The petitioners, Anandhu.R, Anandhu.S.Pillai, Abhijith.M and Shiyas, accused in Crime No.87 of 2023 of Pandalam Police Station, move Crl.M.C No.5261 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court for quashing the ongoing criminal proceedings. The offences cited in the FIR include Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, 506 r/w 34 IPC arising from an incident on 18.01.2023 in which the de facto complainant was allegedly restrained and injured. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the dispute between the parties has now been amicably settled and they do not wish to pursue prosecution; a supporting affidavit from the second respondent is filed. The Public Prosecutor opposes quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though he concedes there are no other serious offences against the petitioners. The judge reviews the controlling authority, citing State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, and the earlier line of cases Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, summarizing principles: quashing may be allowed for non‑compoundable, private offences when parties settle, provided there is no threat to society; yet such power is not available for heinous crimes (e.g., murder, rape), certain statutes (like POC Act or offences by public servants), or offences under Section 307 IPC/Arms Act. After considering gravity, injury, antecedents, and the settled relationship, the court decides quashing would not adversely affect society and would serve ends of justice. The petition is allowed and FIR No.87/2023 and all further proceedings are quashed.
CRL.MCNO.5415OF2023 (and CC351/2021 in the file of JFMC, Vatakara) The petitioner, Muneer P., is the accused in CC 351/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, charged under Sections 341, 323, and 506(i) IPC. He moves this High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of Crime No. 97/2021, filed by Chombala Police Station, on the ground that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and there is no longer any grievance. The second respondent supports the settlement via an affidavit; the Public Prosecutor, while noting there are no other crimes against the petitioner, reserves his position regarding quashing. The court surveys binding law from the Supreme Court, notably State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to lay down the framework: quashing under 482 can be exercised for non-compoundable offences that are largely civil in character and where the entire dispute is resolved, but not for heinous or public-interest offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity or offences under special statutes). The court must assess factors such as the gravity of the offence, the evidence, antecedents, and the genuineness of the settlement. Considering the nature of the allegations, the amicable settlement, and the absence of societal prejudice, the court concludes that continuing prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The petition is allowed and the final report and CC 351/2021 are quashed, bringing the matter to an end in the ends of justice.
WP(C) Nos.21010 & 21273/2023 Two writ petitions challenged the Sub Registrar’s refusal to register deeds on the ground that the petitioners had not produced prior documents. The petitioners argued that, under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar is not authorized to insist on prior title deeds to satisfy ownership or title; mere possessory rights can be conveyed and possession can be transferred irrespective of lease or title. They pointed to Sumathi v. State of Kerala and others (2018) 5 KHC 586 and the related decision in W.P.(C) No.2871/2018, which hold that an executant’s need to prove title is not the Sub Registrar’s concern and that registration should proceed if the document is otherwise in order. The State’s counsel acknowledged the prior-document requirement was largely a consequence of claims to verum pattam rights. The Court observed that a 2015 government circular (No.40837/E3/15/Rev.) allows basic records from re-survey to be treated as a basis for registry and that there is no bar to admitting the pleas of the petitioners. Applying the Sumathi principle, the Court concluded there were no legal impediments to registration and allowed the petitions, directing registration subject to usual formalities and subsequent mutation/land tax actions.
Appellants K. Bhaskaran and Padmavathi L, guarantors for a cash-credit facility of Rs 100 lakhs availed by Lakshmi Copra Trading Company Ltd from State Bank of India, Mavelikkara, stood mortgaged along with properties of the principal borrower. On 12 August 2022, the authorised officer issued SARFAESI notice for sale of six properties to realise Rs 4,67,88,447. The guarantors challenged the notice in a writ petition and obtained a stay on condition of 25% payment; they asserted compliance and sought relief including time and installments, or sale to a purchaser proposed for Rs 3.5 crores, while the outstanding balance was about Rs 3.9 crores. The 3rd respondent Sukumaran (brother of the 2nd appellant, impleaded as per order) challenged coercive proceedings in a separate petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed both petitions, relying on the Supreme Court’s Naveen Mathew Philip decision (2023) SCC OnLine SC 435, which narrows High Court interference in SARFAESI matters when statutory redressal exists and discourages bypassing prescribed channels. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed, citing the same jurisprudence and observing that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. It held the offer of a purchaser and requests for more time fall outside the narrow sphere for interference. The appeal was dismissed in limine, preserving the bank’s SARFAESI proceedings.
This Kerala High Court judgment (Cr.M.C No. 5226 of 2023) arises from CC No.1321/2019, a case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thripunithura, arising from Crime No.109 of 2017 of Hill Palace Police Station. Five petitioners-accused move under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the ongoing prosecution for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution case alleges that on 14.01.2017 the accused allegedly confined and assaulted the victim. The petitioners contend a private settlement has been reached with the victims, supported by affidavits, and there is no objection to quashing the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, concedes that a settlement exists. The court relies on the Supreme Court’s State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688), which recognises that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised when the dispute is civil/private and settled, subject to exceptions for heinous offences or offences under special statutes. The order emphasizes that the present dispute is private in nature and the settlement is acceptable after considering the record. Accordingly, the court allows the Cr.M.C and quashes all further proceedings in CC No.1321/2019 against the petitioners, bringing closure to the matter.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C No.5290 of 2023) before the Kerala High Court—presided by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V—seeks exercise of the court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding arising from SC No.10/2023 (Asst. Sessions Court, Alappuzha). The five petitioners (Anoop, Sajith, Vineeth, Arnold Gomas, and Jithu) are accused in a case alleging offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, and 427 following an incident on 29.05.2022 where an unlawful assembly allegedly restrained and assaulted the de facto complainant. The petition hinges on an amicable settlement between the parties and argues that quashing would advance peace and the ends of justice, noting that the respondent has no lasting grievances and that there are no other serious crimes against the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor initially voiced reservations but acknowledged the lack of serious prior crimes. The Court cites State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to delineate the scope of 482 CrPC, particularly that quashing is permissible for private, non-compoundable offences with a civil character when the dispute is settled, subject to exceptions for heinous or public-interest offences. After weighing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the settlement, the Court concludes quashing would not adversely impact society and would conserve judicial resources. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the Final Report in Crime No.598/2022 and all further proceedings in SC No.10/2023 are quashed.
Subair K.H., the sole accused in Crime No. 93/2023 of Alathur Police Station, moves for anticipatory bail under the provisions of the IPC for offences including forgery (sections 468, 471) and offences of cheating and criminal misappropriation (sections 419 and 420). The prosecution alleges that the accused, with dishonest intent, obtained thumb impressions from his father and forged signatures of the complainant’s sister to secure a licence and NOC for a saw mill on a co-owned property, using a power of attorney allegedly executed by his father and without the knowledge or consent of the complainant’s family. The FIR relates to events between 2019 and 2022, but was registered on 20 January 2023, after the father’s death on 28 July 2022. The petitioner contends that there are longstanding family disputes and that the NOC and powers of attorney were obtained with the father’s knowledge; he also points to multiple civil and criminal proceedings brought by the complainant or his agents, including partition suits (OS 131/2020 and OS 177/2022) and 107 CrPC proceedings later stayed in a prior order. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the offences involve forgery and warrants proper investigation including custodial interrogation. The court, noting the documentary nature of most evidence and the family ties, finds custodial interrogation unnecessary and grants anticipatory bail with conditions: surrender within a week, a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and compliance with bail conditions; it also clarifies police power to recover information during bail per the Apex Court decision in Sushila Aggarwal.
The writ petition, filed by National Insurance Company Limited, challenged an Insurance Ombudsman award under the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998. The Ombudsman had directed the insurer to pay Rs. 7,00,000 to the fourth respondent (widow of the deceased) under the petitioner’s personal accident group policy, after concluding that the claim was payable and that the death occurred without contributory negligence by the deceased; the bus driver’s rash driving was primarily responsible. The insurer had repudiated the claim alleging that the death occurred while the deceased was under the influence of intoxicants, citing post‑mortem findings (ethyl alcohol 154.79 mg/100 ml) and the policy’s exclusion clause 5(b), along with the Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit P2). The insurer argued the contract governs rights and liabilities and that exclusion clauses bar payment when intoxication is involved; reliance was placed on IFFCO‑Tokio v. Pearl Beverages Ltd. The petitioner contended that the policy’s exclusion clauses must be read in light of the main purpose of the contract and the no‑fault liability framework; the Ombudsman’s findings were also based on police records showing the bus driver’s negligence and the deceased’s proper placement on the road. The High Court, however, endorsed a reading‑down approach, rejected a rigid application of exclusion clauses absent contributory negligence, and ultimately upheld the Ombudsman award, dismissing the writ petition.
The Kerala High Court heard the criminal appeal by Mohanan, the sole accused in SC No. 496 of 2011, against a Sessions Court conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and an offence under Section 201 IPC for concealing evidence. The prosecution’s case is that on the night of 28 February 2009, in Adimaly, the accused quarrelled with his wife, assaulted her with the handle of a spade, and after she fell, hanged her by tying a saree to an iron hook on the roof. He then cut the saree into pieces and concealed them, leaving the body on a mat. The investigation yielded MO2 saree pieces and MO6 chopper; fibres on the deceased’s palms matched those on the saree, according to the Forensic Science Laboratory report, and the saree pieces were recovered under a disclosure statement. The sole eyewitness PW4, a nine-year-old, testified to the events; PW1 and PW3 provided supportive context regarding habitual quarrels. The defence contended that the death was suicide, not homicide, and attacked PW4’s credibility and the delay in recording statements as enabling tutoring. The High Court reappraised the evidence, including the admissibility of certain statements under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (res gestae) and the discovery-seizure chain under Section 27. It found the evidence credible and concluded the death was homicidal, upholding the trial court’s conviction and dismissing the appeal.
WA 676/2020 (and connected matters) This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court deals with the retroactive reopening of assessments under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) following amendments introduced by the Kerala Finance Act 2016 (Act 18/2016). The petitions (Writ Appeals) challenge the validity and scope of Section 42(3) KVAT, as amended, which authorizes reopening of assessments on enumerated omissions “notwithstanding” other time limits, with a retrospective effect from 1 April 2005. The State contends the Legislature could legislate retrospectively and that Section 42(3) serves legitimate revenue objectives and certainty, supported by notes on clauses and case law. The respondents (MCP Enterprises and other dealers) argue that Section 42(3) erodes finality, defeats time limits under Section 25 KVAT and creates an indefinite reopening power, violating the scheme of Chapter V and fundamental fairness. The Court analyzes the text of Sections 20–25, 42(3), and Rule 58(20) of the KVAT Rules, the Treatise of precedents (Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Taj Mahal Hotel Secunderabad, Vatika Township, Maruti Suzuki, etc.), and the transition to GST. It concludes that the retroactive operation, as pressed, is incompatible with the KVAT Act’s time limits and the principle against retroactivity for ordinary revenue provisions. The appeals are dismissed and writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 166 OF 2022 This is a criminal revision petition filed by the accused Abraham Joseph challenging an order dated 22 January 2022 of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing his discharge application in CC No.7/2011. The CBI investigation, Crime No.RC/15(A)/7/CBI/KER, relates to alleged conspiracy during March–August 2006 to cheat the State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Alappuzha. Accused Nos.1 and 2 (Branch Manager and Deputy Branch Manager) allegedly abused their official positions to obtain signatures on mortgage loan documents, sanctioned 3 credits and 40 mortgaged loans totaling about ₹4.33 crore, and disbursed proceeds to accused Nos.3 and 4 for personal use. Accused No.5 allegedly prepared valuation reports showing inflated property values. The charges under sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420 and 120B IPC were framed in the final report. The petition for discharge argued that even if all allegations are accepted as true, there is no prima facie case; more importantly, the sanction for prosecution under the PC Act was granted by an officer allegedly incompetent to grant sanction. The High Court, applying the discharge standard, held that at this stage the court need not scrutinize the entire material, and that grave suspicion or prima facie materials sufficed to proceed; the competency of the sanctioning authority could be tested at trial. The revision petition was dismissed, with liberty to challenge sanction competency during trial.
WP.(C) No. 14342 of 2019 & con.cases The judgments concern the Thiruvabharana Patha, the sacred route from Pandalam to Sabarimala used for the Tiruvabharanam procession during Makara Sankranti. The Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking implementation of an earlier resolution (Ext. P1) to remove encroachments on the Patha and to complete eviction by a specified date, with survey and police protection. The petitions trace encroachments since 1986, including a 2009 survey and Land Conservancy Act actions, while alleging inaction and procedural lapses. The Court scrutinized notices issued to encroachers without mahazar (demarcation). It directed that notices must be issued with a copy of the mahazar, after affording a hearing, and within specified timeframes, failing which further steps would be taken. The matter was heard with multiple connected petitions (various Panchayats, RSOs, and residents) relating to encroachments along Thiruvabharana Patha and the authorities’ actions under the Land Conservancy Act and Panchayat Raj Act. The judgment emphasizes natural justice, fiduciary duties of trustees regarding Devaswoms, and the need for time-bound, transparent action while protecting deities and public properties.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Misc Case (CRL.MC No. 4436 of 2022) decided on 15 June 2023 by Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath. The petitioner, V.P. Nandakumar, aged 67, is accused in Crime No. 376/2022 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, charged under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution alleges that through a proprietary concern, Manappuram Agro Farms, the petitioner collected deposits from the public during 2010-2012; after RBI interdiction, some Rs. 20 crores were returned, but the evidence purportedly shows improper collection for undue pecuniary gains. The case originated from a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur; the court directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the investigation produced a negative final report, which the complainant challenged; the Magistrate accepted the final report, which this Court later set aside and directed fresh consideration on whether to accept a refer charge. The investigation continued, with both sides now asserting amicable settlement; the complainant states he does not wish to proceed, and the investigating officer corroborates lack of direct knowledge and proposes quashing. Relying on Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Laxmi Narayan, the Court holds that Cr.P.C. 482 can be invoked to quash non‑compoundable offences when the parties settle and ends of justice demand, and no public interest is harmed. Accordingly, the FIR is quashed and proceedings terminated.
CRL.M.C. No. 4870 of 2023 This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order in CC 820/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara. The petitioners, seven accused in Crime No. 22/2021, faced offences under sections 341, 506, 143, 147 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges formation of an unlawful assembly, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The petitioners submit that the dispute is private and settled; an affidavit from the victim supports this, and the victim's counsel confirms the settlement and no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement but concedes the matter is settled. The court examines the submissions, records, and the controlling Supreme Court precedents, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, along with Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to delineate when Section 482 CrPC power can quash non compoundable offences. The court holds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and quashes all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC 820/2021. The order emphasizes that quashing is permissible where the offence is non‑compoundable, private in nature, and the settlement does not offend public interest or involve heinous crimes or special statutes.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard a Criminal Miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed by four petitioners (Goutham, Murali, Akash, and Alan Abraham) in CRL.MCNO.5345OF2023, challenging Crime No. 886 of 2023 of Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petition seeks quashing of proceedings for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308. The prosecution alleges that on 26.06.2023 the petitioners, forming an unlawful assembly, restrained and assaulted the respondents, causing injuries. The petition argues amicable settlement between the parties, supported by affidavits from respondents indicating no lasting grievances, and contends that quashing will advance ends of justice, reduce needless litigation, and permit peaceful co-existence. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but notes absence of other crimes and that statements have been recorded. The court cites State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to outline the law: quashing may be permissible for non‑compoundable private offences where a genuine settlement exists, with exceptions for heinous or public-interest offences, and only after appropriate evidence and circumstances. Ultimately, the court allows the petition, quashing the FIR and all further proceedings, recording the amicable settlement as the basis for ends of justice and societal peace.
The petitioner, M/S Chealakkara Granites, seeks revenue certificates (attested sketch, possession, demarcation, non-assignment) to pursue mineral concessions on lands encompassed by composite consents with various co-owners. The Tahsildar declined to issue the attested sketch (Ext. P7) on the ground that the land forms part of land exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, relying on a circular based on Nazar K.H. v. Mathew K. Jacob (2019). The petitioner contends there is no prohibition under the Kerala Land Reforms Act to use exempted land for a different purpose, citing the Full Bench decision in Mathew K. Jacob and subsequent affirmations by the Supreme Court (Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob) and related Kerala judgments (Kinallur Rock Sand; Wayanad Granites; Village Officer; Sajith Lal). The respondents contest this position. The court reiterates the doctrine that there is no embargo on using exempted land for non-exempted purposes under the KLR Act, although such use may trigger ceiling proceedings. Ext. P7 is set aside, and the respondents are directed to issue counter-signed sketch, possession, demarcation, and non-assignment certificates within one month, without adverse endorsements, while clarifying that this does not amount to permission to quarry. The Court reserves the Government’s right to action for violations; no decision on mining lease is made.
These connected writ petitions, heard by Justice T.R. Ravi, arise from police notices freezing petitioners’ bank accounts in cybercrime investigations, with the common thread of balancing asset preservation against petitioners’ rights to operate their accounts. The court, on 26 March 2024, while admitting the petitions and perusing the police intimations and banking responses, issued a unified set of directions. Central to the court’s reasoning is the principle that freezes must be proportionate to the amount actually in dispute as conveyed by police notices; the court relied on the guiding precedent in Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661) to confine freezes to the exact sums specified in police requisitions, enabling petitioners to transact beyond those limits. The court also drew on related precedents, including a judgment in WP(C) 28155/2023, to reinforce interim orders and ensure due process. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of with directions: respondent Banks shall restrict freezes to the notified amounts, police shall inform Banks if further freezing beyond those amounts is required (within a defined framework, including an eight-month horizon), and petitioners retain liberty to approach the court if information is not received. The overarching aim is to prevent asset flight while upholding the petitioners’ right to ordinary banking operations within the permitted limits.
Vishnu, the petitioner in CRL.MC No. 5027 of 2023, seeks quashing of SC No. 1331 of 2022 under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court, Kochi. The accused, Vishnu, faces charges under Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 27.06.2022, Vishnu, the brother of the de facto complainant, assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries. The petition emphasizes an amicable settlement between the parties and asserts that they do not wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by an affidavit from the first respondent. The investigating officer was directed to verify the settlement’s genuineness and to assess any impediment to termination, including any criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor raised concerns about quashing a case that includes a serious offence under Section 307 IPC. The High Court cites a line of Supreme Court decisions—State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat; State of M.P. v. Deepak; State of M.P. v. Manish; J. Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup; State of M.P. v. Rajveer Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat; State of M.P. v. Kalyan Singh; State of M.P. v. Dhruv Gurjar—to frame the governing principle that quashing under Section 482 CrPC can be entertained in private, civil-like disputes where the parties have resolved their entire dispute, with exceptions for heinous or public-spirited offences or offences under special statutes. The Court notes that, on applying the law to the facts, the wound certificates indicate non-grave injuries, and the presence of Section 307 in the charge does not by itself justify ongoing prosecution if evidence for a charge under 307 is not established. Given the direct relationship between the parties (brothers) and the absence of enduring grievances, the court concludes that continuing the prosecution would not serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in SC No. 1331/2022 and the Final Report (Crime No. 682/2022) are quashed, bringing the matter to a peaceful resolution between the parties.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 4026 of 2023) pending in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The petitioners, Sreedevi and Nana Gubbala, who are accused 1 and 2 in CC 1016/2014 (eco-offences) arising from Crime No. 1210/2014 of the E.T. South Police Station, sought exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the ongoing prosecution for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents include the State, the Station House Officer, the de facto complainant Sreekumar and the injured PW-2 Sridhar. The petition rests on the assertion that the parties have settled their dispute; the victims submitted affidavits supporting the settlement and stated no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing purely on the basis of a settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan (2019) and the decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to frame the test for quashing non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved, while considering antecedents and overall circumstances. The Court ultimately held the dispute private, accepted the settlement, and allowed the Crl.MC, quashing the proceedings in CC 1016/2014.
CRL.A Nos. 1669 of 2006 & 713 of 2008 These two criminal appeals arise from FIR No. 435/2000 of Tirur Police Station, involving Abkari Act offences under Section 55(a). Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crl.A. No. 713/2008 are Asharaf and Sheheer; Accused No. 3 in Crl.A. No. 1669/2006 is Mammoott y. The trial Court convicted all three under Sec. 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced them to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fines of Rs. 1 lakh each. The High Court, in a judgment dated 12 June 2023, allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused, directing their release. The core issues challenged by the appellants were (i) the arrest being doubtful due to the presence of the crime number in arrest memos, and (ii) the prosecution’s failure to establish that the seized spirit was subjected to examination in the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory. The State/prosecution contended the evidence supported conviction. The judgment relies on precedents such as Santhosh v. State of Kerala and others to emphasize that an arrest memo containing a crime number raises doubts about the genesis of the case, and stresses the chain-of-custody and delay in producing properties. Ultimately, the Court found no reliable link between the seizure, the sample tested, and the laboratory report, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused; the conviction was set aside and they were acquitted.
