The petitioner, P. N. Damodaran Pillai, in his capacity as President of the Chirakkadavu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., challenges Exts. P15 and P16, issued in proceedings under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. The background traces to the 2018- tenure of the current Managing Committee, and a February 2021 inspection into accounts relating to 2015, which disclosed alleged misappropriation by the former secretary, C. P. Najeeb. The bank attached Najeeb’s properties to secure alleged liabilities and an arbitration against Najeeb had already been initiated prior to the current committee’s tenure. Exts. P1–P4 document attachments and orders; Exts. P5–P9 are statutory audit reports (2015–16 to 2019–20) that allegedly do not reflect the misappropriation. The petitioner argues that misappropriation concerns events well before 2018 and should have been addressed by an inspection under Section 66, not an enquiry under Section 65; no allegation of petitioner's complicity is raised; retirement benefits were paid without a No-Liability certificate. Respondents urge that Ext. P16 reveals misappropriation and that if amounts cannot be realized from Najeeb, liability may extend to the petitioner. The High Court, noting settled law, holds that challenges to Exts. P15/P16 need not be entertained at the notice stage and that the petitioner may raise contentions at the merits stage; the petition is dismissed without prejudice to future contentions.
Safia, represented by power of attorney holder Muhammedali, filed WP(C) No.40079 of 2022 seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to secure police protection for her life and those of other legal heirs regarding a 1 hectare 3 ares 23 sq m land described in Ext.P7 (title dated 13.05.1966). The property sits within government puramboke and is the subject of ongoing civil proceedings, including proceedings under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The petitioner sought police protection to enable measurement of her share as described in Ext.P3 (application dated 17.10.2022). She alleged obstruction by neighbours (Respondents 6–14). The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 05.05.2023. The Writ Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act was admitted and heard by a Division Bench. The court examined whether police protection could be granted in the backdrop of a civil dispute about title to the property, relying on the principle that a writ petition under Article 226 requires a proper foundation and should not substitute civil remedies. It cited St. George Tabore Church v. State of Kerala (2021) for requiring petitioners to approach the Station House Officer with a proper complaint. The court ultimately upheld the dismissal, noting that the dispute over ownership must be resolved in the competent civil forum or Land Reforms proceedings, and refused to grant police protection. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies.
This High Court of Kerala judgment, delivered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, deals with a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC seeking to quash CC 593/2020 arising from Crime No. 1361/2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. The petitioner, Vinoj I M, is the first accused in the case, which charges offences under IPC sections 408, 409, and 477 read with 34. The second accused had already been quashed in a prior order, and the parties have resolved their dispute through an out-of-court settlement. The victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, stating no grievance. While the Public Prosecutor reserved objections to quashing solely on the basis of settlement, he conceded that the matter is settled. The court examined Supreme Court precedent, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, ruling that the power under Sec. 482 CrPC can quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is civil/private, the parties have resolved it, and the offences are not of a heinous or public-society nature. Applying this doctrine, the court found the dispute private, accepted the settlement, and quashed the proceedings in CC 593/2020, allowing the Criminal Miscellaneous Case. The order underscores the balance between private settlements and public-interest concerns in quashing non-compoundable offences.
BA 5719/2023; BA 8575/2023 This is a Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) bail exercise under Section 438 CrPC, involving two connected bail applications filed on behalf of Jerry Easow Oommen, the second accused in Crime No. 827/2023 (Pathanamthitta P.S.) and the first accused in Crime No. 809/2023, both arising from alleged irregularities in a cooperative society. In BA 5719/2023, the accusation is that the President sanctioned loans totaling Rs 86,12,19,569.50 in breach of rules, causing loss to the Mylapra Co-operative Service Society; a complaint was filed by the Joint Registrar. The defense contends the enquiry under Section 65 Kerala Co-operative Societies Act points to maladministration rather than outright misappropriation, and that the accused’s medical condition (on dialysis) and supersession of the committee indicate no need for custodial interrogation. BA 8575/2023, though filed by the same person as the first accused in the other case, concerns a customer’s charge in Cr. No. 809/2023 that fixed deposits were not returned; the bank and not the President is urged to answer. The State argues substantial misappropriation (over Rs. 87 crores) and ongoing documentary evidence, warranting custodial interrogation. After considering evidence, reports under Sec.65, and the fact that witnesses are largely official and documentary, the Court grants anticipatory bail with conditions, noting the petitioner’s age and health, committee supersession, and the potential for cooperation, while clarifying police powers to investigate even on bail as per Sushila Aggarwal guidance.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1 to 4 (Eldhose, Sonu, Eldhose, and Mathew) challenging CC No.95 of 2020 (JMFC-III, Perumbavoor) arising from Crime No.183/2020 of Kuruppampady Police Station. The petitioners are charged with offences under Sections 447, 294(b), and 506 r/w 34 IPC for allegedly trespassing into the informants’ courtyard on 01.03.2020, hurling abuses, and criminally intimidating them. The petition asserts amicable settlement between the parties, supported by affidavits, and contends that quashing the proceedings would promote peace and enable the parties to move forward harmoniously. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though acknowledges absence of other serious crimes against the petitioners. The High Court refers to State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to outline the governing principles: (i) Section 482 powers may quash non-compoundable offences with predominantly civil character where the dispute is fully resolved; (ii) such power should not be exercised for heinous/serious offences or for offences under special statutes; (iii) offences like Section 307 IPC or Arms Act are crimes against society and cannot be quashed merely on settlement; (iv) the High Court may scrutinize the nature of the offence and evidence when 307 IPC is involved. After considering gravity, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the Court concludes quashing would serve ends of justice and bring peace. The petition is allowed; Annexure-A2 Final Report in Crime No.183/2020 and all further proceedings in CC No.95/2020 are quashed.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 4884 of 2022) filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court, challenging the order in CC No.792/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ettumanoor arising from Crime No.1451/2019 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kottayam. The petitioners, five accused—Nidhin Chandran, Sarath Mohan, Pavi Sankar, Jayakrishnan, and Vishnu—are charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), and 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims. The petitioners submit that the dispute has been settled and the victims support quashing, as evidenced by affidavits, and the petitioners seek the exercise of the High Court’s power under S.482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences arising from private disputes. The Public Prosecutor initially reserved his view but acknowledged the settlement. Relying on Supreme Court dicta in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, and the earlier cases Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court outlines the test for quashing private, non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is settled and the acts are private in nature. The court finds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and allows the quashing of proceedings, terminating the criminal action against the petitioners. The order underscores the private character of the dispute and limits the quashing to the present matter. Appendix lists annexures supporting the settlement and materials.
CRL.M.C Nos. 5034/2023 and 5038/2023 These connected Criminal Misc. petitions challenge a common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mananthavady, refusing interim custody of Rs. 40 lakhs seized during a routine Excise check. The 3rd petitioner, an employee of Balaji Jewellers, was found to be travelling with cash ostensibly for jewellery procurement. The Excise Department seized the money, and reports indicated it represented undisclosed income; the Income Tax Department sought custody of the cash for tax proceedings. The Magistrate directed that the amount be released to the IT Department with conditions, including completing proceedings within six months and depositing the balance if not concluded. The petitioners contended that the IT Act is self-contained and cannot confer a right on the Revenue to claim custody of assets in Court’s custody, arguing that Section 132A empowers only an officer, not the court, and that no assessment had yet been completed nor tax demanded. The High Court held that interim custody cannot be granted to the Revenue where no valid assessment or demand exists and that the Magistrate’s direction to expedite assessment was improper. After detailed discussion of IT Act provisions and precedents (e.g., Abdul Khader, Choyi, Malhotra, Balbir Singh, Ibrahim Othayoth), the Court quashed the common order and directed the amount to be released to the petitioner on bond, with the Revenue to finalize the assessment as per law.
WA No. 1218/2023; WA No. 1292/2023 These writ appeals challenge a Kerala High Court order that set aside the government’s approval of Krishnadasan as Manager of a school and the exemption allowing him to hold the post despite a bar in the Kerala Education Rules. The dispute centers on management of a school building and surrounding land, where Lakshmikutty Amma, the former Manager, died in 2017 and the school operated without a Manager thereafter. The Government appointed Krishnadasan as Manager, noting his status as a teacher, and relaxed a bar under the Kerala Education Rules by invoking Rule 3 of Chapter I to permit the appointment. Vipin C contested Krishnadasan’s exclusive title to the property on the basis of a Will by Lakshmikutty Amma, contending genuineness and ownership were in dispute. The learned Single Judge relied on Sabitha K.V. v. Satheesan K.V. and Others and K.K.Moidu v. State of Kerala and Others to hold that educational authorities should not adjudicate Will validity, and that Krishnadasan’s appointment should be set aside. The Division Bench split the issue: while Will validity is indeed a civil matter, it endorsed provisionally recognizing Krishnadasan as Manager to safeguard the school’s interests, given he is a co-owner. The court directed civil proceedings to resolve disputes, barred Krishnadasan from hiring for vacancies for three months, and outlined procedural steps for future appointments or relief, including potential land tax considerations.”
CRL.REV.PET NO. 731 OF 2023 This Kerala High Court criminal revision concerns the State of Kerala’s challenge to a committal order in a forest-offence case. The petitioner, under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, seeks to set aside an order dated 07.12.2016 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nedumangad, committing the case to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.122 of 2017. The offences involve 120B, 364 and 302 IPC read with 34. The facts: the first and third respondents allegedly abducted the deceased on 27.09.2015, transported him in an autorickshaw, where the first accused stabbed him, and the fourth accused allegedly aided, with the victim dying from injuries. During investigation, the fourth accused was granted pardon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 306 CrPC on the condition of full disclosure, and was later listed as approver-witness No.5 in the final report. The State argues the committal order failed to record the approver’s evidence, violating Section 306(4)(a) CrPC, rendering the committal and ensuing trial illegal. The respondents contend belated challenge and speedy-trial concerns under Article 21. The High Court relies on Suresh Chandra Bahri and Ashokan; it holds non-compliance with mandatory provisions vitiates committal, and allowed the revision, setting aside the committal order and Sessions proceedings, directing re-examination and re-commitment with time-bound disposal, while ensuring speedy trial.”
This Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC No.5557 of 2023) from the Kerala High Court concerns the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. Petitioners (Accused 1–3: Sindhu, Midhu@Achchu, Arun Krishna) are facing trial in CC No.468/2022 before a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoor, for offences under IPC Sections 451, 383, 384, and 419, all read with Section 34. The prosecution alleges house trespass and extortion on 06.12.2021. The petition argues that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and both sides desire to end the proceedings to restore peace, supported by a settlement affidavit. The Public Prosecutor expresses caution but acknowledges absence of other serious crimes by the petitioners. The Court reviews binding jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, notably State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to determine when Section 482 may quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is civil/private and settled. It emphasizes factors such as antecedents, conduct, and the genuineness of the settlement, while also noting that heinous offences or those under Special Statutes should not be quashed merely on settlement. Applying these principles, the court holds that quashing would not adversely affect society and would advance ends of justice. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the Final Report (Crime No.1809/2021) and proceedings in CC No.468/2022 are quashed.
This writ petition by Rajeena Samuel challenges Ext.P4, an order denying promotion of the petitioner as Office Attendant in CMS High School, Thalavady under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV A KER. The petitioner, promoted to the post on 01.12.2022 via Ext.P3, alleges the rejection by Ext.P4 is arbitrary, violates statutory rules and constitutional guarantees, and seeks mandamus for approval with effect from 01.12.2022 along with salary and allowances, arguing that Exts.P5–P11 judgments provide precedents against denying appointments in uneconomic schools. The respondents contend the CMS school is uneconomic and that such posts must be filled on a daily-wage basis for protected/uneconomic institutions, supporting Ext.P4 pursuant to Ext.P5–P11 rulings. The court recalls a prior judgment of 04.04.2023 in W.P.(C). Nos.10753 and 11984 of 2023 disposing similar grievances and directing reconsideration in light of the court’s established principles, which hold that daily-wage appointments are unsustainable where regular vacancies exist. Citing Exts.P5–P11 and related authorities, the court concludes Ext.P4 cannot sustain its basis and quashes Ext.P4. It directs the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter consistent with the discussed principles within one month and to disburse consequential benefits within two months. The petition is disposed with emphasis on statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees ensuring regular appointment when vacancies arise.
CRL.MC NO. 3111 OF 2023 & CRL.MC NO. 3171 OF 2023 The Kerala High Court heard two criminal miscellaneous petitions (CRL.MC 3111/2023 and CRL.MC 3171/2023) challenging common orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kolencherry, in relation to vehicle custody in two linked matters arising from alleged forged vehicle sales. Sai Service Private Limited, a Maruti Suzuki authorized sales/service partner with a subsidiary True Value for used vehicles, asserts that their showroom team leader, Febin P. Ibrahim, acting as an authorized signatory, forged documents and sold several cars to third parties, causing financial loss. The petitioners contend that a subsequent FIR registered under IPC sections 406, 420 and 408, and the seizure of two cars, followed by two separate applications under Section 451 CrPC for interim custody, were decided by the Magistrate with no original ownership documents produced by either side. The petitioners further assert that the 2nd petitioner Ashok Kumar was the defacto complainant and that the team leader manipulated records without authority. They rely on documentary annexures (FIR, purchase agreement, delivery receipts, Form 29/30, sales receipts) to demonstrate ownership and entitlement to possess the vehicles. The court cites the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat to justify releasing vehicles from custody under appropriate conditions and, noting lack of appearance by respondents, allows the petitions, quashes the prior orders, and directs the Magistrate to reconsider and grant interim custody with conditions.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 1070 of 2023) challenging Annexure A2, an order dated 01-07-2023 of the Special Court under the SC/ST Act (Session Court, Thalassery) in MC 1214 of 2023. The appellants, Pragesh E.C. and Ramakrishnan K.V., stand accused of offences under Section 324 IPC r/w Section 34 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, with the State of Kerala and Rahul Rajan as respondents. The appeal concerns grant of anticipatory bail under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, arguing that the materials do not establish a prima facie case and that the case is retaliatory rather than genuinely connected to the alleged incident. The prosecution contends there is a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, and that Sections 18 and 18-A prohibit anticipatory bail in such circumstances. The defendants point to evidence, including Annexure A3, suggesting the allegations followed a temple committee decision regarding the complainant’s conduct during the Gulikan theyyam, and argue that the matter warrants careful, fair investigation rather than pre-trial detention. The court discusses the settled law on anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act cases, citing Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. UOI and a Kerala High Court decision XXX v. State of Kerala, to explain that the bar is not absolute where prima facie materials are absent. Ultimately, the court sets aside the Special Court order and grants bail on specified conditions, while allowing the investigation to proceed free and fairly.
Jiji Zacharia and Anitha Jiji filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P18 (order dated 12.05.2008) and Ext.P22 (order dated 18.02.2010) issued in relation to cancellation of patta No.65/77 over 2.62 acres of land in Sy.No.34/1, Chinnakkanal Village, Udumbanchola, originally assigned to Joy Thomas under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The land, stated to be Government property, was assigned to Joy Thomas in 1977 with a patta issued in 1993. The petitioners acquired the patta through documents in 1995 and 2004 respectively. The Tahsildar cancelled the patta on grounds including missing application/register entries, absence of receipts, incorrect details, and the claim that the land was used contrary to the assignment (the petitioners allegedly ran a resort named “Green Jungle”). The petitioners previously challenged related notices in 2008–2009 and sought production of records; ultimately Ext.P18 and Ext.P22 were upheld as valid by the authorities. The petition cites Haridas R. v. State of Kerala, Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, and Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government to emphasize that patta assignments are intended for cultivation and to protect landless people, not enable commercial exploitation. The court held that there was no proof of cultivation or residence by the assignee or petitioners, that forged documents were used, and that the notices and patta cancellation were legal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed for want of merit, and the government’s action to cancel the patta is sustained.
Hotel Sayooj, a three-star bar-attached hotel at Edappal, challenged a decision under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST) relating to turnover tax payable under a compounding scheme for FY 2021-22. The petitioner filed a compounding application on 29 April 2021 under Section 7 of the KGST Act, but no final decision was rendered. Consequently, the petitioner filed monthly returns in Form 10DA (as per Rule 22(1) of the VAT Rules) in respect of the compounding period. The tax authority later issued an order on 4 January 2023 (Exhibit P-1) allowing the compounding application and directing payment of the differential amount at the compounded rate along with interest at 1% per month (Exhibit P-2/Exhibit P-1). The petitioner assailed these orders, contending that since the compounding application was neither decided nor withdrawn, the returns ought to be treated as normal, not under compounding, and the regular assessment (Exhibit P-2) was unsustainable. The State Government Pleader argued that Section 7(1)(a) contemplates filing annual returns with monthly returns during pending compounding, and if not withdrawn or rejected after hearing, the compounding stands as granted. Relying on State of Kerala v. Kalyanaraman, the High Court held that the assessee cannot back out after acting on a pending compounding application. The petition was dismissed, upholding the impugned orders and the assessment under compounding provisions.
The petition concerns Jithu, the first accused in Walayar Police Station Crime No. 467 of 2022, challenging an order dated 26 April 2023 extending detention by 180 days under NDPS Act Section 36A(4). The 180-day remand commenced 17 October 2022; the 180th day fell on 14 April 2023, and an extension petition was filed on 12 April 2023. On 26 April 2023, the Sessions Court, by Annexure A4, extended detention by 180 days and rejected the statutory bail petition (Annexure A2). Counsel for the petitioner argued that the extension order cannot stand and relied on Supreme Court precedents—Sanjay Dutt v. State, Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat, and Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra—to contend that the accused must be informed and present when extension is considered and that default bail must be considered concurrently under Ravindran and related pronouncements. The petitioner urged that mandatory notice, presence, and the right to object were violated, constituting gross illegality under Article 21. The High Court, after examining precedents (including Sanjay Dutt, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, Jigar, Sanjay Kumar Kedia, and Kazmi), held that the extension was not properly contemplated and that the accused was not properly noticed or produced. It quashed the extension and the rejection of statutory bail, granted default bail with conditions, and directed release on default bail, subject to specified conditions—bond, sureties, passport, non-interference with investigation, appearances, and non-commission of crimes.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed against the order rejecting discharge in CMP No.1063/2021 in CC 10/2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. The petitioners, eight accused-named individuals, allegedly conspired to form a firm named Bhardhaman JM Agro Products and marketed rice under the label “Three Roses,” deceptively similar to the informant’s “Rose Brand” of Bhardhaman Agro Products (I) Pvt. Ltd. The police filed a final report under offences punishable under IPC Sections 465, 467, 468, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The CJM held that affixing a deceptively similar brand could amount to offences under copyright/trademark regimes, and that whether such offences exist is a matter for trial; hence discharge was denied. The petitioners argued discharge was proper as there was no copyright/trademark violation and no forged document, emphasising lack of foundational facts and misapplication of copyright provisions. Respondents contended that copyright registration existed for the artwork, making proceedings valid; they opposed discharge. The High Court, relying on precedent (including a Supreme Court decision on the classification of false documents), held that the discharge petition could not be allowed and dismissed the revision, thereby upholding the trial process.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4641 OF 2025 A bail application by Jinachandran, the second accused in Crime No.1705/2024 of Kottayam East Police Station, comes up before the Kerala High Court. The petitioner contends that he had no role in the alleged offence under sections 318(1) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) since the transaction was between the defacto complainant and the first accused; the complainant has filed Annexures A3 and A4 indicating settlement and no grievance against him. The matter primarily involved the 1st accused; the 2nd accused claims lack of involvement, with the defacto complainant now wanting to drop the case. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing possible criminal antecedents. The court, noting the settlement and absence of continuing grievance, and considering strong bail philosophy— that bail is the rule and jail the exception— grants bail with stringent conditions. Relying on authorities such as Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, the judge directs: appearance before the IO within two weeks for interrogation; bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; cooperation with investigation; not leaving India; not committing similar offences; and that recoveries may be effected during bail if necessary. The principle reiterated is that bail jurisprudence remains the same, applying to this case and preserving the court’s power to cancel bail for violations.
Shiyas, the tenant in BRC(OP) No.9 of 2015, challenged eviction proceedings initiated by his landlords under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court, Munsiff, Karunagappally, issued an ex parte eviction order on 26 February 2019 in BRC(OP) No.9 of 2015, on grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need. The tenant moved I.A. No.628 of 2019 under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to set aside the ex parte eviction. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application on 14 August 2019. The tenant challenged this order in R.C.A. No.31 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II, Kollam), which dismissed the appeal on 31 March 2022, upholding the dismissal of I.A.628/2019. The tenant then approached this Court under Section 20 of the Act seeking revision. The revision questions whether revisional power could be used to reappraise facts or substitute the subordinate authorities’ findings, particularly when the landlord-tenant relationship itself was under challenge. The High Court examined leading Supreme Court authorities and concluded that revisional jurisdiction is limited to legality, regularity and propriety, and the lower conclusions were well supported by evidence. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed, the petitioner’s aim appearing to be protracting the proceedings rather than establishing a clear legal error.
CRL.R.P. Nos.624/2022 and 625/2022 Two criminal revision petitions, CRL.R.P. Nos.624/2022 and 625/2022, arise from two separate Section 138 NI Act prosecutions (S.T. Nos. 10000/2011 and 10001/2011) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court), Thiruvananthapuram. The accused, M. Shabeer, challenges concurrent convictions and sentences upheld on appeal. The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge setting of Justice A. Badharudeen, analyzes the scope of its revisional power under Cr.P.C. Sections 397 and 401, reiterating that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not a second appellate remedy, to be invoked only to correct miscarriage of justice or non-consideration of relevant material. The court relies on State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, Sanjayinh Ramrao Chavan, and Kishan Rao to illustrate the proper limits of interference. The notices under Section 138(b) NI Act and the issue of whether a proper demand was made are critically examined; the court acknowledges conflicting precedents but upholds that there was a proper demand. Evidence from PW1 and PW2, and the application of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, are discussed. The High Court partially allows the revisions, modifying fines to Rs.3,00,000 and Rs.1,50,000 (with compensation under Cr.P.C. 357(1)(b)), while keeping imprisonment for defaults, and defers execution until 17 November 2022.
