Tag Archives: #keralahighcourt

Case Title: Pulikkippoyil Sharafudheen & Anr. v. Superintendent of Customs

Bench : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Date : 27.06.2023

Facts:

The petitioners, a husband and wife, were indicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1952, for allegedly importing gold with a market price exceeding Rupees One Crore. They were taken into custody on 18.05.2023 and filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

According to the information received by the Air Intelligence Unit of the Air Customs, International Airport, Calicut, the petitioners were intercepted at Calicut Airport on 16-05-2023. After a thorough search, the customs officers seized 950 gms of gold from the first petitioner and 1198 gms of gold from the second petitioner. The total value of the seized gold was Rs. 1,20,90,456/- in the domestic market. The petitioners were arrested, and their bail applications were rejected by the Magistrate Court and the Sessions Court.

The petitioners argued that the offences under the Act are generally bailable, except for those specified as non-bailable. They contended that individually, the quantity of gold seized from each petitioner falls below Rupees One Crore, making the offence bailable. They also mentioned their family responsibilities, the absence of previous criminal records, and the period of detention already undergone as reasons for granting bail.

The respondent, the Customs Department, opposed the bail application. They argued that the offence becomes non-bailable if the market price of the illegally imported goods exceeds Rupees One Crore. Since the petitioners, being husband and wife, collectively imported gold worth more than Rupees One Crore, they should not be granted bail. The respondent also highlighted the petitioners’ admission of their involvement in smuggling, the recovery of incriminating documents, and the alleged lack of cooperation in the investigation.

Judgement:

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and concluded that if goods that are misdeclared, duty evaded, or imported illegally have a market price exceeding Rupees One Crore, the offence becomes non-bailable. In this case, the gold seized collectively from the petitioners had a value exceeding Rupees One Crore, even though individually, the value of gold recovered from each petitioner was below the threshold.

The court acknowledged the respondent’s argument that smugglers are using family members as carriers to split the gold into quantities below Rupees One Crore, evading the non-bailable offence provision. Considering the intent behind the amendment to the Customs Act, which aimed to curb smuggling and the economic impact, the court emphasised that innovative attempts to bypass the law should not be overlooked.

The court also held that if more than one person acts in concert to evade customs duty, the combined value of the goods can be attributed to each person individually. The definition of “person” in the General Clauses Act includes a body of persons, such as a family, thereby supporting the interpretation that the offence can apply collectively to the petitioners.

Based on these considerations, the court denied the bail application, noting that the offences alleged against the petitioners were non-bailable due to the cumulative value of the gold seized collectively from them. The court highlighted the importance of curbing smuggling and avoiding interpretations that defeat the purpose of the law.

“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- ANVITHA RAO

5 Jul

Kerala High Court orders the state to take action against municipal corporations that fail to implement a stray dog action plan.

Bench : A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. & GOPINATH P., J.

Case Title: In Re Bruno v. Union of India

Date : 27th day of June, 2023

Facts –

Several applications (I.A.Nos.37, 38, 39, and 40) have been filed in connection with a legal case (W.P.(C).No.13204 of 2021).
The applications sought that certain people be added as extra parties to the lawsuit and that additional documents be accepted as evidence.
Because the court granted these motions, the sought individuals were added as extra parties, and the additional papers were accepted as evidence.
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation rescinded a circular that previously prevented EPFO Staff quarters occupants from keeping dogs.
The court’s order included the Kerala State Electricity Board as an extra party to the dispute.
The court demanded an affidavit from the Additional Advocate General regarding Municipal Corporations’ efforts to establish stray dog shelters and conduct mass vaccination initiatives, as mandated by a government directive.
A Committee of Experts was formed to explore and report on the potential of releasing elephants kidnapped from the wild and held in captivity.

Analysis:

The court granted the different petitions for impleadment and acceptance of new documents, therefore broadening the scope of the writ petition.
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation’s deletion of the circular signals a shift in their stance regarding dogs in EPFO staff apartments.
The inclusion of the Kerala State Electricity Board on its own initiative implies their involvement or relevance to the issues made in the writ suit.
The court has taken note of media reports on dog bite incidences and has asked an affidavit from the Additional Advocate General outlining steps taken by Municipal Corporations in response to a Government Order on shelters and vaccination drives for stray dogs.
The Committee of Experts has been tasked with examining and reporting on issue.

Judgement:

Applications for inclusion and acceptance of additional documents are permitted.
The Circular barring pets in EPFO Staff quarters has been revoked.
The Kerala State Electricity Board has been added as a respondent.
The Additional Advocate General is directed to produce an affidavit on Municipal Corporations’ actions involving shelters and stray dog vaccination drives.
The Committee of Experts has been tasked with investigating and reporting on the prospect of releasing trapped elephants.

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

5 Jul

In a contempt case, the Kerala High Court orders the administration of Lakshadweep.

Blog #animalsandbirds, #keralahighcourt, healthcare

Case Title: Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Shashank Mani Tripathi IAS & Ors.

Bench : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE AND JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

Date : 27th day of June 2023

Facts:

The petitioner’s counsel points out that the Lakshadweep Administration has not taken steps to engage veterinary doctors for the healthcare of animals and birds in Lakshadweep, despite a previous court directive on March 31, 2022.
The learned Standing Counsel argues that steps are being taken, but the petitioner’s counsel disagrees.
On March 30, 2023, the court passed an order for interim arrangements to make veterinary surgeons available, but the Lakshadweep Administration has not provided any suggestions or taken action.
If the Lakshadweep Administration fails to appoint veterinary doctors within three weeks (either on a contract or permanent basis), the 1st respondent (representing the Lakshadweep Administration) will have to personally appear before the court.

Analysis:

The petitioner’s counsel raises the issue of the Lakshadweep Administration’s failure to engage veterinary doctors for animal and bird healthcare.
The court had previously issued directives in this regard, but the Lakshadweep Administration has allegedly not complied.
The learned Standing Counsel claims that steps are being taken, but the petitioner’s counsel disputes this.
The court expresses dissatisfaction with the response and lack of suggestions from the Lakshadweep Administration.
The court has set a deadline for the appointment of veterinary doctors and warns of potential consequences if the administration fails to comply.

Judgement:

If the Lakshadweep Administration does not appoint veterinary doctors within three weeks, whether on a contract or permanent basis, the 1st respondent (representing the administration) must personally appear before the court.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on a specific date.

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

2 Jul

To be enforceable, a Lok Adalat Award must include all of the following features, says the High Court of Kerala

Case Title : Case Title: Vijaya K Vs. Muraleedharan K G

Bench : HON’BLE MR. A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE, MRS. SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

O.P.NO.539/2007

Date : 13th Day of June

Facts :

1. The case is an appeal resulting from an award passed by the Lok Adalat in Thrissur.

2. The parties involved in the case had matrimonial disputes that were resolved in the Lok Adalat.

3. The brief award passed in the Lok Adalat stated that the parties had reconciled and decided to live together in a rented house. The respondent agreed to settle half share in a property owned by him in the name of the wife petitioner.

4. The appellant moved the execution court to execute the award, but it was dismissed.

5. The appellant alleges that the respondent refused to execute the deed and ill-treated her, leading to her discontinuation of stay.

6. The appellant argues that the award is inexecutable because it lacks the necessary details and does not meet the criteria of a decree.

Analysis :

1. Lack of Clarity in the Award: The award passed by the Lok Adalat appears to be vague and lacking in clarity. It does not provide specific details regarding the property settlement, such as the nature of the obligation to be performed or the specific property involved. This lack of clarity raises concerns about the enforceability of the award.

2. Failure to Ensure Executability: The Lok Adalat officers responsible for passing the award should have applied their minds to ensure that the award is executable. They should have taken into account the requirements outlined in Order 20, Rules 6(1) and (9) of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulate the necessary contents of a decree. However, in this case, the award lacks essential details, making it difficult to enforce.

3. Allegations of Breach: The appellant alleges that the respondent refused to execute the deed and mistreated her, leading to the appellant discontinuing her stay. These allegations
indicate a breach of the terms agreed upon in the award and further complicate the execution process.

4. Executability of the Decree: Due to the lack of specific details and the failure to meet the criteria of a decree, the award is deemed as executable. Without the necessary information and clarity, it becomes challenging to enforce the obligations outlined in the award.

Judgement :

Based on the analysis above, the court dismisses the Matrimonial Appeal. No order is given regarding costs.

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

1 Jul

Shajan Skaria’s appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail in an MLA’s complaint under the SC/ST Act is dismissed by the Kerala High Court.

Case Title : Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala

Bench : V.G.ARUN JUDGE

CRMC 1684/2023

Date : 30th June 2023

Facts:

The appellant is the first accused in Crime No. 899 of 2023, registered at Elamakkara Police Station, for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
The appellant is accused of intentionally humiliating the second respondent through false allegations and derogatory comments made in a video uploaded on the appellant’s online news channel.
The appellant’s pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the Special Court, citing that the publication of the video containing derisive and derogatory comments is sufficient to attract the alleged offences.

Analysis:

The appellant is the first accused in a criminal case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and the Kerala Police Act. The charges are based on allegations that the appellant intentionally humiliated the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, through a video uploaded on the appellant’s online news channel.

The Special Court has dismissed the appellant’s application for pre-arrest bail, citing the publication of the video containing derogatory comments as sufficient evidence to support the alleged offences. The court relied on Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, which limits the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Act.

The appellant’s defence argues that as an elected MLA, the second respondent is open to criticism, and the video only criticised certain actions without specifically targeting the second respondent’s caste. They contend that the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are not applicable in this case.

The prosecution maintains that the video contained unsubstantiated allegations, insults, and insinuations, specifically targeting the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. They argue that the intention behind the video was to insult and humiliate the second respondent based on his caste.

The defence relies on Supreme Court decisions to argue that insults or intimidations do not constitute offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act unless they specifically target a person based on their caste. The prosecution emphasises the specific allegations made by the second respondent in the complaint, claiming that the intention to insult and humiliate based on caste is evident.

The court’s judgement is still pending, and it will determine whether the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are applicable based on the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.

Judgments and Arguments:

Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, representing the appellant, argues that the allegations raised against the second respondent were only criticism of certain actions and do not specifically target the second respondent’s caste. They contend that the offences under the SC/ST Act require insult or humiliation based on caste, and mere insult or humiliation is not enough.
Senior Advocate T.A. Shaji, the Director General of Prosecution, argues that the appellant’s video contained intentional insults and humiliated the second respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. They argue that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) is attracted when a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe is intentionally insulted with the intent to humiliate them.
Adv. P.K. Varghese, representing the second respondent, argues that the appellant’s video contained unsubstantiated allegations, insults, and insinuations against the second respondent, intending to insult and humiliate them as a member of the Scheduled Caste. They rely on previous court decisions to support the claim that such videos can attract offences under the SC/ST Act.
The court notes that the Act aims to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the amendment in 2019 was made to address their vulnerability. The court finds that the video is intended to insult and humiliate the second respondent, based on the allegations and circumstances presented. The court opines that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) can be attracted even without explicit reference to the caste status of the victim.