BA 2776/21; BA 2842/21; BA 3104/21 These bail petitions arise from Crime No. 08/2020 of the Aluva Excise Circle Office, Ernakulam, involving ganja in a lorry seized on 2 September 2020. Three accused—Ahmed Kabeer (A2), K.R. Hakeem (A1), and Jaffer Ali (A3)—seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The PCR investigation recovered 32 kg of ganja (2 kg from A1, 2 kg from A2, plus 28 kg from the lorry), and the prosecutors say the offence involves transporting and storing ganja of commercial quantity for sale, under sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The final report was filed on 20-03-2021 and cognizance was taken later (29-03-2021), with the charge sheet having been filed on 20-02-2021. The petitioners argued that their custody after filing the final report was illegal and that remand post-final report should be under Section 309 Cr.P.C.; they relied on rulings (e.g., Pradeep Ram; Devidrappa; Sanjay Dutt; Suresh Jain) to claim entitlements to statutory bail under S.167 Cr.P.C, or that detention post-final report is unlawful. The State disputed bail on grounds of gravity and the NDPS embargo under Section 37(1)(b)(ii). The High Court, however, held that the indefeasible right to statutory bail under S.167 Cr.P.C ceases after filing of the final report/charge sheet, and the accused are not entitled to bail on merits. The petitions were dismissed to ensure expeditious trial of a commercial narcotics case.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kalpetta, the appellant Krumanan Nambiar challenges his conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing illicit arrack. The trial court convicted him based on evidence that on 27-11-2002 at Appappara, Thirunelly, the accused was found in possession of 2 litres of illicit arrack in a 5-litre jar; he allegedly abandoned the jar when the Excise team approached, and a sample of 200 ml was collected and sealed. PW1 (Excise Inspector) testified to seizure of the contraband at the scene; PW2 supported; PW3, an independent witness, claimed not to have seen the accused in possession but did see him running; PW4 conducted investigation. The defence argued that the identity of the person in possession was not established, there was unexplained delay in producing the seized properties, and there was no proven link that the contraband reached the Chemical Examiner’s laboratory. The Public Prosecutor contended the prosecution could establish the charge. The High Court evaluated the identification evidence, highlighting that identification in court after long lapse without a prior TI parade is unreliable, and emphasized gaps in the chain of custody, packing and forwarding notes, seal descriptions, and the link to laboratory analysis. Ultimately, the court held the prosecution failed on crucial links and acquitted the appellant, allowing the appeal.
Mat. Appeal Nos.223 & 227/2021 These Matrimonial Appeals arise from a common Family Court Ernakulam judgment (15 February 2021) dismissing petitions by Smt. A. Sajani seeking a declaration that the talaq pronounced by her husband, Dr. B. Kalam Pasha, a serving judicial officer, was void and for restitution of conjugal rights, with a cross-claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The appeals also relate to a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC (MC No.297/2019) which the Family Court rejected in light of the talaq being valid. The Supreme Court’s Shayara Bano decision and subsequent Islamic law discussions frame the legal backdrop, especially the categorisation of talaq (ahsan, hasan, and bidda/talaq-i-badai) and the requirement of reconciliation attempts. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, examines whether the pronouncement on 01.03.2017 was a valid talaq (talaq ahsan) despite the use of the word “irrevocably,” and whether the three-lunar-month revocability window must apply. It notes reconciliation attempts on 01.10.2016 and 25.11.2016, and later events including the second marriage of the husband. The court concludes that the talaq was valid as talaq ahsan, with irrevocability only after the expiry of the three-month period, and declines maintenance under Section 125. It invites a settlement, ultimately dismissing the appeals as devoid of merit, while proposing a settlement package of Rs.12,00,000 with interest. The judgment ends with the division bench’s dismissal of the appeals.
The appellant, Vaisakh @ Hari, challenging conviction in S.C. No. 76/2010, seeks relief in CRL.A. No. 787 of 2016 before the Kerala High Court. The Additional Sessions Court-1, Thiruvananthapuram, convicted him for offences under sections 449 (trespass with murder), 302 (murder) and 309 (attempt to commit suicide) IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and fines with defaults, to run concurrently. The prosecution’s case contends that on 9 August 2006 the appellant entered the deceased Deepthi’s home, forcibly administered a medicated liquid, inflicted multiple injuries with a chopper and other weapons, and that Deepthi died from those injuries the following day. Key evidence includes testimonies of PW1 (Rojin Noble) and PW2 (Limna) describing the appellant at the scene and his threats, PW16 (Sub-Inspector) who registered the FIR and apprehended the accused, and forensic findings showing the presence of the victim’s blood group on items including the shirt worn by the appellant and the weapons MO3, MO25, MO8, MO7, MO2. The defense raised contradictions about timing, lack of motive, and questioned the recoveries and handwriting analysis. The High Court, after analyzing the medical, testimonial and scientific evidence, upholds the guilt under 302 and 449 while finding the 309 attempt charge not proven and partly allowing the appeal to acquit on that count. The sentences remain to run concurrently, subject to the upholdment of the other convictions.
The petitioner, Zab in Haroon, owner of 29.70 ares in Chengamanadu Village, seeks to quash government and local authorities’ notices demanding change of land use and payment under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, and to obtain occupancy certificate and a building number for his already completed commercial building constructed under Ext.P3 (building permit dated 06/09/2011) and its renewals. The permit for a hotel-style structure on land described as nilam/paddy land in the BTR was renewed and extended in 2015 and again in 2017, permitting ground-plus-three floors and a roof garden. After completion, Respondent 8 issued Ext.P4 (21/02/2019) notices stating that, in view of an audit report favoring conversion, the petitioner must comply with Sec. 27A of Act 28 of 2008 and obtain appropriate orders for change of land use. The petitioner replied (Ext.P5–P8) and provided completion plan (Ext.P6). The Adalath and subsequent communications (Exts.P7–P15) indicated building regularization under Sec.27A would be required, with tax payments already made (Exts.P9–P12). The State Government circulars (e.g., Ext.P16) and prior judgments have established that permits issued before 30/12/2017 can be processed for occupancy/building numbers under the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, disregarding the land’s nilam/paddy description. The Court ultimately quashes the challenged notices and directs occupancy certification processing under the 2011 Rules, holding the pre-30/12/2017 permits to be eligible for occupancy regardless of land category, and disposes of the petition with directions for timely action.
RSA Nos.1304 & 1305 of 2016 This Regular Second Appeal arises from civil disputes over a pathway adjacent to the plaint schedule property owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims a right of user of the pathway, alleging the defendant intends to erect fencing and thereby obstruct access. The defendant contends the path is private and his family’s, derived from Ext.B4, which grants only a right of way for utilities, not title to the path itself. The trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter-claim; the appellate court reversed, allowing the plaint claim to the extent of the injunction and dismissing the counter-claim. The High Court sets out that the existence and user of the way need not depend on the owner’s title when the defendant is not the owner, citing supportive precedents. While the court does not adjudicate the plaintiff’s asserted public or prescriptive rights in this appeal, it upholds the injunction preventing obstruction of user and dismisses damages, noting that the restoration of fencing was interim and contingent on future boundary delimitation. The Court ultimately modifies the decree to permit a temporary boundary wall, to be measured by a Commissioner, with a caveat that if the final boundary places the wall north of the approved line it must be demolished at the plaintiff’s expense. No costs are awarded.
Jollyamma Joseph, the first accused in Crime No. 335/2019 of Kodenchery Police Station, Kozhikode District, petitioned for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Kerala High Court. The court, sitting as a single judge, heard the matter by video conference on 14 August 2020. The prosecution alleges that on 1 May 2014, with the intention to kill Alfine, the minor daughter of the accused’s former husband, she administered cyanide through food, resulting in Alfine’s death on 3 May 2014. The case rests substantially on the confession of the petitioner and is connected to several other cases in which she is alleged to have murdered close relatives; the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 03.11.2019. The petitioner contended that even if the prosecution case is accepted, there is no medical evidence establishing guilt, the final report is incomplete, and there are material gaps in the documentary record; she urged parity with another accused who had been granted bail, and invoked the first proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is a woman. The State opposed bail, submitting that the offences alleged are grave, with a similar modus operandi across cases, and that strong circumstantial evidence and the gravity of the crimes justify denial of bail. The court, after considering the submissions and the surrounding circumstances, noted the concurrent jurisdiction in bail matters and the need to decide on the facts and legality of related orders. It ultimately held that, given the seriousness of the allegations, potential tampering with witnesses, and public interest in a fair trial, the petitioner is not entitled to bail in this case. The bail application is dismissed.
This intra-court appeal arises from a writ petition challenging the appointment of the sixth respondent as Secretary of the fourth respondent Melkadakkavur Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakara Sanghom Ltd. The appellant-petitioner (Ajayan D) sought mandamus to have the complaints (Ext.P5/6/10) considered and action taken, and also sought declarations that he be appointed as Secretary/Secretary-in-Charge and that the re-employment of the fifth respondent after superannuation was illegal. The learned Single Judge treated the dispute as a service matter between the petitioner and a cooperative society and held that Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides an efficacious alternative remedy, thus dismissing the writ petition. The petitioner alleged malafides in the sixth respondent’s appointment, contending institutional capture and denial of promotion; however, the court noted the absence of a direct challenge to the sixth respondent and framed the issue as an inter se service dispute subject to Section 69, with factual disputes to be resolved via the statutory forum. The Division Bench examined precedents (Prakasini v. Joint Registrar; Raveendran v. State of Kerala) and held that disputes relating to employment within cooperative societies fall within the Arbitration Court’s remit, not departmental officers. Observing there was no compelling reason to bypass the statutory remedy, the appeal was dismissed, preserving the remedy under Section 69.
Bail Appl. No. 2236 of 2019 This is a bail application by four accused in Crime No. 631/2019 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, registered for offences under sections 354, 294(b) and 506 read with section 34 IPC. The matter arises from a F.I. Statement by the lady defacto complainant, alleging inter alia coercive conduct, abusive language and physical force during a discussion at a hotel over a property dispute involving lease of property owned by the complainant’s father at Vyttila. The first petitioner/petitioners are a mix of a businessperson, a practicing advocate and two close associates; the allegation pertains to an incident at a hotel on 19.3.2019, where the complainant claims she was demanded to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as part of a lease-related settlement, and where there are further specific averments of impropriety and intimidation. The applicants contend the dispute stems from a property matter, not a straightforward offence under Sec. 354 IPC, and highlight that the meeting was one arranged to negotiate lease arrangements with the presence of a co‑participant, including the 2nd petitioner, a lawyer who drafted the lease. They invoked mediation and requested bail relief, including leave to travel abroad in appropriate cases. The Respondents contend that the allegations, if true, justify preventive detention and continued investigation, with emphasis on witness protection and lawful process. The court, after hearing, directed interrogation of the four accused, with bail to be granted on stringent conditions, including non-interference with witnesses, monitoring by police, and potential mediation in certain circumstances; travel abroad would require magistrate permission. The order ultimately allowed the bail application with the stated conditions and directions, and left open the possibility of mediated settlement between the parties.
Vinayan v Velappan and Dhanya concerns a regular first appeal (RFA No. 137 of 2010) in the Kerala High Court arising from O.S. No. 329/2006 before the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. The plaintiff/appellant claimed ownership and possession of land comprising two schedules in Sy. No. 427/1 in Kallara Village and alleged a sale agreement with the first defendant for Rs. 2,33,500, under which Rs. 70,000 was paid as advance. The agreement promised sale within six months and required the first defendant to produce encumbrance certificates and title deeds. The plaintiff sought specific performance or, in the alternative, a refund of the Rs. 70,000. The defendant claimed lack of funds for completion, asserting that the agreement was entered through a mediator to raise money for his wife’s cancer treatment, and that time was not fulfilled as the contract required. The trial court found the plaintiff not entitled to specific performance but allowed recovery of the advance with interest, exercising its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court, after evaluating the evidence and the circumstances, upheld the discretionary approach, noting the defendants’ hardships, the wife’s illness, and the death of the second defendant, and held that granting specific performance would be unfair. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the lower court’s decree confirmed, with costs allocated between the parties.
WP(C) No.15243 of 2020 (E) The petitioner, Dr. Prathibha C.K., seeks to quash Ext.P6 to the extent it rejects Ext.P3 and to direct the District Level Authorised Committee (DLAC) to consider Ext.P3 on its merits. She purchased about 4.5 Ares of land in Clappana Village, Kollam District after the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force, and filed Ext.P3 on 20-09-2016 seeking permission to construct a residential building under Sec.5(3) proviso read with Sec.9(1) proviso of the Act. The LLMC, per Ext.P4 (dated 21-01-2017), recommended in her favor, but the DLAC rejected Ext.P3, relying on a post-2008 acquisition argument and a judgment in Thankachan (2017). The petition relies on subsequent decisions, especially Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala (2019), where the Division Bench held that the Act does not automatically bar post-enactment buyers and that LLMCs must consider merits before forwarding to the DLAC under Sec.9(5). The Division Bench in Yousuf Chalil overruled Thankachan’s restrictive view. In the present case, Ext.P6 is quashed to the limited extent concerning the petitioner, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 are remitted to the DLAC for fresh consideration, and the petitioner is to obtain a fresh Village Officer certificate within three weeks. The DLAC must provide a hearing and decide within two months, taking into account Yousuf Chalil and the LLMC recommendations.
The appellant, M.N. Harish, was the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.3721/1999 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, seeking compensation for injuries from a motor vehicle accident on 19 September 1999. A car owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent, struck the claimant’s motorcycle, causing him injuries. The Tribunal held the 2nd respondent liable for negligence and the 3rd respondent insurer liable to indemnify. It awarded Rs.1,54,000 with 8% interest from the date of the petition and cost, prompting the claimant to challenge the quantum in this MACA (appeal). The High Court relies on Supreme Court precedents to define “just compensation” as fair, reasonable, and equitable rather than a windfall; it examines the claimant’s income and disability, applying notional income (Rs.3,000) for a 20-year-old, with an 18-year multiplier and 14% permanent disability (Ext.A14). While the Tribunal had treated disability under a lump-sum head, the Court re-allocates compensation to disability and loss of amenities, and adjusts other heads (transport, hospitalisation, bystander expenses, medical expenses, etc.). It reduces pain and suffering to Rs.20,000 and ultimately grants an additional Rs.86,272, with 8% interest, directing the insurer to pay within two months. The appeal is disposed of, with no costs to be awarded.
WP(C).No.12244 OF 2020(E) This writ petition (C) challenges the seizure of three vehicles—KL-57C-5365, KL-57C-4796, and KL-02AF-7321—used by the petitioners while levelling land owned by Abdullakutty Kurikkal for construction purposes. The petitioners contend that soil levelling on the land is a permissible activity and does not require a permit under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) or the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, since the soil was not transported off the property and was deposited within the same site. They allege that waste from a nearby farm was dumped on the property and pits were dug for storage, with no complaint under MMDR or KMMC raised by authorities, implying the seizure lacks justification. The petition emphasizes the livelihood dependency on these vehicles, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and seeks mandamus to release the vehicles and a declaration that the seizure is illegal per Ext. P5. The respondents rely on alleged contravention of MMDR and KMMC, and the court cites Prakash Nayak v. District Collector (FB) to underline that police powers under CrPC are not ousted by MMDR, and interim custody can be granted. The court issues directions for reporting the seizure, potential complaint, and interim release mechanisms, ultimately disposing of the petition with specific timelines.
This Kerala High Court CRL.MC arises from a SARFAESI action where senior South Indian Bank officers allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant while affixing a sale notice on his premises after loan default and the bank initiated securitisation proceedings, including symbolic possession and public auction of the secured asset. The complainant, who was the chairman of Vibha Chocolate, approached the magistrate after a police inaction and obtained cognizance. The petitioners contend that initiating criminal proceedings against them is an abuse of process and that the alleged incident did not occur; the SARFAESI notices and actions were legitimate enforcement steps intended to recover dues. The court examined annexures showing a bank guarantee and outstanding credit facilities of approximately Rs. 397 lakhs; it observed the sequence of events, noting the petitioners’ denial of entering the house or forcibly obtaining a signature, and suggested the complaint may have been lodged with malicious motive or personal vendetta. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on quashing under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226, notably Bhajan Lal’s category framework and subsequent general principles, the court held this to be an exceptional case warranting termination of the prosecution. Consequently, the petition was allowed and Annexure-A complaint and all further proceedings in C.C. 1235/2013 were quashed.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from a conviction under sections 376 and 506(1) IPC recorded against Royson, the appellant, by the learned Sessions Judge in Ernakulam in Sessions Case No.219/2011 (dated 20 December 2013), which also involved an accompanying section 354 IPC charge. The victim was a minor girl aged 13 years, the daughter of the accused, who testified to sexual molestation and rape allegedly committed by her father in their home. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for rape and imposed concurrent terms for the other offences, with a direction to pay compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The defence highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s account, improbabilities about the timings, and the absence of corroboration and DNA evidence, arguing that the FIR and accompanying disclosures did not fully align with the trial testimony. The High Court, while acknowledging the well-settled position that a prosecutrix’s testimony, especially when the victim is a minor, is given significant weight, emphasized that it must inspire confidence and be free from ill-will or tutoring. It reviewed statutory provisions and numerous precedents on corroboration, testimonial reliability, and the object of the FIR, and found substantial material to doubt the veracity of the sole testimony. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside with acquittal. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Nirmala, the aggrieved wife, challenging an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thripunithura, in MC No.20/2018, which rejected the petitioner’s request to lead ex parte evidence by filing a proof affidavit under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Magistrate had denied Annexure-C proof affidavit and, by Annexure-B, directed the petitioner to adduce oral evidence, holding there is no provision in the DV Act to accept proof affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief. The petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure-D, the subsequent order, arguing that Section 28 of the DV Act allows the Court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of applications under Section 12 or Section 23, and that the 28(2) clause permits deviating from the strict procedural framework when necessary to achieve the Act’s remedial objectives. The petition relies on Kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (2016) 11 SCC 774, Saramma Shyju v. Shyju Varghese and others (civil nature of proceedings under DV Act), and Ankit Subhash Tupe v. Piyusha Tupe (quotations of Bombay HC). The High Court, after hearing, holds the impugned order illegal, sets aside Annexure-B, and directs the Magistrate to allow written objections, permit proof affidavits with service of copies, and refer the matter to mediation within six weeks, with further steps on merits if mediation fails.
This anticipatory bail (Section 438 Cr.P.C.) petition concerns two petitioners, A1 and A2, father and son, who stand as accused in OR No.10/2020 of Thiruvizhamkunnu Forest Station, Mannarkkad Forest Range, Palakkad, for alleged involvement in the death of a she-elephant through explosive substances concealed in coconuts. The prosecution contends that, in furtherance of a common plan with the 3rd accused, explosives were planted inside coconuts to drive away wild animals; the elephant consumed one such coconut, sustaining injuries, leading to death on 27.05.2020. The 3rd accused allegedly confessed and disclosed that arms and explosives were kept on the applicants’ property. The applicants claim ownership of 15 acres in Mannarkkad Taluk and state they have no need to plant explosives, arguing the confession is uncorroborated and that autopsy reports show drowning as the immediate cause rather than an explosion. The prosecution relies on the 3rd accused’s confession and seizure of explosive material to argue custodial interrogation is essential for investigation. The court notes postmortem findings describing extensive oral injuries and trauma, consistent with an explosion; it nonetheless weighs the bail factors, citing established bail principles. Applying Prasanta Kumar Sarkar’s bail factors, and stressing the gravity of wildlife offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, the court rejects anticipatory bail. The bail application is dismissed.
MACA No. 3086 of 2015; Co. No. 40 of 2016 MACA 3086 of 2015 arises from an appeal challenging an award of the II Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in OP(MV) 382/2010 for the death of Sanej H.O., a 24-year-old accountant-cum-agriculturist who died following a motor-vehicle collision on 28.03.2010. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 27,42,980 as compensation, based on an assumed monthly income of Rs. 12,000 and a multiplier of 18, with 50% additional future prospects. The insurer (applicant) challenged on several heads: the notional income was too high given the deceased’s education; funeral expenses and other conventional heads were argued to be excessive; the policy terms and licence status were also touched upon. The claimants opposed these reductions, citing Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi and Pranay Sethi to justify a higher award and greater future prospects. The High Court, per Justice Amit Rawal, allowed enhancement in income to Rs.18,000/month, applied 40% future prospects (being a bachelor), and recalculated the dependency and compensation, including increasing the conventional heads to Rs.70,000. The court held that the conventional heads should be treated collectively as Rs.70,000 and awarded an enhanced total, directing the insurer to deposit Rs.1,49,600 within three months, failing which interest at 12% would accrue. The cross-objections/appeal and the MACA stood disposed of on these terms.
This writ petition challenges the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation's decision to retrench two contract Deputy Managers while extending the term of other contractual employees. The petitioner, appointed as Deputy Manager in 2014, contends that Exhibit P8 shows the Board’s resolution to extend the tenure of all contract staff due to organisational needs, which was forwarded for Government concurrence. While the Government granted concurrence for 17 employees, it refused extension for the petitioner and one other Deputy Manager (Exhibit P9). The petitioner argues that Government concurrence is not required for contract extensions and that singling out two employees for non-extension is illegal and discriminatory. The respondents dispute the petitioner’s entitlement, explaining that regular appointments are via PSC and that contract appointments were used only because PSC steps had not been completed. The Board later found no need for a Deputy Manager at Ernakulam and Kozhikode due to workload and financial stringency, and suggested retrenchment on a first-out basis for those not essential. The court acknowledges the PSC norm but cautions against arbitrary substitution of contract staff. It directs that the post must be filled by regular PSC appointment when available, and allows re-engagement of the petitioner on contract if a vacancy arises before PSC recruitment. The writ petition is, therefore, ordered accordingly, partially allowing relief while upholding non-extension where justified.
Crl.MC Nos. 4504/2018 & 6637/2018 This Kerala High Court decision, delivered by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, concerns two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.MC Nos. 4504/2018 and 6637/2018) challenging the continued proceedings in Crime No. 870/2008 of Kollam East Police Station and LP No. 334/2014 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class II, Kollam. The core issue is whether the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, is engaged by photographs and videos found on cameras seized during a search at the Kollam Transport Bus Stand on 9 August 2008. The petitioners argue that no advertisement, publication, distribution, or circulation of indecent material has been established against them; the alleged photographs allegedly belonged to the second accused and to her partner, and there is no evidence that they published or circulated the material. They submit that, at most, a private possession of explicit images exists, which would not attract the Act. The public prosecutor contends the material was intended for circulation and the photographs depict the second accused in explicit form. The court holds that Act 60 defines indecent representation and penalizes publication or distribution; because the case lacks proof of publication/distribution by the petitioners, quashing under the inherent powers of 482 CrPC is warranted, applying the Bhajan Lal caution against abuse of process. The petitions are allowed and the proceedings quashed.
