40 Supreme Court Civil Law Judgments
Of 2019
Live Law Research Team
28 Dec 2019 4:49 PM
1. Undivided Share In Joint Family Can
Be Disposed By Will As Per Sec.30
Hindu Succession Act
The undivided interest of a Hindu in a
joint family property can be disposed of by
Will as per Section 30 of the Hindu
Succession Act 1956, held the Supreme
Court while dismissing appeals from a
partition suit.
"Section 30 of the Act, permits the
disposition by way of Will of a male Hindu
in a Mitakshara coparcenary
property", observed the bench of Justices
A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi in the
case
(Case :  Radhamma and others v
Muddukrishna and others, Civil Appeal
No. 7092/10, decided on 23.01.2019)
2. Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased
Property To Tenant Would Not
Terminate Landlord-Tenant
Relationship
The Supreme Court observed that mere
agreement to sell the property of the
landlord to the tenant would not result in
termination of landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties unless there is a
stipulation in the agreement itself to that
effect.
(Case : Dr H K Sharma v Shri Ram Lal,
Civil Appeal No.1237-1238/2019, decided
on 28.01.2019)
3. Decree Passed On Plaintiff's Evidence
Without Defendant's Appearance At
Trial Is Ex-Parte Decree
The Supreme Court has held that a decree
passed after taking plaintiff's evidence,
without the appearance of defendant at the
trial stage, is an ex-parte decree, which
could be set aside under Order IX Rule 13
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The bench of Justice A M Sapre and
Dinesh Maheshwari passed the order in the
case , which was an appeal against a High
Court judgment, which set aside a
preliminary decree under Order IX Rule
13 CPC.
(Case : G.Ratna Raj by LRs vs Sri
Muthukumaraswamy Permanent Fund
Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 2582-2583/2019,
decided on 01.02.2019)
4. Second Appeal: Obligatory For HC
To Frame Substantial Question Of Law
Even If Lower Courts' Findings Are
Perverse Per Se
The Supreme Court has observed that it is
obligatory for a High Court, while
considering a Second Appeal, to frame
substantial question of law in second
appeal even if lower courts' findings are
perverse per se.
The bench comprising Justice AM
Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi set
aside a Kerala High Court order, on the
ground that it decided the Second Appeal
without formulating any substantial
question of law.
(Case : Sreedevi & Ors v Sarojam & Ors,
Civil Appeal No.1301/2019, decided on
30.01.2019)
5. Irregularity In Local Commissioner's
Report Not A Ground To Dismiss The
Suit
The Supreme Court has observed that a
civil suit could not be dismissed merely for
some irregularity in the report of the Local
Commissioner appointed for local
investigation.
The issue before the Apex Court in the
appeal filed by plaintiff (Ram Lal vs. Salig
Ram) was whether was justified in setting
aside the decree of First Appellate Court
on the ground that the Local
Commissioner had not carried out
demarcation in accordance with the
applicable instructions?
The bench comprising Justice Abhay
Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh
Maheshwari noted that the Local
Commissioner omitted to scrupulously
follow the applicable instructions for
carrying out such demarcation and
particularly omitted to fix three reference
points on different sides of the land in
question. But the court disapproved the
dismissal of the suit by the High Court and
observed that where the Court is
disssatisfied with the proceedings of such
a Local Commissioner, it could direct such
further inquiry to be made as considered
fit.
(Case :  Ram Lal and others v Salig Ram
and others, Civil Appeal No. 8285/2009,
decided on 04.01.2019)
6. Revenue Record Entries Can Be
Challenged On The Ground That It
Was Made Fraudulently Or
Surreptitiously
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the
entries in the revenue records can be
challenged on the ground that it was made
fraudulently or surreptitiously.
(Case :  Dharam Singh v Prem Singh, Civil
Appeal No. 516/2009, decided on
05.02.2019)
7. Suit In Respect To Properties
Situated In Jurisdiction Of Different
Courts Can Be Instituted In One Of
Those Courts
The Supreme Court has observed that, a
suit in respect to immovable property or
properties situate in jurisdiction of
different courts may be instituted in any
court within whose local limits of
jurisdiction, any portion of the property or
one or more properties may be situated.
The bench comprising Justice Ashok
Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed
that interpretation of word "portion of the
property" in Section 17 CPC cannot only
be understood in a limited and restrictive
sense of being portion of one property
situated in jurisdiction of two courts.
(Case : Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v
Maniklal (D) by LRs, Civil Appeal
1052/2019, decided on 06.02.2016)
8. Section 38 Specific Relief Act:
Plaintiff Has To Prove His Actual
Possession On The Date Of Filing The
Suit
The Supreme Court has observed that in a
suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific
Relief Act, permanent injunction can be
granted only to a person who is in actual
possession of the property on the date of
suit.
(Case : Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v
Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and
another, Civil Appeal No.1509/2019,
decided on 06.02.2019)
9. Liberty Granted By Court To Pursue
Appropriate Remedy Does Not Bar
Application Of Constructive Res
Judicata
The Supreme Court has observed that
liberty granted by court to avail
'appropriate remedies' to a party does not
bar application of principle of constructive
res judicata when he/she invokes such a
remedy.
(Case : Asgar v Mohan Verma, Civil
Appeal No.1500/2019, decided on
05.02.2019)
10. Section 115 CPC: Revision Petition
Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory
Orders
The Supreme Court has reiterated that
revision petitions filed under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure are not
maintainable against interlocutory orders.
We are constrained to observe that every
legal canon has been thrown to the winds,
this is how the bench comprising Justice
Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet
Saran described the impugned judgment in
the appeal which allowed a revision
petition against an interlocutory order.
(Case :  Tek Singh v Shashi Verma and
anr, Civil Appeal No.1416/2019, decided
on 04.02.2019)
11. Sec.43 TP Act - Transfer By
Erroneous Representation Of Title Will
Hold Good If Transferor Acquires Title
Later
Applying the principle of "feeding the
grant by estoppel" under Section 43 of the
Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme
Court granted relief to a party, who was
misled to purchase a property by erroneous
representation of title by the vendor.
(Case :  Tanu Ram Bora v Promod Ch.Das
(D) through LRs and others, Civil Appeal
1575/2019, decided on 08.02.2019)
12. Is Amendment Of Pleadings Allowed
After Commencement Of Trial? SC
Explains
The Supreme Court, in a judgment
delivered on Thursday, explained when
and on what considerations an application
for amendment of pleadings filed after
commencement of Trial, can be allowed.
The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana
and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
observed that, while dealing with such an
application, the courts have to consider
whether it is bona fide or mala fide and
whether it causes such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated
adequately in terms of money.
(Case :  M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma, Civil
Appeal 1669/2019, decided on
14.02.2019)
13. Sale Of Minor's Property By
Guardian Can Be Avoided Only By
Filing Suit To Set Aside Deed Within
Period Under Art.60 Limitation Act
The Supreme Court has held that a sale of
minor's property by guardian can be
avoided only by filing a suit to set aside
the deed within the period of limitation
prescribed under Article 60 of the
Limitation Act, which is three years from
the date of attaining majority by the minor.
In case the minor has died before attaining
majority, as it happened in the case before
the SC, the legal representatives of the
minor should bring the suit within 3 years
from the date on which the minor would
have attained majority.
The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and
K M Joseph was dealing with an appeal by
the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of
title and possession of immovable
property. Notably, the plaintiffs omitted to
seek the prayer for setting aside the sale
deeds, which turned fatal to the case.
(Case : Murugan and others vs Kesava
Gounder (D) through LRs, Civil Appeal
No 1782/2019 , decided on 25.02.2019)
14. When Can Transposition Of
Defendants As Plaintiffs Be Permitted?
SC Answers
The Supreme Court has examined the
scope of Rule 1A of Order XXIII CPC
which deals with power of a court to
permit transposition of defendants as
plaintiff.
The bench comprising Justice Uday
Umesh Lalit and Justice Dinesh
Maheshwari observed that, if the plaintiff
is seeking to withdraw or to abandon his
claim under Rule 1 of Order XXIII and the
defendant seeking transposition is having
an interest in the subject-matter of the suit
and thereby, a substantial question to be
adjudicated against the other defendant,
then the defendants can be transposed as
plaintiffs.
(Case : R Dhanasundari @ R Rajeswari v
A N Umakanth and others, Civil Appeal
No. 7292/2009, decided on 06.03.2019)
15. Plaint Can Be Rejected If Suit Is
Clearly Barred By Limitation
The Supreme Court has observed that a
plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule
11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, if by
considering the averments, it is found that
the suit is clearly barred by law of
limitation.
"Considering the averments in the plaint if
it is found that the suit is clearly barred by
law of limitation, the same can be rejected
in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule
11(d) of the CPC", observed the Court.
(Case : Raghwendra Sharan Singh v Ram
Prasanna Sight (D) through Lrs, Civil
Appeal No.2960/2019, decided on
13.03.2019)
25 Important SC Judgments On
Criminal Law - 2019
16. Preferential Right Of Heirs Under
Section 22 Of Hindu Succession Act
Applicable Also To Agricultural Lands
The Supreme Court has held that the
preferential right given to an heir of a
Hindu under Section 22 of the Hindu
Succession Act is applicable even if the
property in question is an agricultural land.
Section 22 provides that when an interest
in any immovable property of an intestate
devolves upon two or more heirs, and any
one of such heirs proposes to transfer his
or her interest in the property or business,
the other heirs shall have a preferential
right to acquire the interest proposed to be
transferred.
The bench comprising Justice Uday
Umesh Lalit and Justice MR Shah noted
that the matter relating to succession to an
interest in agricultural lands is occupied
only by Section 22 of the Hindu
Succession Act insofar as State of
Himachal Pradesh is concerned. It also
observed that, with the deletion of Section
4(2) of the Act, now there is no exception
to the applicability of Section 22 of the
Act. The Section 4(2), which provided that
provisions of the Act would not apply in
cases inter alia of devolution of tenancy
rights in respect of agricultural holdings,
stands repealed.
(Case : Babu Ram v Santhokh Singh (D)
through LRs, Civil Appeal No. 2553/2019,
decided on 15.03.2019)
17. SC explains the test for
relinquishment of claim under Order II
Rule 2 CPC
The correct test in cases falling under O.II
R.2, is "whether the claim in the new suit
is in fact founded upon a cause of action
distinct from that which was the
foundation for the former suit", explained
the Supreme Court.
(Case :  Pramod Kumar and Anr vs Zalak
Singh and others, Civil Appeal
No.1055/2019, decided on 10.05.2019)
18. Mitakshara Law - Property
Inherited By A Male Will Remain As
Coparcenary Property For Descendants
Upto Three Degrees Below Him
The Supreme Court has held that the rule
under Mitakshara law that whenever a
male ancestor inherits any property from
any of his paternal ancestors upto three
degrees above him, then his male legal
heirs upto three degrees below him would
get an equal right as coparceners in that
property will apply in cases of succession
which opened before Hindu Succession
Act 1956.
Applying this rule, the bench of Justices
Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra
allowed an appeal filed by one Arshnoor
Singh, to set aside the sale deeds executed
by his father Dharam Singh in 1999. As
per the impugned sale deeds, Dharam
Singh alienated joint family property to the
respondent Harpal Kaur, whom he
subsequently married as second wife.
(Case :  Arshnoor Singh v Harpal Kaur
and others, Civil Appeal No. 5124/2019,
decided on 02.07.2019)
19. Hindu Succession - Property
Inherited From Father By Sons
Becomes Joint Family Property In The
Hands Of Sons
The Supreme Court has ruled that property
inherited from father by sons becomes
joint family property in the hands of sons.
The bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar
and Ajay Rastogi rendered the decision.
(Case :  Dodamuniyappa through LRs vs
Muniswamy and others, Civil Appeal
No.7141/2008, decided on 01.07.2019).
20. Father's Self Acquired Property
Given To Son By Will/Gift Retains
Character Of Self Acquired Property
Unless The Deed Intends Otherwise
The Supreme Court has held that as per
Mitakshara Law of Succession, father's
self-acquired property given to son by way
of Will/gift will retain the character of self
acquired property and will not become
ancestral property, unless a contrary
intention is expressed in the testament.
The bench comprising Justices L
Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta was
dealing with an appeal from the High
Court of Gujarat.
(Case :  Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and
ors v Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai, Civil
Appeal No.7528/2019, decided on
25.09.2019)
21. Specific Performance Decree Not To
Be Rescinded Merely Because Plaintiff
Deposited Balance Sale Consideration
After Appeal
The Supreme Court has found fault with
the judgment of a Punjab and Haryana
High Court which had held that a decree
for specific performance to be
inexecutable as the balance sale
consideration was deposited by the
plaintiff after the appeal, beyond the
period fixed by the trial court.
The SC bench of Justices D Y
Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee held that
the trial court's decree had merged with the
appeal court's decree. Hence, there was no
delay on the part of plaintiff in depositing
the balance sale consideration.
(Case : Surinder Pal Soni v Sohan Lal (D)
through LRs, Civil Appeal No.5360/2019,
decided on 23.07.2019)
22. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Plaint
Can Either Be Rejected As A Whole Or
Not At All
Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or
not at all, remarked the Supreme Court
while reiterating that it is not permissible
to reject plaint qua any particular portion
of a plaint including against some of the
defendant(s) and continue the same against
the others.
"If the plaint survives against certain
defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7
Rule 11(d) of CPC will have no
application at all, and the suit as a whole
must then proceed to trial", the bench
observed.
(Case : Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis
Bank, SLP(c) No. 31579/2018, decided on
01.07.2019)
23. Execution Petition Filed Without
Certified Copy Of Decree Maintainable
In an appeal filed before the Supreme
Court, the bench comprising Justice Abhay
Manohar Sapre and Justice and Dinesh
Maheshwari observed that it is not
necessary to file a copy of the decree along
with execution application unless the
Court directs the decree holder to file a
certified copy of the decree.
(Case : Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd
v Shashi Mohan Kapur (D) through LRs,
Civil Appeal No.5534/2019, decided on
15.07.2019)
24. Cross Objection Should Be Disposed
On Merits Notwithstanding Dismissal
Of Appeal
The Supreme Court has observed that
cross has to be disposed of on its merits by
assigning reasons notwithstanding the
dismissal of the appeal.
"Rejection of cross objection without any
discussion and reason cannot be
countenanced", observed the bench.
(Case : Shri Badru (since deceased)
through L R Hari Ram etc vs NTPC, Civil
Appeal No.5557-5559/2019, decided
16.07.2019)
25. Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add
Parties Against Whom He Does Not
Want To Fight
The Supreme Court has reiterated that, in a
suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and
cannot be forced to add parties against
whom he does not want to fight unless
there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
(Case : Gurmit Singh Bhatia v Kiran Kant
Robinson and others, Civil Appeal
No.5522/2019, decided on 17.07.2019)
26. Compromise Decree In
Representative Suit Void If Obtained
Without Leave Of Court And Notice To
Interested Parties
The Supreme Court has observed that a
compromise decree in a representative suit
obtained without the leave of the court and
without issuing notice to the parties
interested would be void.
(Case : Aliyathammuda
Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya vs.
Pattakal Cheriyakoya, Civil Appeal No.
9586/2010, decided on 01.08.2019)
27. Filing Of Cross Objections By
Defendants Not Necessary To Dispute
Adverse Findings In The Dismissed Suit
The Supreme Court has observed that it is
not necessary that defendants should file
cross objections to the appeal against
dismissal of a suit to dispute certain
findings adverse to them in the judgment
appealed against.
(Case : State of Andhra Pradesh and
others v B Ranga Reddy (D) through
LRs,Civil Appeal No. 17486/2017, decided
on 10.08.2019)
28. Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed
Merely On The Ground Of 'Concurrent
Findings'
The Supreme Court has observed that a
High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal
merely on the ground that that there is a
concurrent finding of two Courts (whether
of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and
thus such finding becomes unassailable.
(Case : State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal,
Civil Appeal No. 7363/2000, decided on
14.08.2019)
29. Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint Can
Be Rejected When It Does Not Disclose
Clear Right To Sue
The Supreme Court has observed that a
plaint can be rejected Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, when it is
manifestly vexatious, meritless and
groundless, in the sense that it does not
disclose a clear right to sue.
The bench comprising of Justice Mohan
M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Sanjiv
Khanna also observed that a mere
contemplation or possibility that a right
may be infringed without any legitimate
basis for that right, would not be sufficient
to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of
action.
(Case : Colonel Shrawan Kumar
Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar v
Krishna Nandan Singh and another, Civil
Appeal No. 6760/2019, decided on
07.09.2019)
30. Order IX Rule 9 CPC-Decree
Against Plaintiff By Default Bars Fresh
Suit On Same Cause Of Action By
Successor In Title
The Supreme Court has observed that the
decree against plaintiffs by default bars
fresh suit on the same cause of action by
their successor in title.
The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra
and Justice MR Shah set aside a High
Court order on the ground that in the
previous suit filed by vendors of the
plaintiff; a similar relief was prayed. The
said suit was dismissed under the
provisions of Order IX Rule 8 of the CPC
as the counsel for defendants was present
and counsel for the plaintiffs was absent.
(Case : Mayandi v Pandarachamy and
another, Civil Appeal No. 6424/2019,
decided on 09.09.2019)
31. Executing Court Cannot Travel
Beyond The Order Or Decree Under
Execution
The Supreme Court has reiterated a settled
proposition that an executing court cannot
travel beyond the order or decree under
execution.
(Case : S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (Dead)
through LRs, Civil Appeal No. 7800/2014,
decided on 13.09.2019)
32. Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra)-
Question Of Limitation Cannot Be
Decided As A Preliminary Issue
The Supreme Court has observed that,
under Section 9A of the Code of Civil
Procedure applicable in the state of
Maharashtra, question of limitation cannot
be decided as a preliminary issue.
The bench comprising Justice Arun
Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR
Gavai observed that under the provisions
of Section 9A and Order XIV Rule 2, it is
open to decide preliminary issues if it is
purely a question of law and not a mixed
question of law and fact by recording
evidence.
(Case : Nuslie Neville Wadia vs Ivory
Properties and others, Civil Appeal
No.31982/2013, decided on 06.10.2019)
33. Should Proceedings In New Court
Where 'Returned' Plaint Is Filed Be
Started De Novo? SC Refers To Larger
Bench
Whether after a plaint is returned in terms
of Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 10A, Code
of Civil Procedure (CPC), should the trial
in the Court where the plaint is now filed
start de novo or from such stage at which
the plaint was ordered to be returned? The
Supreme Court has referred this issue to
larger bench.
In M/S EXL Careers vs. Frankfinn
Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd, the bench
comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and
Justice Aniruddha Bose made this
reference after it noticed apparent conflict
between the judgment in Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd.v. Modern
Construction and Joginder Tuli vs. S. L.
Bhatia.
(Case : M/s Exel Careers and another vs
Frankfinn Aviation Services, SLP(c) No.
16893/2018, decided on 08.10.2019)
34. Entirety Of Plaint Averments Have
To Be Taken Into Account While
Considering A Plea Seeking Rejection
Of Plaint
The entirety of the averments in the plaint
have to be taken into account while
considering a plea seeking rejection of
plaint, the Supreme Court has reiterated.
(Case : Shaukathussain Mohammed Patel
v Khatunben Mohmmedbhai Polara, Civil
Appeal No. 8197/2019, decided on
29.10.2019)
35. Specific Relief- Mere Extension Of
Time For Deposit Will Not Absolve
Plaintiff Of Obligation To Prove
Readiness & Willingness
The Supreme Court has held that mere
extension of time for deposit of balance
sale consideration will not absolve the
plaintiff of obligation to prove readiness
and willingness to perform his part in an
agreement for sale.
The grant of extension of time cannot ipso
facto be construed as otherwise
demonstrating readiness and willingness
on part of the plaintiff, observed the bench
comprising Justices Navin Sinha and
Indira Banerjee.
(Case :  Ravi Setia vs Madan Lal and
others, Civil Appeal No. 2837/2011,
decided on 04.10.2019)
36. Section 144 CPC [Restitution] Not
Attracted When There Is No Variation
Or Reversal Of A Decree Or Order
The Supreme Court has observed that the
provisions of Section 144 of the Code of
Civil Procedure will not be attracted when
there is no variation or reversal of a decree
or order .
"The principle of doctrine of restitution is
that on the reversal of a decree, the law
imposes an obligation on the party to the
suit who received the benefit of the decree
to make restitution to the other party for
what he has lost", observed the bench.
(Case : Bansidhar Sharma(Since
Deceased) Vs The State Of Rajasthan,
Civil Appeal No.8400/2019, decided on
05.11.2019)
37. Order VIII Rule 6A CPC: No
Embargo On Filing Counter-Claim
After Filing Written Statement
The Supreme Court has held that a Court
can exercise its discretion and permit the
filing of a counter-claim after the written
statement, till the stage of framing of the
issues of the trial.
The three judge bench headed by Justice
NV Ramana held that Order VIII Rule 6A
of the CPC does not pose an embargo on
filing the counter-claim after filing the
written statement.
(Case : Ashok Kumar Kalra v Wing Cdr
Surendra Agnihotri and others, SLP(c)
23599/2018, decided on 19.11.2019)
38. Mere Error In Framing Substantial
Question Of Law Would Not Render A
Judgment In Second Appeal To Be Set
Aside
The Supreme Court has observed that
mere error in framing a question of law
would not render a judgment in Second
Appeal liable to be set aside, if it is found
that a substantial question of law existed
and such question has in fact been
answered by the High Court.
(Case : Illoh Valappil Ambunhi (D)
through LRs v Kunhambu Karnavan, Civil
Appeal No.1429/2011, decided on
14.10.2019)
39. Succession And Inheritance Of Goan
Domicile Shall Be Governed By
Portuguese Civil Code
The Supreme Court has held that the rights
of succession and inheritance of a Goan
domicile shall be governed by the
Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable
in the State of Goa.
Rights of succession and inheritance even
in respect of properties of a Goan domicile
situated outside Goa, anywhere in India,
will also be governed by the Code, the
bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta
and Justice Aniruddha Bose has held.
"The Portuguese law which may have had
foreign origin became a part of the Indian
laws, and, in sum and substance, is an
Indian law", observed the bench.
(Case : Jose Paulo Coutinho v Maria
Luiza Valentai Pereira and another, Civil
Appeal No. 7378/2010, decided on
13.09.2019)
40. Second Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed
On Merits When Appellant Is
Unrepresented On The Day Fixed For
Hearing
The Supreme Court has observed that a
High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal
on merits where the appellant is
unrepresented on the date fixed for
hearing.
If the appellant does not appear, the Court
may if it deems fit dismiss the appeal for
default of appearance but it does not have
the power to dismiss the appeal on merits,
the bench observed.
(Case : Sri Prabodh Ch.Das and Anr vs
Mahamaya Das and another, Civil Appeal
No. 9407/2019, decided on 14.12.2019)
25 Important SC
Judgments On
Criminal Law -
2019
Ashok Kini
26 Dec 2019 11:12 AM
Magistrate Can Invoke Power U/S
156(3) CrPC even at post-
cognizance stage, SC says 43 Yr
old precedent wrongly decided
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and
others v The State of Gujarat
A three judge bench of the
Supreme Court virtually overruled
a 43 year old precedent and held
that Magistrate can invoke power
under section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure even at
post-cognizance stage. The bench
headed by Justice RF Nariman
held that this judgment was
rendered without adverting to the
definition of "investigation" in
Section 2(h) of the CrPC. It was
observed that the finding in law in
the said judgment that the power
under Section 156(3) CrPC can
only be exercised at the pre-
cognizance stage is erroneous.
Also Read - Nirbhaya Case : SC
Allows Centre To Move Trial
Court For Fresh Death Warrants
Acquittal If IO & Informant Same
Person: Benefit Of 'Mohan Lal'
Judgment Not Available To Cases
Prior To It
Varinder Kumar vs. State
Himachal Pradesh
In an important judgment, the
Supreme Court observed that all
pending criminal prosecutions,
trials and appeals prior to the law
laid down in the judgment in
Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab
(acquittal if investigator-informant
is the same person),
continue to be governed by the
individual facts of the case.
Also Read - [Nirbhaya Case] SC
Hearing On Centre's Plea For
Execution Of Convicts [Live
Updates]
Later, a two judge
expressed its disagreement with
the view taken by a three-judge
bench in Mohan Lal vs. State of
Punjab where it held that that the
accused is entitled to acquittal if
informant and the investigator in
NDPS cases is the same person.
The matter was therefore referred
to larger bench. A Constitution
Bench headed by Justice Arun
Mishra is considering the matter
at present.
498A Case Can Be Filed At A
Place Where A Woman Driven Out
of Of Matrimonial Home Takes
Shelter
Rupali Devi V. State of Uttar
Pradesh
Answering a reference pending for
about seven years, the Supreme
Court held that the courts at the
place where the wife takes shelter
after leaving or driven away from
shall
the matrimonial home on account
of acts of cruelty committed by
the husband or his relatives,
would, dependent on the factual
situation, also have jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint alleging
commission of offences under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal
bench Code
Magistrate Has Power To Direct
An Accused To Give Voice
Samples During Investigation
Without His Consent
Ritesh Sinha v State of U.P.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme
Court held that a judicial
magistrate can direct an accused
to provide his voice samples for
investigation even without his
consent. The three-judges bench
led by the CJI thus settled the
confusion which arose out of the
split verdict in the 2012 verdict by offence under Section 138 of the
a two judges bench. N.I. Act were filed prior to 2018
amendment Act i.e., prior to
Section 143A NI Act On Interim 01.09.2018.
Compensation Has No
Retrospective Application Police Cannot Attach Immovable
Property Under Sec.102 CrPC
GJ Raja vs. TejrajSurana
During Investigation
Settling a confusion in Nevada Properties Private Limited
prosecution of cheque bounce V. State Of Maharashtra And Anr
cases, the Supreme Court held
The Supreme Court held that
that Section 143A of the
police does not have the power to
Negotiable Instruments Act on
attach immovable property during
payment of interim compensation
investigation under Section 102 of
to the complainant during the
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
pendency of the case has no
The judgment was delivered by
retrospective application.
the bench comprising CJI Ranjan
Section 148 Of Negotiable Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and
Instruments Act Has Sanjiv Khanna. However, police
Retrospective Effect does have authority to freeze
moveable properties of the
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.
accused, clarified the bench. The
Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi
Supreme Court held that the
expression 'any property'
In an important judgment, the
appearing in Section 102 of the
Supreme Court held that Section
Code of Criminal Procedure would
148 of the Negotiable Instruments
not include 'immovable property'.
Act as amended, shall be
The bench comprising Chief
applicable in respect of the
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice
appeals against the order of
Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv
conviction and sentence for the
Khanna observed thus while
offence under Section 138 of the
holding that a power of a police
N.I. Act, even in a case where the
officer under Section 102 of the
criminal complaints for the
Criminal Procedure Code to seize
any property, which may be found
under circumstances that create
suspicion of the commission of
any offence, would not include the
power to attach, seize and seal an
immovable property.
SC Upholds Constitutionality Of
Section 23 Of PCPNDT
Complete Contents Of Form 'F'
Mandatory
Federation of Obstetrics
Gynecological Societies of India V.
Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld the
Constitutional Validity of Sections
23(1) and 23(2) of the Pre-
conception and Pre-natal
Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,
1994 . Dismissing a writ petition
filed by Federation of Obstetrics
and Gynecological Societies of
India (FOGSI), the
comprising Justice Arun Mishra
and Justice Vineet Saran observed
that dilution of the provisions of
the Act or the Rules would only
defeat the purpose of the Act to
prevent female foeticide,
relegate the right to life of the girl
child under Article 21 of the
Constitution, to a mere formality.
A Male Between The Age of 18
And 21 Yrs Cannot Be Punished
For Marrying A Female Adult
The Supreme Court held that a
male aged between 18 and 21
years, who contracts into a
Act,
marriage with a female adult,
cannot be punished under Section
9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage
and Act, 2006.
Victim Has Right To Assist The
Court In A Trial Before The
Magistrate
Amir Hamza Shaikh vs. State of
Maharashtra
The Supreme Court observed that,
though the Magistrate is not
bound to grant permission to a
victim to conduct prosecution at
the mere asking but the victim has
bench
a right to assist the Court in a trial
before the Magistrate. The bench
comprising of Justice L.
Nageswara Rao and Justice
Hemant Gupta observed that if the
magistrate is satisfied that the
and
victim is in a position to assist the
Court and the trial does not
involve such complexities which
cannot be handled by the victim, State of Telangana vs. Sri
he/she would be within its Managipet @ Mangipet
jurisdiction to grant of permission Sarveshwar Reddy
to the victim to take over the
inquiry of the pendency before the The Supreme Court observed that
Magistrate. a preliminary inquiry before
registration of First Information
Section 207 CrPC: Magistrate Report (FIR) is not required to be
Cannot Withhold Any Document mandatorily conducted in all
Submitted Along With Police corruption cases. It said that the
Report Except When It Is judgment in Lalita Kumari  does
Voluminous not state that proceedings cannot
be initiated against an accused
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep vs.
without conducting a preliminary
State of Kerala.
inquiry
The Supreme Court observed
COFEPOSA: Detention Order Can
that a Magistrate cannot withhold
Be Passed Even If A Person Is In
any "document" submitted by the
Judicial Custody
investigating officer along with the
police report except when it is Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok
voluminous. Further, in case of Jalan
voluminous documents, the
accused can be permitted to take The Supreme Court observed
inspection of the concerned that even if a person is in judicial
document either personally or custody, he can be detained
through his pleader in Court, the Detention Laws like COFEPOSA.
bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar The Court further noted that the
and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. detenus were granted bail by the
Court on the very date the orders
Preliminary Inquiry Not Required of detention were quashed by the
To Be Mandatorily Conducted In High Court. Therefore, the
All Corruption Cases apprehension in the mind of the
Detaining Authority that the
detenus are likely to be released
on bail was well founded and
fortified, said the bench while
setting aside the High Court order.
Wife Divorced By Husband On
Ground Of Desertion Entitled To
Maintenance
Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs.
State of WB
The Supreme Court observed
that a wife, who has been divorced
by the husband, on the ground that
the wife has deserted him, is
entitled to claim maintenance
under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The bench
comprising Justice Deepak Gupta
and Justice Aniruddha Bose,
refusing the plea to refer this issue
to a larger bench, observed that
this view has been consistently
taken by the Supreme Court and is
in line with both the letter and
spirit of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
Road Traffic Offences Can Be
Prosecuted Under Both IPC &
Motor Vehicles Act
The State Of Arunachal Pradesh
Vs. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan
Rabidas & Anr.
The Supreme Court observed
that road traffic offences can be
prosecuted under Motor Vehicles
Act as well as Indian Penal Code.
The bench comprising Justice
Indu Malhotra and Justice Khanna
observed thus while setting aside
the direction issued by the Gauhati
High Court to States of Assam,
Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur,
Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal
Pradesh that road traffic offences
shall be dealt with only under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act and not under the provisions
of Indian Penal Code.
Accused Charged With Food
Adulteration Cannot Be Acquitted
Merely Because Deficiency Was
Marginal
Raj Kumar vs. State of UP
The Supreme Court observed
that if the standards prescribed
under Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, are not complied
with, the accused charged with
adulteration cannot be acquitted
only on the ground that the
deficiency is marginal.
TADA Offences- FIR Cannot Be benefit can be extended so as to
Registered Without Sanction Of invalidate the effect of recovery
Competent Authority from the search of the vehicle.
The bench comprising Justice
Ebha Arjun Jadeja vs. State Of
Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu
Gujarat
Malhotra and Justice Krishna
The Supreme Court held that an Murari observed that the mandate
FIR with respect to commission of of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is
an offence under Terrorist and confined to "personal search" and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) not to search of a vehicle or a
Act cannot be recorded by the container or premises.
police under Section 154 CrPC
Post Conviction Mental Illness Is
without sanction of the competent
A Mitigating Factor To Commute
authority. The bar under Section
Death Sentence
20-A(1) of TADA Act applies to
information recorded under Accused X vs. State of
Section 154 of CrPC, the bench Maharashtra
comprising Justice Deepak Gupta
and Justice Aniruddha Bose held The Supreme Court held that post
while discharging an accused. conviction mental illness will be a
mitigating factor while considering
NDPS: Non-Compliance Of appeals of death convicts. The
Section 50 During 'Personal bench comprising Justice NV
Search' Cannot Invalidate Ramana, Justice Mohan M.
Recovery From Vehicle Shantanagoudar and Justice
Indira Banerjee commuted death
State Of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh
penalty of a person convicted of
The Supreme Court observed rape and murder of two minor
that merely because there was girls.
non-compliance of Section 50 of
Only Lawyers With Minimum 10
the Narcotic and Drugs and
Yrs Practice Shall Be Considered
Psychotropic Substances Act as
For Representing Accused In Trial
far as "personal search" of the
accused was concerned, no
Of Offences Punishable With seven days' time may normally be
Death Or Life Term considered to be appropriate and
Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya adequate.
Pradesh
iv) Any learned counsel, who is
The Supreme Court issued appointed as Amicus Curiae on
guidelines in the matter of behalf of the accused must
appointment of amicus curiae to normally be granted to have
defend the accused in serious meetings and discussion with the
criminal cases. concerned accused.

i) In all cases where there is a
possibility of life sentence or
death sentence, learned
Advocates who have put
minimum of 10 years practice at
the Bar alone be considered to be
appointed as Amicus Curiae or
through legal services to represent
an accused.
ii) In all matters dealt with by the
High Court concerning
confirmation of death sentence,
Senior Advocates of the Court
must first be considered to be
appointed as Amicus Curiae.
iii) Whenever any learned counsel
is appointed as Amicus Curiae,
some reasonable time may be
provided to enable the counsel to
prepare the matter. There cannot
be any hard and fast rule in that
behalf. However, a minimum of
Section 362 CrPC Does Not Bar
Inherent Power Of High Court To
Recall An Order
in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Krishna Kumar Pandey
The Supreme Court has observed
that the High Court has inherent
power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to
recall an order and the provisions
of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not
bar it from exercise of such
powers.
Right To Get Sample Tested Also
Available To Vendor Of
Misbranded Food Article When Its
Testing Is Integral To Prove The
Offence:
M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court observed that, prosecuted under Section 48 of
where examination of the the Act, 1974
contents/ingredients of the food
article is integral to proving the Private Counsel Engaged By
offence 'misbranding', the Victim To Assist Public
procedure prescribed under Prosecutor Cannot Make Oral
Sections 11-13 of the Prevention Argument/Cross Examine
of Food Adulteration Act has to be Witnesses
complied with, regardless of Rekha Murarka vs. State of West
whether 'adulteration' is alleged or Bengal
not.
The Supreme Court observed that,
Body Corporates Like City though a victim can engage a
Municipal Council/Corporation private counsel to assist the
Can Be Prosecuted U/s 47 Water prosecution, such counsel could
(Prevention and Control of not be given the right to make oral
Pollution) Act arguments or examine and cross-
Karnataka State Pollution Control examine witnesses. The bench of
Board vs. B. Heera Naik Justice Mohan M.
Shanthanagoudar and Justice
The Supreme Court observed that Deepak Gupta observed thus while
Body Corporate like City Municipal upholding the Calcutta High Court
Council and Corporation can be judgment dismissing the
prosecuted under Section 47 of application made by a victim in a
the Water (Prevention and Control criminal case seeking permission
of Pollution) Act, 1974. In this for her counsel to cross-examine
case, the Karnataka High Court witnesses after the Public
had quashed the complaint filed Prosecutor.
by Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board on the ground that SC Allows Centre's Review
Commissioner of Municipal Against Dilution Of SC/ST Act
Council, Chief Officer or Council [Read Judgment]
cannot be termed as Head of the Union of India vs. State of
Department and they cannot be Maharashtra
A three judge bench of the
Supreme Court consisting of
Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah
and B R Gavai allowed Centre's
petition seeking review of its
March 20, 2018 judgement which
had virtually diluted provisions of
arrest under the SC/ST Act. The
March 20 judgment had held that
arrest of a public servant under
SC/ST Act should be after
approval of the appointing
authority and of a non-public
servant after approval of the SSP
and that a preliminary enquiry
must be held by the DSP to see
whether the allegations make out
a case under SC/ST Act.
1. Death penalty awarded to man
40 Important accused of rape and murder.
Kerala HC
Judgments Of 2019 The Kerala High Court commuted

death sentence awarded to a man

Arabhi Anandan
accused of rape and murder of a

27 Dec 2019 1:02 PM 15-year-old. The division bench

comprising of Justices AM

Shaffique and P

Somarajan affirmed the conviction

recorded by the trial court. The account between 22.3.2012 and

court said instead of death 26.03.2012 through the ATMs at

penalty, the punishment of life different places in Brazil. He filed

imprisonment would meet the a suit against the bank seeking

ends of justice. But taking into refund of the amount along with

account the gravity of the offence, interest.

the bench ordered that no

Though the bank said that it had
remission shall be granted to the
no liability in connection with the
accused for a period of 25 years.
unauthorised transactions as the

(Case : Rajesh Kumar v. State of customer did not respond to the

Kerala, Crl. A. No. 88 of 2014, SMS alerts it had sent to him.

judgement dated 8 January 2019)

Justice PB Suresh Kumar, Kerala

2. Banks liable for unauthorised High Court said that a bank cannot

withdrawals even if customers did be exonerated from liability for the

not respond to SMS Alerts. loss caused to its customers on

account of the unauthorised

The case filed by the plaintiff was
withdrawals made from his
that a total sum of Rs. 2,40,910.36
account merely on the ground that
was withdrawn from his SBI NRE
the customer has not responded
promptly to the SMS alerts given In 2011, the Government of Kerala

by the bank. invoking his powers under Article

161 of the Constitution of India

(Case : State Bank of India v. PV
had ordered premature release of
George, RSA No. 1087 of 2018,
209 Prisoners who completed 10
judgement dated 9 January 2019)
years imprisonment and above.

3. Kerala HC quashes government

Many writ petitions were filed

order that allowed premature

challenging this move by the state

release of 209 prisoners.

government.

The full bench of the High Court

The court directed that the

comprising Chief Justice
proposal for premature release of

Hrishikesh Roy and Justices

209 Prisoners shall be examined

Abraham Mathew and

afresh within a period of 6 months

Jayasankaran Nambiar, quashed

from then.

the 2011 state government order

"We make it clear that if no
which directed premature release
decision is taken by the
of 209 prisoners who had then
functionaries under article 161
completed 10 years or more in jail.
within the said period of six

months, it will be deemed that

there is no exercise of power under without certification under Section

article 161 in favour of prisoners 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence

concerned and steps shall be Act. The Division Bench

taken to re incarcerate such of Justices C K Abdul Rehim and

prisoners for serving out the N Anilkumar held so based

remainder of their sentence.", the on Section 14 of the Family

court added. Courts Act, which relaxes

application of Indian Evidence Act

(Case No : WP(C) No. 14628 of
to proceedings in Family Court.
2011, judgement dated 11 January

2019) The court added, " the purported

voice of respondent extracted in

4. Compact Disc (CD) admissible
the CD in our opinion has to be
in evidence in family court even
proved in the same manner as a
without section 65B(4)
tape recorded conversation. The
certification.
petitioner can succeed in proving

The single bench of the High Court

the alleged riotous dialogue in the

held that a compact disc(CD) is

CD only when the identity of the

admissible in evidence in
speaker is also proved"

proceedings in Family Court even

(Case : Pramod EK v. Louna VC, cannot be prevented, or stalled but

OP(FC) No. 513 of 2018, for imposing reasonable

judgement dated 14 January restrictions to the requisite extent,

2019) we find it appropriate to permit the

petitioner to have the 'darsan' at

5. A person's right as a devotee
Sabarimala on the basis of the
cannot be stopped citing his
assurance and undertaking given
criminal background.
by the learned counsel that the

The petitioner had approached the

petitioner will not get involved in

High Court claiming that he has

any offence punishable under any

been visiting the Sabarimala

provisions of law, nor will he cause

Temple for the past 15 years and

any act of threatening or

that he is being denied entry for

intimidating anybody; whether it be

'darsan' at Sabarimala citing his

the traders or others."

criminal background. The Kerala

(Case : Rameshan v. State of
High Court bench
Kerala, WP(C) 1004 of 2019,
comprising Justices P R
judgement dated 16 January
Ramachandra Menon and N. Anil
2019)
Kumar said, "In so far as the

petitioner's right as a devotee

6. No sales tax can be levied on implants and consumables from

medicines, implants, surgical the definition of sale of goods.

tools used in medical procedures. The reigning factor, it said, was

the fact that "it is an integral,

The full bench of the Kerala High
indivisible part of the composite
Court, Justices K. Vinod
transaction rendering medical
Chandran, A. Muhamed Mustaque
treatment and care, which is a
and Ashok Menon ruled that
service rendered".
medicines, implants and other

materials used during procedures (Case : Sanjose Parish Hospital v.

at hospitals do not constitute sale The Commercial Tax Officer, W.A

of goods and hence sales tax No. 1896 of 2012, judgement

cannot be levied. The court added, dated 18 January 2019)

sale of drugs, implants and other

7. LMV licence holder can drive
consumables form a part of the
transport vehicle having a gross
service rendered by the hospitals.
weight below 7500 kgs.

The court opined that it is not the

The single judge of the High
absence of a contract between the
Court Justice K Surendra
hospital and patient that takes
Mohan held, a person holding a
away the administration of drugs,
license to drive light motor by this condition, the petitioners

vehicle(LMV) can drive transport approached the High Court.

vehicle which has less than 7500

The court held, " a transport
kilograms as its gross weight,
vehicle and omnibus, the gross
without any special authorisation.
vehicle weight of either of which

In this case the petitioners before does not exceed 7,500 kg would be

the High Court were all holders of a light motor vehicle and also

LMV driving licenses. They wanted motor car or tractor or a road

to have endorsements in their roller, 'unladen weight' of which

driving licences authorising them does not exceed 7,500 kg and

to drive transport vehicles. holder of a driving licence to drive

However, the RTO authorities class of "light motor vehicle" as

refused to issue them provided in section 10(2)(d) is

authorisation on the grounds that competent to drive a transport

they have not passed 8th vehicle or omnibus, the gross

standard. As per Motor Vehicle vehicle weight of which does not

Rules, pass in 8th standard is a exceed 7,500 kg or a motor car or

condition for having a license to tractor or road-roller, the "unladen

drive transport vehicles. Aggrieved weight" of which does not exceed

7,500 kg. That is to say, no 8. Violation of mandatory

separate endorsement on the formalities under NDPS Act a

licence is required to drive a 'reasonable ground, to grant bail.

transport vehicle of 60 light motor

The Court was dealing with the
vehicle class as enumerated
regular bail application of two
above.
persons, who were accused of

Applying this dictum, the HC offences under Sections 22(c),

allowed the writ petitions, 8(c), 20(b)(ii)A and 29 of NDPS

"declaring that the petitioners are Act for possessing one cover each

all entitled to drive transport of ganja and charas, and 23 LSD

vehicles also, provided the gross stamps.

vehicle weight does not exceed

The single bench of High
7500 kg"
Court Justice Raja

(Case : Noorumon v. The RTO, Vijayaraghavan held that violation

WP(C) No. 9392 of 2012, of mandatory formalities under

judgement dated 28 January the NDPS Act, including the search

2012) procedure under Section 50 of the

Act, constitute "reasonable

grounds" under Section 37(1)(b) such offence, is not recording of a

(ii) to grant bail. finding that the accused is not

guilty within the meaning of

While allowing the bail application
Section 235 of the Cr.P.C"
the court observed, "when the

inbuilt safeguards are violated with (Case : Basanth Balram v. State of

impunity and when the mandatory Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 8553 of

formalities are breached, it would 2018, judgement dated 1 February

result in travesty of justice to leave 2019)

the question of their compliance to

9. Complaint not maintainable
be looked into only at the stage of
against trustee for dishonor of
trial. I am of the view that it would
cheque under section 138 of NI
result in failure of justice to force
Act.
the applicants to be in custody till

The single bench of the High

the trial is complete. The court's

Court, Justice B Sudheendra
satisfaction within the meaning of

Kumar, held that no prosecution is

sub-section 1(b)(ii) of Section 37

possible against a trust and its

of the NDPS Act that there are

trustees for dishonour of cheque

reasonable grounds for believing

invoking section 141 of the

that the accused is not guilty of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. of 'company' under section 141 of

Section 141 deals with the liability the NI Act. Therefore, the Court

of companies in case of dishonour held that no prosecution is

of cheques. possible against the petitioner

trust and trustees invoking section

As per the facts of the case, the
141 and quashed the complaint
petitioners, who were the trustees
invoking powers under section
of a trust along with the trust,
482 of CrPC.
were arraigned as the accused

persons in a complaint filed by a (Case : Crl. M. C. No. 3799, 3801,

person before the Magistrate 3804, 3827, 3832, 3843, 3844,

Court for an offence under Section 3847, 3852 of 2018, order dated 6

138 of the NI Act. The petitioners February 2018)

approached the High Court

10. Grievance redressal
seeking to quash the complaint
mechanism for kerala floods;
filed against them.
permanent lok adalat shall be

The Court concluded that a trust is treated as Second Appellate

not a body corporate or Authority.

association or individuals and that

it does not fall within the meaning

The division bench redressing grievances. The court

comprising Chief Justice issued this direction after it found

Hrishikesh Roy and Justice AK that the two tier Grievance

Jayasankaran Nambiar directed Redressal Mechanism conceived

that Permanent Lok Adalat in the by the State does not culminate in

state shall be treated as the final an appellate proceeding before an

level appellate authority in the independent authority wielding

Grievance Redressal Mechanism judicial powers. Therefore, the

put in place by the state, for court directed that the state

persons affected by should notify the services

flood/landslides, in relation to the provided in connection with relief

benefits announced for them rehabilitation measures to

through the various Government flood/landslide victims as a Public

orders. Utility Service. But considering the

delay that might occur to bring

The court said that the Permanent
such notification, the bench had
Lok Adalat shall function as
issued the above directions.
second appellate authority, in the

hierarchy of authorities The state government had

constituted for the purposes of constituted the first level authority

comprising of Additional District educational officers under the

Magistrate/Deputy Collector. Kerala Education Act and Rules

Second Level Authority consists of made thereunder have no

District Collector, who is also the disciplinary control over teachers

Chairman of District Disaster in the schools affiliated to CBSE.

Management Authority.
The bench observed that such

(Case:WP(C)Nos.28093,28198,28 educational officers have no

496,29127,29146,29427,30251,30 jurisdiction to order reinstatement

810,32487,37931 & 40859 OF in service of teachers in the

2018, order dated 14 February school affiliated to CBSE and the

2019) management is not obliged to

honour the same.

11. Educational officers have no

disciplinary control over teachers A school affiliated to CBSE neither

in CBSE schools. gets any aid from the State

Government nor does it require

The division bench
any recognition from the State
comprising Justices
Government for it to be termed as
Chitambaresh and Narayana
'private' or 'recognised'. Only a No
Pisharadi, held that the
Objection Certificate is required to
be issued by the State Justice A Muhamed Mustaque,

Government for permission to struck down the Rules of girls'

affiliate such school to CBSE as hostel attached to Sree Kerala

per the executive orders issued by Varma College noting that there is

the State Government, the court no such restriction in the boys'

noted. hostel. The court added the

college can fix timing for return in

(Case No. WP(C)Nos. 17398 &
the evening but the same should
21369 of 2017, order dated 21
also be reasonably fixed.
February 2019)

The court said " A girl is having

12. Girls have equal freedom as
equal freedom similar to a boy."
boys. The Kerala High Court

strikes down discriminatory girls' (Case : Anjitha K Jose & Anr. v.

hostel rules. State of Kerala, WP No. 14319 of

2018 judgement dated 21

The case was regarding the
February 2019)
striking down of a stipulation in

Hostel Rules which barred girls 13. Auction sale cannot be held 3

boarders from going for the first Years after the end of financial

and second show movies.

year in which recovery certificate 68B of Second Schedule of the

was issued by DRT. Income Tax Act,1961.

The division bench of Chief (Case : Ratheesh M.N v. The Debt

Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Recovery Tribunal, WP(C) No.

Justice AK Jayasankaran, set 30651 of 2017, judgement dated

aside an auction sale held for 19 February 2019)

recovery of arrears due to a bank

14. Mere possession of sexually
on the ground that it was done
explicit photos without circulation
beyond the period of three years
not a crime under Indecent
from the end of financial year in
Representation of Women
which recovery certificate was
(Prohibition) Act.
issued by the Debts Recovery

The single judge bench of the

Tribunal(DRT).

Kerala High Court, Justice Raja

The court held so, on the basis
Vijayaraghavanquashed criminal
of Section 29 of the Recovery of
proceedings against two persons
Debts Due to Banks and Financial
in his order by saying that the
Institutions
mere possession of sexually
Act,1993(RDDBFI) read with Rule
explicit photos in private custody
without circulation or publication The full bench of the High Court

will not amount to a crime under comprising of Justices K Harilal,

Indecent Representation of A Muhamed Mustaque and Annie

Women (Prohibition) Act 1986. John, held that an agreement of

sale executed by a party to lis

The court added that the
during the pendency of suit will be
prosecution had no case that
hit by the doctrine of lis pendens
petitioners had advertised or
under section 52 of the Transfer
circulated the private pictures
of Property Act.
found in caeras which were in

their possession. The reference arose when a

division bench doubted the

(Case : Smitha v. State of
correctness of an earlier division
Kerala, Crl.MC Nos. 4504/2018 &
bench decision in Wellingdon B
6637/2018, order dated 26
and others v D Shyama Prasad
February 2019)
and others 2014(3) KHC

15. Sale agreement executed

560 which had held that such an

during pendency of suit hit by 'lis

agreement of sale will not be hit

pendens'.
by Section 52, on the reasoning

that sale agreement by itself did

not create any right, title or 16. Tenant cannot question

interest in the property. choice of landlord to live in a 'hut

like structure'.
The Court endorsed the view

expressed by the view expressed The division bench

in Kubra Bibi v Khudaija Bibi AIR comprising Justices K Harilal and

1917 Oudh 193 that creation of a N Nagaresh observed that a

contract capable of specific tenant cannot question the choice

performance, though not an of a landlord to live in a 'hut like

alienation by itself, is a mode of structure'.

dealing with property, pregnant

The court said, if the desire of the
with the mischief, which Section
landlords to live in a particular
52 seeks to obviate. The Court
area of their choice is found
also held the decision
genuine, it has to be respected.
in Wellingdon B to be not good
The High Court bench was
law.
considering the contention taken

(Case : V.T. Vijayan v. U. in the revision petition filed by the

Kuttappan Nair, RFA No. 657 of tenant (challenging concurrent

2015, judgement dated 1 March eviction order) that the building is

2019) a hut like structure and that the

landlord could not reside in such a Islamic Movement India (SIMI) in

structure. 2006.

(Case : AP Sreedhari Sivaraj v. The court noted that SIMI was

Arjun Radhakrishnan, RCRev. No. included in the schedule of

397 of 2013, judgement dated 18 unlawful organizations under

March 2019) UAPA from February 2013 and

further the court also noted

17. Mere statement against
that, "If any person is holding any
government or military no
publication, pamphlets or leaflets,
sedition.
which are published or printed

The division bench of the Kerala

prior to the effective day, such

High Court, Justices AM
persons cannot be treated as

Shaffique and Ashokacquitted all

person continuing to be members

five persons who were convicted

of SIMI. "

by the Special Court of National

(Case : P.A. Shaduly & Ors. v.
Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2016
State, Crl. Appeal No. 12/16 &
for allegedly organizing a meeting
conn. cases, judgement dated 12
of the banned party Students
April 2019)
18. The burden of proof lies on and under normal circumstances,

the insurer to prove that there is no reason for a person

cancellation of policy has been who issues a cheque for the said

intimated to the vehicle owner. amount, that too, for obtaining a

policy of insurance for his vehicle,

The single bench of the Kerala
to cause the same to be
High Court Justice PB Suresh
dishonoured. As such, the
Kumar set aside the award of a
possibility of the owner not being
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
aware of the bouncing of the
which had exonerated the insurer
cheque issued to the insurer for
from liability in a motor accident
the said purpose cannot be ruled
claim.
out".

The court held that the insurer

(Case : Smt. Prasanna v. Kabeer
could not discharge the burden
P.K and Ors., MACA No. 2017 of
that it had intimated the
2013 judgement, dated 21 May
cancellation of policy to the
2019)
owner. The court further

observed, "At the outset, it has to 19. Compelling students who do

be noted that the premium of the not want to continue in a

policy was only about Rs.1000/-

particular college, will only affect account of the nonpayment of

their future and career. salary and teaching and non-

teaching staff were on continuous

The single bench of the High
strike for 3 months and that the
Court, Justice PV Asha, held that
teaching faculties were not
compelling the students who do
qualified for teaching Engineering
not want to continue in a college
students.
will only affect the future and

career of the students. The court rejected the argument

of the respondent college that the

The petition was from engineering
mass transfer of students would
students, who were aggrieved by
affect the running of the
the refusal on the part of the
respondent-College and directed
Principal to recommend their
the Principal of the College to
application for inter-college
recommend the applications of
transfer to other Self Financing
the petitioners for inter-college
Colleges. The petitioners had
transfer within three days of the
submitted that the college
judgment so as to enable the
miserably failed to provide the
students to process the same in
amenities; most of the teaching
accordance with the same.
staff resigned from the college on
(Case : Jisin Jijo v. APJ Technical Section 405 IPC. and the subject

University of Kerala, WP(C) No. matter of the offence is an

14156 of 2019, judgement dated immovable property. One of the

31 May 2019) issues raised in the petition filed

under Section 482 CrPC before the

20. Immovable property can be
High Court was whether
subject matter of offence of
immovable property can be the
criminal breach of trust under
subject matter of an offence of
section 405 IPC.
criminal breach of trust which is

The single bench of the High

defined under Section 405 IPC.

Court, Justice R. Narayana
Referring to the IPC provisions, the
Pisharadi held, immovable
court observed that the operation
property can be the subject matter
of section 405 is not restricted to
of commission of an offence of
'movable property.'
criminal breach of trust which is

defined under section 405 IPC. (Case : Damodara Panicker v.

State of Kerala, Crl.MC.No.2255 of

In this case one of the offences
2013, judgement dated 6 June
alleged against the accused is
2019)
criminal breach of trust i.e. under
21.Removal from voters list officer to hear a person before

without hearing the person is removing his name from the list.

arbitrary and illegal.

(Case : A Subair v. Chief Election

The single bench held by Justice Commissioner of Kerala, WP(C)

Shaji P Chaly, Kerala High Court No. 13684 of 2019, judgement

held that a person should be given dated 10 June 2019)

reasonable opportunity of hearing

22. Kerala HC tells Government to
before removing his name from
consider writing off loan taken for
voters list.
treating Endosulfan Victim.

The petition was filed on

The single bench of the High
challenging the removal of the
Court Justice Devan
petitioner's name from the voters
Ramachandran urged the
list in a general election. Even
Government of Kerala to consider
though the Election commission
writing off a loan availed to treat
stated that the petitioner had not
an endosulfan victim. The father
raised any objections to the draft
of the victim had availed a
voter list published, the court said
personal loan to treat his son, who
that it casts a duty on the electoral
was an endosulfan victim. The
treatment however did not bore registered a writ petition to ensure

fruitful results and the victim that the Kerala State Electricity

passed away in the meanwhile. Board comes up with "concrete

proposals" for preventing such

The court held prima facie that the
mishaps in future.
petitioner further cannot be

troubled with the payment against Based on media reports of the

a loan availed to treat his son, a incident, Justice Devan

victim of endosulfan, which Ramachandran directed the High

unfortunately went in vain. court registry to register a suo

moto writ petition arraying the

(Case No. WP(C) No. 23398 of
State of Kerala represented by
2018, order dated 12 June 2019)
Chief Secretary and the State

23. Kerala HC initiates suo moto

Electricity Board as essential

proceedings over snapped power

respondents to the case. The

line claiming two lives.

court further ordered that the

The High Court of Kerala took suo paper reports of the incident be

moto notice of the tragic death of appended to the writ petition and

two persons due to electrocution be placed before the Chief Justice

from a broken power line and

for appropriate orders / further The single bench of the High

consideration in this context. Court Justice Devan

Ramachandran observed that
The court further made it clear
State Information Commission is
that though it did not contemplate
expected to be autonomous and
to cause any investigation to the
resistant to any pressure from the
incident or to the events that led
Executive.
to the horrific accident, it wanted

the State electricity board to come In this case, the petitioner who is

up with concrete proposals to an information activist, had

ensure such mishaps do not occur preferred an application to the

in future. Government under Right to

Information Act.The information

The Court said that the proceeding
pertained to certain data on inter
was "vital and pertinent" as the
state matters.The Government
state was facing monsoons.
issued an order stating that such

24. Information commission is

information cannot be disclosed

expected to be autonomous and

citing 'state interests'.

resistant to any pressure from the

Terming the said order as
executive under RTI.
'disquieting' and affront to the
provisions of R.T.I Act, the court of the R.T.I Act alone, de hors the

deprecated the practice and aforementioned Government

attempt of Government to dictate order.

terms on the types of information

(Case : Adv. D.B. Binu v. The State
that could be dispensed to the
Public Information Officer, WP(C)
public.
No. 11202 of 2019, judgement

The court made it abundantly dated 25 June 2019)

clear that the Officials considering

25. 'Demo cars' kept by dealers
the application under R.T.I Act
need to be registered.
should consider them without

The single bench of the High Court

being influenced or trampled by

of Kerala, Justice Anil Narendran,

the contents of the

held that demo cars which are

aforementioned Government

kept by dealers to demonstrate a

order.The court also directed that

vehicle model to a prospective

the Public Information

buyer, require registration under

officers,appellate authorities, and

the Motor Vehicles Act.

State Information Commission to

consider such applications strictly The petition was filed by Kerala

in accordance with the provisions Automobile Dealers Association

and Rajasree Motors against a Rules.", the Court added while

directive issued by the Transport dismissing the writ petition."

Commissioner to the Road

(Case : Kerala Automobile Dealers
Transport Officers to take steps to
Association & Anr. v. State of
ensure that demo cars kept by the
Kerala, WP(C) No. 32847 of 2019,
dealers were registered.
judgement dated 2 July 2019)

The court added, " A 'demo vehicle'

26. Rs. 1 lakh compensation to
purchased by an automobile dealer
man who was illegally detained on
at a special cash discount or
suspicion of being a 'maoist'.
otherwise, which is not intended

The division bench of the Kerala

for sale to the customer, cannot be

High Court, Chief Justice

included in the stock list, in order

Hrishikesh Roy and Justice AK

to make it appear that it is a

Jayashankaran Nambiar,
vehicle bonafide in possession of

dismissed the appeal filed by the

that dealer, in the course of his

Kerala Government against the

business, which can be driven in

2015 judgement of the single

any public place or any other place

bench which had ordered Rupees

under the authorisation of a trade

1 lakh compensation to man who

certificate granted under the CMV
was illegally detained on suspicion personal liberty and right to

of being a maoist. The court privacy under Article 21 of the

said, "we have no hesitation in Constitution.

holding that, in view of the primacy

(Case : Shyam Balakrishnan v.
that is accorded under our
State of Kerala, WA No. 1330 of
Constitution to a person's
2015, judgement dated 8 July
fundamental right to privacy and
2019)
personal liberty, the action of

27. Foreign banks cannot engage

police authorities in detaining and

recovery agents in India.

interrogating the petitioner and

thereafter searching his residence, The division bench of the Kerala

without following the procedure High Court, Justices K Vinod

under the Code of Criminal Chandran and VG Arun, held that

Procedure was wholly unjustified" foreign banks or financial

institutions cannot engage

The petition was filed on the basis

recovery agents in India to realize

of illegal arrest, search and

loan amounts defaulted by

seizure which had caused agony

expatriates.
to the petitioner and tarnished his

reputation and violated his

The court added, it was open for coercion and duress cannot, under

the foreign bank or financial any circumstances, be permitted".

institution to initiate legal action

The court also mentioned about
for recovery, which can even be in
the guidelines and master
pursuance of a judgment which
circulars issued by the Reserve
the bank has obtained from the
Bank of India, where it mandates
foreign country. If failure on the
that recovery agents shall be
part of the borrower to pay back
engaged by banks only after a
the amount due to the bank
process of due diligence.
amounts to a criminal offence in a
Whenever recovery is entrusted
foreign country, the bank can
with an agency, the bank should
initiate criminal action against the
inform the borrower the details of
borrower through the diplomatic
the recovery agency. The need for
channel.
appropriate training to the

The court further said, " The recovery agents is also highlighted

engagement of recovery agents by in the guidelines.

foreign banks and financial

(Case : Susheela v. The Director
institutions for realising the
General of Police & Ors., WP(C)
defaulted amount through threat,
N0. 4715 of 2017, judgement with the permission of the

dated 16 July 2019) jurisdictional civil court as per

Section 92 of the Code of Civil

28. Kerala HC dismisses PIL
Procedure. The Court refused to
challenging Pope's authority over
examine this argument by stating
church properties in India.
that it was not the appropriate

The division bench of Justices

forum for it. The aggrieved party

Hrikesh Roy and AK

has to approach a civil court and

Jayasankaran Nambiardismissed
not the High Court by way of

the PIL sought to declare the

Public Interest Litigation to raise

'Code of Canon' giving the Pope of

grievance pertaining to Section 92

Catholic Church powers over

of the Code of Civil Procedure, the

church properties in India as

bench added.

'unconstitutional and opposed to

Finding the petition to be frivolous,
the sovereignty of India.'
cost of Rs.25,000 was imposed by

When the petitioner raised the

the Court.

argument that the Church

(Case : Anoop MS v. State of
properties are public trusts and
Kerala, WP(C) No. 20144 of 2019,
their alienation can be done only
judgement dated 29 July 2019)
29. Burden is upon complainant highly improbable that the

to prove alternation of name of complainant would have accepted

payee was made by accused it.

himself.
Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi,

In this case, the name of the payee single bench of the High Court of

written as "Kousthubhan" [name of Kerala held that when there is an

the accused] in the cheque was alteration in the cheque with

seen struck off and the name of regard to the name of the payee,

the complainant was written in the the burden is upon the

cheque as the payee. Referring to complainant to prove that such

Section 87 of the Negotiable alteration was made by the

Instruments Act and also the accused himself or that it was

evidence on record, the Court made with the consent of the

agreed with the First Appellate accused. The court also observed

Court that, when the cheque that the filing of a complaint under

contained a correction with regard Section 138 of the Act through the

to the name of the payee, which power of attorney holder is

was not even attested by the perfectly legal and competent.

signature of the accused, it is

(Case : Geemol Joseph v. when the sanction of the Central

Kousthabhan, Crl.A.No. 2535 of Government has not been

2008, judgement dated 29 July obtained.

2019)
The case was on behalf of the

30. In offences committed accused was that, since almost all

outside India, Central the alleged incidents narrated in

Government's sanction is not FIS had happened in Dubai,

required to arrest an accused outside the territorial limits of the

during investigation. Union of India, the mandatory

provisions contained in Sec.188 of

The single judge bench, Justice
the Cr.PC. would regulate the
Alexander Thomas held that the
scenario and that by virtue of the
bar under Section 188 of the Code
proviso appended to the operative
of Criminal Procedure does not
portion of Sec.188 of the Cr.PC, no
affect the power of arrest and
such offence shall be inquired into
detention available to the Police
or tried in India except with the
authorities in cases where the
previous sanction of the Central
allegations pertains to
Government.
commission of offences allegedly

committed outside India, even The court further observed,

"It is a matter of common sanction in each and every case,

knowledge that such cases which may arise in various parts of

involving offences committed the country, even before the arrest

outside India will not be very few of the accused is affected in such

and there could be many such cases.

cases in many States in India and

It has to be borne in mind that the
if the view canvassed by the
question of sanction in respect of
petitioner is accepted, then it
all such cases which arise in any
would amount to holding that after
part of the country, be it in the
registration of the FIR, even for
various States or the Union
arrest of the accused where it is
territories, will have to be decided
found necessary, would have to
by the Central Government and to
wait until the Central Government
place such a heavy burden on the
takes a decision on the question of
Central Government is impractical
sanction as per the proviso to Sec.
and rather imprudent."
188 of the Cr.P.C. , etc. and if such

(Case : Mohammed Shameer Ali

a view is taken it will be placing

v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No.

enormous and unrealistic burdens

5055 of 2019, judgement dated 2

on the Central Government to take

August 2019)
decisions on the question of
31. Kerala HC sets aside single single judge Justice B Kemal

bench direction for CBI probe into Pasha (since retired) within three

Shuhaib murder. weeks of the crime was termed as

a 'hasty direction' by the division

The division bench of the High
bench.
Court Justice AK Jayasankaran

and Chief Justice Hrishikesh (Case : CP Mohammed v. State of

Roy set aside the judgment of a Kerala, WA No. 628 of 2018,

single bench which handed over to judgement dated 2 August 2019)

CBI the investigation of the killing

32. Demanding information about
of Shuhaib, a Youth Congress
bank accounts and income tax
worker, in Kannur district in
returns without statutory backing,
February 2018.
violates right to privacy.

The court observed, "there was

The Kerala High Court division
hardly any material available
bench comprising of Justices CK
before the writ court that could
Abdul Rehim and Narayana
have led it to assume that the
Pisharady, said information about
investigation was inherently unfair
one's bank accounts and income
or biased in any manner."  The
tax returns constitute personal
order for CBI probe issued by
and private information. The appellants to furnish their income

judgement was given on the basis tax returns and the bank account

of writ appeals filed by several statements , as a condition for

petroleum outlet retailers against continuing the petroleum retail

the insistence of oil marketing dealership granted to them."

companies to furnish details of

(Case : Raju Sebastian & Ors. v.
bank accounts and income tax
Union of India, WA No. 2112 of
returns for dealership agreements.
2018, judgement dated 4

The court added, " Income tax September 2018)

returns or the bank account

33. Right to access internet is
statements of a person would
part of the right to privacy and
contain many other information. It
right to education.
will not be possible to segregate

In the landmark judgement of the

the details regarding the

High Court of Kerala given by a

dealership of the appellants from

single bench ofJustice PV Asha in

such records and to furnish them

the petition filed by a student

to the second respondent."

challenging the restrictions on

The court held that the companies
usage of mobile phones in a girls'
"have got no right to require the
hostel, the court said that the right 34. Kerala HC quashes UAPA and

to access the internet is a sedition charges on failure to

fundamental right forming part of comply with prescribed time limit

the right to privacy under Article by sanctioning authority vitates

21 of the Constitution of India. sanction.

The court further added that it

The single bench of the High
also forms part of the right to
Court, Justice Raja
education.
Vijayaraghavan, discharged

The court also said that the fact alleged Maoist leader Roopesh of

that parents have consented to charges under UAPA and sedition

the restrictions will not make them under Section 124 A of the Indian

valid, as students who have Penal Code on the ground of

attained majority have decisional irregularities in the order granting

autonomy. sanction for prosecution.

(Case : Faheema Shirin v. State of The court said the time limit

Kerala, WP(C) No. 19716 of 2019, prescribed under Section 45(2) of

judgement dated 19 September the UAPA read with Rules (3) and

2019) (4) of the Recommendation Rules

2008 were not followed by the

sanctioning authority while (Case : Roopesh v. State of

granting sanction to prosecute Kerala, Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 732 of

Roopesh in three cases. 2019 judgement dated 20

September 2019)
The court held that the sanction

granted to prosecute the petitioner 35. Kerala HC orders CBI probe

was "vitiated or non compliance into twin murders of Youth

with the mandatory provisions in Congress workers.

the Act and Rules and, therefore,

The single bench of the High Court
the taking of cognizance by the
handed over the investigation of
court below for the offences under
murders of two Youth Congress
Sections 20 and 38 of the UAP Act
workers- Kripesh (19) and Sharat
is vitiated."
Lal (24)- to the CBI from the state

It was added that Sessions Judge police. The court ordered the CBI

had no jurisdiction to take probe allowing the petition filed by

cognizance of the offence under the parents of the slain youth, who

Section 124A of the IPC without a were killed at Periya in Kasargod

valid sanction order under Section district on the night of February

196(1) of the Cr.P.C 17, 2019.

Observing the investigation 36. CCTV Footage not material

completed by the Crime Branch of object; accused entitled to digital

the state police was a "sham", the copy.

Court set aside the final report

The single bench comprising
filed in May 20 arraying 10 CPM
of Justice Raja
workers as the accused. The
Vijayaraghavan held that CCTV
Court observed that the
footage of a crime is not a
involvement of top party leaders in
'material object' and therefore the
the conspiracy for the crime was
accused is entitled to receive a
not probed by the police, and that
copy of it as per Section 207 of
the chances of conviction on the
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
basis of the final report was very

The petition was filed by Jisal

bleak.

Razaq, an accused in the

(Case : Krishnan v. State of
Abhimanyu murder case,
Kerala, WP(C) No. 10265 of 2019,
challenging the order of the
judgement dated 30 September
Magistrate that rejected his
2019)
application for copies of the CCTV

footage.
The court said, "CCTV footage in criminal offences, it is extensively

the instant case is "data" as used to establish the guilt of the

defined under S.2(o) of the accused.

Information Technology Act, 2000

(Case : Jisal Rasak v. State of
and it is an electronic record as
Kerala, Crl.MC.No. 4148 of 2019,
defined under S.2(t) of the I.T. Act.
judgement dated 30 September
If that be the case, the electronic
2019)
record produced for the inspection

37. Complaint under section 420

of the Court has to be regarded as

IPC cannot be quashed on the

documentary evidence. In that

sole ground of undue delay.

view of the matter, I am unable to

accept the logic of the prosecution The High Court of Kerala led by

in producing the CCTV footage as single bench Justice R. Narayana

a material object and in refusing to Pisharadi said, when no limitation

supply a copy of the same to the is prescribed for filing a complaint,

accused." it cannot be quashed on the sole

ground of delay.
The court added, Electronic

records are created with every day In this case, the transaction

actions of individuals and in alleged by the complainant was on

10.04.2007. The cheque allegedly of 2015, judgement dated 24

given by the accused to the October 2019)

complainant was dated

38. Further investigation can be
16.05.2007. The complaint under
conducted even after the trial has
section 420 IPC against the
commenced without permission
accused was filed only on
from the court.
29.03.2019.

The single bench of Justice R.

The court said, Even if a person
Narayana Pisharadi of the Kerala
has been tried and dealt with for
High Court observed that it is not
the offence punishable under
necessary for the investigation to
Section 138 of the Negotiable
officer to seek any permission
Instruments Act, on similar facts,
from the court to conduct further
he can be subsequently tried for
investigation. He also observed
an offence punishable under
that there is no restriction on the
Section 420 IPC. The reason is
power of the investigating officer
that the ingredients of the two
to conduct further investigation
offences are different.
after the commencement of the

(Case : Sindhu S.Panicker v. trial of the case.

A.Balakrishnan, Crl.MC. No.2345

The court said, "The fact that The division bench of Justices A

further investigation is being Hariprasad and N Anil

conducted to cure some Kumar denied bail to Allan

procedural or technical Shuhaib and Thwaha Fazal who

irregularities in the charge sheet were arrested by Kerala police

already filed before the court, under UAPA for alleged links with

cannot be a sufficient ground to banned Maoist organization.

issue a direction to the

Allan and Thawaha, activists of
investigating officer to drop such
Communist Party of India
investigation."
(Marxist), were arrested by

(Case : Mariamma John v. Deputy Kozhikode police on November 2

Superintendent of Police & Anr., on suspected Maoist links and

OP(Crl.).No.483 OF 2019, have been under custody since

judgement dated 4 November then.

2019)
The court added, "The

39. Kerala HC denies bail to investigating agency apprehends

students arrested for alleged that the accused persons, if

Maoist Links. released on bail, may not only

meddle with the investigation, but

also flee from justice. We are not the investigation, the State

persuaded to ignore these Attorney contends, it may be

apprehensions."  The court further difficult for the investigating

observed, the words "associated" agency to place all the materials

and "professes to be associated" before the court to satisfy the

occurring in Section 38 of the ingredients of the offence,

UAPA are employed in a "broad particularly when the materials

sense and with a specific purpose. recovered from the accused

contain electronic gadgets and

The court contended, "Anybody
writings in a code language. We
indulging in such activities will
find merit in this submission. For
normally do so clandestinely or
establishing these aspects, we are
surreptitiously. Contextually
of the definite view, the
therefore, not only overt actions,
investigation has to progress."
but covert actions may also at

times satisfy the ingredients of the (Case : Thwaha Fasal and Anr. v.

Section, provided they were done State of Kerala, Crl.Appeal

knowingly or consciously for the Nos.1300 & 1301 of 2019,

objectives mentioned in the judgement dated 27 November

Section. At this inceptive stage of 2019)

40. Power to appreciate evidence participation only and nothing

cannot be relegated to Advocate could be proved beyond it.

Commission. According to Section 58 of the

Indian Evidence Act, facts

The division bench of the Kerala
admitted need to be proved. There
High Court comprising of Justices
is no illegality and impropriety in
K Harilal and Annie
the impugned order."
John dismissed the application

filed seeking the appointment of (Case : Nishad and Anr. v. Najma,

an Advocate Commission to OP(FC) No. 238 of 2019,

examine the contents of a CD and judgement dated 26 November

report the same to the court. The 2019)

court said that the power to

appreciate cannot be relegated to

Advocate Commission.

The court added, "the respondent

herself admitted her participation

in the programme in the CD and it

would amount to an admission by

the party to the extent of