Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 293 To 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 304Nominal IndexAdv. Adarsh S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters,...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 293 To 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 304
Nominal Index
Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
Don Paul V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
State of Kerala v Nino Mathew & Connected Cases, Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case title: Adv. Adarsh S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 293
The Kerala High permitted the petitioner to avail alternative remedies as provided under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 regarding his grievances against telecasting the Indian Reality Show- Big Boss Malayalam Season 6.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Adarsh S alleging that the show violates broadcasting regulations and advisories issued by the Union Government by telecasting scenes of physical assault on national television.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun permitted the petitioner to withdraw his petition and directed him to submit a representation for redressal of his grievances before the Broadcaster under the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act.
Case Title: State Of Kerala V Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, Muhammad Ameerul-Islam V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 294
The Kerala High Court today confirmed the death sentence imposed upon Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam, a migrant labourer from Assam for committing the rape and murder of a law student in Perumbavoor on April 28, 2016.
The division bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice S. Manu observed that the case was deeply disturbing and represented a severe violation of human dignity and sanctity of life since after committing rape in an inhumane manner, the victim was murdered horrendously. The Court found that the case has far-reaching consequences since it creates fear and also vulnerability amongst women.
The Court on applying the Crime Test, Criminal Test and Rarest of Rare Test, dismissed Ameer-Ul Islam's appeal and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Sessions court.
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 295
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a public interest litigation filed by State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly committing hawala money transactions to the tune of 3.5 crores for use in campaigns during the 2021 State Assembly elections.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the case as non-maintainable.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 296
Case Title: K Sudhakaran v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against State Congress President, K Sudhakaran in CPM leader P Jayarajan's attempt to murder case.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings initiated against K Sudhakaran (1st accused) and Rajeev (3rd accused) based on FIR No. 148/1997 cannot be permitted to continue since it is a second FIR filed against the parties by E P Jayarajan raising the same allegations based on the same incident itself.
[NDPS Rules 2022] Accused Has Right To Seek Expeditious Testing Of Contraband Within Time Frame Stipulated Under Rule 14: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Anuraj v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 297
The Kerala High Court has held that a delay in testing seized drugs/substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, of 1985 would cause prejudice to the accused. The Court further stated that the accused have a right to seek expeditious testing of seized drugs/substances under Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules 2022.
Justice C.S. Dias issued the following directions and also directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to forward a copy of the judgment to Courts dealing with NDPS Cases.
Case Title: Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298
The Kerala High Court quashed the nominations made by Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, who is the Chancellor of the Kerala University to the Senate in the category 'Other Members'.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. directed the Chancellor to make fresh nominations in the category of 'Other Members' as per law within six weeks. The Court said: “It is trite that there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions. As stated above, there is an infraction of statutory provisions rendering the nomination bad. Though it is a case of nomination, in the exercise of the statutory power, if the nomination made is contrary to the requirement of the statute or if relevant factors were not considered or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decisions, which no reasonable person would have done, the nominations will have to be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts.”
Kerala High Court Warns Its Officers Of Disciplinary Action On Failure To List Cases As Per Roster
Case Title: Nair Service Society v T K Gopalakrishnan Nair
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 299
The Kerala High Court has held that its officers are duty-bound to ensure that cases are listed before the appropriate bench as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. It stated that officers would face disciplinary action if they posted matters deviating from the roster.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun said, “...the Office is duty bound to list matters before the concerned Judge strictly as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. Any deviation from this direction, thereby causing difficulty to the Hon'ble Judges or Advocates appearing in the matter, will invite disciplinary action against the officials concerned.”
Case Title: Don Paul V State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 300
The Kerala High Court relying upon the Apex Court decision in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) and other decisions stated that preconditions have to be satisfied to seek investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC before a Magistrate.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the Magistrate should be vigilant in accepting applications seeking investigation in cases relating to the fiscal sphere, matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal delay/laches.
Case Title: Jerin Joy v State of Kerala Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 3840 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 301
The Kerala High Court held that a child witness cannot be recalled for cross-examination by the accused to fill the lacuna or omission in their case as per Section 33 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
It is to be noted that Section 33 (5) of the POCSO Act states that a child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen reiterated that the bar under Section 33(5) is not absolute, but it stated that a child witness can be recalled only when it is absolutely necessary to make a just decision on the case.
Centre's Sanction U/S 188 CrPC Required Only When Entirety Of The Offence Is Committed Outside India: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M. Amanulla Khan v Sajeena Vahab and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 302
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Section 188 CrPC, which deals with prosecution of offences committed outside India, is attracted only when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India.
The provision requires prior sanction of the Central government to inquire or try such cases in India.
Single bench of Justice K. Babu held there is no need to get previous sanction from the Central Government when the entirety of the offence did not happen outside India. It followed the 3-bench decision of Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand and observed,
“A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321) held that if the offence was not committed on its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 Cr.P.C. and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. In view of the settled law, the contention of the petitioner relying on Section 188 Cr.P.C. fails.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Nino Mathew, Anu Shanthi v State of Kerala, Nino Mathew v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 303
The Kerala High Court has declined to impose death sentence upon Nino Mathew for the double murder of his accomplice and lover Anu Shanthi's three year old daughter and mother-in-law. The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John converted the death sentence imposed upon Nino Mathew to Life Imprisonment and ordered that he shall not be entitled to remission for a period of 25 years.
The Court dismissed the appeal preferred by Anu Shanthi and confirmed the life sentence imposed upon her by the Sessions Court.
Additional Income Can't Be Treated As Concealed Income: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Shri. Ambady Krishna Menon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 304
The Kerala High Court has held that additional income cannot be treated as concealed income for the purposes of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that a satisfactory explanation has been offered by the assessee, well before the issuance of a notice to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and the admission of additional income made by the assessee has been accepted by the department that that completed the assessment under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. On that basis, the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the differential income has to be seen as accepted by the Revenue for the purposes of the explanation under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.
Other Developments This Week
Case Title: Sathybhama v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl A 733/2024
Today, The Kerala High Court passed an order granting interim protection to Mohiniyattam Performer Kalamandalam Sathyabhama, who was accused of allegedly making casteist remarks against fellow artist Dr. RLV Ramakrishnan.
“The Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions. The petitioner shall not be arrested till the next posting date.” Ordered Justice K Babu while posting the matter to May 27, 2024 (Monday).
Case Title: M R Ajayan v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 18246/2024
M R Ajayan, a freelance journalist has moved the Kerala High Court seeking Investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the President of the United Nurses Association (UNA) who was allegedly involved in hawala deals and swindled crores of money under the pretext of bringing stranded nurses from Middle Eastern Countries, Saudi Arabia to India during the Covid-19 Pandemics.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas sought instructions from the Public Prosecutor and posted the matter on June 13.
The UNA is an organization that represents nurses, advocating for their rights and development. The petitioner alleges that the 5th respondent, the President of the UNA, has collected crores of money for transporting stranded nurses to India. It is alleged that although huge amounts of money were collected, but such expenditures had not been incurred.
Kerala High Court judge Justice Devan Ramachandran, being the Chairperson of the 'Arears Committee' and 'Committee For Making Recommendations For Expeditious Disposal Of Cases Pending In High Court', has sought recommendations from the Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) to expedite the disposal of pending cases.
Justice Ramachandran sought the support and cooperation of the Bar to deal with and resolve the issue of the pendency of cases. The judge assured that the suggestions of KHCAA would be considered and accepted to make the case disposal system efficacious.
Case Title: Janardhana Shenoy K V Kumbakudi Sudhakaran
Case Number: Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 2 OF 2024(S)
State Congress President K Sudhakaran on Monday appeared in person before the Kerala High Court in a criminal contempt case initiated against him for his alleged remarks against the judiciary.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon has directed Sudhakaran to file an affidavit in the matter within four weeks. The case was filed by Advocate Janardhana Shenoy over Sudhakaran's allegedly contemptuous remarks against the judiciary for refusing CBI probe into the murder of Kerala Youth Congress Worker Shuhaib.
Case Title: M/S Kerala Chamber Of Commerce And Industry v Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 3605 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that prima facie, a Resolution Professional appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (IB) Code for carrying the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CRIP) of the Company cannot be hauled up in a criminal proceeding initiated against the Company.
The plea, filed by the first petitioner (Company) and the second petitioner (Resolution Professional of the Company), seeks to quash the complaint insofar it pertains to the Resolution Professional Resolution Professional under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, before the Special Court.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed that the Resolution Professional was not required to appear in person before the Special Court for PMLA cases, until further orders.
Case Title: Treasa K J v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23911 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court has directed the High Powered Committee constituted by the Court to ensure that the Kochi Municipal Corporation takes measures such as clearing the drains using sucker machines to prevent flooding of the city during this monsoon season.
The Court today noted that due to the rains over the past two days, approximately 15 hotspots were identified as being flooded. It thus directed the Kochi Corporation to ensure smooth water flow in the identified hot spots to prevent flooding.
“List this matter, therefore, on 27.05.2024; within which time, the Committee headed by the District Collector, will ensure that the Corporation clears all the drains, with the assistance of the “sucker machine” and such other facilities, and that water flow is smooth in all the hotspots already been identified”, stated Justice Devan Ramachandran
Case Title: Ramesh Chennithala M.L.A. v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 18749/2024
Congress Leader Ramesh Chennithala has moved a plea before the Kerala High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the recent amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Amendment) Act, 2022. The plea seeks to quash the amendments made to section 2,3 and 14 of the Act. The Amendment was passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly and the President gave assent to it on February 09, 2024.
The plea will be heard by the division bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun on May 27, 2024 (Monday).
The plea specifically challenges the amendment made to Sections 2, 3 and 14 of the Act and alleges that the amendment interferes with the administration of justice and is against the separation of powers.
Case Title: M R Ajayan v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 18246/2024
M R Ajayan, a freelance journalist has moved the Kerala High Court seeking Investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the President of the United Nurses Association (UNA) who was allegedly involved in hawala deals and swindled crores of money under the pretext of bringing stranded nurses from Middle Eastern Countries, Saudi Arabia to India during the Covid-19 Pandemics.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas sought instructions from the Public Prosecutor and posted the matter on June 13.