BAIL APPL. NO. 1415 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Sajan Varghese, alias Joji, the sole accused in Crime No.80/2024 of Konni Police Station, Pathanamthitta, alleging offences under Sections 341 and 324 IPC, with Section 326 IPC subsequently incorporated. The prosecution alleges that on 27.01.2024 the accused restrained the de facto complainant in an auto-rickshaw, assaulted him with a lever, and caused grievous injuries including a scapular fracture. The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated, argues that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and notes that Section 326 was not included at FIR time as evidence of falsity; he also asserts the complainant is a habitual drinker and that no recovery is required. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing the complainant’s injury, prior antecedents of the accused (Crimes 594/2018 and 1080/2023), and the need for custodial interrogation and recovery. The court grounds its reasoning in Supreme Court authorities on bail, including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, Sibbia, Jai Prakash Singh, and Srikant Upadhyay, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is exceptional and not to be granted by rigid formula. Ultimately, the court finds no exceptional grounds for pre-arrest bail and dismisses the application, directing surrender within 10 days and subsequent merits review by the appropriate court.
This judgment consolidates CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected proceedings, heard on 12 June 2024 before Hon. Justice P. Somarajan. The batch relates to revisions challenging orders of acquittal and the stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons-cases, arising from Suo Motu proceedings based on Administrative Committee resolutions dated 18.09.2017. The court discusses the legal framework for stopping proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C., including the conditions under which a magistrate may stop proceedings and render a discharge or acquittal where the accused cannot be procured or where costs exceed the maximum fine. It relies on a Division Bench decision (2023 KHC OnLine 821) that elaborates the application of Section 258 Cr.P.C. to summons-cases in the Suo Motu context. The Kerala High Court reiterates the settled legal position that stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. is within the trial court’s jurisdiction and that such stoppage does not warrant interference in these revisions. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed, and the magistrate’s stoppage orders are upheld, with the proceedings effectively having been discharged or halted.
This is a Kerala High Court judgment in Crl.M.C. No.1411 of 2024 by Judge P. G. Ajithkumar, concerning a challenge to Annexure A3, the bail order in an anticipatory bail matter (Crime No.17/2024, Kakkur PS). The petitioner, the defacto complainant, contends that no notice was given to her before the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the 2nd respondent, who faces serious allegations including offences under IPC Section 376(2)(m). Annexure A3 imposed conditions such as bond, appearance, medical examination, cooperation, and non-interference with witnesses, with a provision that the Investigating Officer may seek cancellation for violation. The Sessions Court’s reliance on certain facts not properly placed is argued to be prejudicial to the petitioner. The State counters that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail without notice and that the petitioner’s hearing would occur in the final regular bail proceedings. The judgment discusses Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (victim’s right to be heard in bail proceedings in heinous offenses), Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. (guidance on cancellation of bail, and its applicability to regular bail), and Mohammed Husain (supra) to contextualize regular vs anticipatory bail. The Court ultimately sets aside Annexure A3, directing the jurisdictional court to decide the regular bail application on merits after hearing the petitioner, while the 2nd respondent remains on bail until such decision.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1366 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the third accused, Ranjith, in Crime No.791/2023 of the Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petition seeks release during investigation when the accused has already spent about 58 days in judicial custody. The prosecution alleges that on 30.08.2023, at Pookkodu Ambedkar Colony, the second accused struck the scooter with a wooden log, the first accused inflicted a cut injury on the de facto complainant’s friend with a chopper, and both the de facto complainant and his friend were assaulted with stones by the second and third accused. The defense contends that the petitioner did not participate in the overt acts; the injuries were caused by accused 1 and 2, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Investigations are nearly complete and recovery has been effected. The Sessions Court’s dismissal of the bail plea is argued to be erroneous. The State counters with the seriousness of injuries, but concedes lack of antecedents and the late stage of investigation. The High Court, invoking principles from Supreme Court precedents emphasizing presumption of innocence and the bail-as-rule doctrine, ultimately allows bail with stringent conditions. The decision reflects a balance between individual liberty under Article 21 and the legitimate interest in the ongoing investigation.
This Bail Application (B.A. No.1114/2024) arises under Section 439 CrPC by accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime No.77/2024 of West Police Station, Kollam, charging offences under IPC sections 294(b), 324, 506, 341, 323, 308 and 394 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 23.01.2024 for allegedly attacking the de-facto complainant and his friend on 22.01.2024 at Mulankadakam, during which the first accused allegedly snatched the motorcycle key, the third accused snatched the friend’s mobile, and the second accused assaulted the injured with a knife, with the four petitioners also indiscriminately assaulting the de-facto complainant. The petitioners contend innocence and argue there is a counter case registered by the same police relating to the same incident; they claim investigation is practically complete and recovery has been effected, asserting that further detention is unnecessary. The learned Counsel for petitioners relies on Supreme Court pronouncements including Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (presumption of innocence until guilt), Dataram Singh v. State of UP (bail as a rule, detention as exception), and State of Kerala v. Raneef (undue delay in trial violates Article 21), to contend that bail should be granted. The Public Prosecutor counters that there is a prior conviction or crime in 2018 against some petitioners and that the investigation is not complete. After careful consideration, the Court finds the petitioners’ continued detention unjustified given 35 days in custody, largely completed investigation, and recovery. The Court allows bail with conditions: bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties; weekly appearance before the IO for two months; no inducement or tampering with witnesses; no offence during bail; surrender of passport if any; and standard contingencies for cancellation or modification of bail under law, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another for permissible monitoring/recovery while on bail.
CRL.RC 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases This is a consolidated order of the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, dated 7 June 2024, presided by Justice P. Somarajan, addressing a batch of criminal revision applications (CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and connected) challenging orders/acquittals in as many as 40+ criminal cases arising from Kollam district. The petitions are Suo Motu Proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s resolution of 18-09-2017, seeking invocation of Section 258 Cr.P.C. for stopping proceedings in summons cases where the accused could not be procured, or where the cost of securing appearance would exceed the maximum possible fine. The Court examines the jurisdiction to halt proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C., particularly in summons cases not instituted on a complaint, and considers a Division Bench decision (State of Kerala and State, 2023 KHC Online 821) which elaborates the procedural and financial thresholds permitting stoppage. The judgment confirms that the power to stop proceedings under Section 258 is available, provided the prosecution demonstrates genuine attempts to locate the accused and that the costs are disproportionate to the offence. Consequently, the Court holds that the revisions fall short of the requisite grounds, and orders that the revisions be closed. The decision clarifies the proper application of Section 258 in appropriate summons-case contexts and reinforces adherence to statutory requirements.
CRL.RC No. 611/2018 & Connected Cases This is a consolidated order of the KeralaHigh Court dealing with CRL.RC No.611/2018 and connected criminal revision cases arising from suomotu proceedings initiated by the Administrative Committee in its 18.09.2017 meeting. The revisions challenge orders of the Judicial Magistrates’ Courts in Kollam, which had stopped further proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in various summons-cases on the grounds of inability to procure the accused or because the costs would exceed the maximum fine prescribed. The court recalls the statutory framework of Section 258 Cr.P.C., noting that a Magistrate may stop proceedings in certain summons cases after recording reasons, and, if witnesses have already been examined, may even pronounce an acquittal or discharge. It also cites a Division Bench decision (Suo motu v. State of Kerala and Another, 2023 KHC OnLine 821) as a reference on the applicability of Section 258. The Court concludes that the cited cases squarely fall under Section 258 Cr.P.C., and that stoppage of proceedings in these circumstances deserves no interference. Accordingly, the revisions are dismissed, upholding the Magistrate’s stoppage orders, and the matter is closed.
CRL.RC No.269 of 2018 & Connected Cases This is a batch of suo motu criminal revision petitions under Section 258 Cr.P.C., filed in the Kerala High Court and heard by a single judge (Justice P. Somarajan) on 7 June 2024. The petitions arise out of orders in various criminal proceedings initiated by Suo Motu Proceedings under the Administrative Committee's resolution dated 18.09.2017, and challenge magistrate’s orders, including acquittals or other stages, in multiple stations in Kollam and surrounding taluks. The central issue is whether a Magistrate in summons-case proceedings may stop further proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. when the accused cannot be procured despite best efforts and the cost of securing attendance would exceed the maximum prescribed fine. The judgment cites a Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to delineate the settled legal position that, after recording reasons and upon reasonable steps being shown, stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 is permissible where the presence of the accused cannot be secured or the costs are prohibitive. Applying that legal position to the connected cases, the court holds that the magistrates’ stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 in these matters does not warrant interference. Consequently, the Crl.RCs Nos.269/2018 and connected matters are disposed of; the revisions fail and are closed. The judgment is signed by P. Somarajan, with the order noted as final disposed of.
The appeal arises from an award under the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, for a bus accident on 30 October 2013 near Kuzhalmannam on the National Highway. Sara, a 53-year-old coolie, was injured when a bus (KL-49/4757) owned by Anandkumar, driven by Sajeevan and insured by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, struck her while she stood by the road. The Tribunal held the second respondent negligent and awarded ₹7,97,260 with 9% interest and costs. Sara challenged the award, arguing that notional income and medical expenses were undervalued and that the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity was not properly assessed. She relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. (2011) to press for a higher notional income (₹9,000 per month with annual increments) and on Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) to support a higher assessment of loss of future earnings given the injuries. The insurer contended the compensation was excessive and that the evidence did not justify a higher figure. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, increasing the total compensation to ₹13,88,463, fixing loss of earning capacity at 50%, and directing payment with 7.5% interest from the petition date, within 60 days.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P15 stop memo dated 2 February 2024 issued by the Village Officer, allegedly under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and Rules. The petitioners own substantial parcels in Muttambalam village, Kottayam Taluk, with holdings totaling approximately 354.38 acres, acquired in multiple resurvey plots via several registered documents. They had sought and obtained building permits under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order) Clause 6(2), with a condition under Section 27A of the Act, and subsequently moved to challenge that condition, leading to WA No.1759/2020 and a Divisional Bench judgment dated 07.01.2021 which struck down the condition and directed corrections in revenue records. Following Exts.P8–P9 and related orders, the land’s nature was recorded as garden land with corresponding tax entries, and development permits were extended (Exh. P11–P14). Ext.P15 stop memo, based on Ext.P16 general order, purportedly seeks to revert this status by re-incorporating the property into the data bank. The government contends the land remains a paddy land in the data bank, notwithstanding prior corrections. The court notes Ext.P6 clearly found the land not fit for paddy cultivation, and that Ext.P7 judgments involved RDO and Village Officer as parties. It held that Ext.P15 is contrary to Ext.P6 and Ext.P7, and quashed the stop memo, allowing the petition.
The petitioners, Dinesan T.P. and Baby Sree, challenge Ext.P6, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting Form 5 for removal of their land from the Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The land, comprising two parcels in Kakkodi Village, Kozhikode District, is claimed not to be paddy land or wetland. The RDO based Ext.P6 on the Agricultural Officer’s report, LLMC’s recommendation, and Google Earth Pro imagery indicating surrounding paddy lands and water-logging. The petitioners contend that there was no independent assessment of the land’s status as on the Act’s date, that age-old coconut trees were ignored, and that KSRSEC should be consulted; reliance on Google Earth Pro cannot substitute for an authentic assessment. The court notes repeated precedents emphasizing that waterlogged land does not automatically qualify as wetland or paddy land, and that removal from the Data Bank requires independent evaluation rather than mere affirmation of LLMC findings. It holds that Ext.P6 suffers non‑application of mind and grants relief by directing reconsideration with KSRSEC report, at petitioners’ expense, within a specified period, while inviting the petitioners to obtain KSRSEC data.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1098 OF 2024 This is a criminal bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed in the Kerala High Court by accused nos. 2 to 4 in Crime No. 102/2024 of Ernakulam North Police Station. The petition seeks pre-arrest bail for alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy where the first accused, with accused 2–4, enticed the de facto complainant into a loan scam of approximately Rs. 4 crore under a Central Government Agricultural Scheme and induced transfer of Rs. 20 lakh as insurance to the first accused’s bank account, with the loan not sanctioned and funds not repaid. The petitioners contend they had no involvement beyond roles described in Annexure A2 (the complainant’s agreement) and view accused 2–3 as selling agents and accused 4 as a banker; they seek custodial interrogation to be avoided. The State opposes, claiming a large racket; custodial interrogation and recovery are necessary, and anticipatory bail would impede investigation. The court notes Supreme Court guidance on anticipatory bail in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and the Sibbia decision, emphasizing case-specific discretion and caution, and reiterates that pre-arrest bail is extraordinary. After careful consideration, the judge concludes no exceptional grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The bail application is dismissed, with a direction to surrender within 10 days; if surrendered, the jurisdictional court may consider the bail plea on merits expeditiously.
D.S.R.NO.2 OF 2017; Crl.A Nos. 497, 552, 645, 676, 693, 796/2016 & 1307/2024 This is a Kerala High Court judgment delivering by a two-judge bench (Dr. A.K. Jayasankarannan Nambiar, J. & Syam Kumar V.M., J.) on 06 August 2024, in D.S.R. No. 2 of 2017 and connected criminal appeals arising from Crime No. 96/2006 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, and the judgment in S.C. No.1121/2008. The trial court convicted several appellants under multiple IPC provisions (notably 120B, 143, 147, 148, 449, 323, 364, 302 with 149, 506(ii), 294(b), and 201 read with 149) and sentenced A1 and A7 to death, A2, A5, A8, A9, A10 to life imprisonment, with other terms and fines. A4 Nazarudeen was turned approver under Sec. 306 Cr.P.C. The prosecution’s case largely rested on the testimony of the approver; most eye-witnesses turned hostile. The court scrutinized the approver’s reliability under the double test (reliability plus corroboration) and found serious inconsistencies, lack of independent corroboration, and numerous procedural irregularities (e.g., seizure procedures, material objects, and DNA/hair evidence). It held that the evidence did not satisfy the required standard to sustain convictions or the death sentences. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court’s verdict, allowed the criminal appeals, and directed the acquittal of all accused and release, with the D.S.R. dismissed and the CRL.A. appeals allowed.
CRL.RC No. 611/2018 & Connected Cases This is a batch of criminal revision petitions before the Kerala High Court, arising from suo motu proceedings resolved by the Administrative Committee in its 18 September 2017 meeting. The petitions challenge orders of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollam, stopping further proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in multiple criminal cases. The matter was heard on 12 June 2024 by Justice P. Somarajan, together with connected CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 through 723/2018, and related cases. The court scrutinized the statutory framework governing stoppage of proceedings in summons cases, emphasizing that such stoppage requires reasons to be recorded and that it can be invoked where the accused cannot be produced or where the cost of securing attendance would exceed the maximum possible penalty. The court relied on a Division Bench decision from 2023 (2023 KHC OnLine 821) that addressed Section 258 Cr.P.C. and the propriety of stoppage in such cases, applying it to the present batch. Ultimately, the High Court held that the Magistrate’s stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. was within jurisdiction and warranted no interference; the revisions were dismissed, upholding the orders of stoppage. The connected cases continue consistent with the statutory framework.
CRL.RC Nos. 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) On 12 June 2024, the Kerala High Court, before Hon. Justice P. Somarajan, delivered an order in CRL.RC No. 611/2018 and connected cases, along with a batch of connected revisions. The matter comprises suo motu criminal revision applications challenging orders of acquittal or stoppage of proceedings in various ST Nos across Kollam’s Judicial Magistrate of First Class courts (2013–2014). The central issue is the power of a Magistrate to stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons cases, including the grounds and procedure for cessation and the extent of court interference. The Court reproduces and relies on a Division Bench decision in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821), to illustrate the settled legal position that Section 258 is applicable where the prosecution, despite reasonable efforts, cannot secure the presence of the accused and the cost of securing attendance would exceed the maximum prescribed fine; upon satisfaction of these criteria, the Magistrate may stop proceedings, leading to acquittal or discharge. Applying this framework, the High Court holds that stoppage under Section 258 is within the trial court’s jurisdiction, and the revisions fail and are closed. The order thus reiterates the permissibility and limits of Section 258, and closes the batch of revisions.
This regular second appeal arises from proceedings challenging a 1997 decree in O.S.391/1997 and the subsequent sale in execution, on the ground that a minor plaintiff (Anju Hariharan) was not properly represented. The minor's mother was served as guardian but no formal guardian was appointed; therefore, the ex parte decree could be a nullity and not binding on the minor’s half-share in the plaint schedule property. The trial court decreed a half share in favor of the plaintiff, and the appellate court affirmed. The High Court, on admission of substantial questions of law, examined whether the minor’s representation by the mother without proper appointment of a guardian violated procedural safeguards, whether service on the mother sufficed, and whether a partition of the minor’s half share could be decreed without the minor paying proportional liability. It surveyed Order XXXII of the CPC and relied on precedents to emphasize the duty to appoint a guardian and to treat a decree against a minor absent proper representation as a nullity. Cited authorities include Abdul Salam v. Chalil Sajitha, Gangadharan v. Narayanan, and Tresa Xavier v. Mary Simon, to support the contention that guardianship must be properly instituted. The High Court ultimately dismissed the regular second appeal, while vacating interlocutory orders.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1401 OF 2024 VYASAN, the sole accused in Crime No. 843/2023 of Valappad Police Station, Thrissur, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in Bail Application No. 1401 of 2024. The prosecution contends that on 05.09.2023 the accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him with an umbrella, causing injuries that led to the death of Sivanandan on 11.09.2023, thus attracting offences under Sections 341, 323, 326, 324 and 302 IPC. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.09.2023, the investigation is complete, and the Final Report has been laid. The petitioner asserts innocence, arguing that the alleged 326/302 offences are not attributable since the instrument of attack was an umbrella. He also cites change of circumstances and the length of custody as grounds for bail. The State counters that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is an accused in Crime No. 299/2021 at the same police station, suggesting use of an iron rod in a related incident; it argues that bail would enable witness intimidation and derail the trial. The State relies on Supreme Court precedents such as Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Mahipal, and Ash Mohammad to justify denial of bail. After hearing, the High Court emphasizes gravity, likelihood of repetition, antecedents, and risk to witnesses, concluding that bail should be refused. The application is therefore dismissed.
R.S.A. No.86 of 2024 is a Kerala High Court second appeal filed by appellants 5, 6, 8 and 9 challenging the final decree dated 31.03.2022 in O.S. No.404 of 1983 and the subsequent appellate judgment dated 22.12.2023 in A.S. No.118 of 2022 before the Additional District Court, Irinjalakuda. The dispute arises from a longstanding partition suit filed in 1983, where a preliminary decree directed allotment of property abutting the original plaintiff’s Ext.A1 title and excluding the house in which the 2nd defendant resided. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report allocating plots (A–F) per the preliminary decree, but the appellants argued the report contravened the decree’s terms by including the house-site and by reshuffling parcels not in conformity with Ext.C1(a) plan, particularly plot E (12 cents) and other allocations to the 3rd respondent and others. The trial court and the appellate court endorsed the Commissioner’s plan, concluding that the house did not exist as per the report and that the final decree was in tune with the preliminary decree. The High Court, citing Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala, Kondiba Kadam and Government of Kerala v. Joseph, held that a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law is involved and that no such question has been demonstrated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without admission and all interlocutory applications were also dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1265 OF 2024 This is a bail application under section 438 CrPC filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Sreejith.K, the sole accused in Crime No.115/2024 of Pazhayangadi Police Station, Kannur. The FIR, dated 11.02.2024, alleges trespass into the complainant’s residence and the assault of her husband with an iron rod, resulting in injuries. The offences initially charged include sections 448, 341, 323, 324 and 308 IPC, with later additions of sections 307 and 326. The prosecution contends that the complainant sustained serious injuries (hemorrhage and a depressed parietal fracture) and that custodial interrogation is necessary to effect recovery and ensure a fair investigation; the investigation is at a preliminary stage and there is risk of witness intimidation if the accused is enlarged on bail. The petitioner’s counsel submits his innocence, points to a counter-case between the parties, contends that section 308 is not attracted, and argues that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that bail should be granted. The court, citing Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sibbia and Jai Prakash Singh, emphasizes a flexible, case-specific approach to anticipatory bail, warning against rigid guidelines and stressing the extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail. After weighing the materials and submissions, the judge holds that no exceptional grounds exist to grant bail and dismisses the application, but directs surrender within 10 days for potential future consideration on merits.
CRL.RC No. 611 of 2018 (and connected cases) The Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, on 12 June 2024, heard CRL.RC No. 611 of 2018 and 46 connected criminal revision petitions challenging orders of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - II, Kollam, in various ST numbers dated 2013–2014. The petitions stem from Suo Motu proceedings under a resolution of an Administrative Committee dated 18.09.2017. The core legal issue concerns the Magistrate’s power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop proceedings in summons cases and, where appropriate, discharge or acquit, even after testimony has been recorded. The Court cites a Division Bench decision in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to illustrate the settled position that stoppage of proceedings is permissible under Section 258 in summons cases under certain circumstances, notably when the accused cannot be located or the cost of securing presence would exceed the maximum prescribed fine. The order reflects a uniform approach to batch petitions, ultimately holding that the revisions do not warrant interference with the Magistrate’s stoppage, and accordingly dismisses the revisions. The bench emphasizes adherence to the statutory mechanism and closes the connected matters.
