Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 16 - October 22, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 567-588]Sasikumar V Ushadevi 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 567Sanath Roy v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 568Narayanan v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 569Sathar K.A. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 570Niyas v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 571AT v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 573PKV v AKA 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 574Siju K Bhanu v The District Collector & Maintenance Appellate Tribunal & Connected Case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 575Sabu Johny v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 576Thara Philip v. Federal Bank Ltd. & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 577M/S Punarnava Ayurveda Hospital Pvt Ltd V The Arbitrator For Nh 66 & District Collector 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 577Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 578K.T. Sukumaran v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 579Muhammed Shafeek v. M/S Tasty Nut Industries & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 580S v. D & connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 581Hema Anil v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 582Ayub H.H. v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 583K.R. Mahadevan v. Mattannur Municipality & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 584Dr. Ciza Thomas v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 585Venugopalan v The Managing Partner 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 586New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shymi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 587Jayaprakash A. v. Union Bank of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 588Judgment/Orders this weekS.138 NI Act | Courts Should Grant Compensation To Complainant "Commensurate To Cheque Amount" While Sentencing Accused: Kerala High CourtCase title: Sasikumar V UshadeviCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 567The Kerala High Court held that criminal courts while convicting an accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque should also consider the importance of compensating the complainant.Justice C.S. Dias enhanced the fine imposed upon the accused, so as to provide compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of CrPC. The Court stated that the fine imposed under Section 138 of the Act should be proportional to the cheque amount, and it must not exceed twice the cheque amount.Kerala HC Acquits Hindi Proficient Accused As Disclosure Statement U/S 27 Evidence Act Was Recorded In Malayalam, Translator Not ExaminedCase title: Sanath Roy v State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 568The Kerala High Court has acquitted a Hindi proficient accused, a native of West Bengal who was convicted for robbery and murder, because his disclosure statements were recorded in a language not spoken by him.The Division Bench comprising Justices P.B.Suresh Kumar and P.G.Ajithkumar observed that disclosure statement has to be recorded in the same language spoken by the accused. It was found that the police made the recovery of material objects with the help of a translator who translated the disclosure statement into Malayalam and the translator was not examined as a witness.Couple Living Together Under 'Marriage Agreement' Not Husband-Wife, No Prosecution U/S 498A IPC: Kerala High CourtCase title: Narayanan v State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 569The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man and his family who were convicted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty against a deceased woman on the finding that the parties were living together as husband and wife, based on a marriage agreement and their marriage was not solemnized.Justice Sophy Thomas observed thus: “In the case on hand, since the marriage between the 1st revision petitioner and deceased Chandrika was not solemnised, and they started living together on the basis of a marriage agreement, which has no legal sanctity in the eye of law, they have to be treated as persons in live-in-relation, and they were not husband and wife, in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. So, the trial court as well as the appellate court went wrong in finding the revision petitioners guilty under Section 498A of IPC and sentencing them for that offence.”Kerala High Court Imposes Cost On Revenue Official For Withholding Instructions From Advocate General's Office, Not Complying With Judicial OrderCase Title: Sathar K.A. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 570The Kerala High Court has imposed of fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for the authority's failure to issue appropriate orders even after the lapse of a year, on an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, as had been directed by the Court earlier. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphasized that stern action is warranted in situations where instructions sought for from the office of the Advocate General are not responded to by the officer. It issued strict directions to the RDO to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application within 14 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.Dowry Demand Without Ingredient Of Cruelty Not An ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 16 - October 22, 2023

Tellmy Jolly

Tags