ARB.P. NO. 1 OF 2023 arises from a challenge to the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by the 1st respondent, M/s Sakthi Finance Ltd., in a dispute with the petitioners Abraham Mathew and Darin Philip. The petitioners claim that they borrowed funds from Sakthi Finance and that Darin Philip stood as guarantor; they purchased a vehicle and initially paid EMIs but later defaulted due to business setbacks. They offered to regularize or settle the loan within a reasonable time, but allege that the 1st respondent appointed a former District Judge as Arbitrator unilaterally, in violation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition further contends that an interim Award was issued and sought to be executed via OP(Arb.) No.14/2023 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta, which they challenge on the ground of procedural illegality and lack of competence. The 2nd respondent reportedly refused to accept summons, and the court notes that respondent participation is lacking. The core question is whether the Arbitrator’s appointment by the 1st respondent breached Section 12(5). The court cites Supreme Court authority, including TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Another v. HSCC (India) Limited, and Tulsi Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Appu Benny Thomas, to emphasize that post-amendment Section 12(5) restricts who can arbitrate. The Court holds that Section 14 jurisdiction permits termination of the arbitrator’s mandate and orders that the mandate cease forthwith, terminating OP(Arb.) No.14/2023, while leaving open the general right to appoint arbitrators under law.
The petitioner, Manikkan T, a former Director of Vadavannur Service Cooperative Bank, challenges the non-consideration of his request to print ballot papers for the managing committee election of Vadavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. with a distinct symbol or sign for each panel to aid identification by voters. The election was notified on 31 January 2023 and slated for 19 March 2023. The petitioner argued that a large portion of the society’s membership comprises illiterate individuals and Tamil-speaking members who would benefit from symbols to identify candidates, and had relied on Exts. P9 and P10 showing the rejection by the 4th respondent (Returning Officer/Bank) based on Rule 35A(6)(n)(VIII) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The petitioner contends that post-97th Amendment to the Constitution, which elevated the right to form a Co-operative Society to a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c), the Rule-based rejection is unconstitutional and contrary to this right; reliance was placed on Akathethara SCB Ltd v. State of Kerala (ILR 2015(3) Kerala 461). The respondents contend that the issue is governed by existing statutory provisions and precedent, notably a Division Bench decision in W.A.No.1963 of 2018, which upholds a non-symbol approach, and argue that symbols are not mandated. The court ultimately concludes that the petitioner has not established a ground for relief and dismisses the petition, maintaining the uniform ballot paper requirement and prohibiting ornamentation or association of symbols with candidates.
This Kerala High Court matrimonial appeal concerns a dispute over gold ornaments allegedly given to the wife at marriage. The respondent Sruthi filed OP 466 of 2013 in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking return of 200 sovereigns of gold ornaments entrusted with the appellants and kept in a bank locker opened in joint names of the respondent and the appellants. The Family Court initially decreed in the wife’s favor for 743.70 grams of gold or its value, after permitting further evidence following an ex parte decree earlier set aside in a separate appeal. The appellants challenged the decree in Mat.Appeal No.236/2018. Evidence included Exts A1–A16, Ext C1 Commissioner Report, locker records Ext A7, and oral testimony from witnesses from both sides. The appellate court observed that, while the respondent claimed 200 sovereigns, documentary materials suggested around 119 sovereigns were in possession at marriage with about 110 sovereigns later found in the locker; there was no conclusive proof of misappropriation beyond the ornaments actually in custody. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the decree directing the return of 743.70 grams, while preserving other findings and dismissing the counterclaim. Costs were left to the discretion of the court.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.MC No. 6900 of 2017) filed by the petitioners, Venupillai V.A. and Tulasi, who are accused in C.C. No. 619/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam. The petition seeks to quash Annexure-B FIR and Annexure-C charge sheet under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, Section 17, and the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012, Section 4. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners charged exorbitant interest on a loan and failed to return original security documents, contravening the relevant statutes. The petitioners’ counsel argued that Annexures-C to G suggest a civil dispute and that the case falls outside the mischief of the Money Lenders Act, contending that reliance on the documents supplied with the petition would reveal civil in nature. The Public Prosecutor countered that the final report discloses the ingredients of the offences and that the court should not rely on documents furnished by the petitioners to quash. The High Court reiterates the limited scope of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., guiding principles from State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy and other precedents, and holds that quashing is justified only to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice. After considering the materials and cited authorities, the court finds no exceptional reason to invoke 482 Cr.P.C. and dismisses the petition, while clarifying that observations are for disposal and do not decide merits. The right to discharge remains open before the Magistrate.
WA Nos.747/2019, 1061/2019, 1146/2019 This is a consolidated writ appeal judgment of the Kerala High Court concerning three dealers challenging saving provisions under Section 174(2) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST) in the context of the transition to the Goods and Services Tax regime introduced by the 101st Amendment Act (CAA 2016). The appellants (Dealers) contend that saving clauses extending KVAT rights beyond 16.09.2016/2017 violate the constitutional amendments and the sunset provisions of Section 19 of CAA 2016, and that the State Legislature lacked competence to enact saving provisions. The Court undertakes a detailed constitutional-interpretive analysis, tracing the migration from KVAT to GST, the rewriting of legislative competences by Article 246A and related amendments, and the interplay with Section 19. It distinguishes precedents, clarifies the proper reading of transitional clauses, and examines the implications for pending and future assessments under KVAT. Ultimately, the Court upholds the saving clause as valid, holds that notices arising under saved portions remain tenable, and dismisses the writ appeals, while granting eight weeks for replies where applicable.
WP(C) Nos. 6840/2021 and 11595/2021 This common judgment of a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court concerns two writ petitions challenging Labour Court awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding the termination of a Maintenance Supervisor at MIMS Hospital. The sequence began with a dismissal in 2005 after a domestic enquiry. The Labour Court, after remand and several orders, held that the entire domestic enquiry was vitiated and that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate, directing reinstatement with monetary compensation (60% back wages). The petitioners challenged Ext. P2 before the High Court, while the respondent/workman challenged earlier orders. The court analyzes the scope of Section 11-A of the ID Act—the Labour Court’s power to set aside or modify punishment and to grant reinstatement or other relief, relying on materials on record (no fresh evidence). It traverses a line of authorities on proportionality of punishment, the necessity of reasons, and the permissible reappraisal of evidence by tribunals. Ultimately, the High Court upholds Ext. P2, dismisses the writ petitions, and refuses to grant full back wages or other relief in WP(C) 6840, while WP(C) 11595/2021 is also dismissed. The decision reinforces the limited but wide discretion under Section 11-A and clarifies review standards under Article 226.
This matter concerns fixation of fair rent for a shop room in a commercial complex at Caltex Junction, Kannur, under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant continuously paid Rs. 3,000 per month; the landlady contends that, given the locality’s commercial significance, fair rent should be at least Rs. 100 per sq ft. The Rent Control Court fixed Rs. 30 per sq ft per month, while the Appellate Authority, after reappraisal, increased it to Rs. 50 per sq ft. The tenant challenged this revision under Section 20, arguing lack of basic amenities in the building, and that Exts. A13 and A14 (lease documents) are not genuine; he also pointed to the annual rental value assessed by the local authority at Rs. 10,252 to suggest incongruity with the higher rent. The landlady supported the Appellate Authority’s decision. The court emphasized that Section 20 allows only correction of illegality, irregularity or impropriety, not re-examination of factual findings, unless they are perverse. It noted that fair rent determinations rely on multiple factors, including inflation, cost of living, locality demand, amenities, construction type, and municipal taxes, and may be informed by comparable leases such as Ext A13 showing Rs. 12,000 for 150 sq ft. Finding no illegality, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Rs. 50 per sq ft figure.
Mat.Appeal No. 222 of 2022 The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and P.G. Ajithkumar, hears a matrimonial appeal challenging a Family Court order dated 03.03.2022 that granted permanent custody of the minor child Devapriya to the mother and permitted visitation by the father. The appellant, father Rakesh B.G., contends that because the mother resides abroad, custody ought to be with him, arguing the Family Court did not adequately consider the child’s welfare in light of Supreme Court guidance on custody in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and the related Kumar V. Jehangir decision. The respondent mother opposes a rigid return to the father’s custody, seeking to take the child to Australia where she has a temporary skill-shortage visa, contending that she can ensure the child’s welfare abroad and still safeguard the father’s rights of interaction. After mediation efforts failed, the court and parties disputed the best arrangement for maintaining the parent-child relationship while accommodating international travel. In I.A.1 of 2023, the court considered the welfare of the child and modified interim custody and visitation accordingly. The bench ultimately allows the mother to take the child to Australia on specified terms, while imposing safeguards for ongoing contact (daily video/audio calls) and providing for alternate-year custody and shared travel costs, reflecting a welfare-centric, balanced resolution that preserves the father-child bond.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1895 OF 2006 This is a criminal revision petition (Crl.R.P. No. 1895 of 2006) filed by Saji, the driver of a private bus, challenging a conviction under IPC sections 279 and 304A for a fatal road accident near Pathanamthitta in 2001. The trial court, after examining ten prosecution witnesses and issuing exhibits, convicted the petitioner of rash driving and causing death by negligence, sentencing him to one year’s imprisonment under 304A and six months under 279, to run concurrently. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The High Court examines the revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C. Sections 397-401, emphasizing that revisional power is not an appellate substitute and that interference is warranted only when findings are perverse, untenable in law, grossly erroneous, or based on no material, or where material facts are wholly ignored. Relying on State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri (AIR 1999 SC 981), Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015 SCC 123), Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018 SCC 165), and other judgments, the court concludes there is no such ground to disturb the verdicts. The court then considers relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, noting the petitioner’s age (about 65), health issues, and lack of prior comparable offences, and proceeds to exercise its discretion in the ends of justice.
The petitioner, P. Subairkunju, aged 70 years, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the nominations to the Board of Governors and Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (AKTU) carried out under the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 (Ordinance No. 39/2021) as published in the Kerala Gazette. The ordinance inserted new nominated members (including six from science, industry and higher education, with one woman and one member from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes). Respondents 4–9 were nominated on Ext. P2 by government order, and continued to discharge duties despite the absence of legislative enactment. The petitioner contends that since the corresponding Bill No. 50/2021, which replaced the ordinance, has not received the Governor’s assent, the ordinance ceased to operate and the nominees hold office without lawful authority. The contesting respondents argue that the Bill, though not assented, has been passed by the Legislature and remains the will of the people; the Ordinances No. 50/2021 and No. 94/2021 were re-promulgations to keep the university functioning, and the nominations remain valid. The court conducts a thorough constitutional analysis of Articles 226, 213(2)(a), 200, 174, and 201, reviews locus standi, and canvasses precedents such as D. C. Wadhwa, Krishna Kumar Singh, Rajesh Awasthi, Purushothaman Nambudiri, and others. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, holding that the challenged nominations are lawful and the writ is not maintainable.
Thomas, the accused in S.C. No.12 of 2009, challenges his conviction under Sections 55(h) and 58 of the Abkari Act, as affirmed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court. The High Court, in revision, examines whether strict compliance with statutory formalities under the Abkari Act and the chain of custody of seized contraband were properly established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case is that on 01.08.2006 illicit liquor was found in 21 bottles of 180 ml and 4 litres in a bucket in room VII/309, Karimkunnam, with the intent to bottle the contraband. The trial court convicted the petitioner, sentencing two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 1,00,000 fine, with an additional three months’ imprisonment on default. The revision petition raises multiple lacunae: unexplained delay between seizure and court production (2.8.2006 vs 1.8.2006); absence of a specimen seal on the seizure mahazar though Ext. P6 lists a seal on the property list; unexplained delay in investigation and filing of the final report (final report on 4.11.2008); lack of mention of the guard in the forwarding note Ext. P7; non-examination of the thondi clerk/Excise Guard. The petitioner relies on several precedents emphasizing strict compliance, prompt investigation, and proper chain of custody (Baburaj, Sathi, Chandran, Vijayan, Nadarajan, Moothedath Sivadasan, Kumaran, Surendran, Krishnan H). The State argues the evidence suffices. Ultimately, the High Court allows the revision, sets aside the conviction and sentence, and acquits the accused, with bail bonds canceled and liberty granted.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) 17812 of 2020) challenging a Kerala Lok Ayukta order directing recovery of a retirement benefit liability from Dr Glory Mathew and seeking consequential relief. The petitioners – the Director of Collegiate Education, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Kollam), and the Principal Secretary of the Higher Education Department – contend there was no finding of maladministration against them and that the liability certificate Ext. P2, issued on 13.05.2015, fixed liability without proper basis, especially since the Government did not suffer pecuniary loss. The Lok Ayukta had held that there was a lapse in utilizing accumulated funds without prior sanction, but relied on Article 303 B of the Kerala Financial Code and a 1999 circular to justify liability; it directed the recovery of Rs. 63,498 with 8% interest, payable to the complainant (Dr Glory Mathew) within two months. The court examines the petitioner’s challenge to the Lok Ayukta order, noting that the funds were used for the welfare of the college and students, and that the only apparent lapse was lack of prior sanction, not misappropriation. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the High Court upholds the Lok Ayukta order and dismisses the writ petition, confirming the obligation to refund the amount with interest.
This is a Kerala High Court single-judge decision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing cognizance in CC No. 932/2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court XI, Thiruvananthapuram, in a private defamation complaint filed by Jude Sajith D’Cruz, Managing Director of Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners—six accused entities and individuals—challenge the order taking cognizance for offences under Sections 501 and 502 read with Section 34 IPC in connection with a defamatory news item published on September 13, 2020 by Hindu Business Line (thehindubusinessline.com). The complainant alleged the publication harmed the reputation of his company. The petition contends the item was a factual report, published in good faith and without malice, and that the complainant lacked locus since Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd. was not properly represented; corporate entities cannot be prosecuted for offences requiring mens rea unless represented by a real person. They argue the court below did not apply its mind and that the allegations do not attract the charged offences. The State contends cognizance was properly taken on prima facie evidence, including the publication and related e-mail communications. The High Court finds the complaint flawed: lack of precise allegations, improper representation of juristic entities, and absence of delineation of each accused’s role or common intent under Section 34. It quashes the cognizance and proceedings under inherent jurisdiction Cr.P.C. 482.
This Kerala High Court writ petition concerns the seizure of a motor car (KL-52-R-9498) by Customs at Cochin International Airport on 26.07.2022 after intelligence indicated two persons in the vehicle were to receive smuggled gold weighing 931.73 gms from Doha. Safir P., the owner who lived abroad, had handed over his car to a family friend and was unaware of any smuggling involvement. The petition challenges the seizure as illegal since, according to the department, the car was to be used to transport smuggled goods; however, at interception there was no gold inside and the petitioner is not alleged to have participated in smuggling. The Department’s case hinges on Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, which allows confiscation if a conveyance was used as a means of transport in smuggling. The court clarifies that confiscation is a penal remedy and must be construed strictly; Section 115(2) requires actual or present use, not speculative future use. It notes Section 106 (search) and the distinction between seizing and confiscating, and emphasizes that seizure is linked to goods liable for confiscation under the Act. In the absence of evidence of owner involvement or actual use, the court holds that the seizure is illegal, directs immediate release of the vehicle, and allows the writ petition.
This writ petition challenges the refusal of the Sub Registrar, Mathamangalam, Kannur District, to register a settlement deed (Ext.P3) executed by the petitioner in favour of Sumathi and Anoop for 33.3 ares of land out of the possession originally claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts ownership in 40.47 ares of land under Assignment Deed No. 246 of 1996 and subsequent re-survey results show a total extent of 73.50 ares; after sale to Sajeesh, the remaining 33.3 ares were settled in favour of his son and wife. Ext.P3 was presented for registration on 24.01.2023 but was refused on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce prior documents establishing title or ownership. A later attempt (Ext.P5) on 24.03.2023 was also refused for the same reason. The petitioner relies on Kerala High Court precedents (Sumathi v. State of Kerala; Balachandran v. Sub Registrar) and earlier W.P.C. No.2871/2018 holding that Sub Registrars cannot insist on prior title deeds and can convey possessory rights where applicable. The Government Pleader’s stance was that registration requires demonstration of title and prior documents before registration. The court, citing these decisions, holds that mere possessory rights can be transferred and that prior title documents need not be insisted upon by the Sub Registrar when the deed is otherwise in order. The petition is disposed with directions to register Ext.P3 and quash Ext.P5.”
Jahfer Sadiq E.A., the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.2104 of 2020, seeks to quash FIR No.0046/2020 under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge bench led by Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, examines whether the talaq pronounced by the husband amounts to talaq-e-biddat (triple talaq) punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the 2019 Act, or talaq-e-sunnat recognized by Muslim personal law. The judge traces talaq nomenclature: talaq, tafwiz, khula, mubara’at, and the dichotomy between talaq-e-sunnat (ahsan/hasan) and talaq-e-biddat. It cites Shayara Bano and Shamim Ara and other authorities to lay down that triple talaq is unconstitutional and that due process and reconciliation are core to a valid talaq. It notes the 2019 Act criminalizes talaq-e-biddat and defines talaq to include any form causing instant and irrevocable divorce, but also acknowledges that talaq-e-sunnat could be valid if preceded by pre-divorce mediation and followed by iddat. On merits, Annex A3 shows a pre-divorce conference and mediation; the court concludes the talaq was not instantaneous or irrevocable, and there are no proven ingredients of offences. Consequently, FIR 0046/2020 is quashed; Cr.M.C. allowed.
This writ appeal challenges the judgment dated 22.07.2019 in W.P(C) 6251/2019, wherein a learned Single Judge allowed the petition preferred by N. Vijayakumar and directed consideration of his Ext.P3 application for change of land use under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The State of Kerala and its officers (appellants in the WA) assail the grant of permission for conversion of paddy land on terms including payment of 50% of the fair value under Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (as amended by Ordinance 41 of 2017 and Act 29 of 2018) and related riders. The petition was filed seeking to restrain or revise the concessional conditions, contending that amended provisions came into force only from 30.12.2017; thus pre-existing applications should be governed by Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The Court discusses subsections, provisos and amendments to 27A, including the ten percent water-conservancy requirement for larger plots and the procedure under Rule 12, as well as the notional effect of the 2017–2018 amendments. It cites Renji K. Paul, Shanmugam and Tahsildar, Thodupuzha to emphasize that pre-30.12.2017 applications fall under the older regime. Ultimately, the Division Bench (CJ and J.) dismisses the WA, upholding the Single Judge’s decision and thereby affirming the pre-amendment framework for cases filed before the cut-off date. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, and no further relief is granted to the appellants.
BA Nos.2055, 7417 & 7432 of 2022 Three connected bail petitions before the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, Justice Viju Abraham) arise from Nedumangad Police Station cases in Thiruvananthapuram. The petitions seek anticipatory/pre-arrest bail for the 2nd accused (Mettil Lopuz) in Crime Nos. 393/2019, 204/2021 and 1466/2022, with a co-accused RR Rajesh in one petition. The offences alleged include cheating, breach of trust, criminal breach of trust, and forgery/robbery elements under IPC (sections 378, 405, 408, 409, 420 read with 34) and criminal offences under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (section 80/94 reference). The prosecution asserts serious allegations; the 1st accused in BA 2055/2022 has already been arrested and released on bail. The petitioner contends falsity of involvement and readiness to cooperate; the court had earlier issued an interim order on 27.10.2022 directing appearance and cooperation. Having regard to the facts and the nature of the allegations, and the petitioner’s cooperation, the court grants pre-arrest bail to the 2nd accused with conditions: bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties; appearance before the IO every Saturday; no contact with victims or witnesses; no other crimes; surrender on 11.01.2023. The court notes that police may investigate and recover, even when on bail, citing Sushila Aggarwal. The bail orders are issued for all connected cases on the same date.
Criminal Appeal (V) No.337 of 2013 This Criminal Appeal (V) No. 337 of 2013 arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Court No. I, Kozhikode, in SC No. 212/2010, dated 6 December 2012. The sole accused faced charges under sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (hurt) and 302 (murder) IPC, in connection with an incident on 1 September 2009, where the victim Vivekanandan was allegedly restrained, punched on the nose, and subjected to threats. He died on 19 September 2009; post‑mortem (Ext. P11) attributed death to meningitis following a hit to the nose, with pneumonia noted as co‑present. The Sessions Court convicted the accused under 341 and 323, but acquitted him of 302, relying on Thomas v. State of Kerala (1991) and on absence of proven intent or knowledge to kill. The victim’s son (PW1) challenged the acquittal by filing this appeal under Section 372 CrPC. The High Court examined whether proximate causation existed between the nose injury and death, considering the medical records (PW12, PW13) and the decedent’s health factors (splenectomy, chronic alcoholism, hypertension). While eye‑witness accounts corroborate the assault, the medical evidence failed to establish a proximate connection or requisite mens rea. The Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s view, upheld the acquittal on the murder count, and dismissed the appeal, leaving the 341 and 323 convictions intact.
This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. challenging concurrent convictions for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused Roy allegedly borrowed Rs.2,00,000 from the complainant on 5 October 2008 and issued Ext. P1 cheque to discharge the debt; on its presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, and notice was issued but the amount was not paid. PW1 and PW2 testified, and Exts. P1–P8 were marked. The trial court convicted Roy and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.2,25,000, with the fine directed to be paid as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence. In revision, Roy contends that the complainant failed to prove the transaction, signature, and execution of the cheque, so the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act cannot operate, and that no scientific signature verification was conducted. The respondents submit that the complainant proved the transaction and the cheque’s issuance, and thus the presumptions apply, with the accused failing to rebut them. The High Court reiterates that Sections 118(a) and 139 create presumptions of consideration and liability in favour of the holder, and once the signature is established, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut. Relying on established authority (Hiten P. Dalal, Rangappa, Uttam Ram, Kumar Exports, Bir Singh, Kalamani Tex), the court holds no relief is due to Roy and dismisses the revision petition. The court grants three months to deposit the fine and directs appearance to suffer sentence till rising of the court, with the fine payable to the complainant.
