Justice K.Vinod Chandran, Judge, Supreme Court of India :

A Judge of Unimpeachable Integrity

 Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran, the 18th Judge from Kerala took oath as the Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 16th January, 2025 following a collegium recommendation on 7th January, 2025 headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna, marking a significant milestone in his distinguished legal career. Justice Chandran, with over 12 years of diversified judicial experience as a Judge of both Kerala High Court and as the Chief Justice of Patna High Court, is known for his distinctive legal approach in crafting judgments that go beyond mere factual conclusions.

Justice Chandran, born on 25th April 1963, hails from Kerala and is the son of Mr. C.Krishna Pillai and the late Mrs.Bharati. His early education took place at Rajagiri High School, Kalamassery, and he graduated in Science from U.C.College, Aluva. He initially worked at the State Bank of Travancore before pursuing law. Despite the stability and promising prospects of a banking career, his deep-rooted passion for legal studies prompted him to enrol at the Kerala Law Academy in Thiruvananthapuram.

In the words of Aristotle “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

Who could resist the noble calling of law? Justice Chandran, true to this calling, embraced the legal fraternity in 1991 and ultimately resigned from his banking job to pursue his dream. Reflecting on his decision to resign, Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated that many viewed his choice with skepticism, considering it as an act of “burning his bridges.” His true journey in the legal field began in 1991. After a short stint of practice in North Paravoor, he shifted to Ernakulam and became a junior to Senior Advocate M. Patros Matthai. This experience helped him establish his presence in the Bar as a vigorous and zealous advocate while espousing the cause of his clients.

Justice Vinod Chandran’s legal acumen is further highlighted by his appointment as Special Government Pleader (Taxes) in 2007, a position he held till 2011. In this role, he conducted cases for the government fiercely and was a tough opponent to the tax lawyers. He remarked once, on his stint as Special Government Pleader, that this unique opportunity has afforded him the visibility and exposure, which eventually led to his elevation to Kerala High Court as an additional Judge.

On 8th November , 2011, Justice Chandran was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court and became a permanent Judge on 24th June, 2013. After more than a decade of service at the Kerala High Court, he was appointed as the 44^th Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on 29^th March, 2023 before being elevated to the Apex Court.

Notable judgments of Kerala High Court and Patna High Court

His judicial career was marked by several ground breaking judgments that showcased his exceptional intellect and versatility. Not many areas of law escaped his insightful analysis, often earning praise from his co-judges for his farsightedness and his ability to resolve complex legal issues. While tax law remained his undisputed forte, his judicial brilliance extended to a wide range of fields, including constitutional law, land laws, criminal law, and civil law, among others, cementing his legacy as a well-rounded and visionary jurist.

Here are a few pearls that depicts his excellence in diversified fields of law:-

In a path breaking judgment of Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala (2018 (2) KLT 369), the key question was whether an Indian company, which merged with a foreign company, can legally own and use lands inherited through the amalgamation, especially since the foreign company would not have been allowed to hold such lands after India’s independence. While negativing the state’s challenge alleging fraud, forgery, and collusion and setting aside the eviction proceedings, Justice Chandran made certain valuable observations “The Government is for the people, of and by them, but it is not for the masses alone but exists for each individual. Courage and conviction is lacking when on mere public demand, arbitrary action is perpetrated visiting a citizen with prejudice. A Corporate entity also contributes to the mite of a nation and is constituted of citizens at its helm and at its foundational conglomeration of labour force and managerial staff. The Welfare State exists for the downtrodden and the marginalised, but cannot act like Robin Hood; which would be a negation of the democratic principles and blatant flouting of rule of law; which in the course of the instant proceedings itself, various Benches of this Court had emphasised time and again, in the judgments inter partes.”

“‘Crime doesn’t pay’ is an adage which the deviants, the desperate and some desperadoes pay little heed to.”,observed Justice Chandran in Balu v. State of Kerala, (2021 (4) KLT OnLine 1181) while affirming the conviction of a migrant labourer who murdered a housewife for a gold chain. Addressing the defence of right to silence it was laid down that a voluntary action without the element of compulsion does not militate against the right guaranteed under Article 20(3), to remain silent or rather not to be compelled to incriminate himself.

Interpreting Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 in the judgment Moidutty v. State of Kerala, (2019 (1) KLT OnLine 3160) the court dismissing the plea of a wife’s repeated requests for mental examination of the husband for the fear of property alienation and the consequence deprivation of property on his death held, “A person cannot be unduly subjected to repeated mental examination… especially when there is absolutely no behavioural trait complained of or no untoward incident of an action as against the society in which he lives in; which alone would require an evaluation or treatment in a confined atmosphere.”

In Jose v. Vadavukodu Puthencruz Grama Panchayat(2016 (3) KLT 32) Justice Chandra took note of the dismal living conditions of migrant workers housed in a building on a complaint by an adjacent owner of property and observed, “An enlightened society has to take steps to assimilate the migrant population into their adopted community; instilling in them a feeling of oneness which alone could result in working together towards regional aspirations and development; in a Country as varied and vibrant as ours. Isolating some and treating them as second class citizens can only lead to backlash by way of crimes against civil society and result in deleterious consequences of widespread public harm and injury, including spread of epidemics.”

In response to a writ petition filed by one partner in a lesbian relationship, alleging that her partner was being detained by her parents, the Court, after interacting with the couple, facilitated their reunion. The order in Adhila Nasarin v. Commissioner of Police upheld the rights of adult lesbian couples to live together, affirming their autonomy and freedom of choice.

In a host of judgments relating to UAPA and NIA related matters, Kashmir terror recruitment case, political rivalry cases, Maoist linked cases, Justice Chandran went strictly by the statute giving meticulous attention to each detail of the matters before him and analysed the evidence before delivering the judgments in all its fairness.  

As Patna High Court Chief Justice he decided on the issue of caste survey in the case Youth for Equality v. State of Bihar (2023 KLT OnLine 1651 (Pat.)). The Court upholding the validity of caste survey observed “The action of the State valid, initiated with due competence, with the legitimate aim of providing ‘Development with Justice’. The actual survey to have neither exercised nor contemplated any coercion to divulge the details and having passed the test of proportionality, it does not violate the rights of privacy of the individual especially since it is in furtherance of a ‘compelling public interest’ which in effect is the ‘legitimate State interest’.

Though based on the caste survey when the Bihar Government increased the reservation to 65% in educational institutions and Government jobs, Justice Chandran couldn’t find favour with it. In Gaurav Kumar v. State of Bihar (2024 KLT OnLine 3046 (Pat.)) the Court held that the enhancement of reservations beyond the 50% limit is bad in law based on the principles of equality emanating from the Constitution and thereby struck down the impugned legislations.

Justice Vinod Chandran’s judgment writing style exemplifies constitutional morality blending legal reasoning with fairness. His eloquent articulation of well-laid down principles of law makes each judgment an editor’s delight and a scholar’s treasure.

Always known for “doing the right thing” his integrity remained unimpeachable throughout his career. His courtroom, while demanding strict discipline, was often described by members of the bar as unpredictable, marked by sudden shifts in tone—lighthearted one moment, stern or dismissive the next. In a lighter vein, Justice himself acknowledged this critique during his reply speech upon being welcomed as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. Despite such perceptions, he earned widespread admiration for his dedication to justice. His impartial approach, treating senior and junior lawyers alike, cultivated a strong sense of professionalism and fairness in the pursuit of justice.

Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo once remarked, “The final cause of law is the welfare of society.” On behalf of KLT, we extend our heartfelt wishes to Hon’ble Justice K.Vinod Chandran, trusting that he will continue to champion this noble cause of law in his esteemed new role as a Supreme Court Judge. Best wishes for this remarkable journey !

Court : Ultimate Authority

(By Adv. P.C.Thomas Ex.M.P. and Former Minister of State for Law and Justice,Government of India)
Mob. 9447066858

This small Article is to show that as per the Constitution of India and other Statutes, COURT is the final authority with regard to disputes, controversies, and complaints of the citizens of India. Legislative and administrative bodies are not so.

We are all aware that there is no person who does not have problems, allegations, or hardships to save one’s own rights. Though there are several ways to overcome one’s difficulties, it is a fact that the final and ultimate Authority to settle a matter truefully is a Court of law. Normally everyone who has a complaint can approach the Police, the concerned Government, or Official for settlement of his issues. He may get a positive or negative result. Even if he does not get justice, to safeguard his rights, he may approach higher authorities or Ministers or others for correct relief. There may be illegitimate ways and means also to change the decisions of such authorities. It may also be by use of money power , or other human power by somebody above him. As per Constitution of India, every person has Fundamental Rights which have to be safeguarded. However the ultimate place where he can go is to the concerned Court, where he can get justice. If not he has rights to question such decisions before the concerned Courts above, including the Supreme Court to safeguard his rights. The procedure of Courts to decide an issue is not like the same as that of other authorities. Before such authorities, the opposite side is not often heard at all. But in Courts the basic principle is that the opponent should be heard, before a decision is taken on any matter or complaint. In fact notice or summons has to be issued to the opponent parties. When such notice is received, that party must appear before Court. Then that party will also be heard and opportunity will be given to him to adduce evidence, just like the complainant. The opponent will also get opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who are giving evidence against him. He can also produce documents or examine witnesses to prove his side. Thus the ultimate body, the Court can give proper decision after hearing both sides and examining which is true, and which is false. This great opportunity of the citizens of India is a basic right of each of them. The Court is an independent authority where everybody gets equal opportunity. The final decision will be in accordance with the true facts and evidence. This is a way in which justice can be given to everybody and therefore the courts in India are above the ruling parties or the persons in power or even the Ministries including cabinet and all powerful authorities. This is not the case of complaints and petitions alone. We Indians are lucky to hope that justice will finally be obtained whatever be the money power or influence which any party may have. Even laws made by Governments and Legislatures can be questioned in the appropriate Courts, which can even quash or cancel them if found to be against the Constitution of India, other laws or be unjust. I do not want to go to examples of various matters settled by Courts. But I will just refer to a major issue which came to a final settlement. It is nothing but RAMA JANMA BHUMI issue which would have otherwise been a great loss to our Nation.

Compared to our neighbouring Countries, Indian courts are regarded as the ‘Sanctum Sanctorum‘ of all rights, including the fundamental rights of citizens, upholding them in both letter and spirit. If the sanctity of the judiciary, particularly the Apex Court, is lost, it marks the end of a democratic, socialist, and secular Nation.

Basic Hygiene and Article 21: Supreme Court’s Mandate on
Public Toilets in Courts in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India
(2025 KLT OnLine 1068 (SC))

Case briefs by Ashly Harshad, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

 Sanitation and hygiene are among several facets of the right to live with dignity under Article 21. Though the Courts over decades have emphasised the importance of sanitation and waste management in public spaces, linking them to the right to life and dignity, the pressing issue of the lack of adequate toilet facilities in courts across the country has always been overlooked. In a very recent judgment, the Supreme Court directly addressed this concern, issuing crucial directions and guidelines to ensure the construction and maintenance of adequate toilet facilities in court and tribunal premises nationwide. The true impact of these directives, however, will unfold in the years to come.

Background of the case

A practicing advocate from Assam filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, seeking directions for all States and Union Territories to ensure basic toilet facilities in all courts and tribunals nationwide. The petition called for accessible and identifiable public conveniences for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities, along with proper maintenance and additional amenities as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution. He stated that no human being can live with dignity unless there are facilities to maintain basic hygiene. The Petitioner submitted that Article 21 cannot be meaningful if clean and hygienic toilets are not provided in the Court complex/ premises, where advocates / litigants/ staff members are working in a large number.

Article 21 and Right to Hygiene, Sanitation in Courts:
Fundamental part of dispensation of justice

 Analysing the entire gamut of national and international law the Court held that the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights. Right to life encompasses within it the right to healthy and hygienic life and the right to live with dignity. Creation of adequate public toilets also protects privacy and removes the threat to ladies and transgender persons. Availability of access to public toilets is an important duty of the States/UTs under the Directive Principles and steps are to be taken to ensure that the toilets are maintained throughout the year. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government and local authorities to provide basic toilet and sanitation facilities within the Court premises and ensure that they are constructed, maintained and kept in a hygienic condition for men, women, PwD, and transgender persons.

The Court emphasised on two aspects regarding right to hygiene- one is of accessibility and other is of maintenance, of which second one is the most challenging part. It was observed that toilets/washrooms/restrooms are not merely a matter of convenience, but a basic necessity which is a facet of human rights. Access to proper sanitation is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Access to justice includes the creation of a pleasant and humanly atmosphere for all the stakeholders in the dispensation of justice. The Court urges High Courts to equip itself with proper washroom facilities for Judges, Advocates, litigants and staff members, just as required in other public places. Additionally, it is equally essential to ensure that these facilities are adequately provided, maintained and accessible to everyone, sans discomfort or inconvenience.

Challenges addressed by the Court

The judgment acknowledges the dismal state of sanitation in many court complexes, particularly in district and rural courts and the same includes lack of adequate toilets for the increasing number of court users; Poor maintenance and non-functional facilities in existing toilets; Insufficient funding and transparency in allocation for construction and maintenance; Limited or no access for transgender persons and persons with disabilities.

The Court also highlighted the severe inadequacies in High Courts and District courts, including the absence of sanitary napkin dispensers, tactile pavements for visually impaired individuals, and dedicated spaces for women and children.

Key Directions

The judgment goes beyond identifying the problem, and provides comprehensive directions to address the issue: Construction of Toilets: High Courts and the State Governments / UTs shall ensure the construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all Court premises and Tribunals across the Country.

Ensure Accessibility : High Courts shall oversee and ensure that these facilities are clearly identifiable and accessible to Judges, advocates, litigants, and court staff.

Formation of Committee: A committee shall be constituted in each of the High Courts under the chairmanship of a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice and members comprising the Registrar General/Registrar of the High Court, the Chief Secretary, the PWD Secretary and the Finance Secretary of the State, a representative of the Bar Association and any other officers as they deem it fit, within a period of six weeks.

Formation of a comprehensive plan: Comprehensive plan has to accommodate women, transgender persons, PwD, children and provide clear signage and indications along with functional amenities, such as, water, electricity, operational flushes, provision of hand soap, napkins, toilet paper and up to date plumbing systems. Effectuate a mandatory cleaning schedule to ensure regular maintenance of the toilets by outsourcing professional agencies on contract basis, by employing modern cleaning methods and machinery to ensure better hygiene and usability.

Allocation of Funds and Periodic Review: State Governments/UTs shall allocate sufficient funds for construction, maintenance and cleanliness of the toilet facilities within the court premises, which shall be periodically reviewed in consultation with the committee constituted by the High Courts.

Conclusion

One can access the judgment as a late but effective call to improve the infrastructure of the Courts across the country. The success of this initiative will require the collective effort of governments, judicial authorities, and society at large to ensure that every court premises becomes a space of dignity, inclusivity and respect for all.

Frame  of Suit Based on Easement  of Necessity

 (By P.B. Menon, Advocate, Palakkad)   Mob. 9846544495

I am obliged to pen these few lines on this subject only out of my experience as a civil lawyer at the Bar in the course of the last nearly 75 years.

As a matter of fact in my said career I have not come across a single suit relating to easement of necessity having been filed with reference to Section 14 Indian Easement Act 1882 by any lawyer.

Whenever, due to partition or transfer splitting up of a holding as provided for in Section 13(a), (b) & (c) of the Indian Easement Act take place, an easement of necessity springs up in favour of the dominant tenement. In such cases what is seen generally done is to claim Easement of necessity over the existing way or road in the servient tenament. That I believe is not  proper or correct method, for Section 14 provides the right procedure. The  plaintiff who files the suit should issue a registered notice to the servient  tenament holder demanding him to set out  a way through his tenement which is reasonably convenient to the plaintiff dominant owner to have access to his plot,. and if he refuses ,neglects or fails to provide such a way the plaintiff can seek the aid of the court to set out such a way by issuing a commission to inspect and suggest a convenient way by filing a suit. That I believe is the real import and scope of Section 14. So to claim easement of necessity over the existing way and moulding the relief in the prayer portion so, is clearly wrong and unsustainable in law. Of course if the defendant has no such objection to allow the plaintiff to use the existing way there will be no problem at all. If you analyse the scope of  the section the real option is left with the servient owner of the tenement to set out  the way and the dominant owner has no right to insist upon the old existing way or any other way as he suggests. As a plaintiff, he can only  demand to set out a way through the servient tenant but can’t never  insist on a particular way according to his wishes. I feel that is the correct position in law.

In case a reader of this article feels otherwise please come up with his view to enlighten me on the subject which I warmly welcome.

 \jvS]cnlmcw \ÂIm³ hogvN hcp¯nbm XShv in£ hn[n¡mtam? Hcp hntbmP\Ipdn¸v

 (By F.]n.Fw.sambvXp, I®qÀ)  E-mail : najidaadiraja@gmail.com   Mob. 9446597898

2024 (5) sI.FÂ.Sn. 681þmw \{¼mbn dnt¸mÀ«v sN¿s¸«Xpw sslt¡mSXnbpsS {Inan\ dnhnj³ s]äoj³ 1149/ 2008 \{¼nepÅXpw 2024 k]vä_À 13þmw \p D¯chnd¡nbXpamb kmenw. V. tIcf sÌbnäv tIÊn hnNmcW tImSXnbpw XpSÀ¶v A¸o tImSXnbpw {]Xn¡v \ÂInb in£ AtX]Sn icnsh¨p sIm­Imbncp¶p _lp: sslt¡mSXn kn¦nÄ s_©v hn[n {]Jym]\w \S¯nbXv.

aPnkvt{Säv {]Xn¡v tImSXn ]ncnbpwhsc XShpw {Inan\ \S]SnN«w 357(3) hIp¸v {]Imcw aq¶p e£wcq] \jvS]cnlmcambn A\ymb¡mc¶p \ÂIphm\pw hogvNhcp¯nbm aq¶pamkw XShv A\p`hn¡p¶Xn\pambncp¶p in£bmbn hn[n¨ncp¶Xv. aPnkvt{Sävv {]Xn¡v aq¶p e£w cq] {Inan\ \S]SnN«w 357 (3)  hIp¸v {]Imcw \jvS]cnlmcw \ÂIm\pw hogvN hcp¯nbm aq¶pamkw XShv A\p`hn¡m\pw D¯chn« ]Ým¯e¯n {]kvXpX D¯chv _lp: sslt¡mSXn AtX]Sn AwKoIcn¨t¸mÄ ChnsS \nba]camb Hcp {]iv\w DbÀ¶phcp¶pI­v. {Inan\ \S]SnN«w 357(3) hIp¸v {]Imcw \jvS]cnlmcw D¯chn«m AXv \ÂIm¯]£w XShv in£ hn[n¡m³ \nbaw tImSXn¡v A[nImcw \ÂIp¶pt­Im? Cu teJIsâ Dd¨ adp]Sn “CÔ sb¶mWv. Cu ho£Ww Xmsg {]Xn]mZn¡p¶ hkvXpXIfneqsS teJI³ sXfnbn¡phm³ B{Kln¡p¶p.

d±m¡s¸« 1973 se {Inan\ \S]Sn N«¯n 357þmw hIp¸nepw D]hIp¸pIfnepambn«mWv {Inan\ tImSXnIÄ¡v \jvS]cnlmcw D¯chnSm\pÅ A[nImcw \ÂIs¸«n«pÅXv. AXn ChnsS hnhmZamb 357 (3)þmwhIp¸v Xmsg AtX]Sn D²cn¡p¶p.

“tImSXn ]ng in£ `mKambn«pÅXÃm¯ Hcpin£mhn[n Npa¯pt¼mÄ tImSXn¡v Ipämtcm]Ww  sN¿s¸«n«pÅ BtfmSv  Abmsf A{]Imcw in£¡v hn[n¨Xv GXv IrXy¯n¶mtWm B IrXyw ImcWambn GsX¦nepw \jvStam £Xntbm A\phZn¨n«pÅ BÄ¡v D¯chn \nÀt±in¡p¶ XpI \jvS]cnlmcambn sImSp¡m³ D¯chv sN¿mhp¶XmWv.”

AXmbXv  in£ XShvin£ am{XamIpt¼mÄ, \jvSw kw`hn¨ hyàn¡v  \jvS]cnlmcw  D¯chnSm³ tImSXn¡v A[nImcapsI­¶p {]kvXpX hIp¸v hn`mh\w  sN¿p¶p. ]s£ tImSXn D¯chnSp¶ Cu hIp¸v {]ImcapÅ \jvS]cnlmcw {]Xn \ÂInbnsæn ]Icw XShv in£ hn[n¡m\pÅ A[nImcw N«¯nse 357(3)þmwhIp¸v A\phZn¡p¶nÃ. ]s£ kn.BÀ.]n.kn 357(1) hIp¸\pkcn¨p Hcp in£bmbn Npa¯s¸Sp¶ ]ngkwJy apgpht\m `mKnIamtbm \jvS]cnlmcambn A\phZn¡m³  tImSXn¡[nImcapI­v.  ]ng Hcp in£bmsW¶ \nebn ChnsS \jvS]cnlmcw \ÂInbnsæn XShvin£ \ÂIp¶Xn bmsXmcp A]mIXbpanÃ.

\jvS]cnlmcw \ÂIp¶Xn\v D¯chnSp¶Xv \nbahyhØIfpsS ASnØm\¯n Hcp in£bÃ. F´psImI­v “in£” sb¶Xv d±m¡s¸« 1860se C´y³ in£m \nba¯nse 53þmw hIp¸n \nÀÆNn¡s¸«n«pI­v.  AXp{]ImcamWv.

“53 þ in£IÄ :þ Cu \nbkwlnXbnse hyhØIÄ¡v Iogn GXv in£IÄ¡mtWm Ipä¡mÀ AÀlamIp¶Xv B in£IÄ

   H¶maXv       :  acWw

   c­ImaXv       :   Poh]cy´w

   aq¶maXv      :  XShv þ c­Ip Xc¯nÂ

                     ITn\XShv  (2) shdpwXShv

   \memaXv      :  hkvXp I­IpsI«Â

   A©maXv     :  ]ng

ChbmIp¶p.

ChnsS \jvS]cnlmcw Hcp“in£”bmbn ]cnKWn¡p¶nÃ. IqSmsX ]ngbpsS hogvN¡v XShn\pÅ in£mhn[n kn.BÀ.]n.kn 30þmw hIp¸n hyhØ sNbvXn«pI­v. “aPnkvt{Sänsâ tImSXn¡v ]ng HSp¡p¶XnenÅ \nbaw {]m[nImcw \ÂIp¶ Imes¯ XShv in£ \ÂImhp¶XmWv.”

ChnsSbpw  \jvS]cnlmc kwJy \ÂIm³ hogvN hcp¯nbm XShv in£ \ÂIm³  A[nImcw aPnkvt{Sän\p \ÂIp¶nÃ.

asämcp {]iv\w sslt¡mSXn¡v AXn¶pÅ A[nImcapt­Im? sslt¡mSXnIÄ¡v ]mÊm¡mhp¶ in£mhn[nIsf kn.BÀ.]n.kn 28(1) hIp¸n {]Xn]mZn¨n«pIv.

“sslt¡mSXn¡v \nbaw {]m[nImcw \ÂIp¶ GXv in£mhn[nbpw ]mÊm¡mhp¶XmWv“.

\jvS]cnlmcw \ÂIm³ hogvN hcp¯nbm XShv in£ \ÂIm³ Hcp \nbahyhØbpw \nehnenÃm¯ Npäp]mSn sslt¡mSXn¡pw {]kvXpX A[nImcansöp hyàam¡p¶p.

ASp¯Xmbn taÂhyhØIÄ kw_Ôn¨p \nehnepÅ “Zn `mcXob \mKcnIkpc£ kwlnX 2023” F´v ]dbp¶psb¶p ]cntim[n¡mw. \jvS]cnlmcw kw_Ôn¨p _n.F³.Fkv.Fkv BIvSn 395þmw hIp¸nemWv {]Xn]mZn¨ncn¡p¶Xv. \nbahIp¸v \{¼nepÅ hyXymkaÃmsX, kn.BÀ.]n.knbnse hyhØIfpambn Hcp amähpanÃ. \nehnepÅ \nba¯nepw \jvS]cnlmcw \ÂIm³ hogvNhcp¯nbmÂXShv in£ \ÂIm\pÅ Hcp hyhØbpanÃ. sslt¡mSXnbpsSbpw Iogvt¡mSXnIfpsSbpw A[nImc ]cn[nbnepw henbamä§fnÃ. in£bpsS \nÀÆN\¯n sF.]n.kn., 54þmw hIp¸n¶p]Icambn \nehnepÅ“Zn `mcXob \ymbkwlnX 2023þmw BIvSn 4þmw hIp¸nemWv Ah {]Xn\nZm\w sN¿p¶Xv. “kmaqlytkh\w”Hcp in£bmbn IqSpX tNÀ¯psh¶sXmgn¨m kn.BÀ.]o.knbpambn aäp bmsXmcp hnXymkhpanÃ. ta {]Xn]mZn¨ hkvXpXIfn \n¶pw d±m¡s¸« kn.BÀ.]n.kn 357(3) _n.F³.Fkv Fkv 395(3) hIp¸p {]ImcapÅ \jvS]cnlmcw hn[n¨m AXv ]men¨nsæn XShv in£ hn[n¡m³ tImSXnIÄ¡[nImcansöpt_m[ys¸Sp¶XmWv.

]s£ \jvS]cnlmcw F§ns\ CuSm¡pw? d±m¡s¸« kn.BÀ.]n.kn. Bnse 431þmw hIp¸v (\nehnepÅ _n.F³.Fkv.Fkv BIvSnse 461þmw hIp¸v) AXn\p¯cw \ÂIp¶p­.  “431:  Cu \nba kwlnXbn Iogn sNbvX GsX¦nepw  D¯chnsâ _e¯n sImSp¡m\pÅXpw hkqem¡p¶ k{¼Zmb¯n¶v aäphn[¯n {]ISambn hyhØ sNbvXn«nÃm¯Xpamb (]ngbÃm¯Xpamb) GsX¦nepw  ]Ww ]ngbmbncp¶Xv t]mse hkqem¡mhp¶XmWv”. CtX hyhØ \nehnepÅ _n.F³.Fkv.Fkv  BIvSn 472þmw hIp¸mbn AtX]Sn \ne\nÀ¯nbn«papI­v.

]ng CuSm¡Â kw_Ôn¨p kn.BÀ.]n.kn. 421þmw hIp¸n (_n.F³.Fkv.Fkv 461þmw hIp¸v) hniZambn {]Xn]mZn¨n«I­.v  AXv {]Imcw \jvS]cnlmcw ]ngt]mse CuSm¡m³ c­Iv amÀ¤§fmWv hyhØ sN¿s¸«ncn¡p¶Xv. P]vXnhgnbmbn XpI sehn sN¿m\pÅ hmdI­v ]pds¸Sphn¡p¶Xn\pw GsX¦nepw PwKa hkvXphnsâ hnÂ]\bpamWv H¶p. c­Imas¯XmIs« `q¡c IpSnÈnIbmbn XpI I­IpsI«m³ PnÃm IeIvStdmSv \nÀt±in¡p¶ hmdâv ]pds¸Sphn¡pI.

s\tKmjy_vÄ C³kv{Spsaâv 138þmw hIp¸v {]ImcapÅ Cu teJ\¯n¶m[mcamb tIÊnse hn[n apJhpcbn kqNn¸n¨ncp¶phsÃm. ]s£ Iogvt¡mSXn hn[nIsf¡pdn¨p sslt¡mSXn D¯chnsâ  6þmw JWvUnIbn {]Xn]mZn¨Xv ChnsS Hcn¡ÂIqSn D²cn¡p¶p.

“6: After trial the learned – Magistrate found the accused quilty under Section 138 N.I.Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C with a stipulation that in default of payment of compensation accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The Appeal preferred by the accused as Crl.A.No.219/2016 was dismissed by the sessions court by confirming the conviction and sentence…” XpSÀ¶p dnhnj³ lcPnbnt·Â hmZwtI« tijw sslt¡mSXn ]pds¸Sphn¨ D¯chpw AtX]Sn ChnsS D²cn¡p¶p.

“…… Therefore this court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused.

The Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed”.

ChnsS DbÀ¯s¸Sp¶ tNmZyanXmWv. kn.BÀ.]n.kn 357(3) (\nehnepÅ _nF³.Fkv.Fkv BIvSv 395) hIp¸v {]Imcw Npa¯p¶ \jvS]cnlmc kwJy \ÂIp¶Xn hogvNhcp¯p¶]£w XShv in£ hn[n¡p¶Xv \nbahncp²atÃ?. A§s\ XShv in£ hn[n¡m³ A\phZn¡p¶ GsX¦nepw \nbahyhØ \nehneptI­m? Cu tNmZy§Ä¡p¯cw Is­I¯m³ {]Xn]mZyhnjbw \nbaRvP·mscbpw \ymbm[n]scbpw ChnsS _m[yØcm¡p¶pI­v.

taÂkqNn¸n¨ tIÊn am{Xaà ]e hn[nIfnepw Cu \nbasshcp²yw {]ISam¡p¶qI­v. DZmlcWambn 2024 (5) sI.FÂ.Sn 692þmw \{¼mbn dnt¸mÀ«vsN¿s¸«Xpw 2024 BKÌv 29\v hn[n {]kvXmhn¨Xpamb AeIvkm­À V._nPpsNø³ tIÊnse sslt¡mSXn D¯chnepw Cu sshcq²yw ZriyamIp¶pI­v. F³.sF.BIvSv 138þmw hIp¸v  {]ImcapÅ {]kvXpX tIÊn Ipä¡mc\msW¶p Is­¯nb {]Xn¡v aPnkvt{Säv \ÂInb in£ Bdpamkw XShpw A¿mbncw cq] ]ngbpambncp¶p. ]ng AS¨m kn.BÀ.]n.kn 357(1) hIp¸v {]Imcw \jvS]cnlmcambn A\ymb¡mc\p \ÂIp¶Xn¶pw ]ng HSp¡phm³ hogvNhcp¯nbm Hcp amkw IqSpX XShv A\p`hn¡m\pw aPnkvt{Säv D¯chn«ncp¶p. ]s£  dnhnj³ lcPnbpambn  Cu tIÊv sslt¡mSXnbnse¯nbt¸mÄ in£bn amäw hcp¯pIbpI­mbn. sslt¡mSXn D¯chnsâ 17þmw JWvUnIbn {]Xn]mZn¨Xv C{]Imcambncp¶p.

      “17:  Considering the long delay and the purpose and object  of the  legislation, this court is inclined to modify the sentence as simple Imprisonment  for one day till rising of court and to pay compensation of `5 lakhs to the appellant complainant with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months.

ChnsS \jvS]cnlmcw hn[n¨Xv kn.BÀ.]n.kn 357 (3) hIp¸v {]ImcamsW¶p hyàam¡nbn«nsænepw hmNILS\ AXv hyàam¡s¸Sp¶pI­v.

kn.BÀ.]n.kn.357 (3) hIp¸v  (\nehnepÅ _n.F³.Fkv FkvBIvSv 395(3) hIp¸v) {]ImcapÅ \jvS]cnlmcw \ÂIp¶Xn hogvN hcp¯nbm XShvin£ \ÂIp¶ coXn hensbmcp {]XymLmXw krjvSn¡phm³ hgn Hcp¡p¶pI­v. \jvS]cnlmcw \ÂIm³ km[n¡m¯ Npäp]mSn {]Xn PbnÂin£ A\p`hn¡m³ X¿mdmIpt¼mÄ AhnsS “\nba¯n¶p ap¼n kaXz”sa¶ `cWLS\ 14þmw hIp¸v A\phZn¨n«pÅ auenImhImi¯nsâ \áamb ewL\w ZÀin¡s¸Sp¶p. AXpsImI­v  Cu hnjb¯n  \nbaÚcpw \ymbm[n]cpw {i² ]Xn¸nt¡­Ip¶ BhiyIXbpsS A\nhmcyX Du¶n¸dbp¶p. ASp¯pXs¶ AXpImIpsa¶ ip`{]Xo£tbmsS ChnsS hncmaanSp¶p.