed eight months from the copy of the judgment, and leaves open the petitioners’ rights to approach this Court again if information is not provided. The decision relies on Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661) to support limiting freezes to the amount in dispute.
Krishnakumar, the sole accused in CC 2062/2014, challenges the 24 October 2017 discharge order in a forgery case under IPC sections 465, 468 and 471. The prosecution alleges the accused submitted forged mark lists claiming higher marks to secure a better academic outcome; three of six mark lists dated 22 July 2013, allegedly forged, are said to be inconsistent with the MG University tabulation register and the B.Com decree certificate dated 30 September 2010 showing Third Class. The discharge application argued that no offence had been disclosed, that the offence of forgery had not been established within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, and that no original documents had been produced to prove forged entries. The JMFC dismissed the petition, noting that a forged document can be produced outside the court’s jurisdiction and that CrPC Chapter XIII addresses such ground. The petitioner relied on cases including Asim Shariff to contend the court did not properly consider the facts; the prosecution argued that the tabulation register and the mark lists suffice to establish forgery. The High Court examined several precedents—State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, Stree Atyachar, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, Soma Chakravarty, Vijayan P., State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Rao, and Asim Shariff—to emphasize that discharge/charge decisions require a careful judicial appraisal of material and not mere technical objections. The court remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.
WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) This writ petition (WP(C). No. 21999 of 2019) concerns a dispute within the Kerala Hockey Society, where the petitioner, S. Afsar Ahmed, who formerly served as Secretary General of the 9th respondent, challenges amendments to the society’s bye-laws effected at the General Body Meeting held on 2 October 2016. The petitioner alleges the amendments were carried out surreptitiously without proper convening of the meeting, and that the endorsement by the Registrar of Societies (Exhibit P10) was accepted without due verification or enquiry. He seeks to quash the endorsement (Ext. P10) and to challenge the Registrar’s endorsement in the Register of Societies. The District Registrar, following this Court’s earlier direction (WP(C). No. 32620/2017), concluded through Ext. P17 that the 2 October 2016 bye-law amendments were in order and that there was no violation of the Registration Act or the Rules; he further reasoned that internal disputes among society members fall outside the proper scope of a writ petition and should be resolved in a Civil Court. The 8th respondent contended that the petition is not maintainable and that Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act governs disputes. The Court, while acknowledging the parties’ arguments and citing Zee Telefilms and BCCI v. CAB, held that inter‑se disputes within a society are generally not amenable to Article 226 writs, though on merits it found Ext. P17 justifiable and dismissed the petition for want of legal entitlement to intervene in internal governance matters. The judgment emphasizes that judicial review concerns legality, not re‑weighing factual findings, and that a Civil Court should handle intra‑society disputes.
This Kerala High Court OP(C) arises from a challenge to an interim order in IA 3/2021 in OS 732/2018, where the respondent-plaintiff had sought attachment before judgment in a money suit. The plaintiff originally filed OS 1359/2015 in Thiruvananthapuram seeking decree for realisation of Rs. 4,07,500 with interest, prompting IA 5546/2015 for attachment before judgment. The Munsiff Thiruvananthapuram passed Exts. P2 and P3, a conditional attachment, which was later modified, and the suit was challenged on territorial jurisdiction. The plaint was returned for proper court representation and re-presented to the Additional Munsiff Nedumangad as OS 732/2018. The petitioner sought return of original security documents through IA 3/2021, which the court below via Ext. P7 rejected. The petitioner contends Exts. P2 and P3 became non-est after the deprivation of proper jurisdiction and should thus permit return of documents. The respondent contends that, upon re-presentation, interim orders revived and continued, and that Ext. P7 was rightly rejected. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents, the bench clarifies that suit re-presentation requires de novo proceedings, yet the transferee court may adjudicate pending applications afresh. It disposes of the petition, directing consideration of the attachment application with cash security if acceptable, and the return of documents in accordance with law.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal challenges a Judicial First Class Magistrate’s acquittal of M.P. Thimmappa for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arising from a cheque issued to Purnima Distributors and dishonoured on presentation for insufficient funds. The complainant alleged a credit-based purchase of paper products and produced the cheque (Ext. P1), the dishonour memo (Ext. P2), lawyer notice (Ext. P3), acknowledgment (Ext. P4), and reply (Ext. P5). After trial, the Magistrate acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish a legally enforceable debt and that Ext. P8 Power of Attorney was not properly proved. The High Court, however, analyzes the evidence: ledger extracts Exts. P6 and P7 show amounts that are inconsistent, casting doubt on the exact liability; yet Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar anchors the presumption that a signed cheque raises a statutory presumption of debt under Section 139 NI Act, a presumption rebuttable if the accused demonstrates the lack of a legally enforceable debt. Basheer K.V. v. C.K. Usman Koya is cited to note that a statutory notice need not disclose full transaction details. The court also discusses the principle that appellate interference in acquittals is exceptional (citing MS Narayana Menon and K. Prakashan). Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed and the acquittal upheld, with no merit found in overturning the trial court’s ruling.
The case arises from a boundary/property dispute that escalated into an assault on the defacto complainant on 25.04.1993, with the accused allegedly rushing at him with choppers intending to kill. The prosecution charged the accused under sections 452 (house trespass with injuries), 324 (hurt with dangerous weapons), and 307 IPC (attempt to murder). At trial, all accused were convicted on 452, 324 and 307; sentences were pronounced, and the matter went on appeal to Crl.A. 72 of 1998, which confirmed the conviction and sentences. During revision, two of the accused died, and the remaining petitioner, as a legal heir of the deceased co-accused, sought permission to continue under Cr.P.C. Section 394. The Kerala High Court undertook a reappraisal of the evidence and the possibility of murder intention, noting the non-recovery of weapons and inconsistencies in PW1’s account and the wound certificate. Relying on the test of intention or knowledge for section 307 IPC from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kedar Yadav, the court held that the 307 IPC charge was not attracted, while upholding the 324 and 452 IPC convictions. It modified the sentence for 452 to the period already undergone and increased the fine to Rs.50,000 to be paid as compensation under Cr.P.C. 357(1). The conviction under 307 IPC was set aside for the first accused; the 2nd and 3rd accused were abated. The revision petition was allowed in part, while the rest of the verdicts stood confirmed.
WP(C) No. 10612 of 2024 & connected cases On 26 March 2024, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice T. R. Ravi, heard WP(C) 10612 of 2024 and numerous connected petitions challenging police-directed freezes on petitioners’ bank accounts in cybercrime/online fraud matters. The petitions involve banks, individuals, and cooperative societies across multiple states (Kerala, Gujarat, Delhi, Karnataka, Rajasthan, etc.). The court addressed interim relief, directing that freezes be confined to the amounts mentioned in police requisitions, to enable petitioners to deal with their funds beyond the disputed sums, and urged banks to comply with this limitation. The judgment notes that if the criminal enquiry later resolves in the petitioners’ favor, funds could be released accordingly, while reserving liberty for petitioners to approach the court again if information regarding freezing remains inadequate. A key precedent invoked is Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661), which laid down the principle of limiting freezes to the disputed amount and requiring police-bank coordination. The court disposed of the petitions with directions to implement the interim order and preserve the petitioners’ contentions for potential future proceedings. The decision reflects a cautious balancing of law enforcement interests with the protection of legitimate banking transactions and depositors’ rights in cybercrime investigations.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2097 OF 2012 This Criminal Revision Petition challenges concurrent convictions under sections 248(2) CrPC and sections 2(ia)(f) read with 16(1A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and Rule 5 Appendix B of the PFA Rules, for adulteration of a food article (Chana whole). The Trial Court convicted the petitioner; the Sessions Court on appeal reduced the sentence. The prosecution relied on Ext. P13, a Public Analyst’s report, which stated uric acid above the prescribed standard. The petitioner argued that the analysis was conducted in a laboratory not notified under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Act, rendering the prosecution unsustainable, citing PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and Rasheed v. Food Inspector. The State contended that PepsiCo is distinguishable and that Section 8 permits appointment of Public Analysts, so PepsiCo should not be controlling. The High Court noted divergent opinions among Single Judges and ultimately relied on PepsiCo and Rasheed to hold that where the analysis is conducted in a non-notified laboratory, the prosecution cannot stand. Applying this ratio to the present case, where Ext. P13 was prepared in an unnotified laboratory, the prosecution fails; the revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside, the petitioner is acquitted, and bail bonds are cancelled.
WP(Crl.) No.267/22 & Crl.M.C. No.8428/22 In a Kerala High Court writ petition and related criminal cancellation petition, Prasanth P.M. challenges the investigation into Vaikom Police Station Crime No. 84 of 2022 arising from a January 21, 2022 road accident in which Sri Karthikeyan sustained head injuries and later died. Police eventually arrayed the petitioner as the accused under IPC sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A and Motor Vehicles Act sections 34A and 34B. The petitioner contends the investigation is baseless, the police pressed him into signing papers, and forensic analysis allegedly showed no impact on the bike, contradicting the charge. He seeks transfer of the investigation to a Special Investigation Team and production of the motor vehicle inspector’s report and forensic report. The Crl.M.C. challenges the final report in the same case pending as CC No.697/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. The Public Prosecutor counters with material from the investigation, including eyewitness statements and CCTV footage identifying the petitioner as the rider and the driver of the vehicle that caused the injuries. The court repeatedly stresses that matters of guilt and the sufficiency of evidence are to be decided at trial, and that jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. 482 or Article 226 is narrow. Citing Bhajan Lal, the court concludes there is no merit in the petitions and dismisses them.
WP(C) Nos. 10612/2024 & connected This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court (WP(C) Nos. 10612/2024 and connected cases) challenges freezing of petitioners’ bank accounts by various banks on intimation from police/cybercrime authorities across multiple states. The court observed petitioners were account-holders whose funds were frozen following police/cybercrime notices and proceeded to issue interim directions at admission. It directed that freezes should be confined to the amounts mentioned in the police requisitions and that banks must restrict freezing to the disputed sums, while allowing petitioners to operate their unfrozen balances. The judgment relies on prior authorities such as Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661) and a prior order in WP(C) 28155/2023 for guiding the freeze-limits and procedures, and disposes of the petitions with these directions in place, balancing investigative needs with the petitioners’ right to access funds. The decision aims to harmonize anti-crime objective with fundamental rights and to standardize bank action in similar freeze scenarios across jurisdictions.
Ashly K Jacob challenges Ext.P7, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting his Form 5 application under Rule 4(4E)/(4F) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, for removing 11.00 ares of land from the Data Bank. The land, in Re Survey No. 826/3, Pathiyoor Village, Alappuzha District, is described as a coconut plantation over 30 years old. Ext.P5 (KSRSEC report, 2019) suggested the land is plantation and should not be included in the Data Bank, while Ext.P7 relied on the Agricultural Officer’s report that the land is marshy-like and that removal would cause environmental issues. The petitioner contends the land is not paddy land or wetland as defined under the Act, and that the determination must be based on the land’s status as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. He urged reliance on Ext.P5 and on Rule 4(4F) requiring independent verification, not mere reliance on district reports. The court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, and Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector to emphasize independent assessment and correct interpretation of the paddy land/wetland criteria. The High Court sets aside Ext.P7 and directs the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 in Form 5 under Rule 4(4F) with Ext.P5 and other factors within two months.
WP(C) NO. 10612 OF 2024 & con.cases This judgment, delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice T. R. Ravi on 26 March 2024, consolidates multiple writ petitions challenging freezing of bank accounts under cybercrime investigations across various banks and states (including Kerala, Gujarat, Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu, among others). The petitioners, who are bank customers or banking institutions in several matters, challenge freezing orders issued by banks upon police/intimation under cybercrime/crime investigation regimes. The court directs that freezing of accounts must be confined to the amounts specified in the police requisitions or orders and requires banks to implement this constraint forthwith, citing the directions in Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC Online 661) (para 12) as a guiding principle. The court also requires police authorities to notify the particular banks whether the freeze should be continued and, if so, for what period, within a specified timeframe (eight months from the date of judgment’s receipt). If police information is not provided, petitioners may approach the court again. The petitions are disposed of with the above directions to limit freezes, ensuring that legitimate account operations remain unimpeded beyond the stated limits. The judgment underscores continuity of court supervision in balancing enforcement against civil/administrative rights, without detailing every individual petition.
Baiju Thundiyil Chirayil Abraham (represented by his power of attorney holder Abraham Chacko) filed WP(Crl.) No. 278 of 2023 in the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce his wife Honey Paul and their two children, allegedly detained by Emperor Emmanuel Church Zion, a religious group. The petition contends that the wife and the two minors were brought from Canada during the COVID-19 period and that the wife was subjected to coercive control and domestic violence, with the children allegedly brainwashed and kept in the cult’s premises. Respondents argued there was no wrongful detention and that the family disputes should be resolved in the Family Court; the 2nd to 4th petitioners (the wife’s parents) claimed they would secure the welfare of the minors. The court observed the emotional distress and, after hearing all sides, proposed an interim arrangement to safeguard the children’s welfare: the 2nd and 3rd to 4th petitioners would take the two minor detenus to their residence for 15 days, with the 1st petitioner permitted to interact with the children via video/phone calls; the 2nd petitioner could visit; the arrangement to be without prejudice to the Family Court proceedings. The order also directed handover to the District Legal Services Authority and scheduled further interaction from 20.04.2023, with the Family Court to adjudicate the pending matters independently. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the common order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.1709 of 2019, which directed the SHO, Puthukadu Police Station, to seize CCTV footage from Paliekkara Toll Plaza and to obtain Call Data Records and Mobile Tower Location details for certain CWs. The NDPS case relates to a large quantity of hashish oil and ganja seized from a vehicle on 23.05.2019. The petition filed by the State contends that the accused have no right to interfere with the investigation and cannot compel production of records; it opposes Section 91 Cr.P.C. being used to rove into private CCTV and CDR sources, and argues that the investigation should not be compromised by belated or invasive requests. The respondents, including Anwarsadath, seek disclosure of CCTV footage and CDR details to establish innocence, alleging illegal detention and alleging that the investigation was conducted improperly. The Sessions Judge’s order was partly relied upon by the apex court’s referenced observations in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab to ensure a fair investigation. The High Court, however, dismisses the petition, endorsing the Sessions Judge’s approach as essential to a fair trial under Article 21, and emphasizes the need for a fair and impartial investigation, sustaining the directions sought by the Sessions Judge.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from a Tribunal award under OP(MV) No.656/2014 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, for injuries sustained by the appellant when his auto-rickshaw KL-05-M-4172 was struck by car KL-27-C4820 in 2014. The Tribunal awarded ₹1,57,480 with interest at 9% and the claimant challenged the quantum, seeking enhanced compensation under several heads. The appellant argued that notional monthly income should be higher than the Tribunal’s ₹7,000, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. The appeal also contended for seven months’ loss of earnings (instead of six), higher bystander expenses, greater pain and suffering, and a higher disability percentage based on Ext.A11. The insurer’s detailed submissions are not elaborated in the excerpt, but a Standing Counsel argued on behalf of the respondent insurer. After hearing, the High Court re-evaluated multiple heads: notional income fixed at ₹10,000; loss of earnings recalculated to ₹70,000; bystander expenses raised to ₹1,800; pain and suffering increased to ₹35,000; disability fixed at 10% resulting in ₹1,32,000; loss of amenities increase to ₹15,000. The revised total amounts to ₹2,73,100. The appeal is allowed in part, with an additional ₹1,15,620 awarded at 8% interest from the petition date, and costs. The insurer must deposit within two months, with the claimant to furnish PAN/Aadhaar and bank details for disbursement.
ITA Nos. 247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020 This is a batch of connected Income Tax Appeals before the Kerala High Court arising out of block assessments under the Income Tax Act. The Hillwood group, comprising Hillwood Imports and Exports (P) Ltd, Hillwood Imports and Exports Pvt. Ltd, Hillwood Timbers, Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd, Hillwood Furniture (P) Ltd, and related entities, challenged the orders of the ITAT (Cochin Bench) confirming or modifying assessments based on material recovered during searches under Section 132 and a survey under Section 133A conducted in December 2013 and July 2014. The core issues include: (i) whether the survey at Riyaz’s residential premises complied with Section 133A and the Explanation thereto (acknowledging that a residence may be a place of business if part of the business premises); (ii) the admissibility of additional grounds and evidence under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act read with Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (and Sections 93 and the Second Schedule of the IT Act); and (iii) the Hash Value Report generated from pen drives recovered during survey, and whether it could form the basis of suppression of income. The Tribunal rejected the challenges, and the High Court, by a Division Bench, answered the substantial questions against the assessee and dismissed all appeals, holding that the Tribunal did not err in relying on the data and methods employed, and that there was no violation of natural justice. The final disposition is dismissals, with no order as to costs.
