Trusts Act, 1882—Section 63—A partition suit involving property purchased under Exts.A1 and A2 Sale Deeds, the appellate court partially modified the preliminary decree—The first plaintiff (mother) and her husband had purchased the property, and upon his death, the plaintiffs claimed inheritance—The defendant (daughter) contended that the purchase was made using sale proceeds of property jointly held with her mother under Ext.B1 Partition Deed, sold through Exts.B2 to B4 after she attained majority—The court found that although the purchases under Exts.A1 and A2 predated the formal sales under Exts.B2 to B4, the sale consideration was received earlier pursuant to an agreement and used by the parents for the purchase, holding it in trust for the defendant—Applying Sections 63 and 66 of the Indian Tr...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 190(1)(a), 200, 203—Cognizance on Complaint—A Magistrate may take cognizance only upon receiving a complaint disclosing facts constituting an offence; mere suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient—The Magistrate retains inherent power to dismiss a complaint at the pre-cognizance stage if no prima facie offence is disclosed, and the examination under Section 200 arises only after cognizance is taken—Dismissal is appropriate where no offence is made out even on examining accompanying documents—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 34—Relevance of Account Books—Only entries in regularly maintained books of account are relevant; loose sheets, diaries, or unsystematic records are inadmissible and lack evidentiary value, particularly against third...

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 239—This revision petition challenges the dismissal of a discharge application filed under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) by the accused in C.C.No.275/2016—The prosecution alleges that the accused, a contractor, submitted forged invoices for the purchase of bitumen, claiming reimbursement from the Block Panchayath—The accused argued that he was not responsible for the authenticity of the invoices and claimed that the bitumen was used in accordance with the prescribed standards for road construction—The trial court dismissed the discharge petition, concluding that the prosecution presented sufficient material to proceed with the case—The accused contended that there was no evidence of government loss or substandard work—The court emphasized...

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 17—This case discusses several key aspects of criminal procedure, particularly in relation to further investigations, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), and procedural requirements—A Magistrate has the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) at any stage before the trial begins, even after a discharge application is dismissed—The amendment to Explanation 2 of Section 13(1) of the PC Act, removing the requirement for intimation of lawful income sources, is a substantive change and applies prospectively, not retroactively—Non-consideration of defense documents during investigation, which do not affect the legality of the investigation, cannot automatically result in the quashing of the final report or orde...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 22(5)—This writ petition seeks the issuance of a habeas corpus writ for the release of the detenu, Mobish, who is detained under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007—The petitioner challenged the detention order on several grounds, including the absence of compelling reasons for detention while the detenu was in judicial custody, the delay between the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention, and the failure to provide a legible copy of the seizure mahazar—The court, however, upheld the detention, stating that the detaining authority had valid reasons to believe that the detenu, despite being in custody, could be released on bail and would likely indulge in prejudicial activities—The delay was not deemed to sever the link betw...

Limitation Act, 1963—Section 17—The Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, which sought to declare a sale deed (Ext.A1) executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant as a sham transaction—The Court held that the suit, filed in December 2003, was hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the plaintiff, being the executant of the sale deed dated 04.08.1997, had knowledge of its execution from the outset—It reaffirmed that for executants seeking cancellation of a document, limitation begins from the date of execution, not from a later alleged discovery—The Court found no merit in the plaintiff's reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act as no fraud or mistake was established—Since the primary relief was time-barred, the trial court's rejection of the plain...

The Kerala High Court upheld the constitutional validity of proceedings initiated under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), rejecting the challenge based on Article 20(1) of the Constitution—The Court held that money laundering is a continuing offence and that prosecution under Section 3 of the PMLA is valid even if the predicate offence occurred prior to the enactment of the PMLA or its amendment, provided the accused continued to possess, use, or project the proceeds of crime as untainted property after the law came into force—Referring to Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma, the Court clarified that the offence arises from the ongoing handling of illicit funds, not the original predicate offence—It further held that the trial under the PMLA may proceed simultaneously ...

Hindu Law, while there is a presumption of a joint family, there is no assumption that a Hindu family possesses joint property—The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property to demonstrate the existence of an adequate nucleus of ancestral property, from which subsequent acquisitions could have been made—Once the nucleus is established, the burden shifts to the member claiming property as self-acquired to prove that it was obtained without the aid of joint family funds—Properties acquired in the joint names of family members are presumed to be joint family property, especially when there is evidence of an existing joint family nucleus and no proof of independent income or contribution by the acquirers—Further, property received by a coparcener on partition of ancestral joint f...

Information Technology Act, 2000—Section 66E—The appellant, aggrieved by the dismissal of his pre-arrest bail petition, appealed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—The appellant was accused of uploading a derogatory and defamatory video against the 2nd respondent/informant, a member of a scheduled caste—The appellant contended that no offence under the Act was made out, as there was no specific reference to the informant’s caste—The prosecution, however, argued that the video was abusive and defamatory, violating several provisions including Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Act, as well as Section 354A and Section 66E of the IT Act—The court observed that while the video was derogatory, the offence under Section 67A o...

Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 19(b)—The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, which involves not just financial capacity but also consistent efforts and conduct—A substantial portion of the consideration paid by the plaintiff and the vendor’s failure to meet key obligations, such as obtaining tax clearance certificates and clearing encumbrances, can demonstrate the plaintiff’s readiness—Regarding subsequent purchasers under Section 19(b), a purchaser must prove they acted in good faith, for value, and without notice of prior agreements—Failure to inspect original title deeds and suspicious circumstances surrounding the payment of consideration may negate the defense of being a bonafide purchaser—Additionally, the vendor’s f...