BAIL APPL. NO. 4445 OF 2025 This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, by Shib Behadur Chhetri, accused in Crime No. 1870/2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution case alleges that on 30 November 2024, at about 7 a.m., the petitioner stabbed his wife to death due to animosity arising from alleged illicit relationship with CW-6. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but acknowledged that the final report has been filed and the case is at the committal stage; the petitioner offered local sureties from Ernakulam District. The Court noted the seriousness of the accusation but emphasized that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.11.2024, and that investigation is complete, with the final report filed, making indefinite detention unnecessary. Relying on settled jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court allowed bail with stringent conditions: bond of Rs 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, prohibition on leaving India without court permission, and prohibition on committing similar offences. The judgment also cites Jalaluddin Khan and Manish Sisodia and references Anzar Azeez to underscore the applicable principle. The order is limited to deciding this bail application, and the prosecution and victim may apply for cancellation if conditions are violated.
W.P.(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government orders and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23 in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools (PAHS). The central issue is a policy shift: Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022/GEDN dated 07.07.2022 reduces the management quota in PAHS to 20% and requires schools to declare the community to which the management belongs, with a 10% community quota reserved for students of that community on merit. Petitioners (school managers) contend such a scheme violates constitutional guarantees of equality (Articles 14 and 15), undermines the autonomy of secular/neutral educational trusts, and contravenes settled law prohibiting caste/community reservations in private institutions. They also point to earlier norms under GO(206/2005) and prior court judgments that safeguarded non-minority management rights and merit-based admissions. Respondents defend the policy as a legitimate, prospective reform aimed at transparency, merit, and ending malpractices in CAP admissions, arguing the Government has broad policy-making power and that no vested right to a fixed 30% management quota exists. The Court adopts a constrained judicial-review stance toward policy, upholding the 20% management quota but striking down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional, directing that such seats be treated as open merit and filled through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP). The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
This writ appeal challenges a Tribunal's order directing the Kerala Ceramics Ltd to pay damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for delay in EPF contributions from December 2012 to July 2017. The Kerala Ceramics Ltd, a government-owned entity, argued financial losses and non-wilful delay; The Tribunal had originally levied damages; In appeal, the Tribunal modified the order by directing damages to be 80% of the amount assessed. The petition before the Kerala High Court argued that due to continuous losses the company faced financial constraints, and the non-payment under Section 7Q had already been paid; The learned Single Judge reduced the damages to 50% in light of the company's balance sheet and the difficult financial circumstances. The appellant invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal (2022) to argue that mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14B. The Division Bench acknowledges the Apex Court view but declines to interfere with the Single Judge's discretion, noting the difficult circumstances of delayed deposits during that period. The appeal is dismissed; the observations in the judgment are not intended to be a binding precedent on damages under the Act.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal from MACA 1382 of 2007 arises in the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. Appellants M.K. Venu and K.V. Leela challenge the MACT, Thrissur award in OP(MV) No.1285/2003 for the death of Ramesh Kumar, a 28-year-old head-load worker, in a roadside collision with lorry KL-8/K-3663 on 23.3.2003. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,96,000 with 7% interest from 30.5.2003. Respondents contend there was no negligence (2nd respondent) and, despite insurance, liability may be limited (3rd respondent). The 1st respondent owner appeared but did not file a statement. On appeal, the High Court bases its reassessment on established Supreme Court principles: where income is not proved, notional income of Rs.4,000/month (Ramachandrappa) is permissible; the proper multiplier for death is based on the deceased’s age (here 17, per National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi); future prospects of 40% are added; a 1/2 deduction for personal/living expenses is applied. The court recalculates loss of dependency to Rs.5,71,200, enhances funeral expenses to Rs.16,500 and loss of estate to Rs.16,500 (per Pranay Sethi), and awards Rs.88,000 for loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 baseline with 10% annual escalations per Magma Gen. Ins. Co.). Pain and suffering is reduced to Rs.5,000; love and affection is disallowed. The appeal is allowed; the appellants are entitled to an enhanced amount of Rs.4,02,200, with 7% interest from 30.05.2003 till realization. All other MACT findings stand. If any sums were already paid, set-off applies. Bank details must be provided for NEFT/RTGS payment within a month. No interest shall accrue for a 232-day delay in filing the appeal. The judgment directs disbursement accordingly.
This High Court of Kerala, in OT.Rev No. 22 of 2019, hears a revision petition by Instyle Earth Movers, Kasaragod, challenging a penalty levied under the KVAT Act and CST Act for alleged misuse of Form C in an inter-state purchase of an earthmover. The petitioner disclosed nil turnovers in Form 10B for 2012–13 to 2014–15; a pre-assessment notice under KVAT Sec.25(1) led to a penalty under CST Sec.10/10A amounting to Rs. 4,43,934. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, but the KVAT Appellate Tribunal reversed, upholding the penalty and reversing the first appellate order. The revision raises issues on the legality of the notice, the tribunal’s application of concessional Form C rates, and the eligibility of machinery exclusively used in labour-contracts for tax concessions. The petitioner argues lack of clear statutory violation in the notice, improper reliance on Form C, and misapplication of CST exemptions, supported by Amrit Foods v. CEx, UP (2005) 13 SCC 419. The State contends that the machinery purchase is not eligible for concessional tax treatment since it is used for labour processing and exempted activities under KVAT. The Kerala High Court allows the OT revision, sets aside the Tribunal’s order, and remands the matter to the assessing officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4346 OF 2025 This is a bail petition by Naveen S Varghese, the fourth accused in Crime No. 380/2023 of Aluva East Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution case is that 28.800 kgs of ganja were seized from the Railway Station Parking area, with the petitioner accused of being near the scene, getting into a car, and driving away on seeing the police. The petitioner’s counsel urged that, in light of recent Supreme Court pronouncements, where incarceration exceeds one year with a commercial quantity involved, the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) NDPS Act can be diluted in favour of bail when Article 21 rights are engaged. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing the gravity of the offence and the quantity involved. The court examined the authorities, notably Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Live Law SC 416, Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal, Hasanujjaman v. State of West Bengal, and Hasanujjaman (cited through SLP No.3221/2023), and Shuaib A.S v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC Online 618), to assess whether prolonged detention can override NDPS bail embargo. Ultimately, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the trial court within two weeks, outlining the cited arguments, and indicated that the court would consider it in light of the cited principles.
WP(C) NO. 4849 OF 2025 & WP(C) NO. 4854 OF 2025 The petitions challenge the Peerumedu Grama Panchayath’s rejection of building-permit applications for plots revenue-recorded as “plantation.” The Panchayath argued that granting construction would violate statutory provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Counsel for the petitioners contend that labeling a property as plantation in revenue records cannot by itself bar a building permit and rely on precedents to support permit-issuance, arguing for a cautious balance between development needs and statutory safeguards. The respondents counter that allowing construction on plantation lands would undermine land-reform objectives and that Ext.P4 orders were properly grounded in existing law. The court notes that Elias T.V. v. Sub Collector, Wayanad; Mathew K. Jacob v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority; and District Collector v. Sajith Lal are supportive authorities and that these decisions were followed in Exts.P5–P7. Ultimately, the court holds that mere plantation description cannot automatically authorize rejection of permit applications—the government may still act under the Kerala Land Reforms Act—so Ext.P4 is quashed and Ext.P3 applications must be reconsidered without reliance on plantation descriptors, within one month. The judgment disposes of the petitions while allowing ongoing land-reforms proceedings where applicable, thereby permitting development with regulatory safeguards.
R.C.Rev.No.254 of 2019 arises from a landlord’s eviction petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, concerning a petition schedule shop room in North Paravur. The Rent Control Court granted eviction under Section 11(2)(b) for rent arrears, but did not grant eviction under Sections 11(4)(v) and 11(8). The landlord appealed to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which allowed eviction under 11(4)(v) and 11(8), directing the petitioner to surrender vacant possession. The revision petition by the tenant challenged that order. The High Court, in a Division Bench, examined whether eviction under 11(8) was legally sustainable given the landlord’s need for additional accommodation to extend a typewriting institute in the remaining portion of the building and the tenant’s alleged non-occupation. The Commissioner’s report showed the petition schedule shop room locked and unused for at least two years, with grass and dust indicating long disuse. The tenant contended there were no arrears, his business continued elsewhere, and he remained in occupation, while the landlord argued bona fide need. The court reviewed the distinction between 11(3) and 11(8), citing Hassan Koya K., S.R. Sabu, and Indian Saree House, among others, to emphasize that the bona fide need and comparative hardship govern eviction under 11(8). The bench concluded that the landlord’s case satisfies the test, confirmed the Appellate Authority, and dismissed the revision, directing possession within one month.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4295 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) filed by five accused in Crime No.405/2025 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam. The petitioners, who are relatives of the first petitioner Hari, face serious charges including rape and related offences under the BNS and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The prosecution's case alleges that the first petitioner abducted and repeatedly assaulted the victim from 13.05.2024, resulting in impregnation. The petitioners maintain that the alleged relationship with the victim was consensual, that the victim has filed an affidavit stating no grievance, and that the petitioners are ready to abide strict conditions if bail is granted. The court notes the victim is now an adult, the first petitioner is 25, and he reportedly married the victim on 16.03.2025, though this does not erase the gravity of the allegations. After considering these factors, the court, relying on established bail jurisprudence, grants bail with stringent conditions. It cites the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and references Siddharth v. State, Joginder Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez, among others, to support a measured approach. The conditions include appearance before the IO within two weeks for interrogation, a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, restricted travel, no inducements, cooperation with the investigation, and the possibility of bail cancellation for violations.
CRL.A NO. 733 OF 2006; CRL.A NO. 734 OF 2006 This is a double-criminal-appeal from the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) challenging an NDPS Act trial in SC No. 185/2005 before a Special Court for NDPS Act cases in Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to traffic heroin for export to the Maldives, with A1 Ibramsha from Trichy abducting drugs in his abdomen; 64 capsules were recovered from his stools weighing 255 g and tested positive for heroin. A5 Sulficar’s involvement was revealed through A1’s statement and A5’s own confession to the NCB; A2–A4 remained at large. The trial court framed charges against A1 (Sections 21(c), 28, 29 of the NDPS Act) and against A5 (Sections 28, 29). A1 was convicted under Section 21(b) and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000, while A5 was acquitted. The complainant (NCB) appealed in CRL.A.733/2006 seeking conviction of A5 on the confession; in CRL.A.734/2006, seeking enhancement of A1’s sentence. The High Court relied on Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu to hold that confessions made to NDPS officers are inadmissible (Section 25 of the Evidence Act), sustaining A5’s acquittal and upholding the trial court’s weight-based findings against treating the contraband as a commercial quantity. The court dismissed both appeals, noting weight uncertainty (250 g threshold) and upholding the sentence as appropriate. The net result: both appeals are dismissed.
RCREV. NO. 123 OF 2019; RCREV. NO. 197 OF 2019 These Rent Control Revisions arise from a common judgment (30.11.2018) in RCA Nos. 22 and 30 of 2014 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, which itself arises from a common order (30.11.2013) in RCP Nos. 205 and 207 of 2012 of the Rent Control Court, Kannur. The landlords sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, on the ground of bona fide need to start a supermarket; in RCP 205 the landlords also invoked Section 11(4)(ii) for a plan to alter the premises. The petitions were tried together; the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3), while denying eviction under Section 11(4)(ii). The Appellate Authority confirmed the Section 11(3) eviction. The tenants challenged these orders in revisions under Section 20 of the Act before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Court examined the bona fide need, the provisos to Section 11(3), and whether the revisional jurisdiction warranted re-evaluation of evidence. It held that the impugned orders are not perverse or illegal and dismissed the revisions, but granted six months’ time to vacate due to the Covid-19 pandemic, subject to conditions including payment of arrears and continued rent during the period. The decision underscores the primacy of genuine need and the limits of revisional scrutiny.
Vinod Francis, a teacher in an aided CMS school under the CSI Kerala Diocese, Kottayam, challenges a suspension order and the subsequent review order. Ext.P1 suspended him; Ext.P8 is the review order challenging the suspension. He contends Ext.P1 and Ext.P8 are illegal, and that Ext.P8 violates the rule that a review under Rule 67(9) of Chapter XIV-A, KER, is limited to determining whether continued suspension is warranted, not to adjudicate on charges or enter findings on merits. He relies on Sumathy v. State of Kerala, which held that the power under Rule 67(9) is limited and cannot be used to scrutinise the merits of the disciplinary charges already pending. The Government Pleader argues that Ext.P8 reflects a detailed consideration of the merits as directed by this Court in Sumathy and through preliminary enquiries under Rule 67(8). The High Court examines the contentions and finds Ext.P8 to be in conflict with the Sumathy principle, as it effectively enters findings on charges and merits during a review. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P6, the review petition, and pass appropriate orders within two weeks, with compliance to be demonstrated by the petitioner through a certified copy of this judgment. The judgment clarifies the limited scope of review under Rule 67(9) and reinforces the separation of disciplinary proceedings from review proceedings.
BA 41 of 2023; SC 17/2019 of Addl. Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha This is a regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, Jose Antony @ Kalan Jose, the third accused in Crime No.1930/2018 of Alappuzha North Police Station, charged under NDPS Act sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29. During the pendency of bail, the petitioner was released on bail with a condition not to commit any offence; subsequently, during the bail period, he allegedly engaged in a new crime (Crime No.460/2021) involving IPC offences. The Public Prosecutor moved to cancel the bail (Crl.M.P.No.7168/2018) and the Special Court, Alappuzha, cancelled it on 14.06.2022. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and sought fresh bail in Crime No.1930/2018. The High Court examines the settled legal position on cancellation of bail, emphasizing that misuse of liberty by engaging in similar/other criminal activity constitutes a valid, though illustrative, ground for cancellation of bail under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C., citing three-bench Supreme Court decisions. It notes that P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (SC), as clarified through related precedents (including Deepak Yadav), binds the governing principles. Godson’s case is discussed and distinguished; the court concludes that the ratio in the Madhya Pradesh decision governs. Observing that the petitioner is a habitual offender detained under KAAPA, the court holds that he is not entitled to fresh bail and dismisses the petition, directing expeditious trial of the case.”
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed in the High Court of Kerala by accused Nos. 1 and 3 in CC 2315/2016, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The petition seeks to quash Annexure-A1 of the complaint on the ground that the second petitioner was only an employee and authorized signatory, with no control over day‑to‑day affairs, and that the underlying liability, if any, has been discharged by subsequent payments. It is argued that two cheques for Rs.3,42,000 each were dishonoured, but the complainant has received a full settlement via RTGS of Rs.40,00,000 on 14.07.2017, which allegedly erases the substratum of the case. The petition further contends that maintaining the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process, since the alleged liability no longer exists. The respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor and Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. The Court, applying well‑established quashing principles, examines whether the allegations, on their face value, disclose a prima facie offence, whether the proceedings are an abuse of process, and whether the complaint lacks essential ingredients. The judge concludes that the petition is meritless; the quashing relief is refused, and the criminal proceedings continue in the trial court, with Annexures A1–A3 noted.
This writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, challenges recovery actions taken by a bank under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act in connection with a vehicle loan default. The petitioners, Cris Thomas and Thomas Jacob, assert that although a notice and sale of the vehicle occurred under the bank’s action, the admitted arrears leave a balance disputed at approximately Rs 4.75 lakh, while the bank claims a current due of about Rs 5.31 lakh. The petition seeks an instalment facility to repay the admitted amount and pleads that recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance during installment payments. The court notes the sale proceeds of Rs 5.47 lakh against an alleged Rs 12.10 lakh liability and frames a mechanism to address both the admitted portion and the disputed balance. The bench considers granting installments on the admitted amount, conditioning future interest payments, and directing the bank to issue a statement of accounts and decide the disputed portion after an opportunity of hearing, guided by the Ashokan V.P. dictum on expeditious action. The order ultimately directs phased payment, continuation of future interest, and a timely appraisal of the disputed balance within a two-month window after representation, while preserving the creditor’s rights under RR and SARFAESI regimes.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition suit filed by Padmanabhan (brother of the 1st defendant) and Vijayan, sons of Yeshoda, concerning a plaint schedule property. Yeshoda allegedly executed a registered Will on 06.11.1959 bequeathing the entire property to her daughter, the 1st defendant, who has since been in possession. The plaintiff and Vijayan left Kannur for work and returned later; the 1st defendant asserted the Will in their favour and the trial court held there was no proven Will and directed partition. The 1st Appellate Court remanded for fresh evidence; this Court, by FAO(RO) 220/2016, set aside remand and sent the case back. In the present judgment, the High Court affirms Ext.B2 Will (dated decades ago) proved by production from proper custody, applying Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and relying on Narayanan Radhakrishna Menon and Others v. Narayanan Sukumara Menon (2018) for the scope of the presumption. Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh was distinguished, Munnalal v. Kashibai explained the original-vs-copy issue, and K.V. Subbaraju v. Subbaraju clarified that Section 90 presumption applies to originals, not copies. The Court ultimately held that the Will was valid, the property was not partible, and dismissed the suit with no costs order."
Tomy Joseph, president of the Managing Committee of the Idukki District Dealers Co-operative Society Limited, challenged Ext.P2, a suspension order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, while an inquiry under Section 65 was ongoing. The petitioner argued that suspension under Section 32 cannot be triggered before completing the Section 65 inquiry and relied on Bose E.S. v. Managing Committee (Under Order of suspension) and Reji K. Joshi (FB) to contend that the inquiry must be completed and the report furnished before any action under Section 32 or 68 can be taken. Respondents contended Ext.P2 is valid, asserting that Section 32 power includes suspension, to be used in exceptional circumstances, even pendente lite, especially where an inquiry reveals serious irregularities; they cited Hameed Kutty and the Bose E.S. line of jurisprudence to support their stance. The learned Judge held that suspension under Section 32 can be exercised even when the Section 65 inquiry is pending, in exceptional circumstances, and that the distinctions between suspension and supersession, and the lack of a strict procedure for suspension, permit such action. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding Ext.P2 and the suspension of the elected Managing Committee pending inquiry.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by M/S Jeevan Telecasting Corporation Ltd., the first accused, challenging Annexure-A4 in C.C. No.1765/2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, XII Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner contends that even if an enforceable debt exists and the cheque issued against it was dishonoured, the loss suffered by the complainant has largely been offset by subsequent payments: two cheques for Rs. 5,05,620 each were paid by the petitioner via demand drafts (Rs.5,00,000 on 07.04.2015 and Rs.5,00,000 on 16.04.2015). A balance of Rs.5,620 on each cheque allegedly remains due, and thus the substratum of the case no longer exists, making continued prosecution an abuse of process warranting quashing. The second respondent/complainant maintains that the liability arose from a business dealing and channel carriage agreement in 2015; the second and third accused (as authorized signatories) issued the cheques, and mere bank credits do not conclusively discharge the liability; the matter should proceed to trial. The court, invoking established quashing principles derived from Nagawwa and later decisions, summarized the test: (i) allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence; (ii) abuse of process; (iii) cautious exercise of power; (iv) not require detailing every legal ingredient; (v) civil/criminal overlap does not by itself warrant quashing. The petition was found meritless and dismissed, permitting the prosecution to continue in C.C.1765/2016.
The petitioner, Rajeev K.R., is working as a Upper Primary School Teacher (UPST) at Ithithanam Higher Secondary School under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. He contends that he is a differently abled person with 45% disability (Ext P1) and seeks the benefit of reservation in promotion under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to a post of H.S.T (Mathematics). He asserts that when a vacancy for HST (Mathematics) arose on 01.06.2021, the 9th respondent was appointed by the 8th respondent contrary to the entitlement under Ext P5 and the policy. He relies on Ext P4 (representation in 2021) and Ext P6 (representation to the 2nd respondent) and cites this Court’s own decisions in Leesamma Joseph (State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph) and the judgments in K.J Varghese v. State of Kerala & Ors and Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka to bolster his claim that the entitlement should be recognised and that the representation should be treated on merits. He hopes to be promoted in a new retirement vacancy anticipated on 31.05.2023. The petitioner prays for a mandamus to promote him to H.S.T (Mathematics) with effect from 01.06.2021 or at least 15.07.2021 and to restrain the 8th respondent from approving the 9th respondent’s promotion. The respondents submit that the petitioner’s earlier W.P.(C) No.15246/21 was withdrawn, implying this petition may not be entertainable. The Court disposed of the matter by directing the 2nd respondent to expeditiously consider Ext P6 after hearing, within two months, and to defer the appointment of the 9th respondent pending the decision, while permitting the petitioner to rely on the writ petition and judgment for further action.
Vineeth Chandran Nair, the sixth accused in C.C. No. 147 of 2022 arising from Crime No. 2935/2017 of Kothamangalam Police Station, moves this Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. The alleged offences are Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The final report cites that 1st accused company Team Ocean Events and Training Pvt. Ltd., and its associates, purportedly conducted direct selling activities for Q Net and Vihaan Direct Selling; the 3rd–6th accused allegedly helped recruit victims who paid about Rs.46,500 per person. The petitioner is described as an independent representative, not a director or officer, with no role in the management of the direct selling entities; annexures show enrollment receipts. The counsel argues that the government advisories and the declarations by Vihaan Direct Selling India Pvt. Ltd., and the Karnataka High Court decision in a similar matter demonstrate that such activities cannot be treated as an offence. The State counters that the witnesses testify to payments and that a final report has been submitted; The court, relying on Bhajan Lal and the government’s regulatory framework, holds that the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence against the petitioner, and thus allows the petition and quashes the final report and proceedings as against him.
