Vinu M. Mathew, employed as an Office Attendant/Peon in NM Upper Primary School, Keekozhoor (an aided school managed by NM Schools), challenged the denial of his promotion on the ground that the school is uneconomic and that a protected hand should be appointed in such vacancies. He also sought reliefs to quash Ext. P18 and to mandatorily grant him the promotion under Rule 43 of Chapter XIVA read with Rule 7 of Chapter XXIV B of the Kerala Education Rules (KER), and to pay salary/allowances from the earlier date. The petitioner invoked earlier judicial pronouncements, notably Bipin Pavithran, which held that the post of Peon/Office Attendant in Upper Primary Schools is a statutorily mandated post, not to be diminished by uneconomic status or circulars. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1346 of 2021 endorsed that view, emphasizing that non-teaching posts exist by statute and cannot be curtailed by Government orders intended to downsize posts in uneconomic schools. The present court, applying the Bipin Pavithran line and the long line of authority (Manager P.K. High School; Ciji P. Jose; State of Kerala v. Ciji P. Jose), held that the statutory provisions prevail over executive orders. Ext. P18 was quashed, and directions were issued to grant promotion, with salary arrears and related benefits, within three months. The petition is allowed.
BAIL APPL. NO.4608 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of BNSS filed in the High Court of Kerala by two petitioners, Haridas @ Hari Swami and Jisha, challenging a crime registered as No. 547/2025 at Irinjalakuda Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges a sophisticated money-misdirection where the petitioners received Rs. 10 lakhs with a promise of returning ten times the amount for remitting supposed arrears of a deceased person linked to a trust at Kolkata; the amount was not returned. The court notes the unusual sequence of events and the lack of security in the transaction. The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail, while the Public Prosecutor represented the State. The judge observed that custodial interrogation is not necessary under the circumstances and emphasized the maxim that bail is the rule, jail the exception, citing established jurisprudence on bail. Relying on decisions such as Anzar Azeez and Siddharth, the court ultimately allows the bail application with stringent conditions, directing interrogations, bonds, restrictions on travel, and ongoing cooperation with investigation while safeguarding the petitioners’ personal liberty. The order underscores the need to balance fair trial rights with the state’s need to investigate financial offences. The judgment ends with the court granting bail subject to specified conditions and cautions for breach.
OT Rev Nos.51/2018, 52/2018, 53/2018 OT.Rev Nos.51/2018, 52/2018 and 53/2018 arise from a common order of the Kerala VAT Appellate Tribunal concerning a license-fee arrangement between the dealer and M/s Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd for service centres in Kerala. The petitioner, M/s Kuttukkaran Trading Ventures, contends that the license fee paid by the licensee should not constitute taxable turnover under the KVAT Act for the return period 2008-09, arguing that the arrangement is a license to use movable assets rather than a sale of goods. The assessment treated the license fee as taxable turnover; the department relied on the instrument’s language and the Tribunal’s interpretation that a portion of the agreement amounts to transfer of the right to use, which could be taxed under the Act, notwithstanding payment of service tax. The petitioner invokes Article 366(29A) of the Constitution (46th Amendment) and seeks application of the dominant nature test to classify the contract as service rather than sale; reliance is placed on Gannon Dunkerley and related authorities. The Government Pleader defends the classification, arguing that the license agreement transfers the right to use, and the transaction falls within the VAT regime. The High Court ultimately sets aside the orders under revision and remits the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal, with liberty to produce the license agreement and other records, and without any adverse costs order.
WA.No.1521/2017; WA.No.1536/2017; WA.No.1551/2017; RSA No.21/2016 This batch of writ appeals and a regular second appeal arise from the State of Kerala challenging orders under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and Rules and related partnership law in the context of a firm, Malabar Cashews Nuts and Allied Products, where sales tax arrears were sought to be recovered from partners who were minors at the time of their admission to the partnership. The writ petitions filed by Lekshmi Vasanth (L.V.) and related proceedings challenged the attachment and demand on grounds that minors cannot be made liable for the firm’s liabilities unless they exercise an option upon attaining majority under section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, and that reconstitution of the firm after 1976 altered the liability matrix. The court traces the chronology of formation and reconstitution of the firm from 1964 through 1978, including retirements of minor partners, and the subsequent department actions under the RR Act. It relies on earlier judicial observations and orders (including a 2012 writ petition judgment exonerating Santhakumari Amma and subsequent directions for an enquiry) to hold that continuing recovery against erstwhile minor partners for 1970–1995 is unsustainable. The court ultimately upholds the benched position that minors who ceased to be partners before or at majority cannot be forced to bear the firm’s tax arrears, and quashes the challenged RR Act actions while dismissing condonation for delay in the related Regular Second Appeal.
This suo motu writ petition was registered to address grievances regarding compensation to dependents of accident victims who die in the course of employment, under Section 10A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The Division Bench had observed in 2021 that the Industrial Tribunals lack machinery to initiate proceedings or receive information about such deaths, especially for night watchmen, and directed the registry to number a suo motu petition. The Kerala High Court adopts the Rita Devi framework distinguishing murder simpliciter from accidental murder and emphasizes that compensation can be available under the EC Act if the murder is accidental in the course of employment. It traces common-law precedents on the meaning of ‘accident’ (Clover, Challis, Nisbet, and Board of Management v. Kelly) and notes that the term is not statutorily defined, requiring liberal construction in light of the Act’s social-benefit objective. It also considers victim-protection measures under CrPC Section 357A and the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 (and the later 2017 scheme) to extend relief. The State Legal Services Authority submitted a report (Feb 10, 2022) outlining a mechanism to assess and award compensation via LSAs, with police support. The court ultimately disposes of the petition, directing LSAs to process claims, coordinate with police, and award compensation within two months after due enquiry, thereby implementing a structured victim-compensation framework; the registry is to forward a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary for action.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.5493 of 2016) before the Kerala High Court is filed by Mohammed Saheer, the second accused in Crime No.193/2008 of Chittar Police Station, challenging the cognizance and proceedings in CC 756/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni. The petitioner contends two grounds for quashing: first, that the prosecution’s case does not allege any dishonest intent to cheat or caused by the accused; hence the offense of cheating under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC lacks a prima facie basis; second, that cognizance was taken illegally because Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. required the Magistrate to hold an inquiry or direct an investigation when the accused resided outside the jurisdiction, and such compliance was absent. The court examines Section 202(1) in light of amendments (2005) and recent jurisprudence including Udai Shankar Awasthi and Vijay Dhanuka Najima Mamtaj line of authorities. It distinguishes a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C from a complaint; where the final report discloses a cognizable offense by an accused residing outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, cognizance may be taken without pre-cognition inquiry. The court holds that the pre-cognition inquiry was not mandatory in this case and that cognizance was properly taken; the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Thus, the petition is rejected and the proceedings in CC 756/2014 continue.
Chandu Purushothaman, accused in SC No.323 of 2024 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Ernakulam, seeks bail under the NDPS Act in a case alleging offences under sections 22(C), 23(C), 27-A and 29. The prosecution reports that a postal examination and seizures produced a white cover and a silver packet containing LSD; the evidence allegedly shows a commercial quantity of contraband. The petitioner argues that prolonged custody (since 02.09.2023) and the scale of the offence warrant relaxation of the statutory embargo under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, and reliance is placed on recent Supreme Court rulings, namely Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal; Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal; and Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala, to contend that Article 21 rights and delays in trial can justify bail notwithstanding the NDPS presumptions for commercial quantities. The Standing Counsel counters that the offence is serious and involves commercial quantity, urging denial of bail. The court cites the cited authorities to emphasize that delay in trial and Article 21 considerations can override 37(1)(b) in appropriate cases. It disposes of the bail petition by directing the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the trial court within two weeks, with the trial court to decide within two weeks, applying the principles discussed, without granting bail in this order.
This MACA arises from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery award dated 3 August 2006 in OP(MV) No.1981/1999, granting compensation to the legal representatives of Anjala, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 23 October 1998. The petitioners, legal representatives of the deceased, contend that Anjala was about 30 years old, a stone cutter, earning ₹3,000 per month; the Tribunal fixed her monthly income at ₹2,000, applied a multiplier of 15, and allowed a 1/3 deduction for personal expenses, which they say undervalued the loss. They seek re-determination under the established framework for future prospects, arguing for a 50% addition to income for future prospects and a higher multiplier appropriate to age, while noting that the Tribunal did not fully account for loss of future prospects. The respondents counter that the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the 2nd respondent and that there is no proven transfer of ownership; Exts. B1–B3 show only agreements for sale, not ownership transfer, and liability should not rest on the 1st and 5th respondents. The High Court, applying the Pranay Sethi framework and Magma guidance, allowed the appeal, held the 2nd respondent to be the sole owner, and recalculated compensation to ₹6,21,100 with interest and costs, enhancing the multiplier to 17, adjusting the personal expenditure deduction to 1/5, and directing payment within two months. The award’s liability and quantum were accordingly modified, with a directive to realize excess court fees under Circular No. 03/2019.
The petitioner, Jeesmon Vargeeese, is an accused in Crime No.25/2023 registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Palakkad, alleging offences under sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, for possession of 50.85 g hashish oil, 8.65 g charas, and 0.50 g LSD at Palakkad Junction on 25 May 2023. The bail application (B.A.No.4303 of 2025) is moved under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The prosecution contends the seized quantity constitutes a commercial quantity under NDPS Act, invoking Section 37, and urges denial of bail. The petitioner’s counsel submits that this Court had previously directed the trial court to consider the bail application in light of principles laid down in Ankur Chaudhary, Nitish Adhikary, Hasanujjaman, and Shuaib, and that Article 21 of the Constitution requires careful scrutiny of prolonged incarceration. Relying on Apex Court decisions (Ankur Chaudhary; Hasanujjaman; Nitish Adhikary) and the Kerala Court’s own Anzar Azeez decision, the court notes the need to balance legitimate public interest with fundamental rights. The Court finds the trial court failed to follow the directions, considers the period of custody (over one year), and concludes that Section 37 can be relaxed in appropriate cases. The bail is granted with stringent conditions,” including bond of Rs 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, reporting obligations, travel restrictions, and the possibility of cancellation for violation. This order reflects the primacy of Article 21 while respecting statutory NDPS safeguards.
This appeal is by the wife and son of the deceased Purushothaman from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No.582/2004, Irinjalakuda. Purushothaman, a 45-year-old driver, died in a road accident on 25.08.2003 when a lorry driven rashly by the 1st respondent collided with his Tata Sumo. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,46,000 in compensation, after the appellants contended for higher quantum. The respondents were the driver, the vehicle owner, and the insurer; the other respondents (4–6) are his children from another marriage. The appellants argued for a higher notional income (Rs.4,000–5,000) and a 25% addition for future prospects, citing Ramchandrappa and Pranay Sethi, with 1/3 deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 14 rather than 13. The High Court, applying the Ramchandrappa approach, fixed Rs.4,000 as notional income and, per Pranay Sethi, allowed 25% future prospects for a self-employed driver. After accounting for deductions, the loss of dependency rose to Rs.5,59,944 and other heads were revised: loss of love and affection and consortium Rs.80,000, funeral Rs.15,000, loss of estate Rs.15,000, with Rs.12,000 enhancement for funeral and Rs.5,000 for transportation. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.4,28,944. The court directed a lumpsum payment: Rs.1,00,000 to the 2nd appellant and the remainder to the 1st appellant, with 7% interest and costs as noted. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4416 OF 2025 Sony, aged 39 years, is the accused in Crime No. 477/2025 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, charged under sections 126(2), 115(2), 110 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The High Court of Kerala, in Bail Appl. No. 4416 of 2025, heard the matter on 3 April 2025. The court noted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17 March 2025, and, though the offences alleged are serious and the petitioner has criminal antecedents, indefinite incarceration is not warranted. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, the court concluded that bail is appropriate with stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation and the accused’s right to a fair trial. The court relied on established bail jurisprudence: that bail is the rule and jail the exception, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and reinforced by Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. It also invoked Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala to apply the principle. The order imposes a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, requires the petitioner’s appearance before the investigating officer on Mondays at 10 am until the final report, restricts travel, and obligates cooperation with the investigation. The prosecution and victim may move to cancel bail for violations. The order is limited to deciding this bail petition.
Two petitioners, Dr. Nimmy Sahadevan and Gazal S. Koliparamampil, accused in Crime No. 480/2025 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The offences alleged include 333, 296(b), 351(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution case is that on 12.03.2025, the accused trespassed into the de facto complainant’s residence, abused him with filthy language, one accused allegedly attempted to strike with a key‑like object, and pushed him, causing injuries. The petitioners contend that the only non‑bailable offence is Section 333 and there is a tenancy dispute; they are ready to comply with conditions if bail is granted. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded there are no criminal antecedents. The court, evaluating the facts and the potential punishment, held that custodial interrogation is not necessary. Citing Chidambaram, Siddharth, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, Sushila Aggarwal and Joginder Kumar, it reaffirmed that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that personal liberty warrants scrutiny of release conditions. The bail is, therefore, allowed with stringent conditions: appearance before the IO within two weeks, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, non‑departure from India, cooperation with investigation, prohibition of committing similar offences, and potential cancellation of bail on violation. The order emphasizes the IO’s authority to investigate and recoveries, even on bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2232 OF 2025 This is a bail application before the High Court of Kerala by the petitioner, SreenA Sreedharan, the 3rd accused in Crime No. 1070/2023 of Cherpu Police Station. The case concerns offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Act and Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, arising from alleged online money-chain activities by High Rich Online Shoppe Pvt. Ltd., operated through directors including accused Nos. 2 and 3, at Arattupuzha and Njeruvisssery, with deposits and inflated interest offered to the public. Initially, on 07.04.2025, the court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) on 08.04.2025 and not to be arrested till the next posting date. The petitioner surrendered on 11.04.2025 and stated willingness to cooperate; the IO sought the petitioner’s presence again for collecting specimen signatures. The Prosecution contends ongoing investigation and the need for signature collection; the petitioner seeks bail with stringent conditions if arrest is later proposed. The court reiterates bail as the rule and arrest as the exception, citing Supreme Court rulings (Chidambaram, Siddharth, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal) and Anzar Azeez’s principle. The order ultimately grants bail with conditions and directs cooperation and appearance for interrogation, while preserving the investigative process.
This bail application (B.A. No. 4010 of 2025) concerns Hamza, the second accused in Crime No. 731/2024 of Koduvally Police Station, Kozhikode, alleging offences under Indian Penal Code sections 420, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B. The prosecution contends bail should be resisted given the gravity of the alleged offences, including creation of a fake Aadhar card and a bogus sale of a Porsche car, with false statements to police. The petitioner’s counsel submits that bail was already granted to co-accused in a prior order (B.A. No. 10136 of 2024) and that the petitioner is amenable to stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The court anchors its decision on the long-standing bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Supreme Court authorities such as Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and subsequent Kerala/Judicial pronouncements including Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. Ultimately, after considering these authorities and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail, the court allows bail with conditions, including interrogation by police within two weeks, a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, non-eviction from India without court permission, non-commission of similar offences, and potential recoveries under police supervision. The order ends with the judge’s signature, affirming the bail grant.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4571 OF 2025 This is a bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 4571 OF 2025) filed by Biju P.M., the second accused in Crime No. 218/2025 of Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki, under Sections 4(b), 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 9B(1)(b) of the Indian Explosives (Amendment) Act. The petitioner was found in possession of 98 electric detonators and 46 gelatin sticks without a license on 09.03.2025 at the store in Padikkapadath House, Pooppara Kara, Pooppara village. The applicant’s counsel argued that though the offence is serious, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 09.03.2025; the investigation is ongoing; indefinite incarceration is unnecessary; the petitioner is ready to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the alleged offence but emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala decisions. Relying on Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala, the court allowed bail with conditions: Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, no leaving the country without permission, no commission of a similar offence, and cooperation with the investigation. The order affirms the principle of fair trial under Article 21 and specifies that violation can lead to cancellation of bail.
This MACA No. 1416 of 2012 concerns an appeal by Nazeer s/o Kunji Moidu (the claimant) against an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, in OP MV No. 353/2009 for injuries sustained in a February 5, 2009 road accident. The Tribunal found the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the owner-driver of KL-8K-6596, and directed pay-and-recovery against him with the insurer indemnifying the insured. The appellant challenges the quantum of compensation, arguing that the Tribunal undervalued his income (a construction worker) and did not properly account for medical treatment, nourishment, transportation, and loss of earnings; he also sought acceptance of Ext. A10’s 10% disability certificate, which was rejected because the doctor was not examined. The judgment cites Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq to justify notionally fixing monthly income for a coolie and a vegetable vendor, respectively, and Sarla Verma/Pranay Sethi for the multiplier of 16 to compute non-pecuniary damages. Applying these principles, the court accepts a notional income of Rs.5,000/month in 2009, recalculates under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, and awards enhanced compensation of Rs.96,050. The pay-and-recovery order against the first respondent remains, the insurer must pay within two months, with interest at 7.5% p.a., excluding 139 days’ interest due to prior condonation. The parties are directed to provide bank details for payment, and costs are apportioned between the parties.
This writ appeal challenges the Kerala High Court’s decision related to the denial and adjustment of benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVS Scheme) in the wake of a search at the appellant Dr. R.P. Patel’s residence and Baroda, which yielded Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) and documents in 1994–1995. Following seizures under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order under section 132(5) was issued on 28.04.1995 for liability estimation, with assets retained to satisfy such liability. Over the years, IVPs were encashed and proceeds adjusted against tax liabilities for several assessment years, including 1994–95 and 1995–96, causing the appellant to lose eligibility for full KVS benefits. When KVS was introduced, the department’s adjustments predated the scheme’s applicability, creating a dispute over whether arrears existed on the date of application. The learned Single Judge upheld some of the encashments and adjustments, directing reconsideration of others. The Division Bench ultimately held that encashments of IVPs were carried out by the 1st respondent without lawful authority after functus officio, quashed the IVP encashment and adjustments, revived the KVS remedy, and directed fresh orders under law, thereby allowing the appeal. The judgment emphasizes compliance with the statutory framework governing search, seizure, encashment, and post-seizure adjustments.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award dated 28 May 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) No. 231/2003, concerning the death of ‘Babu’, husband of petitioner Molly Babu and father of Elizabeth Babu. The petitioners claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging the accident occurred on 10.10.2002, on the Aluva-Munnar road, Perumbavoor, due to the negligent riding of the second respondent’s motorcycle, and sought substantial damages for dependence, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and related heads. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 4,45,350 with interest. The respondents-insurers contested liability and quantum; one insurer conceded coverage but asserted the accident resulted from the deceased’s negligence, while another insurer contended the second rider’s fault. The appellants relied on Ext.A10 (LIC income certificate) to prove the deceased’s income, contending the Tribunal erred in discarding it and in using a notional monthly income of Rs.3,000. The High Court re-evaluated the evidence, adopting net income after tax (Rs.1,88,579/year; Rs.15,714/month), applying a multiplier of 14 (Sarla Verma), and allowing 25% future prospects with a 1/3 deduction for personal living expenses. Conventional heads were enhanced; pain and suffering and loss of love/affection were removed per New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati. The appeal is allowed with enhanced compensation of Rs.23,40,310, plus interest and costs, to be deposited and distributed 60:40.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P34, an order dated 09.06.2021 issued by the General Secretary of the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare, granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner in VC 2/2017/TVM. The petitioner, a former Programme Officer of the Council, faces charges of misappropriating Rs. 2,45,000 and has been summoned to stand trial in a case before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance). The petition traces the sequence from a complaint by Jeevan Thomas, to the VACB’s preliminary enquiry, the Special Court’s directive, the initial refusal of sanction by the Standing Committee, and finally the later sanction granted by the General Secretary. The petitioner contends that once the sanctioning authority has refused sanction, it cannot revisit or grant sanction, relying on Nishant Sareen (supra) and related jurisprudence that emphasize the need for application of mind and that review on identical materials is impermissible. Respondents counter that the sanctioning authority may review its earlier order when fresh materials are placed before it and that Ext.P34 was based on such new materials. The court examines Section 19(1) of the PC Act and the principle that a valid sanction is a prerequisite for cognizance, ultimately holding that the petition fails, though noting the petitioner may challenge the validity of Ext.P34 at trial. The writ petition is dismissed.
This High Court of Kerala, in Crl.M.C. No. 4076 of 2021, examines a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by P. Sasidharan Nair, the Programme Officer of the Kerala State Council for Child Welfare ( KSCCW ), who stands as the sole accused in C.C. No. 30/2021 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. He challenges Annexure-V, an order dated 17.09.2020 issued by the Special Court in VC 2/2017/TVM directing that sanction for prosecution be obtained after the initial sanction denial. The background shows Jeevan Thomas lodging a complaint alleging misappropriation of Rs. 2,45,000 by the petitioner; VACB conducted a preliminary enquiry; upon investigation, the Special Court returned the report to the IO directing re-approach to the sanctioning authority for prosecution under Section 19 PC Act. Annexure-VI subsequently records the General Secretary of KSCCW granting sanction, and a chargesheet invoking IPC sections 409, 465, 471 and PC Act provisions 13(1)(c)/(d) read with 13(2). The petitioner contends three grounds: absence of hearing at Annexure-V stage; lack of power in the Special Court to direct sanction or its reconsideration; and non-reviewability of sanction orders by the Special Court. The court rejects the first, finds merit in restricting the court’s power over sanction, and holds that post-cognizance scrutiny of sanction is permissible; the petition is dismissed with liberty to raise issues of sanction adequacy at trial.
