Kerala High Court: Yearly Digest 2021

With 2021 coming to a close, LiveLaw brings to you an annual Round-up of significant updates of the Kerala High Court. Criminal Matters:International Arrest Warrant By Itself Not Sufficient To Extradite A Person To UAE Unless There Is A Written Request[Rakhul Krishnan v. Union of India]Justice N. Nagaresh held that International Arrest Warrant issued by itself will not suffice to arrest an accused and extradite him to UAE. The Court observed that Nationals of Contracting States shall not be extradited unless there is a request made by the State concerned. It was noted that in view of the specific provisions contained in the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates, an International Arrest Warrant by itself will not suffice to arrest an accused and extradite him to UAE. For extradition, a request for extradition in writing dispatched through diplomatic channels was deemed mandatory. 167(2) CrPC- Not Filing Analyst Report Does Not Amount To Incomplete Investigation Unless It Is Solely Relied Upon It[Sameer v. State of Kerala]The Court has held that the investigation cannot be said to be incomplete on sending the requisition to the authority concerned to get the analyst report unless it is a case in which the entire prosecution case relies solely on the analyst report. The question on the completion of investigation arises to decide on the grant of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.Trial Judges Do Not Have Absolute Discretion To Prune Or Reject List Of Witnesses Submitted By Accused[Antony Rosario Fernando v. State Of Kerala]The trial Judges do not have absolute discretion to prune or reject the list of witnesses submitted by the accused, the Bench of Justice VG Arun observed. It held that the trial court is empowered to interfere with only when the court is convinced that the application seeking issuance of summons is submitted for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.Walayar Rape-Death Case: Retrial Ordered Due To 'Faulty Investigation, Unskilled Prosecution, Trial Court's Lack of Involvement'[State of Kerala v. Madhu & Ors.]While ordering re-trial in the Walayar rape-death cases, Justice A Hariprasad and Justice M.R Anitha observed that the flaws in the initial investigation, unskilled prosecution and also the passive involvement of the trial judge led to the acquittal of all accused. The Court noted that the initial part of the investigation in these cases was utterly disgusting and that these flaws destabilized the case. It was also noted that the material witnesses who deviated from their previous statements were not effectively cross-examined.Driving Slow But Recklessly Amounts To Rash & Negligent Driving[Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors]A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar ruled that driving a vehicle in a reckless and negligent manner even if it is done at a low speed, would still amount to 'rash and negligent driving' under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court further observed that a person driving a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result and that it may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently.Gold Smuggling With A Mere Illegal Profit Motive Not A 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA [Muhammed Shafi P v. NIA]While dismissing the appeals filed by the National Investigation Agency(NIA) against an order of the Special NIA Court at Kochi granting bail to ten persons who were accused in the diplomatic channel gold smuggling case, a division bench comprising Justices A Hariprasad and MR Anitha held that mere act of gold smuggling, which is covered under the Customs Act, will not amount to a "terrorist act" under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act unless the same is done with the intention to threaten the economic security of the nation.Registration Of Crime Under Section 102 CrPC Illegal, Its An Enabling Provision To Make Seizure By Police[Akhil C. v. State Of Kerala]A Single Bench of Justice N. Anil Kumar quashed proceedings against a 21 year old man holding that Section 102 of CrPC is not an offence and that registration of crime against the petitioner under this provision is illegal. It observed that registration of crime under Section 102 is not in accordance with the scheme of the Code. Section 102(1) only enables a Police Officer to seize any property which may be 'alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence'.UAPA: Place Of Occurrence Does Not Matter To Determine Sanctioning Authority Under Section 45 [T.I. Madhusoodanan & Ors v. Union of India & Anr]A division bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly held that the place of occurrence will not matter for determining the sanctioning authority under...

Kerala High Court: Yearly Digest 2021

Hannah M Varghese

Tags