CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 & Connected Cases (611/2018, 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018, 723/2018) These are consolidated criminal revision petitions before the Kerala High Court arising from suo motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18.09.2017, challenging orders in various ST Nos before the Judicial Magistrates at Kollam. On 12 June 2024, the Hon. Justice P. Somarajan heard CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected matters (611/2018, 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018, 723/2018). The court considered Section 258 Cr.P.C., which permits stopping proceedings in certain summons cases, referencing a Division Bench decision (Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Another, 2023 KHC OnLine 821) to illustrate the applicable standard. Relying on the cited authority and the settled position, the court concluded that the power under Section 258, if satisfied (grounded and with costs/availability of witnesses considered), can justify stoppage of proceedings; accordingly, it disposed of the revisions with no interference with the underlying acquittals or orders. The operative conclusion: the revisions fail and are closed, and the matter is disposed by a single judge."
CRL.A Nos. 547, 608 & 612 of 2017 The Kerala High Court heard three connected criminal appeals challenging the 2017 conviction of three accused in SC 341/2016 for offences under 341, 326 and 302 read with 34 IPC. The incidents occurred on 18 February 2016 at a petrol pump in Meleppady, where staff declined to fill petrol out of turn; the accused allegedly uttered obscene words and later assaulted Muraleedharan Nair (the deceased) with an iron pipe MO3, resulting in his death on 25 February 2016. PW1 (nephew) and PW3 (elder brother and pump manager) along with PW2 (an independent witness) testified to prior incidents at the pump, the sequence of events, and the fatal altercation that followed. The trial court sentenced life imprisonment for 302 IPC, 3 years for 326 IPC, and 1 month for 341 IPC, with concurrent terms and a portion of the fine directed to CW11 under 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The appellate court (Division Bench of P.B. Suresh Kumar and Johnson John, JJs.) examined issues of identification, delay in FIR, credibility of witnesses (noting PWs 1 & 3 were relatives but corroborated by PW2 and others), and the medical evidence (PW7, PW9, PW8). It upheld most convictions but held that the 326 IPC conviction/ sentence could not stand in light of Section 71 IPC (double punishment) and set it aside, while affirming the 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC convictions with sentences intact. The appeals were thus partly allowed with interlocutory orders closed.
This writ petition concerns freezing of the petitioner Sulfikar's bank accounts in the wake of police requisitions. The Kerala High Court recalls its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) wherein the Court held that blanket and indefinite freezes are deleterious and that banks must act in consonance with police requisitions while safeguarding account-holders' livelihood. In the present matter, the bank has received a blanket request to freeze all amounts in the petitioner's account without specifying a sum, prompting the challenge before this Court. The court notes that indefinite blanket freezes threaten livelihood and the banking system's credibility and emphasizes that freezing should be targeted and time-bound. Relying on the earlier decision, the Judge directs the Respondent Bank to immediately approach the Investigation Authority/Police to obtain the exact amount to be kept frozen or held in lien, and to do so within one month from the judgment. If the Police specifies a particular amount, the Bank must confine the freeze to that limit, allowing the petitioner to transact beyond it. If no information is provided within two months, the petitioner may transact fully, subject to any future police information. Alternatively, if the Police require total freeze, the Bank should inform the petitioner and continue the freeze for up to eight months, after which the petitioner may move this Court again. The judgment thus balances investigation with account-holder rights.
This is an Execution Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 and Order XXI Rule 103 CPC, lodged before the Kerala High Court by A.V. Vimalkumar (a third party to the decree) challenging a District Court Palakkad decree in AS 150/2020 and related EP proceedings. The appellant claims title and possession over the petition schedule property by virtue of Sale Deed No.1697/2017 and a subsequent jenm-right certificate, arguing that the decree schedule property identification by the Advocate Commissioner was incorrect and that the decree-holders are attempting to recover possession of property not covered by the decree. The respondents/decree-holders counter that the claim petition is barred by res judicata and lis pendens and that as a transferee pendente lite, the appellant cannot assert independent title to the decree property under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC; the identification of the decree schedule property and the propriety of the commission report were key contested issues. The High Court examined whether the petition under Order XXI Rule 97/99/101 could be disposed of on preliminary issues when it involves mixed questions of law and fact, and whether the petitioner was bound by prior decrees. Ultimately, the Court held that the petition was barred and dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent decisions. The judgment concludes with directions to expedite delivery of the property within a week from copy production and vacates interlocutory orders.
CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, presided by Justice P. Somarajan, heard CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 and a large bundle of connected cases on Friday, 7 June 2024. The batch comprises suo motu revisions instituted under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18 September 2017, challenging various orders from 2013 in the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kollam II. The consolidated set includes CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and connected Nos. 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 and 393/2018. The respondents include the State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police Kollam East, and numerous accused persons such as Shanavas, Jacky, Yusuf, Akhil, Shibu, Aneesh, Pavankumar, Sathyaseelan, and others. The State’s counsel consistently appeared as C. N. Prabhakaran, Sr. Public Prosecutor, with Sangeetharaj N R, Public Prosecutor, also named in several matters. The essential issue is whether Section 258 Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to stop proceedings in summons cases and, if so, under what conditions. The Court cites a Division Bench decision (2023 KHC Online 821) and ultimately holds that stoppage under Section 258 Cr.P.C. is permissible only when the accused cannot be produced after due effort or when costs would exceed the maximum prescribed fine. Since the requisite conditions are not satisfied, the revisions are dismissed and closed. The bench’s order ends with the court dismissing all revisions and directing no interference with the magistrates’ orders.
On 08.01.2014, Kunhimohammed P.K. was struck on the Kavannoor side of the Manjeri-Areacode road by a car (KL-10-AM-3345) and died the same day. The petitioners, as legal representatives of the deceased, approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Manjeri, in O.P(M.V) No.597 of 2014 seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal held the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the car’s driver and awarded a total compensation of ₹7,53,322 with 9% interest from the date of petition until payment. The 2nd respondent insurer filed MACA challenging the quantum as excessive, arguing that the Tribunal wrongly added 15% to the deceased’s notional income (₹6,000/month) for future prospects despite the deceased being 62 years old, and that several conventional heads (pain and suffering, loss of love and affection) were improperly awarded. It was further contended that funeral expenses and loss of estate were inflated relative to Supreme Court guidelines. The High Court examined these arguments under the Pranay Sethi framework and held that a person over 60 is not entitled to any addition for future prospects. It recalculated dependency with a 1/4 deduction and a multiplier of 7, allowed loss of consortium to seven dependents (including the wife) at ₹40,000 each, and adjusted funeral and estate figures. The final award was fixed at ₹7,15,000, with the insurer directed to deposit within two months, in line with Pranay Sethi principles.
Petitioner C.V. George, absolute owner of 0.0243 hectare Nilam land described as Re. Sy. No. 258/31 in Block No. 44 of Vadakkencherry‑I Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad, seeks removal of the land from the State data bank under Form 5. He contends the land is barren and not suitable for paddy cultivation, making preservation impracticable, and that he has no alternative land for constructing a residence. He alleges the Ext.P8 order of 20.12.2023 dismissing his Form 5 application was not a speaking order and relied only on a KSREC/Local Level Monitoring Committee report without independent appraisal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, contrary to law. The respondents oppose the challenge, arguing the decision reflects the LLMC’s conclusion and KSREC findings; the RDO is the proper authority to weigh the evidence and decide whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The court cites Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to emphasize that a speaking order with reasoned analysis and independent assessment is required, and that mere adoption of reports is insufficient. It concludes the Ext.P8 order cannot stand and disposes the matter by setting aside Ext.P8, directing the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application within three months, and to obtain/consider KSREC findings if available, with final orders within the referenced period and otherwise compliance.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, in MACA No. 950 of 2012, heard an appeal against an MACT award in O.P. (MV) No. 2427/2007 arising from a motor accident on 03.09.2007 that caused the death of Syed Nazeerudeen at age 43, who worked as a BSNL telephone mechanic with a monthly salary around Rs. 14,198. The appellants, his wife, two children (including a minor), and his mother, sought Rs. 25 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal found negligence by the rider as the 1st respondent and held the insurer liable, awarding Rs. 18,59,500 with 8% interest. The appellants challenged the quantum, especially under loss of dependency. On appeal, the court held that Ext.A12, a payslip dated October 2011, cannot determine the deceased’s date-of-accident salary since it relates to post-accident revisions; relying on Sarla Verma, the court rejected post-accident revisions for future prospects and confirmed Rs.13,593 as monthly income from Ext.A10, with 30% future prospects. Tax deduction was recalculated at actual rates. The court corrected the dependency deduction from 1/3 to 1/4 given four dependents, and recomputed loss of dependency to Rs.21,22,481, with an additional Rs.3,22,481. Funeral and loss of estate were enhanced per Pranay Sethi, while loss of consortium, guided by Magma and Satinder Kaur, warranted Rs.40,000 per applicant and adjustments totaling Rs.4,59,981. The appeal is allowed, and the insurer must deposit the enhanced amount with 8% interest within three months.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1088 OF 2024 The petitioner, Anil S, is the third accused in Crime No.712/2023 registered at Vazhakulam Police Station, Ernakulam, under sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC. He seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala, contending innocence and alleging false implication, particularly after having approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 42715/2023 against police harassment. The State opposes bail, highlighting criminal antecedents and ongoing investigations, including 13 other crimes registered against him at different police stations; it asserts custodial interrogation is necessary and that bail would hamper the investigation since recovery is anticipated. The court undertakes a careful consideration of precedents on anticipatory bail, citing Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Sibbia, and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar to outline the discretionary framework and factors to be weighed, such as gravity of the offence, role of the accused, antecedents, flight risk, likelihood of re-offending, impact on investigations, and potential tampering with witnesses. After evaluating the materials and submissions, the court finds no exceptional grounds to grant anticipatory bail and dismisses the bail application. However, it directs surrender within 10 days, allowing the Investigating Officer to interrogate and the jurisdictional court to decide on merits upon a fresh bail application if surrendered.
WP(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 This is a pair of writ petitions filed by Jijin J Shelter seeking relief against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by the Bank of India. The petitioner seeks (i) 24 equal monthly installments to repay the entire arrears and (ii) to keep the notice under Ext.P2 in abeyance. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and the Respondent Bank has also issued a similar notice in the related petition. The petitions challenge the proceedings initiated under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, including the attempt to take over and sell the secured asset. The court heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent. Significantly, the court reiterates settled law that writs are not maintainable against SARFAESI proceedings, citing United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110, followed by State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. and other precedents (e.g., Anilkumar v. State Bank of India; South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip; Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India). The decision emphasizes that where the SARFAESI mechanism provides an efficacious remedy, Article 226 relief is not warranted except in extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, with the court underscoring the petitioners’ limited remedy under the SARFAESI Act. The judgment records that authorities from apex and high courts have consistently held against interference with SARFAESI proceedings by writ petitions.
CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018, 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018, 393/2018 This is a consolidated decision of the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) by Justice P. Somarajan, dated 7 June 2024, addressing a batch of criminal revision petitions filed under CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and connected numbers. The revisions challenge orders of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Kollam, issuing suo motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee's resolution dated 18.09.2017, and specifically question stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons cases. The core issue is whether a Magistrate can stop proceedings in summons cases when the accused cannot be procured in a reasonable time and the costs of securing appearance would exceed the maximum penalty, and whether such stoppage is permissible in the context of non-petty offences. The court cites the Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to illustrate the correct application of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons cases and the conditions required for stopping proceedings. After examining the record and the legal position, the court holds that the magistrates’ stoppage orders fall within the ambit of Section 258 Cr.P.C., and interference by the Revisional Court is unwarranted. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed/closed, upholding the magistrates’ orders and leaving the stoppage intact. This decision clarifies the scope of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in analogous cases and reinforces consistent application across connected matters.
WP(C) Nos. 33774/2018, 33778/2018, 33932/2018, 3529/2019, 5443/2019, 5478/2019, 5510/2019, 8293/2019, 10979/2019, 13419/2019 and 5498/2023 These writ petitions challenge the demand for contributions under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985, and the related tax provisions. Petitioners operate stage carriages on various routes and contend their undertakings are not bound to remit contributions to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund (KMTWWF) because their workers are already covered by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) or the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The proviso to Section 4 of the KMTWWF Act exempts such undertakings where coverage exists under EPF/Gratuity, and the petitioners argue that the regional transport authorities (RTOs) are improperly insisting on proof of remittance to the Welfare Fund before accepting motor vehicle tax, thereby duplicating compliance. The court surveys the statutory scheme, noting that eligibility for exemption is to be determined through adjudication by the Welfare Fund Board’s Executive Officer, not by the RTO, and cites a prior Division Bench ruling in George Antony v. State of Kerala to emphasize that evidence of EPF coverage must be gathered in adjudication proceedings. The court ultimately directs a process: EPF proof to be produced, EPF officer to issue a clearance certificate, DEO to verify coverage and grant exemption or determine contributions, and upon clearance, the RTO to accept tax. If exemption is denied, adjudication proceeds and tax is payable.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P4, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting Form‑5 for removal of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner, Muhammed Shafi, claims ownership of 0.0344 hectares in old Sy. No.112/6-7 at Perinthalmanna, Malappuram, asserting the land is not paddy land or wetland as defined by the Act and contends it is wrongly shown as nilam in the Basic Tax Register. Ext.P4 relied on the Agricultural Officer’s report and the KSRSEC data, which show prior paddy land use and connectivity with structures in later years, and refused removal. The petitioner contends Ext.P4 suffers from non‑application of mind, and that the LLMCommittee data alone cannot justify denial; he argues the RDO must assess the land on the date of coming into force of the Act and whether removal would affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The Court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer to emphasize independent assessment and the feasibility test for Form‑5. The High Court finds total non‑application of mind in Ext.P4, sets it aside, and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form No.5 application within two months using Ext.P3 and the court’s observations and precedents.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1030 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by two accused in Crime No.405/2023 of the Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasaragod, in connection with NDPS offences under sections 8(c), 22(c), 29 and 27A. The petitioners were arrested on 15 May 2023 after being found travelling in a motor car with 59.850 grams of MDMA, alleged to be for sale. The contraband was initially described as MDMA, but a Regional Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 20 December 2023 identified the substance as methamphetamine; nonetheless, the quantity is described as commercial. The vehicle owner is not charged. The petition asserts innocence, misidentification, and false implication; the petitioners have been in custody since 15 May 2023, and it is contended that the investigation is practically complete with the final report filed, so further detention is unnecessary. The State opposes bail, invoking the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act, arguing that a release could facilitate similar offences. The court discusses Sec.37’s 'reasonable grounds' test as explained by Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, and reiterates the stringent bail standards in NDPS cases as refined in Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee. After consideration, the court finds no reasonable ground to grant bail and dismisses the application, applying Sec.37 along with Sec.439 CrPC.
CRL.A Nos. 324/2017 & 979/2024 This is a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court disposing of two criminal appeals arising from Crime No. 247/2014 (Kasaba Police, Kozhikode) relating to trafficking of a Bangladeshi minor girl for sexual exploitation and subsequent rape. The trial court convicted the 5th accused ( Shameer @ Saji, accused no.3 in the trial) under sections 370 and 376 IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act, and convicted the 6th accused (accused no.4) under section 370 IPC; the 5th accused was also linked to a separate conviction under POCSO. On appeal, the Kerala High Court undertook a detailed re-evaluation of crucial issues: (i) whether PW2 was a child under POCSO on 3.4.2014; (ii) the propriety of the rape conviction against the 5th accused; (iii) the identification of the suspects and the weight of identification evidence; and (iv) the trafficking allegations under section 370 IPC. The court found that PW2’s age evidence suggested she could be between 15 and 19, and there was no reliable evidence proving she was under 18 on the date of the offense, so the Sec. 4 POCSO charge could not be sustained. Nonetheless, it held PW2’s identification of the 5th accused to be credible and reliable, applying established authorities on witness credibility, identification, and the treatment of prosecutrix evidence. Consequently, the bench sustained the convictions under 370 and 376 IPC as against the 5th accused, albeit with a modified sentence, and sustained the 370 conviction against the 6th accused with a reduced term. The 5th accused’s POCSO acquittal was allowed, and the sentence reductions were ordered by the bench.
This is a bail application (BA No.1264 of 2024) under Section 439 CrPC by the first accused, Biju, in Crime No.10/2024 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur. The offences alleged include sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 506, 384 read with 149 IPC, on the ground of an unlawful assembly and related extortion on 30 December 2023. The prosecution asserts that accused 2–9 formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the de facto complainant and his friend, threatened them with dire consequences, and forcibly extorted Rs 60,000, with the first accused present at the scene. The petitioner was arrested on 3 January 2024 and remanded the same day. The Investigating Officer has not laid the final report within the statutory 60-day period from remand, prompting the petitioner to seek compulsory bail under 167(2) CrPC. The Public Prosecutor concedes remand status and that the offences are punishable for less than ten years, though she highlights the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents. The High Court, relying on Sanjay Dutt v. State (through C.B.I.) and Uday Mohanlal Acharya, holds that an indefeasible right to bail accrues on default of investigation under 167(2) CrPC and must be honored if the final report is not laid. The judge grants bail with a bond of Rs 1,00,000 and two sureties, subject to standard conditions and potential cancellation for violations, while noting power to impose/modify conditions per Sushila Aggarwal and related authorities.
The High Court of Kerala deals with a civil revision petition filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd challenging an enhanced compensation ordered for diminution in land value due to the drawing of 400 kV transmission lines across the respondents’ lands in Kozhikode. The matter has a layered procedural history: an original petition seeking compensation for trees and land value; remand by this Court to determine yield from each tree and to consider all components of diminution in land value; after remand, the respondents clarified they were not seeking compensation for improvements; the court below then fixed a higher land value of Rs.35,000 per cent, allocating 25% for the corridor and 100% for the tower footprint, following locational factors such as proximity to a Government College, an LP School, and nearby roads. The petitioner challenged this computation, arguing Ext.A8 (a comparable property) and price benchmarks were misapplied, while insisting government guidelines (G.O.(Rt) No.581/2010/RD) should inform compensation. The respondents pressed that Ext.A8 showed a much higher price and should set a floor for land value (not less than Rs.35,000 per cent). The Court ultimately upheld the impugned order, noting that the court is not bound by government guidelines and that the compensation calculation followed established principles from KSEB v. Livisha and P.Raghavan v. KSEB, including 12% interest on additional compensation from the date of tree-cutting. The revision petition is dismissed. The decision affirms the lower court’s award and legal approach to diminution in land value.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9767 OF 2023 Binukumar, a 35-year-old resident of Trivandrum, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in Crime No.1201/2023 of Nemom Police Station for an offence under Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution alleges that on 24.09.2023 a Sub-Inspector found him seated in a Tata Ace near Aruvakode Shri Bhadra Devi Temple, Pappanamcode, selling Indian-made foreign liquor in 500 ml bottles. The contraband was seized from the petitioner’s vehicle KL-01-CH-1973, which is admittedly owned by him. The police claim the petitioner attempted to flee on sight of the police, and contend custodial interrogation is necessary for proper investigation. The petitioner asserts innocence, insists on no involvement and undertakes to cooperate with investigation under any conditions. He points to lack of prior antecedents and asserts no direct link to the offence. The State counters that the offence falls under Section 41A of the Abkari Act, and that the petitioner has a prior similar offence (Crime No. 82/2022); hence custodial interrogation and full investigation are essential. The judge cites Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sibbia for the discretionary framework and emphasizes that Section 41A allows investigation. After careful consideration and balancing the interests, the court finds no exceptional grounds to grant anticipatory bail and dismisses the application. It directs surrender within 10 days for interrogation; thereafter, the jurisdictional court shall consider any future bail application on merits.
This batch of criminal revision petitions, numbered CRL.RC 611/2018 and connected cases, was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 12 June 2024. The petitions challenge various orders of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrates of Kollam in as many trial cases (identified by ST Nos. 2619/2014, 3645/2014, 10622/2013, 10846/2013, 10843/2013, 6142/2014, etc.) under the jurisdiction of the CrPC. The petitions arise from Suo Motu Proceedings instituted under a resolution of the Administrative Committee in its meeting dated 18.09.2017, seeking to invoke the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop proceedings in summons-based cases and thereby potentially render judgments of acquittal subject to revision. The court cites a Division Bench decision in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC Online 821) to frame the issue and the applicable law. The principal question is whether a magistrate can stoppage proceedings and, if so, under what conditions, and whether such stoppage warrants interference by this Court in revision, given the connected nature of the cases. The court ultimately holds that Section 258 Cr.P.C. is applicable to these summons-like proceedings and that the magistrate’s stoppage should not be interfered with, dismissing the revisions, and directing that the acquittals remain intact.
The petitioner, M/S Western India Cashew Company (P) Ltd, is a private limited company engaged in processing raw cashew nuts and related products. It challenged the assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) for AY 2002-03 to 2004-05 and penalties imposed thereon. The matter traces back to Ext.P3 (11-11-2014) in which this Court allowed WP(C) No.11605/2009, directing the 1st respondent to extend the benefit of Govt. Order dated 07-07-2008 and Circular dated 24-07-2008 to the petitioner and to pass fresh CST assessments for the relevant years, with opportunity of hearing; refunds were subsequently issued via Ext.P4 orders (2015). The petitioner then sought interest on refunds in WP(C) No.4210/2016, which was disposed of by directing consideration after hearing. The petitioner argued that Tata Chemicals Ltd (Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd, 2014 (6) SCC 335) supports interest on illegally collected amounts, and that the Government Order and Circular required automatic extension of benefits. The Government Pleader contended that Section 44 KGST Act governs interest, requiring refunds within 90 days of the final assessment or post-appeal/revision orders. The learned Judge held that Tata Chemicals did not consider a provision like Section 44(4) and, applying the KGST Act’s specific provisions, found no entitlement to interest, noting omission to plead such interest earlier. The petition is dismissed.
