Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 22 - January 28, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 58 – 71]Rajeswari v Omana Amma, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 58Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 59PP Farooque & anr. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 60SJ v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 61E Pradeeep Kumar IFS v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 62Poyil Salim V Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 63Sreejith R v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 64Davood v. State of Kerala & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 65Suresh Kumar @ Sarath Nair v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 66Dr M V Narayanan v Chancellor & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 67Jhonny Alexander Duran Sola v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 68XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 69Coach India v Superintendent of Central Tax And Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 70Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 71Judgments/Orders this weekO.18 R.16 CPC | When Proof Of Will Has To Be Given, Court Must Take Separate & Lenient Consideration To Immediately Examine WitnessCase title: Rajeswari v Omana AmmaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 58The Kerala High Court stated that when proof of will has to be given, the Court has to take a separate and lenient consideration in examining a witness immediately by invoking the jurisdiction under Order 18 Rule 16 of CPC, which provides the power to examine the witness immediately.“….this Court is of the opinion that the petition under Order XVIII, Rule 16 C.P.C, in the context of proof of a 'Will', will have to receive a separate and lenient consideration, in as much as, it is imperative, going by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as also, by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, to examine at least one of the attesting witnesses, in proof of the 'Will'”, Stated Justice C Jayachandran.Allegations Heavy Blow To Culture & Literacy Boasted By 'God's Own Country': Kerala HC Denies Bail To Laila Bhagawal Singh In Human Sacrifice CaseCase title: Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 59The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail application moved by Laila Bhagawal Singh, one of the accused in the Human Sacrifice Case. The case pertains to the abduction, murder, and burial of two women lottery vendors as part of a ritualistic sacrifice by the three accused persons, namely, Muhammed Shafi alias Rasheed, Bhagaval Singh and his wife Laila. Justice Sophy Thomas while dismissing the bail plea stated that the crime has shattered the conscience of the society. It also stated that if the allegations against the accused Laila prove to be true, it would be a blow to the rich cultural heritage and literacy rate of God's Own Country, Kerala.No Palpable Misreading Of Records By Magistrate, Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Equated With Appeal: Kerala High Court Dismisses PleaCase Title: PP Farooque & anr. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 60In an revisional appeal against a previous order, the court dismissed it by stating that “the revisional power of the court is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law...the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction”Justice K Babu stated this in a revision plea by the petitioners/accused who faced charges under Section 13 (criminal misconduct by public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.'No Mens Rea': Kerala HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Headmistress Booked Under SC/ST Act For Cutting Tribal Student's Hair During AssemblyCase title: SJ v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 61In a matter where a headmistress was arrested under SC/ST Act for cutting tribal student's hair, Justice K Babu stated that there was no mens rea established against the appellant-headmistress and that she was only trying to enforce disciplinary control over the victim and at most "exceeded in the corporal punishment". Further, it stated that the alleged acts would not attract offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.He stated that “On an analysis of the facts placed before this Court, I am of the view that the mens rea of the appellant in the commission of the alleged acts is doubtful. At the most, it could be seen that the appellant being a school teacher having disciplinary control over the victim exceeded in the corporal punishment on the victim. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no prima facie material to attract the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.”[S.7 PC Act] Kerala High Court Distinguishes Between Acceptance & Obtainment Of Bribe; Says Proof Of Offer, Acceptance Or Prior Demand Must Be EstablishedCase title: E Pradeeep Kumar IFS v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 62Justice K Babu observed that in case of obtainment under Section 7 of the PC Act, a public servant...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 22 - January 28, 2024

Rubayya Tasneem

Tags