Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 22 To May 28

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 225-237]Petro David v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 225Ratheesh Dasan V. State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 226Shantanu Yadav Rao Hire v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 227Muhammed Abdulla Sha V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 228PNB Housing Finance Ltd. V. State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 229Unni Mukundan V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 230Vaduthala Juma-Ath Educational Trust & Ors. v. Kerala State Waqf Board & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 231Niyasali v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 232T.K.Natarajan V T.K.Raman Achari,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 233Vishnu v. State of Kerala & Anr. and other connected matters, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 234Prema Joy V. John Britto, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 235Nixy James V Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 236Raveendran P.T. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 237Judgments/Orders This WeekMagistrate Exceeded Jurisdiction By Vacating Order For Cross-Examination Merely Because Accused's Counsel Couldn't Appear: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Petro David v. State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 225The Kerala High Court recently set aside the order of a Magistrate Court by which the latter vacated its own order allowing cross-examination of certain witnesses, merely on the ground that the counsel for the accused could not appear on the day the witnesses were examined.Observing that the impugned order issued by JFCM Court at North Paravur was unjustifiable, the Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed:"Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and the materials on record, I am of the definite view that the court below after applying its mind, exercising its discretion and by holding that the injured and the occurrence witnesses have to be examined on the same day, it was unreasonable and unjustifiable on the part of the court below to have vacated the said order for the mere reason that the counsel for the petitioner was absent on the day when the witnesses were examined. This is an addition to the fact the court below had imposed a cost of Rs.4,000/- on the petitioner to meet the expenses of CWs 1 to 4, who were present before the court below and were put to inconvenience".High Court Has Power To Prescribe Conditions For Inter-District Transfers Of Employees In Administrative Side Of Judiciary: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Ratheesh Dasan V. State Of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 226The Kerala High Court recently held that High Court has the power to prescribe conditions for inter district transfers of employees in the administrative side of the judiciary. The Court observed that this power is derived from Article 235 of the Constitution which grants the High Court the power to exercise complete administrative control over the subordinate courts.A single bench of Justice N Nagaresh observed,“The courts are institutions or an organism where all the limbs complete the whole system of courts. When the constitutional provision is of such wide amplitude to cover both the courts and persons belonging to the judicial office, there would be no reason to exclude the other limbs of the courts, namely, administrative functionaries and ministerial staff of its establishment from the scope of control. Such control is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in operation.”Possession Of Live Cartridge Without Corresponding Weapon Not An Offence Under Arms Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shantanu Yadav Rao Hire v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 227The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the presence of a live cartridge alone that had been seized from the bag of a passenger during the security check at the airport without seizure of any corresponding fire-arm would indicate that there was no 'conscious possession' by such passenger, and hence, would not amount to an offence under the Arms Act, 1959.Elucidating Section 25 of the Act that pertains to 'possession of firearm', Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, observed,"Possession of a fire-arm under section 25 of the Act means conscious possession involving a mental element. Mere custody, without any element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession, cannot amount to an offence under the Act. It is settled law that the possession of a fire-arm under the Arms Act must have the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession on the person charged with such offence. Further, even if he has no actual physical possession, if he nonetheless has power or control over the weapon, his possession will amount to a conscious possession, even if the actual possession is with a third party."Bail Bond Cannot Be Cancelled After Transfer Of Case Without Issuing Notice To Accused And Sureties: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Muhammed Abdulla Sha V State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 228The Kerala High Court recently held that when a court transfers a case to another...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 22 To May 28

Sheryl Sebastian

Tags