WA Nos.151 & 248 of 2023; WP(C) 25719/2022; WP(C) 15376/2022 The two intra-court appeals (WA Nos. 151 and 248 of 2023) arise from petitions challenging a common order by the Kerala High Court’s Single Judge directing disbursement of education loans under the Model Education Loan Scheme. The Canara Bank and its Palakkad branches (the appellants) contend that the bank was justified in applying margins and capping other expenses in line with RBI guidelines and the scheme’s master circular, arguing that margin money hinges on the sanctioned amount and should not be automatically set at Rs. 4,00,000. The respondents are the students and institutions who sought full disbursement of the sanctioned loan amounts for the PGDM program at Sadanam Institute of Commerce and Management Studies (SICOMS). The petitioners claim the bank has followed the sanctioned terms, with some margins to be met by the students, while the respondents insist the bank must disburse the full amount as sanctioned, particularly when the loan amount is below the ceiling. The judgment cites Gouri K. and Others v. State Bank of India to emphasize that capping of tuition and other expenses may contravene the spirit of the education loan scheme. The court ultimately parts with the lower court’s order, directing the bank to adjust disbursement in light of the evidence, with WA 248/2023 allowed and WA 151/2023 partially allowed, specifying an additional Rs. 45,000 for Sajith S. and denying broader relief to others.
This regular bail application concerns Sinto, the sole accused in Crime No.49/2023 of Kodakara Police Station, Thrissur. The applicant was arrested on 22.01.2023 and is charged under Section 439 CrPC with offences punishable under IPC Sections 324 (hurt by dangerous weapon) and 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide). The prosecution case alleges that at about 11:30 hours on 21.01.2023 the accused stabbed the defacto complainant in the chest with a knife, causing deep lacerations, including an incised wound below the left clavicle. The prosecution further contends that the accused has criminal antecedents and involvement in two other offences (Crime Nos. 290/2014 and 96/2021) in separate police stations. Prosecution argues that release at the initial stage would hamper investigation given the seriousness of the injuries and potential for influencing witnesses. The petitioner contends that investigation is at a late stage and that continued custody is unnecessary. After perusing the case diary and wound certificate, the court notes prima facie satisfaction of offences and the accused's antecedents. Balancing factors, and the progress of investigation, the court grants bail with conditions, including bond Rs 50,000 with two sureties, non-interference with witnesses, cooperation with police, reporting to the IO weekly for two months, travel restrictions, surrender of passport, and prohibition from committing further offences. The bail is granted subject to these conditions, with a warning that violation will cancel bail.
Dr. Jacob Thomas IPS, while serving as Director of Ports (2009–2014), faced an FIR under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC (Crime No.01/2019, VACB). The petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash Annexure-A1 FIR on the grounds that the allegations are distortions of facts, the procurement of a cutter suction dredger was conducted transparently, and the Government subsequently sanctioned a higher amount via a revised administrative sanction. The FIR alleges that the petitioner proposed a tender without Technical Committee approval, concealed that the tender was global, did not publish in the Indian Trade Journal, and that he personally favored a bid from M/s IHC Merwede Holland over the lowest bidder M/s BEML, leading to a loss to the public exchequer. The Government Orders and minutes of the Departmental Purchase Committee (DPC) show the tender was processed collectively, with the Government accepting the DPC’s recommendation. The High Court invoked the Bhajan Lal framework (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal) to test the FIR’s viability, noting that if the allegations, even on their face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence or would amount to abuse of process, interference is warranted. It concluded that the allegations do not establish criminal misconduct or conspiracy, and quashed Annexure-A1 FIR against the petitioner. The order cautions that Section 482 should be used sparingly.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P11 order rejecting applications for unrelated kidney transplantation for the 1st petitioner, who is undergoing treatment for kidney disease, and with the 2nd petitioner offering to donate. The petitioners contended that the respondent authority’s order is unsustainable, flawed by contradictions in statements regarding the donor’s husband’s job, and that there was no genuine commercial transaction in the donation process. The petition relied on the decision in Mohammed M.K. and another v. State of Kerala and others (2014 KHC 109) to emphasize the duty of the authorisation committee to evaluate the facts properly and to avoid improper grounds. The Government Pleader argued the authority’s subjective satisfaction and the aim of preventing commercial transactions. On examining Ext.P11 and the cited authorities, the Court found that Ext.P11 was not properly reasoned and that the concerns cited by the committee could be revisited in light of statutory requirements and factual particulars. The Court thus allowed the petition in part, setting aside Ext.P11 and directing the authority to reconsider Exts.P8 and P9 afresh in accordance with the principles laid down in Mohammed M.K, within one week of copy receipt of the judgment. The decision underscores judicial scrutiny of administrative determinations in transplant approvals and the need for reasoned reconsideration rather than cursory findings.
Anil Kumar, the second accused in Crime No.22/2002 of Chingavanam Police Station, challenges the concurrent judgments convicting him under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court had acquitted the first accused and convicted the second, sentencing one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 in each count with a default term. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence. In his Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner contends misreading and misappreciation of the evidence, arguing there is no material connecting him to the alleged theft, PW1 (the supposed purchaser) having turned hostile, PW2 not lodging a complaint, and none of the witnesses actually seeing the theft. It is argued that the sole basis for implicating the second accused is his alleged confession and the recovery of MOs 1 and 2, which does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State counters that the absence of a de facto complainant’s police report is not fatal and that the chain of events, along with the confession, suffices to establish guilt. The High Court concludes that the lower courts have misread the record; PW2 had not filed a complaint, PW1 is hostile, and no witness saw the incident, with the conviction resting largely on a confession. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed; the convictions and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The bail bonds are cancelled and any deposited fines are order to be refunded. The Court commends the Amicus Curiae for assistance.
247/2019 (batch with connected ITAs: 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 batch judgment of the Kerala High Court disposes of 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, all filed by Hillwood Group entities challenging ITAT orders in block assessments following a search on 04.12.2013 and a survey on 14.07.2014. The appellants, consisting of Hillwood Imports and Exports (P) Ltd; Hillwood Imports and Exports Pvt. Ltd; Hillwood Timbers; and Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd, argued that the survey conducted under Section 133A at the residence of Riyaz (an employee) was improper and that the recovery of materials including three pen drives, and the Hash Value Reports derived therefrom, violated 133A and the evidentiary rules under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, read with the Second Schedule of the IT Act. They also contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing their application to raise additional grounds and to admit expert opinion on the Hash Value, and that the data from the pen drives were not proven to pertain to their entities. The Revenue contended that the withdrawal of pre-assessment inputs and the materials recovered formed the basis of the block assessment and that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction to admit additional grounds. The High Court ultimately held that while the materials and survey were in issue, the Tribunal’s approach to additional grounds and evidence required rigorous scrutiny under established precedents. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs, upholding the revenue’s assessment.
The petitioner, P. Abbas, seeks correction of the date of death recorded in Ext P4 death certificate of his father, who died on 5 November 1995. The death was entered in the Panayappuram Mosque register (Ext P1) and, due to inadvertent error in the Ext P2 application, the death date appeared as 5 November 1996. The 2nd respondent, noting the registration delay beyond one year from the date of death, obtained sanction by GO No. 124/72 (Ext P3) to register, but the date in Ext P4 still reflects 1996. On discovering the error, the petitioner filed Ext P6 for correction along with Ext P5 from the mosque committee and Ext P1, but Ext P7 rejected the request, holding that the first respondent cannot correct the death certificate. The court held that genuine mistakes can be corrected under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and that Section 13 empowers a Magistrate of the First Class/Presidency Magistrate to verify the birth/death after one year. The court noted the Kausalya P.K. v. Secretary, Kaiparambu Panchayat, as a guiding point and clarified that the jurisdictional Magistrate alone has the power to determine correctness and issue orders. Consequently Ext P7 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate with documents for correction, who will proceed under law. The writ petition is disposed with these directions.
W.A. No. 807 of 2021 & 925 of 2021 These writ appeals challenge the termination of two contractual employees in local self-government bodies and seek further continuance of their services in view of post-issuance government orders. Shrirama K., an Accredited Engineer with Paivalike Grama Panchayat (Kasargod), and Shobhana T., an Attender at a Homoeopathy Dispensary in Kizhakkekallada Grama Panchayath (Kollam), faced termination from contractual posts. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the WP(C)s, anchoring on Noorjihan.A v. State of Kerala & Ors., which followed a view that continuance of contractual staff in panchayats is not open-ended and is governed by the government orders, not being a matter of ongoing res integra. The appellants subsequently relied on post-judgment government orders—G.O.(Rt) Nos. 1067/2021 and 1149/2021 of LSGD, a circular Pan/14760/2020-E9(DP) and a later G.O.(Rt) 1496/2021—to argue for continued temporary service. The Court disposed of both appeals by directing the Director of Panchayats to consider representations and decide whether the cases fall within the coverage of these orders, after hearing the appellants and the concerned Panchayat Secretaries. Until such decision, interim continuance remains in effect, with a four-week window to challenge adverse orders. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly, and the matter is disposed of by common judgment.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by twenty-one accused, namely Shynu Jyothi, Sumith K.S., Ajith, Arun Sharma, Jyothi Kumar, Akash, Akshay Mohan, Syam Kumar, Vishnu, Rajesh, Nikhil, Rahul, Vishnu (another), Arun (another), Nithin Raj @ Aniyan Kuttan, Sunil Kumar G @ Maveli Sunil, Abhilash, Sarath, Anish, Rakesh and Sooraj Raj, challenging the continued proceedings in S.C.No.865/2022 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, arising from Crime No.25/2019 of Adoor Police Station. The respondents include the State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, the Station House Officer (SHO), Adoor Police Station, and the defacto complainant (Noushad) along with an injured witness (Ashik). The petition contends that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and that continuing the prosecution would serve no public interest. Annexures 2 and 3 comprise affidavits from the defacto complainant and the other respondent, affirming the settlement. The learned Public Prosecutor verified the affidavits and stated they were genuine. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents that permit quashing in cases of amicable settlement where no public interest is involved (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Yogendra Yadav). Having found the settlement genuine and no public interest in continuation, the court quashes all proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.865/2022 and allows the Crl.M.C.
Mat.Appeal No. 536 of 2019 This is a matrimonial appeal (Mat.Appeal No. 536 of 2019) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, challenging a Family Court, Thiruvalla, decree dissolving the marriage between Shibu Abraham and Aswini Varkey under the Indian Divorce Act. The marriage, solemnised on 20 November 2000, produced a child, and subsequent spouse relations deteriorated due to alleged cruelty by the husband: habitual quarreling, drug/alcohol consumption, and at least three incidents of manhandling in 2002, 2005 and 2013. The Family Court, after consolidation of O.P. (Div) No. 767/2013 with O.P. 768/2013 and M.C. 46/2015, held in favor of the petitioner-wife that cruelty warranted a divorce, and granted maintenance and division of assets. The appellant contends that the acts were isolated and did not constitute sustained cruelty; he asserts that the parties have reconciled and resumed cohabitation, and seeks setting aside the decree to restore marriage. The respondents contend that cruelty was proven and the decree was warranted. On appeal, the court surveys authoritative standards on mental cruelty (Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh) and notes the lack of a fixed definition, evaluating conduct in its full matrimonial context. It observes that the incidents were stray and that reconciliation now exists. In light of these considerations and the aim of settlements in family litigation, the court allows the appeal, sets aside the Family Court decree, and directs costs to be borne by the parties.
This is a criminal appeal by Vasudevan challenging the conviction and sentence in SC No.253/2016, arising from acts of sexual assault against a seven-year-old girl, a neighbor and relative to the father of the victim. The trial court had convicted the accused under IPC sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) and also under the POCSO Act sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) read with 6 and sections 9(l), 9(m), 9(n) read with 10, along with an offence under IPC 354A(1)(i) read with 354A(2). The High Court, after evaluating the evidence, notably PW2 (the victim) and the medical certificate (Ext.P3), held that the only proven act was the accused making the girl lie and placing his penis on her vagina, which constitutes sexual assault under POCSO Section 7. The age of the victim, determined via Ext.P5 and documents under JJ Act Section 94(2), established that she was a child (below eight years at the relevant time). The court held that the trial court erred in convicting under the more serious IPC/POCSO provisions based on lack of corroboration for acts other than the single incident and for misapplication of Sections 9(l) and 9(n). The judgment adjusts the conviction and sentence, confirming only the Section 9(m) read with Section 10 and the Section 354A(1)(i) read with 354A(2) offences, with a five-year sentence and fine, and ordering set-off under CrPC 428. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
TR.P(C) Nos. 42/2023 & 654/2022 This is a common order of the Kerala High Court in two transfer petitions between the same parties, filed under TR.P(C) Nos. 42/2023 (wife seeking transfer of OP Nos. 142/2021 and 292/2022 from Family Court, Muvattupuzha, to Ettumanoor) and 654/2022 (husband seeking transfer of OP No. 1374/2022 from Ettumanoor to Muvattupuzha). The court, noting that matrimonial transfer law is well-settled and not res integra, relies on Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing convenience of the wife and children as the guiding criterion for transfer. After considering pleadings, the court exercises its discretionary power under Section 24 CPC to transfer OPs 142/2021 and 292/2022 to Ettumanoor for joint trial with OP 1374/2022, thereby enabling consolidation and saving judicial time. Consequently, TR.P(C)654/2022 is dismissed, and TR.P(C)42/2023 is allowed with directions to transmit records to Ettumanoor and for consolidation. The court directs the Family Court, Ettumanoor to post the matters along with OP 1374/2022 and to transmit the records from Muvattupuzha to Ettumanoor. The order ends with the judge’s signature and a ma/24.2.2023 date.
The petitioner, B. Sufija, was appointed as a LPSA in the SKV Lower Primary School, Kuriyode, Kollam, against an anticipated vacancy on 06.06.2006, but her appointment was not approved due to a ban. She sought approval from the initial date with all consequential benefits via Ext.P7 revision petition. The Government rejected it (Ext.P10) on the ground that the Manager had not executed a bond. The petitioner contends that, as settled by this Court in earlier decisions, managers are deemed to have executed the bond even if not signed, and must make appointments from the list of protected hands equal to the number of appointments approved during the ban period. The Respondents argue that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned in a 1:1 ratio and that a bond must be executed according to GO (P) No.10/10/G.Edn. If challenged, those matters are before the Supreme Court. The Court relied on the State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors (W.A.2111/2015) and WA.No.332/2017, which held that non-execution of a bond by Managers should be treated as if bonds were executed and that Managers must appoint from protected hands. The Court set aside Ext.P10, directed reconsideration of Ext.P7, deemed that the Manager executed the bond, and ordered appointment from protected hands as many as those approved during the ban, subject to final Supreme Court orders, and to be completed within three months.
This Kerala High Court judgment, authored by a Division Bench consisting of Anil K. Narendran, J., and P. G. Ajithkumar, J., deals with a suo motu supervisory challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution to an order of the Family Court, Ettumanoor, in O.P.1335 of 2017. The original petition (2017) was filed by the wife seeking decreed relief of money, title to immovable properties, and recovery of movables; the Family Court, by decree dated 29.11.2021, allowed the petition, directing the husband to pay Rs.1,54,75,270 with 6% interest, while dismissing the wife’s declaratory and recovery claims and the husband’s counter‑claim. In Mat.Appeal No.201/2022, Ext.P1 stay was granted on condition of security for the decree. The husband then moved I.A.18/2022 offering his mother’s property as security, supported by Ext.P3 valuation. The wife objected (Ext.P4). The Family Court dismissed I.A.18/2022 (Ext.P5) on 07.07.2022, noting lack of a valid security and valuation. The High Court, citing Shalini Shyam Shetty, Jai Singh, K.V.S. Ram, and Sobhana Nair K.N., clarified that Article 227’s supervisory jurisdiction is narrow and not appellate and found Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 not before the Family Court. It refused to interfere, upheld Ext.P5, and left open a fresh application with proper materials.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1327 OF 2011 This is a criminal revision petition by N. Nandakumar challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from a cheque dishonour linked to five chitties auctioned by the complainant. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for issuing Ext. P1 cheque for Rs. 65,136 in discharge of a debt after the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds; the complainant issued a statutory lawyer’s notice, and upon non-payment the revision was filed. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to a day’s imprisonment until the rising of the court and upheld the compensation. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Sections 397-401, dismissed the revision petition and upheld the concurrent findings. The court relies on the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act and the reverse-onus doctrine explained in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Kalamani Tex and Anr. v. Balasubramanian, and Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel, noting that the accused must rebut the presumption with a probable defence. It cites Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan to outline revisional scope and distinguishes Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra) on certain observations. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29 January 2024 to undergo the substantive sentence and to pay the balance compensation, with execution deferred.
This is a Kerala High Court review petition (RP No. 129 of 2023) by Sasindra Raj K. challenging the judgment in W.A. No. 1696/2019 dated 06.12.2022. The petitioner sought review primarily on grounds of inadvertent non-representation due to an advocate clerk’s mistake in noting posting dates on 05.12.2022 and 06.12.2022, which led to the dismissal of the statutory appeal under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 without hearing. He contends that relevant facts could not be urged before the court, and that the decision was reached without due hearing, violating natural justice. Additional grounds relate to the interim payment of Rs. 5,00,000 under an earlier order (14.07.2011), the non-consideration of this payment, and issues surrounding the sale of the mortgaged property to the 8th respondent, including alleged irregularities in auction and subsequent follow-up actions by the Sub Registrar and District Registrar. The petitioner argues that quashing the impugned orders and the sale would restore justice and enable repayment. The respondents argue that the writ and revisional authorities extensively examined the matter, and three authorities have concurrently held against the petitioner; the review petition is therefore unsustainable. The court ultimately finds no error apparent on the face of the record and dismisses the petition.
WP(C) Nos. 19598/2016; 18816/2020; 19256/2017 This batch of three writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 19598/2016, 19256/2017, 18816/2020) challenged a 2013 policy that created supernumerary posts to accommodate differently-abled persons who were in temporary service earlier, and the 2016 GO(P) No. 01/16/SJD which purportedly clarified service conditions, promotion and seniority. Petitioners, who had served in clerical, LD Typist and office-attendant cadres, argued that their juniors were promoted and they were denied declarations of probation, regularization and seniority due to the later order; they urged retroactive extension of benefits conferred by the 2016 order, including increments, pension-related provisions and seniority in promotion. The High Court had previously ruled in WA No. 2633/2017 that regularization of casual workers is not permitted except in limited scenarios, especially when appointments were made for temporary periods; the government’s intention to treat supernumerary posts as a vehicle for such benefits was to remain distinct from regular service. The learned Judge followed the Division Bench decision in WA 2633/2017, rejected the petitioners’ contentions, and held that the terms of appointments (retirement-ceasing posts) do not confer regular benefits or seniority. The petitions were dismissed, with no retroactive relief granted.
This is an original petition (OP(C) No. 248/2023) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging an order (Ext P4) dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Kothamangalam, returning the petitioner’s plaint under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The petitioner had instituted a suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents from actions against the A schedule property and from realization of alleged dues against her husband, together with movables in the B schedule. She also sought a temporary injunction (Ext P3). The trial court, however, purportedly returned the plaint without numbering and held lack of jurisdiction under the 1968 Act. The High Court scrutinizes whether Ext P4 was a permissible exercise of power under Order 7 CPC, distinguishing between return of plaint (Order 7 Rule 10) and rejection (Order 7 Rule 11), and cites established precedents. It notes that a plaint can be returned only for lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction and that issues of maintainability demand proper consideration in the suit, not a preemptive withdrawal. Rimi Albi v. Kerala State Co-operative Bank and Surendran S. v. State of Kerala are relied upon to delineate the proper scope of interference. On these lines, the Court allows the petition, sets aside Ext P4, and directs the court below to number the suit and reconsider maintainability as a preliminary issue, with due hearing and adherence to ratio decidendi of the cited decisions.
Petitioner Binu G, a devotee of Lord Subramanya at Haripad Sree Subramanya Swami Temple (a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board), challenged Ext.P3, a 23 January 2023 order terminating his membership of the Temple Advisory Committee. The termination was based on alleged violation of Clause 3.6 of Ext.P4 bye-laws, which provides that a person elected to a Temple Advisory Committee shall not be a member of the Advisory Committee or governing body of any other temple or private body. The petitioner is the Secretary of Thathwamasee Ayyappa Seva Samithi, a registered society; he had previously moved W.P.(C) No. 34887 of 2022 seeking facilities for Sabarimala pilgrims in the Haripad temple, which was dismissed (Ext.P6, 01.11.2022). Respondents submit that Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and the Rules framed thereunder, make Temple Advisory Committees statutory and empower the Board to regulate membership via the bye-laws (Ext.P4) and related provisions. Clause 3 of Ext.P4 governs membership restrictions, and the Board’s action follows due process (Ext.P1, Ext.P2, Ext.P3). Relying on precedents such as Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Sunil Kumar C. v. Travancore Devaswom Board, the court held that dual membership is prohibited and declined to interfere with Ext.P3, thereby dismissing the petition and upholding the termination.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a forest auction dispute in which Shaji Uthup challenged a sale of teak poles due to alleged substitution with inferior quality and sought to recover damages for the loss from re-auction. The plaintiff bid for 1586 teak poles class III and 1041 poles class IV in July 1996; he paid the price and taxes for all class IV poles and took delivery of 831 poles, while 210 class IV poles were not removed. The forest department contended that the plaintiff breached the sale terms by failing to take delivery within the grace periods, justifying re-auction of the remaining items at the plaintiff’s risk. The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court reversed and decreed Rs.46,570 along with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit and costs, on the theory that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the price of the undelivered 210 class IV poles. The State challenged in RSA No. 433 of 2005, and the High Court framed substantial questions including the applicability of Abdul Rahiman v Divisional Forest Officer. After hearing, the Court held that the first appellate court’s findings were supported by evidence, distinguished Abdul Rahiman, and affirmed dismissal of the Second Appeal while applying the unlawful enrichment principle to the State. The operative order preserved the first appellate decree awarding Rs.46,570 with interest; no costs.
