Tag Archives: #keralahighcourt

Title: Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Decided on: 16 November, 2023

+ CRL. REV. PET No. 161 of 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice P. G. Ajithkumar
Introduction

The Kerala High Court ruled that it is not acceptable to resubmit a request for permission to take cognizance of an offence under Section 153(A) of the IPC (‘Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or residence’) after a delay of nearly five years. It further decided that the prosecution could not claim that the time in question is exempt from prosecution under Section 470(3) Cr.P.C.

Facts of the Case

Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (punishment for rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 153(A) read with Section 149 (common object) of the IPC were the charges brought against the revision petitioners. They were accused of organizing an illegal gathering and assaulting the de facto complainant as well as a few Bible College students at Maramon. Additionally, it was claimed that the petitioners yelled slogans and made an effort to sow discord and animosity among various religious communities. The petitioners claimed that the prosecution was unlawful because the lower court had recognized the offense far later than the three-year term specified in Section 468 of the Code. They argued that, given the May 2005 date of the incident, the offense should have been recognized by May 2008 at the latest. The petitioners argued that even under Section 470(3) of the Code, the final report’s filing was done after the statute of limitations had passed, and that the lower court’s ruling, which stated that the offense was recognized on time as long as the time it took to get government approval was removed, was incorrect.

Courts analysis and decision

The request for penalty was presented in May 2008, and the Court noted that it was returned within a week to correct formal deficiencies. It then discovered that the request was just resubmitted in January 2013. Thus, it decided that, in accordance with Section 470(3) Cr.P.C., the prosecution would not be entitled to have the time between the request for sanction’s return and its resubmission before the Government omitted. Thus, the petitioners for revision were dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

Title: Malarkodi P v. Union of India
Decided on: 17 November, 2023

+ MFA (RCT) No. 141 of 2017

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
Introduction

When a passenger fell from a moving train accidentally while attempting to get off after discovering it was the wrong train, the Kerala High Court ruled that it was a “untoward incident” rather than a “self-inflicted injury.”

Facts of the Case

By the time the deceased realized he had boarded the wrong train, it had already begun to move. The dead was injured when he fell on the platform at Shornur Railway Station while attempting to get off, and his injuries ultimately proved fatal. The Railway Claims Tribunal in Ernakulam rejected his dependents’ petition for compensation, citing the fact that the death was caused by self-inflicted harm. The dependents, feeling cheated, filed an appeal with the High Court.

Courts analysis and decision

The court determined that for an injury to fall within the category of self-inflicted injury, there had to be a purpose to cause harm. Upon reviewing the postmortem certificate and final report, the court concluded that the deceased’s injuries on the right thigh and hip were the cause of death. concluding that he had boarded the incorrect train and was trying to get off the moving vehicle at the time of the occurrence.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

Title: Bastin Babu v. State of Kerala
Decided on: 15 November, 2023

+ WP (C) No. 18229 of 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Introduction

The Kerala High Court noted that the voter’s purpose was determined by the ballot paper and not by any prior or subsequent expressions when it denied a voter who was also a candidate. The voter said that since he cast his ballot for himself, it should be accepted.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner and the sixth respondent, who were running for the position of chairman of the Cochin Corporation’s Standing Committee on Education and Sports, made an accusation against each other, which the court was reviewing. They were both Cochin Corporation council members. As a candidate, the petitioner claimed that the sixth respondent had not properly voted for himself in accordance with Rule 11 of the Kerala Municipality Standing Committee Rules, 2000. The returning officer declined to take the accusations into consideration, despite them being made during the election. The sixth respondent received four votes out of the seven total that were counted, and they were elected. The petitioner used the Right to Information Act to get copies of the ballot papers and then filed the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the sixth respondent did not cast their vote in accordance with Rule 11’s guidelines. The election process for the Chairman was outlined in Rule 11. Members are required by law to cast their votes by writing a ‘X’ next to the candidate’s name on the ballot. The voter next has to sign his name and paste his signature on the back of the ballot paper.

Courts analysis and decision

The petitioner’s name and the name of the sixth respondent were marked on the ballot, the court observed after looking through it. It was mentioned that although Rule 11 required the alphabet “X” to be indicated, the sixth respondent’s marked sign was unclear and did not resemble the alphabet “X.” Consequently, the Court denied the sixth respondent’s vote and granted the writ petition. Additionally, it overturned the choice of the sixth respondent to lead the Cochin Corporation’s Standing Committee on Sports and Education.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

Title: Abitha P. Sunil v. State of Kerala
Decided on: 15 November, 2023

+ WP(C) NO. 37824 OF 2023(C)

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice T. R. Ravi
Introduction

The District Medical Officer, Thrissur (DMO) and the Superintendent of the Thrissur General Hospital were instructed by the Kerala High Court to form a Medical Board to review the request of a 22-year-old law student who wants to get a certificate so she can use a scribe to help her write her upcoming exams.

Facts of the Case

The student, who is enrolled in Government Law College, Thrissur’s five-year integrated LL.B. programme and is currently in her tenth semester, claimed to have chronic fibromyalgia, a condition marked by diffuse musculoskeletal discomfort. She stated that the illness results in excruciating pain and weakness, which interferes with her day-to-day activities. She also claimed that the pain and weakness greatly slows down her writing when she is doing tasks. The petitioner made arguments before the college principal and the controller of examinations, requesting a scribe to help write the exam, in light of the university’s notification that the seventh semester will begin on November 20, 2023. However, the petitioner was advised by the authorities that in order to hire a scribe, she would need to get a certificate from the Medical Board that was established at the District Hospital in Thrissur. Given that the examination is scheduled to begin shortly, she thus addressed the court to request that the respondents give prompt consideration to her request and establish a medical board for the purpose of issuing the necessary certificates.

Courts analysis and decision

In order to allow the petitioner to obtain a scribe for the exams, which are scheduled to begin on November 20, 2023, the court issued an interim directive to respondents 5 and 6 instructing them to take into consideration Exts. P7 and P8, form a Medical Board, and issue the necessary Certificate to the petitioner. Permits must be obtained by November 18, 2023, at the latest.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here view to your judgement