No absolute embargo in filing the subsequent application for pre-arrest bail. However, Kerala HC justifies the dismissal of second pre-arrest application preferred by the accused on the ground that it can be entertained only if there is a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires the earlier view to be interfered with and the present case is devoid of such a change in circumstance. Suresh K.M v. State of Kerala Hon’ble Justice Kauser Edappagath Decided...

[CMDRF misappropriation case] Kerala HC refuses to entertain WP against the Order of Lokayukta by which the bench consisting of Lok Ayukta and UpaLok Ayukta differed on the basic issue as to whether the action of Chief Minister and Ministers of Government of Kerala, can be subject to investigation under the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and ordered the bench of three members, i.e., the Lok Ayukta and two UpaLok Ayuktas to be constituted. R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala Hon&rs...

No retrospective operation of a notification issued under Commercial Courts Act enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of Commercial Court to Rs. Ten Lakhs from Rs. Three Lakhs and jurisdiction of commercial Court would not stand ousted in view of the enhancement of specified value by the subsequent notification pertaining to a pending matter. – Kerala HC clarifies Alex G. Muricken v. Murickens Marketing System LLP Hon’ble Justice P. Somarajan Decided on 27th June, 2023 For Appellant ...

Even in cases where an earlier complaint was dismissed or refer report filed, the jurisdictional court is vested with the power to take cognizance of the offences based on protest complaint. –– Kerala High Court reiterates The Petitioner was aggrieved by the Order of Sessions Judge, who took cognizance of the offences punishable under SC & ST Act on a protest complaint filed by the de facto complainant even when the police after investigation filed final report finding that the ...

If a confession statement is not recorded by an authorised officer under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the same is inadmissible in evidence. Kerala High Court sets aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused who killed the barking deer and used its meat thereby violating the Forest Act and Wildlife (Protection) Act for want of reliable evidence. Narayanan v. State of Kerala Hon’ble Justice A. Badharudeen Decided on 14th July, 2023-08-03 For Appellant : V.A. Johnson (...