The Kerala High Court, sitting in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Criminal MC) under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings in Crime No.498 of 2023 (Maradu Police Station) against accused Vasudevan P.D., Aneesh A.V., and Sibi M.J. The petition contends that all disputes between the accused and the de facto complainant have been amicably settled, supported by affidavits (Annexures A2–A4) from respondents 3–5, and seeks termination of the case to restore peace and enable the parties to move forward. The court directed the investigating officer to record the defacto complainant’s statement and report on the authenticity of the settlement, potential criminal antecedents of the petitioners, and any other impediments to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing based solely on settlement, but acknowledged no other serious crimes against the petitioners and that respondents did not harbor lasting grievances. The judge reviewed the gravity of the charges (offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w Section 34 IPC) and the injuries, as well as the private nature of the dispute and the absence of a substantial societal impact. Relying on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and related decisions (summarised in paras. 15–15.5), the court held that Section 482 CrPC’s quashing power can be exercised where disputes are resolved and the offences are non-heinous private in nature, recording that quashing would serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and all further proceedings quashed.
The petitioner, Sreedevi Mangalan, purchased two parcels of land in Mangadu Village, Kollam, at an auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act for Rs 90,25,000. The sale certificate Ext.P1 was issued by the 4th respondent. The property had previously been mortgaged by Renjith Vilaseedharan with the 4th respondent on 15.07.2015. When the petitioner sought registration of Ext.P1 with the Sub Registrar, she was informed that revenue-recovery attachments had been initiated for arrears of sales tax and KCWRF, and hence registration was refused. Ext.P3 is the encumbrance certificate dated 05.07.2021 which otherwise does not reveal such attachment. The petitioner prays for registration of the sale deed as per Ext.P1, mutation of the property, payment of basic tax by the petitioner, and removal of adverse entries created by revenue-recovery proceedings. The 6th respondent explains that the property belonged to registered dealers under KVAT & CST Acts with substantial arrears; the equitable mortgage on 01.07.2015 is argued to be void under KVAT sections, and the e-auction is asserted to be void as against tax claims. The 2nd respondent states attachment occurred in 2018 and 2021; the 4th respondent relies on SARFAESI 26E and contends that central law overrides state laws. The court, relying on the Tahsildar v. Nizamudeen S (2023) decision, holds that the State retains a first charge and that SARFAESI proceeds do not erase encumbrances. The petition is disposed with directions to register Ext.P1 and mutate, while noting the continued statutory charge and denying removal of revenue entries.
This writ petition (WP(C) 8886/2020) before the Kerala High Court by a large group of contract workers and a welfare forum seeks higher pension under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme as amended in 2014. The petitioners contend that the amended scheme provides enhanced pension benefits and seek directions to implement these benefits for their members. The Union of India and EPFO respondents oppose direct grant of enhanced pension without following the amended scheme's procedural requirements. The court notes that the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the 2014 amendment, as held in Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar.B. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners may file fresh applications under the amended scheme; such applications would be construed and decided in line with the scheme and the Supreme Court's directions. The Kerala High Court disposes of the petition by permitting the petitioners to file appropriate applications seeking enhanced pension under the amended scheme and directs that, upon submission, the relevant EPFO authorities consider the claim without delay. The Appendix lists earlier judgments and exhibits referenced by the parties, reflecting the evolving interpretation of pension under the EPF Scheme. Significantly, the order clarifies that the remedy is to file fresh applications rather than grant relief in the writ petition, respecting the scheme's procedural regime and ensuring uniform application across the EPFO's jurisdiction. The bench emphasizes swiftness in consideration and reiterates the Supreme Court's directions, thereby aligning the petitioners' expectations with the amended legal framework. The decision thus leaves the petitioners with an avenue to obtain enhanced pension by invoking the amended scheme in due course, while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
This revision petition challenges the Family Court, Thrissur’s order in MC 360/2013 that directed the revision petitioner, Nisar, to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to his wife Subaira and to four minor children (Abu Tahir, Ali Ashkar, Hassan and Hussain). The Family Court consolidated three proceedings (maintenance, recovery of money and partition) and, after trial, partly allowed the application, ordering maintenance at Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 1,500 per month to each minor from the date of petition, totaling Rs. 9,000 monthly. Nisar admitted marriage and paternity of the minors but argued lack of means owing to injuries and disability; he asserted the wife left home due to cruelty and that he could not be compelled to pay maintenance beyond his capacity. The respondents argued that Nisar had sufficient means, with allegations of prior bus-conductor work and involvement in real estate, and cited his earning potential (Rs. 80,000/month) to justify maintenance. The High Court, however, did not find credible the claimed incapacity and affirmed the Family Court’s approach to compute notional income and maintenance. It held that the Rs. 9,000 monthly maintenance fixed by the Family Court was reasonable and justified. The revision petition was dismissed, with directions on adjustment of any deposits if applicable.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC challenging the quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 88/2020 (Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ponnani) arising from a 14 January 2020 incident where the accused, two men, allegedly assaulted a tanker driver after overtaking their bike, injuring him. Accused Nos.1 and 2, Muhammad Sherhabeel and Anfas, faced charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 326, and 294(b) read with 34 IPC. They moved the High Court seeking to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the victim. The petition contends that the dispute has been amicably resolved and continuing prosecution would impede peace and progress. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, noting that a non-compoundable offense and serious harm could warrant continuation; however, the State also noted absence of further crimes. The High Court referred to State of MP v Laxmi Narayan and related precedents (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh) holding that the power to quash may be exercised for private, non-compoundable offenses where entire dispute is resolved and the consequences on society are minimal, but not for heinous offenses or Acts like the Prevention of Corruption Act. After weighing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the settlement, the court concluded quashing is appropriate and allowed the petition. The proceedings and final report were quashed.
R.C.Rev Nos.117 and 159 of 2015 These two Rent Control Revision petitions arise in the wake of an order by the Rent Control Court Kollam under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for fixation of fair rent of a premises measuring about 800 square feet used as a godown. The rear portion of an old, two-storey building facing Paikkada road, Kollam, with access through a 2.5-meter bylane and lacking electricity, forms the subject matter. The Rent Control Court fixed fair rent at Rs. 8 per sq. ft., a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitions feature contrasting positions: the landlords contend the fair rent should be higher, citing rent deeds (Exts A2, A3, A5) reflecting higher rents for comparable properties and the busy commercial locale; the tenants contend the Rs. 8 per sq. ft. rate is not inconsistent with market realities given the premises’ limitations and that Exts A2/A3 are not direct comparables. In the counterpoint, the tenants argue, supported by the Advocate Commissioner’s report and Mahazar, that Rs. 8 per sq. ft. is excessive. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 20, emphasizes it cannot re‑appreciate evidence to reach a different factual conclusion unless the finding is erroneous or perverse, citing Hindustan Petroleum. Ultimately the court holds there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the lower courts’ conclusions and dismisses the revision petitions, thereby upholding the existing fixation of rent. The decision underscores the limited scope of interference under Section 20 and the need for objective, non‑perverse findings.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from CC No. 98/2017 filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur, connected to Crime No. 4/2017 of Nilambur Police Station. The petitioners, Najeeb and Anshad, along with two other accused, faced charges under sections 448 (trespass), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506(1) read with 34 IPC. The petitioners moved the High Court invoking Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the ongoing prosecution on the basis that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue the matter. The victims filed affidavits supporting the settlement and stated no objection to quashing, while the Public Prosecutor, though acknowledging the settlement, expressed reservations about quashing merely on the basis of compromise. The court considered the submissions, the affidavits, and the record, and relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, which explains when non-compoundable offences can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, provided the offence is private in nature and the parties have settled the entire dispute. The judgments of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh were cited to delineate limits and the need to assess the nature of the offence and the evidence. The High Court found the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and the potential harm to society minimal, thus allowing quashing. The petition is allowed; all further proceedings in CC 98/2017 are quashed.
The appeal arises from a conviction by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Kollam, in SC No. 422 of 2015 for offences under IPC Section 376, POCSO Section 5(n) r/w Section 6, and JJ Act Section 23. The trial court convicted only under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing the appellant to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with default imprisonment. The High Court heard the criminal appeal on 23.05.2023 and delivered judgment on 14.12.2023. The core issue is whether the age of the minor victim (then about 14) was proven for a POCSO offence and whether Ext. P4 (Headmaster’s certificate asserting age) can constitute valid age proof. The defense contends Ext. P4 is not an authentic or sufficient proof of age under POCSO, relying on decisions such as Sasi, Raghavan, and Shaju, and argues that the age proof should come from the extract of the school admission register (school first attended). The State argues Ext. P4 is admissible under JJ Act Section 94 and can prove age for POCSO. The High Court affirms that age proof under POCSO cannot be imported fromJJ Act benefits, cites Jarnail Singh, Mahadeo, and Shaju to emphasize strict age proof requirements, and ultimately reverses the POCSO conviction while maintaining the long-standing conviction for IPC 376 and JJ Act 23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, with modified sentences and set-off accorded for undertrial custody. Compensation directions under Cr.P.C. 357A are retained.
This Regular Second Appeal challenges the judgment of the first appellate court that overturned a trial court’s decree in a family-property dispute arising from Settlement Deed No. 899/93. The plaintiff, Sasidharan Achari, son of Gopalachari, claimed title and possession of the plaint schedule property, seeking a declaration of title, possession, boundary demarcation, and an injunction. He had occupied the property since 1994 after building a house, paying taxes, and mutating the property in his name on the basis of Ext.A1 (settlement/gift) allegedly executed by the fifth defendant in his favor. The defendants contested that Ext.A1 did not vest title or transfer rights, noting that the fifth defendant retained a life interest and later purportedly cancelled Ext.A1, with a subsequent settlement deed in favor of the siblings. The trial court held Ext.A1 to have come into effect, granting relief to the plaintiff subject to the fifth defendant’s life interest. The first appellate court reversed, holding Ext.A1 not a valid gift and dismissing the suit. The High Court, evaluating the evidence and pertinent law, concluded that Ext.A1 did come into effect and that the plaintiff acquired title and possession, subject to the donor’s life interest. It reaffirmed the principle that unilateral cancellation of a registered gift or settlement is void unless the conditions of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act are met and the cancellation is mutually agreed. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed, the first appellate judgment is set aside, and the trial court’s decree is restored, with no order as to costs.
Crl.M.C.No.2128 of 2022 (CP No.36/2021) This criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.M.C. No. 2128 of 2022) challenges the proceedings in OR No. 18/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, now CP No. 36/2021. The petition seeks to quash all further proceedings insofar as they relate to the offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The petitioners, corporate-like members of an association called ‘Bullethood’ who organized a bikers’ gathering, are alleged to have hosted an event at which liquor was served from a counter with tokens issued for cash. The prosecution contends that tokens, purchased with cash, were required for liquor, implying sale. The petitioners rely on precedents such as Mohanan v. State of Kerala and Sidhan @ Sidharthan v. State of Kerala, arguing that 55(a) applies to illicit import/export/possession and that mere possession due to token-based service does not constitute sale. The Public Prosecutor counters with the recorded token system and service to token holders. The High Court interprets Section 55(a) as addressing illegal import/possession during transportation, and Section 55(i) as requiring a sale “in presenti.” Ultimately, the Court allows the petition in part: quashing the 55(a) charge while rejecting quashing of 55(i), with liberty to seek discharge before the trial court. The matter is thus partially resolved with directions to the trial court to consider discharge if invoked.
This Kerala High Court criminal revision challenges the conviction of the revision petitioner for offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and the corresponding sentences imposed by the trial court at Kasaragod, which were upheld by the Sessions Court. The prosecution case was that on 3 November 1998, around 2 a.m., the petitioner trespassed into the residential premises of PW1 by bending iron window bars and stole a torch light and a wristwatch valued at about Rs 700. In the trial, seven witnesses testified for the prosecution and three documents were marked, with MO1 and MO2 being the stolen items. The petitioner did not present a defence. The trial court convicted him under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and Rs 5,000 fine for each offence; the appellate court affirmed. The High Court, after examining the evidence and applying established revisional principles—namely that a revisional court is not an appellate court and should not reweigh evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice—allowed the revision in part. While upholding the conviction, the High Court reduced the sentence to three months’ simple imprisonment for each offence with Rs 5,000 fines (concurrent) and provided for set-off for custody time; in default, a further three months. The matter was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for enforcement. The court also relied on guiding precedents to justify its approach to revision and sentencing, citing judgments by the Supreme Court emphasizing restraint in revisional interference.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No.4318 of 2023) filed in the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings in CC No.59/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class II, Kochi. The petitioner, Georgesone, was the 1st accused in a case arising from an incident on 19 December 2019 at Thoppumpady, Kochi, involving alleged wrongful restraint and attacks with weapons resulting in injuries to three respondents and a fourth person. The offences cited include IPC sections 341, 324, 506 and 34. The prosecution contends that the matter has amicably settled, supported by affidavits from respondents 2 to 4, and that Annexure A6 records a prior quashing of proceedings against the 2nd accused (Annexure-A6, 31-03-2022). The State Prosecutor expresses reservations about relying solely on a settlement to quash criminal proceedings. The High Court references a series of Supreme Court decisions on the exercise of its inherent power under 482 CrPC, emphasizing that the quashing of non‑compoundable offences in private disputes is permissible only in limited circumstances, and not for heinous offences or those under special statutes. On careful consideration of gravity, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court concludes that quashing would serve the ends of justice and would not adversely impact society. The petition is allowed, and proceedings in CC No.59/2020 and final report are quashed.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 607 OF 2011 Shahul Hameed, the petitioner, challenges the concurrent conviction of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) by the Trial Court (ST No.1197/2004) and the Appellate Court’s confirmation of the same in Crl.A No.676/2009. The Trial Court held that a cheque Ext.P1 issued by the petitioner, dishonoured by the bank for insufficiency of funds, coupled with a statutory lawyer notice Ext.P4, established the offence; he was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a compensation of Rs.1,50,000 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., with a default two-month imprisonment. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction but increased the fine to Rs.1,70,000 and directed it to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The High Court’s revisional inquiry reiterates the limited, supervisory nature of Cr.P.C. Sections 397–401 and cites a course of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the reverse onus in NI Act cases, including presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and the burden on the accused to rebut such presumptions by a probable defence. The revision petition is dismissed; the conviction and sentences are confirmed. The Court grants time until 6.12.2023 to pay the fine, deferring execution, and allows adjusting any prior deposit. If the fine is remitted, it shall go to the complainant; the order is issued by Justice C.S. Dias.
This Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC No.4087 of 2023) is filed under Section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by seven accused persons seeking quashing of CC No.765/2022 (Crime No.240/2022) of Edacherry Police Station, now numbered as CC 765/2022 in the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vatakara. The accused face offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 and 428 read with Section 149 IPC, arising from an alleged unlawful assembly on 18 July 2022 at Edacherry, wherein the wall of the complainant’s property was breached and damage caused amounting to Rs. 10,000. The petition argues amicable settlement between the parties, supported by Annexure-3 affidavit, and urges the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution in the interest of peace and ends of justice. The Public Prosecutor objected, cautioning that quashing solely on settlement may not be warranted, especially since the offences are non-compoundable and the case involves potential harm to society. The court surveys the law on quashing private/non-private offences where disputes are resolved, noting that such power is non-absolute and excludes heinous offences, offences under special statutes, and certain serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity, etc.). It ultimately concludes that, after considering gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the settled relationship, quashing would not undermine public interest. The petition is allowed, quashing the final report and all further proceedings in CC 765/2022.
Abdul Kareem, the sole accused in Crime No. 40/2022 of Kollengode Police Station, Palakkad, was enlarged on statutory bail with a condition not to commit any offence on bail. While on bail, he was arrested in a second NDPS case (Crime No. 221/2022) for allegedly transporting 64.180 kg of ganja in a BMW. The prosecution sought to cancel bail by filing an application in the Sessions Court under Section 439(2) CrPC, contending the accused had misused liberty and engaged in a similar crime, undermining the integrity of the bail system. The Sessions Court cancelled bail. The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that mere involvement in a subsequent crime cannot justify withdrawal of bail, citing Godson v. State of Kerala and Renjith v. State of Kerala. The learned Advocate for the petitioner urged that cancellation requires supervening circumstances and that the prior order was not illegal or perverse. The Public Prosecutor relied on Madhya Pradesh cases and other Supreme Court precedents (Gurcharan Singh, Puran, Dolat Ram, etc.) to argue that misusing liberty constitutes valid grounds for cancellation, and that the difference between setting aside a perverse order and cancelling bail must be kept in mind. The High Court examined the authorities and concluded that misuse of liberty can justify cancellation; noting supervening facts post-bail, it upheld the cancellation and dismissed the petition, while clarifying the petitioner may surrender and apply for regular bail under NDPS Act on merits.
This High Court of Kerala, in DBP No.35 of 2023, deals with a complaint arising from the Ombudsman Report No.13 of 2023 (Complaint No.136A of 2022) concerning the maintenance of the Vadakkumnathan Temple Compound and Thekkinkadu Maidan, a Devaswom land under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petition, initiated under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was initially filed by Narayanankutty K and challenged allegedly improper maintenance and encroachments on public roads and pedestrian facilities surrounding temple premises. On 02.06.2023, additional respondents (3–8: State government, police officers, Temple Advisory Committee, Thrissur Municipal Corporation, and others) were suo motu impleaded. The Court linked the matter with Cont.Case No.1042 of 2023 and DBP No.32 of 2023, and repeatedly referred to prior judgments, including Satheesh v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2022) (1) KLT 940, and a common judgment in K.B.Sumodh v. Commissioner, Cochin Devaswom Board (2023:KER:25530).
The court reiterates that roads and footpaths must be maintained per IRC guidelines (IRC 103-2012) and are not to be encroached for political campaigns, advertisements, or temporary structures. It emphasizes that Devaswom property (Thekkinkadu Maidan) is held in trust by the Board and that activities must conform to the trust’s objects, with no unpermitted structures compromising pedestrian safety. Citing statutory provisions (Sections 62, 62A, 62B, 68, 73A, 74, and 64 of the Travancore-Cochin Act) and established precedents, the Court directs strict compliance, plastic-free zones, prohibition of hoardings and political banners within Thekkinkadu Maidan, and security watch. The petitions are disposed of with directions issued in paragraphs 22, 34, 35, and 51 of the order, and by following the earlier judgments and directives.
B.A. Nos. 2438 & 2454 of 2023 These bail applications, BA Nos. 2438/2023 (anticipatory bail for Arun Kunjumon) and 2454/2023 (pre-arrest bail for Akhil Kunjumon), were heard together by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen in the High Court of Kerala. The petitions relate to Crime No. 204/2023 registered at Kalady Police Station (Ernakulam) for offences under IPC sections including 308, 326 and 324 r/w 34. The prosecution alleges a mob-like assault during a college Biennale event with an intent to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder; the injuries to the complainant and friends are noted. A counter case (Crime No. 203/2023) alleging various offences (IPC 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 307, 326) was also filed, with the petitioners themselves sustaining injuries in the related incident. The court observed that truth in case and counter-case would be resolved by trial, but concluded that the petitioners can be enlarged on anticipatory bail with conditions due to the petitioners’ injuries, lack of antecedents, and counter-allegations. The conditions require surrender within ten days for interrogation, production before a jurisdictional court on arrest with bonds of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties each, cooperation with investigation, no intimidation of witnesses, and no further offences committed during the bail period. The order grants anticipatory bail subject to these conditions.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 367 of 2020) filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by the appellants for compensation under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in OP(MV) No.51/2015, Taliparamba. The claim concerns a road accident in which Tony Joseph died while travelling on a motor cycle after being struck by an offending vehicle driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including Loss of Dependency, Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate, and Loss of Love and Affection, while fixing the deceased’s notional income at Rs.5,000 per month. The appellants contended that there was sufficient evidence of business activity by the deceased and that the notional income was too low, leading to an inadequate award under Loss of Dependency. They further argued that the head of Loss of Consortium should be higher (advocating Rs.1,36,000) and relied on Pranay Sethi for calculating such damages, as well as the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa and Sarla Verma for future prospects, multiplier, and deductions. The insurer contended that the Tribunal’s results under Loss of Dependency were correct, but adjustments were needed for Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate, and Loss of Love and Affection per Pranay Sethi. The Judge ultimately adopts a notional income of Rs.9,500 per month with 10% future prospects, applies a deduction of one-third, uses a multiplier of 11, and partially allows the appeal with revised damages (Loss of Dependency Rs.9,19,600; Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate Rs.15,000 each; Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000; Love and Affection deleted). The decree is subject to an 8% interest rate, with 1285 days of delay excluded, and the appellants are entitled to costs on the enhanced amount.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2875 OF 2007 Radakrishnan, the first accused in SC No. 21 of 2000, challenges a conviction under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act, upheld by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, and confirmed on revision by the Kerala High Court, in turn directing acquittal. The prosecution case rests on a search of the accused’s house on 10 January 1999, during which 11 cans of spirit (50 litres each) were seized, samples drawn in 375 ml bottles, and the contraband forwarded to the laboratory with a report of chemical analysis. The trial court convicted the accused; the appellate court refused to interfere. The principal issue in the revision is whether PW6, the detecting officer, possessed competent Abkari Officer status to conduct the search and seize under SRO No. 321/96, which extends Abkari powers only to police officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector in charge of law and order and to all Revenue Officers of and above Deputy Collectors. The petitioner argues that PW6 was an ASI, not an empowered Abkari Officer, and that there was no forwarding note or tamper-evident seal documentation to establish a proper link in the chain of custody. Relying on Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala (2021 KHC 3872), the petitioner contends that the absence of a forwarding note undermines the tamper-proof despatch of samples to the laboratory, rendering Ext. P5 evidence unreliable. The High Court agrees that PW6 was not a competent Abkari Officer, and having regard to the same, acquits the petitioner under Cr.P.C. 235(1). The petition stands allowed; the bail bond is cancelled and the accused is released forthwith.
This writ petition challenges the termination of the petitioner and seeks to retain him as a Dialysis Unit Cleaning Staff/Part Time Sweeper at Government Tribal Hospital, Nalloornadu, Wayanad. The petitioner contends that he was selected through a due process for the post and was engaged initially for 15 days in June 2020, subsequently continuing on a temporary basis under a scheme funded by the Block Panchayat. A decision to terminate was taken by the Block Panchayat and a walk‑in interview for the post of cleaning staff was notified (Ext. P2). Relying on Ext. P3, a certificate from the 9th respondent, Ext. P4 and subsequent Government Orders (Exts. P5–P7), the petitioner argues his service should not be terminated to accommodate another ad hoc employee. After the petition was filed, Ext. P10 (dated 31 May 2022) purportedly relieving him from service was issued. Interim orders granted by this Court directed maintenance of status quo, but the petitioner in fact worked only from 1 June to 3 June 2022 before the 10th respondent took charge. The respondents counter that the engagement was not for a regular vacancy, but a temporary post under a scheme; the petitioner participated in the selection process and was placed at Rank 6, while the 10th respondent was ranked 1 and appointed on 1 June 2022. The court concluded that the petitioner could not challenge the selection since he participated in it and dismissed the writ petition as unsustainable.
