The petitioner, Anitha Kumari S., joined the LBS Institute of Technology for Women as a Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering in 1999 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2007. Ext.P1 (2007) conditioned her promotion on acquiring a Ph.D. within seven years, as per AICTE Regulation 2010. She obtained NOCs in 2007 and 2010 to pursue Ph.D. part-time and later entered deputation for a Ph.D. under QIP at NITK Surathkal in 2012, with a bond obligating completion within three years and service for at least five years post-completion. The project extended to 2019 when she finally completed the Ph.D., but the institute issued notices in 2018 and 2019 (Exts.P13, P15) to recover excess salary and to stop increment after seven years from joining the post, arguing compliance with AICTE Regulation 2010 as clarified in 2016 and the audit objections. The petitioner contends the seven-year requirement is onerous, delays were involuntary, and natural justice required hearing before coercive action. The court held Ext.P15 and related actions were consistent with AICTE norms, relying on Christy James Jose v. State of Kerala for the consequence of not acquiring the qualification within seven years, while noting the delay in completing the Ph.D. and the absence of errors in policy application. The writ petition was dismissed.
The Kerala High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, challenges the Bar Council of India's age-limit rule for admission to the integrated five-year LLB course (Clause 28 of Legal Education Rules, 2008). The petitioners, a cohort of aspiring law students across Kerala, contend that imposing an upper age limit of 20 years after the admission process began is arbitrary, irrational and violative of the Advocates Act and fundamental rights. They had applied, appeared in the entrance examination, and were provisionally ranked under the prospectus that did not fix an upper age limit; later, following directions from the Bar Council of India and a Madras High Court judgment, the Kerala government amended the prospectus to cap age at 20. The petitioners argued that amending the rules mid-process and applying it retrospectively violated the principle of fairness and was ultra vires. The respondents (State of Kerala, Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Kerala, Union of India, various universities and institutes) defended Clause 28 as permissible, citing prior constitutional considerations and regulatory judgments. The Court examined the historical sequence, interim orders, and the interim stay on the government notification, ultimately holding that it would be just to make the interim order absolute and close the petitions, directing that petitioners be entitled to certificates on successful completion of the course.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No.110 of 2023) filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the order in relation to S.C. No.538 of 2022 pending before the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur, arising from a 2010 incident where 14 petitioners allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the dwelling of the de facto complainant, hurled abuses and caused property damage (~Rs.2,50,000). The petitioners moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of all proceedings on grounds of amicable settlement and lack of lasting grievances, arguing that continuing the prosecution would squander resources and injustice would be averted by end-of-justice. The Respondents, led by the Public Prosecutor, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but noted there were no other serious crimes by the petitioners and that the complainant does not have lasting grievances. The court invoked State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the lineage of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to outline the principles governing quashing under 482 for non‑compoundable offences arising from private disputes when settled, while excluding heinous or public‑spirited offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity, Section 307 IPC, Arms Act). After weighing gravity, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court allowed the petition and quashed the final report and further proceedings in SC No.538/2022.
MACA No.276/2019 & C.O.No.51/2020 The case concerns an Insurance Company’s challenge to a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No. 554/2016, Kalpetta, in favor of Sri Musthafa, who sustained severe injuries in a road accident on 01.10.2015. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. preferred MACA 276/2019 challenging the award as excessive, while Musthafa filed CO 51/2020 seeking larger sums. On 8 February 2023, the Kerala High Court heard both matters in a single sitting. The court upheld the Tribunal’s fixation of the claimant’s notional monthly income at Rs. 10,000, applying the Ramachandrappa principle for unascertainable income, and accepted the 56% permanent disability certificate as the basis for compensation. It also affirmed the Tribunal’s decision to add 40% as future prospects, noting the medical evidence of serious injuries, and treated Rajani’s guidance as persuasive but not determinative since the claimant’s avocation was not proved to be skilled. However, it found the awards under Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities to be inadequately low and enhanced them to Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively. It allowed Rs. 1,48,575 for further medical treatment, and increased Loss of Earning to Rs. 1,20,000 for 12 months. The total compensation became Rs. 24,20,602, with 8% interest and costs. MACA 276/2019 was dismissed; CO 51/2020 was allowed.
CRL.M.C. 1386 of 2023; SC 1065/2022 (II Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram) This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.M.C. No. 1386 of 2023) arising from OR No. 1/2022 of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Sub Zone, Kochi, connected to NDPS Crime No. 25 of 2021. The petitioner, Thumбатукандिलेvy (3rd accused), along with other accused, is alleged to have participated in a criminal conspiracy for the illicit trafficking of 80 grams of methamphetamine. The case traces the chain of information from a 9 November 2021 seizure (MDMA) after an Excise Check, to involvement of individuals in Bangalore and Karnataka, including the petitioner’s alleged links via phone records, bank transactions, and messages. The petitioner challenges the materials linking him to the crime, particularly relying on statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and argues that the prosecution lacks direct evidence of conspiracy or personal involvement. Counsel for the petitioner invokes ToFan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue against reliance on such statements and contends that the material connection to the other accused is not established. The State counters with voluminous materials linking the petitioner to the crime, including calls, money transactions, and communications with Curtis and other accused, and asserts that the court should not critically weigh the materials at this stage and that further investigation has been permitted. The judge, while noting the pendency of further investigation and the bail petition, declines to interfere, and the petition is dismissed, leaving the merits to be determined in trial.
This is a writ appeal arising from W.P.(C) No. 13106 of 2010 and connected matters challenging a common judgment of a learned single Judge dated 09.10.2019, which dealt with construction of a multi-storeyed building in Kadavathra (Kochi) and alleged violations of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, including recreation and car parking areas earmarked in the completion plan. The Secretary of the Kochi Municipal Corporation had regularized the construction based on a completion plan, and an occupancy certificate was issued. Subsequently, it was noticed that the builder converted the earmarked recreation and parking areas for other purposes. Proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 were initiated, culminating in a final order directing removal of the illegal constructions encroaching these areas. The dispute involves the builder (and related individuals) versus the Apartment Owners’ Association (and others), with earlier civil suits (OS 648/2005) and exhibits such as Exhibit A4 sale deed playing a pivotal role. The learned Judge partly allowed the First Appeals and modified the decree; the writ petition challenged this common judgment. The Division Bench ultimately held that the writ appeal is not maintainable, barred by res judicata, and dismissed the appeal, with consequences on the related connected proceedings.
This High Court of Kerala, in an Original Petition (Family Court) filed by the mother challenging the Family Court, Kannur's interim custody order in favour of the father, modifies the interim arrangement in light of the welfare of the minor child. The child, Ahammed Ilan C.H., aged seven, had been in interim custody with the father on alternate weekends, with transfer of custody on Fridays at 5 pm and return on Mondays at 10 am, under a maintenance obligation of Rs. 4,000 per month. The mother challenged Ext. P6 (23.09.2022) before this court under Article 227, arguing the interim custody arrangement should not deprive the child of stability and the mother's care. The respondent father contested the order's modification and maintained that the prior welfare-based reasoning was sound. The court recognizes the primacy of the child's welfare, citing Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and Vasudha Sethi, among others, to emphasize that the best interests of the child guide custody decisions and that visitation rights should be maintained to preserve contact with both parents. It notes the child's preference and the need to avoid trauma. The High Court ultimately allows the petition by modifying Ext.P6 to grant the father visitation rights from 10.30 am to 5.00 pm on alternate Sundays in the Family Court premises, with a review after three months to potentially restore overnight custody.
Crl.Appeal No. 636 of 2007 Deepakkumar, the first accused in NDPS Case No. SC No.10 of 2006, stands convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act by the Special Judge, Vadakara, for transporting 2.2 kg of ganja in a Santro car on the Mahe–Thalassery public road. The Kerala High Court heard his criminal appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment. The prosecution case was that ganja was found in a bag on the appellant’s lap, after a vehicle intercept on a public road in transit. The trial court acquitted A2–A5 and convicted A1. On appeal, the appellant raised several grounds: (i) non‑compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act since information about illicit transport was received before seizure, (ii) alleged violation of Section 50 NDPS during the personal search, (iii) alleged non‑compliance with Section 57, (iv) improper sampling and labeling, and (v) absence of the investigating officer’s examination. The court evaluated these points against precedents and found that the seizure occurred in a public place and in transit, attracting Section 43 rather than Section 42, and that the other statutory provisions were either not violated or not fatal to the prosecution. The court ultimately upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and Rs.10,000 fine, with a set‑off for custody. The appeal was allowed in part.
Axis Bank Ltd. filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging Ext.P5, which directed the petitioner to remit the amount in the escrow account under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to discharge the income tax liability of the late M. M. Ramachandran. The escrow was created by Ramachandran and Atlas Jewellery for the acquisition of Atlas shares. SEBI had by order dated 17.06.2021 directed certain Noticees to make a public offer and permitted using escrow funds to meet Open Offer obligations, while ordering simple interest at 10% per annum on the Open Offer price from the trigger date. The order also imposed several compliance directions under the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations, including provisions relating to listing norms and penalties. The petition contends that the escrow money could not be diverted to discharge Ramachandran’s tax liabilities and questions the enforceability and consequences of SEBI’s directions. The court frames the issue as whether the escrow account could be used to satisfy tax dues and notes that the escrow money has not been used for its original purpose. It states that SEBI’s rights over the escrow money need not be commented upon and directs Axis Bank to inform the Income Tax Authorities before releasing funds to discharge the tax liabilities. The writ petition is disposed of with immediate effect, subject to these directions.
WP(C) Nos.5592/2023, 5752/2023, 6612/2023, 6646/2023, 6679/2023 & 6933/2023 Six writ petitions—WP(C) Nos. 5592/2023, 5752/2023, 6612/2023, 6646/2023, 6679/2023 and 6933/2023—are filed by co-owners of land in Koorkkanchery village, Thrissur District, challenging rejection of Form No.5 applications for exclusion of land from the official data bank created under the Kerala land data regimen. The petitioners allege that their properties were converted under a 1980 Kerala Land Utilisation (KLU) order and included in the data bank despite Ext. P2 (KLU order). They claim the KSRSEC topo data (Ext. P7) shows the land as paddy or fallow/degraded land at various times and that none of the Form 5 parameters were properly considered in Exts. P5/P6, with no hearing offered. Relying on Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector (2021 (1) KLT 433) and Arthasastra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (4) KLT Online 1222), they seek reconsideration under the relevant Act and Rules, arguing the land’s status as of the 2008 Act’s implementation date should drive exclusion. The Court directs a fresh evaluation: an Agricultural Officer report, local investigation, and consideration of Ext. P2 if valid, with a hearing, and a final decision within two months.
WP(C) Nos. 27817/2023 & 5277/2023 The two writ petitions challenge whether Diploma-holders who joined the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) as Draftsmen/Junior cadres and were promoted under the Diploma quota to Assistant Engineer, after acquiring a degree, can move to the Degree quota for further promotion. The petitions (WP(C) Nos. 27817/2023 and 5277/2023) were heard together before a single judge. The court examines the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1966, and the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960, which regulate recruitment and promotion, and create distinct pathways and seniority between Degree quota and Diploma/Certificate quota. Key provisions discussed include Rule 2 (appointment by direct recruitment or promotion), Note (vii) to Rule 2, Rule 6 and the Schedule/Annexure detailing qualifications for direct recruitment and promotion (Degree, Diploma, and Certificate paths), and Rule 4 (promotion from Assistant Engineer to higher posts with ratio considerations). The petitioners contend that respondents 4–10, who acquired a degree while serving as Draftsman/Overseer, cannot be promoted under the Degree quota and should remain in the Diploma quota, and that Ext.P12 (final seniority) cannot include them. The court cites Chandravathi v. Saji and OP(KAT) 3719/2012, holding that promotion under the Diploma quota cannot be reversed to the Degree quota for further promotion, and performs a corresponding quashing of Ext.P12, Ext.P16, Ext.P17, Ext.P18 to the extent they include those respondents. The judgment orders re-computation and excludes the 4th respondent from the degree-quota promotion chain, while dismissing WP(C) No. 27817/2023.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision by Dasan challenging a conviction under Section 326 IPC and the accompanying sentence recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Sessions Court. The prosecution case is that on 02.12.2003, while CW1 was returning along a public road at Anjarakandi, the accused attacked him with a spade handle in a premeditated act of enmity, causing grievous hurt and a financial loss of around Rs. 11,000. The Trial Court convicted Dasan under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and an additional six months’ imprisonment for default. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. During hearing, it emerged that the dispute had been amicably settled; the De facto complainant (second respondent) filed an affidavit confirming settlement and Dasan paid Rs.25,000 as compensation. The State supported the revision petition, stating the settlement is genuine and bonafide, and had no objection. Relying on Soban v. State of Kerala and precedents including Gian Singh and Renjith, the High Court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the conviction and all related proceedings, arguing that the ends of justice and avoidance of abuse of process justify quashing in a compoundable offence in this context. The revision petition is thereby allowed, with the conviction set aside and proceedings quashed, and related orders adjusted accordingly.
TR.P(C) NO. 449 OF 2021 (and connected with TR.P(C) NO. 559 OF 2021) This transfer petition before the Kerala High Court concerns matrimonial disputes between Gayathri S Nair and Pramod T.R, with related petitions filed in the Family Courts of Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram. The first petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the husband’s Original Petitions (O.P. Nos. 1070/2021 and 1071/2021) from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram to be heard together with her own O.P. No. 1499/2021 pending in Thiruvananthapuram, and for resolution of ancillary reliefs including recovery of gold ornaments, money, and injunctive relief. The husband’s petitions seek reliefs including a permanent injunction against the wife and her parents and damages; he is represented by a Power of Attorney holder, i.e., his mother. The court examined convenience, domicile, and potential for inconsistent orders, and ultimately allowed the transfer based on the wife’s permanent residence in Thiruvananthapuram and the need for coordinated adjudication. The order directs the transfer of the relevant petitions to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, with timelines for expeditious disposal of the interim injunction matter and guidance on attendance before the transferee court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5271 OF 2025 Manikandan, the petitioner, faced charges under sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.1091/2023 of Kollengode Police Station for possession of ganja weighing approximately 8.46 kg, 8.245 kg and 7.190 kg from his residence. He sought bail, arguing that after more than a year in custody and in light of related Supreme Court guidance, the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act can be diluted where prolonged incarceration undermines Article 21 rights. Counsel relied on Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal; Hasanujjaman & others v. State of West Bengal; and Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala to contend that bail can be considered when trial delays contribute to extended detention, especially where the contraband is in commercial quantity. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the gravity of the offense and the massive quantity. The court reviewed these authorities, noting that Ankur Chaudhary emphasized that unreasonable delay can militate against Article 21 and justify conditional liberty; Hasanujjaman, Nitish Adhikary, and related decisions also point toward bail in similar circumstances. Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the bail application, directing the petitioner to file another bail application within two weeks, to be considered by the trial court in light of the cited rulings, including Shuaib A.S and the Court’s own decisions.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1629 OF 2014 This is a criminal revision petition brought by the State of Kerala and the Food Inspector against an acquittal of three accused and discharge of a fourth in CC 105/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution case dates from 23.12.2002, when a sample of 750 gms of rice sold at PCM Stores Keezhur Chavassery was found adulterated in Form III Ext.P13 by a Public Analyst, who reported adulteration by coating with inorganic iron pigment oxide. The trial court acquitted accused 1 and 3, while the case against accused 2 abated (he died), and accused 4 (distributor) was discharged on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector. The revision petition contends that the PepsiCo ratio applies across the board and that the lab analysis requirement (S.23(1A)(ee)) has not been met, despite the Public Analyst report. The respondents rely on Rasheed v. Food Inspector to argue PepsiCo's ratio applies to all PFA prosecutions where analysis is not performed in a Central Government notified laboratory. The High Court, applying PepsiCo and Rasheed, holds that absence of a laboratory-notified analysis makes the prosecution unsustainable, affirms the Magistrate’s order, and dismisses the revision petition. The decision underscores that prosecutions under the PFA Act require analysis in a lab defined under S.23(1A)(ee).
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1463 OF 2011 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C./CrL.R.P. challenging a conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner Noushad Babu was convicted by the Trial Court (C.C.158/2008, JFJ MGS II, Perinthalmanna) for issuing Ext P2 cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt of Rs 1,50,000, which allegedly bounced (Ext P3). The Appellate Court (Crl.A. No.197/2009) upheld the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to one day, while keeping the compensation of Rs 1,50,000 intact. The High Court examines whether the statutory notice under proviso to Section 138 was validly served, whether Ext P2 represented a legally enforceable debt, and whether the visa-related payments discharged liability. It holds that Ext P4 notice was served at the revision petitioner’s address and that presumption under Section 27 General Clauses Act and Section 114 Indian Evidence Act operates to deem notice received; the onus then shifts to the accused to rebut. Citing Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Kalamani Tex, Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel, Abdul Hameed M.K., Abdul Hameed K., Padmanabhan v. Vasudevan Namboodiri, Krishna Janardhan Bhat and Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, the court affirms the initial presumption in favour of the complainant and the reverse-onus principle. The court ultimately dismisses the revision petition, confirming conviction and sentence, and grants time to pay compensation with stay of execution until 14.12.2023 and directs appearance on 15.12.2023 to finalize payment, with further orders as stated.”,
The petition concerns Sankaran, owner of a small land parcel measuring 0.0236 hectares in Sy.No.829/5-9, Manakkad Village, acquired by the Government for the Papputy-Vengalloor road under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award (Ext. P1) was passed and possession was taken on 20.11.2015. After the 2013 Act came into force (1.1.2014), Section 24(1) made the 2013 Act applicable where no award had been passed under the old Act; an accompanying Section 18 reference had been made since the petitioner was unsatisfied with compensation. The Sub Court, Thodupuzha, by Ext. P3 (26.08.2016), held the award to be a nullity and directed action by the 1st respondent. No progress followed, prompting this writ petition seeking determination and payment of compensation for the land value and improvements. The 1st respondent counters that a supplementary award under the 2013 Act was passed and Rs.1,65,784 was deposited on 16.02.2022; it asserts that the petitioner did not validly pursue remedies under Section 64 of the 2013 Act and that a detailed valuation (re-determined in 2019) was approved by the District Collector. The petitioner contends for interest on the supplementary award from 20.11.2015 to 16.02.2022, relying on Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh and Sections 34 (1894 Act) and 80 (2013 Act). The Government contends there is no statutory provision for such interest. The Court ultimately allows the petition, directing the 1st respondent to rework the interest payable on compensation in light of law and to pass a fresh award within two months, with payment of any additional amount; an application challenging insufficiency, if filed within one month, will be treated as timely.
The Kerala High Court, in a criminal revision, addresses Shijodas’ challenge to his conviction under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act for illicit arrack seized on 01.07.2007. The trial court convicted him, and the appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence. In the revision petition, the defense argued procedural lacunae in the seizure and sampling chain: absence of a properly affixed sample seal in the seizure mahazar Ext.P1, illegible or non-existent specimen seal, and lack of a copy of the specimen seal attached to the forwarding note. The forwarding note did not reveal the name of the Excise Guard who handled the sample, and the thondi clerk or Excise Guard who despatched the sample for analysis were not examined, undermining the link evidence between the seized contraband and the sample analysed. The Public Prosecutor contends that the seal was affixed and the forwarding note supported its despatch. The High Court relies on Sasidharan v. State of Kerala (2007), Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (2020), and Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala (2016) to emphasize proper chain-of-custody and tamper-proof despatch requirements. Finding fatal laches in the prosecution’s proofs, the court acquits the petitioner under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., setting aside the former conviction and sentence and directing liberty forthwith.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2534 OF 2010 The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears CRL.Rev.Pet.No. 2534 of 2010 arising from a conviction under the Abkari Act 8(1) and 8(2) by the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thodupuzha, upheld on appeal in Crl.Appeal No.97 of 2010. The revision petition is filed by Tomy, the accused, challenging the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence based on a raid dated 24.10.2003 in Parathodu Bhagom, Udumbanchola Village, where 1.850 litres of illicit arrack was seized and the accused was found in possession. The trial court imposed six months’ imprisonment and Rs.1 lakh fine, with a default sentence; the appellate court did not interfere. The High Court scrutinizes key evidentiary gaps raised by the defense: absence of specimen impression of the seal in the seizure mahazar; lack of evidence about the seal used on the sample bottle; the absence of testimony explaining the seal’s nature; and delays in investigation and forwarding of the chemical analysis report. Citing cases such as Kumaran v. State of Kerala, Chandran v. State, Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala, and Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, the court emphasizes prompt investigation under Section 50 of the Abkari Act and proper chain-of-custody. On these grounds, the court sets aside the judgments, acquits the accused under Cr.P.C. 235(1) and allows the revision petition.
CRL.R.P.No. 3294 and 3296 of 2010 These revision petitions arise from a common judgment in S.T. Nos. 2694 of 2006 and 15 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner, Gopalakrishnan M.K., allegedly purchased marble on credit from the second respondent and issued two cheques—Exts. P1 for Rs. 30,000 and P2 for Rs. 10,000—which were dishonoured on presentation for insufficient funds. The second respondent asserted the liability, and after due process the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to one month’s simple imprisonment and fines of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 10,000, with the fines directed to be paid as compensation under Sec. 357(1) Cr.P.C. The appellate court upheld the conviction. In his Cr.R.P. petitions, the petitioner argued misappreciation of evidence and misapplication of the law, contending that the marble was purchased at Mulanthuruthy, not Kadamattom, and that cash cheques and two signed blank cheques were given as security. The High Court scrutinized Exts. P13 and P14 (receipt and day book) and concluded that the transaction occurred at Kadamattom, countering the defence. It also found that the encashment of Exts. D1 and D2 was not established. While affirming guilt, the court modified the sentence to simple imprisonment until rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 35,000, with default imprisonment of one month, and directed the fine to be paid to the second respondent as compensation; the conviction stands.
