Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan has quashed the acquittal granted in a second criminal appeal filed by the same accused against the same trial court judgment, before the same appellate court, after an earlier appeal had been dismissed. Allowing a suo motu criminal revision, the court set aside the order dated 30 January 2016 of the Additional District & Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara, and ordered the accused to pay ₹1,00,000 to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within one month. Directions were also issued to prevent similar procedural anomalies until a unified case-type tracking system is implemented on 1 January 2026.

The proceedings arose from Crime No. 715/2009 registered at Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging offences under Sections 457, 461, 392, and 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against four individuals. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam, took cognisance as C.C. No. 454/2010.

Also Read: Supreme Court Disappointed With Yet Another Allahabad HC Order | Says Ignoring Law On Sentence Suspension Defeats Right To Appeal

After trial, the court acquitted the fourth accused, Rajeev, and convicted the first accused, Manikandan, the second accused, Madhavan, and the third accused, Krishnan @ Masanan, for offences under Sections 392 and 457 IPC.

The second and third accused challenged their convictions in Criminal Appeal Nos. 342/2012 and 30/2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara. Both appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 9 April 2013, affirming the trial court’s decision.

Almost three years later, the third accused, Krishnan @ Masanan, filed Criminal Appeal No. 18/2015 before the same appellate court through a different advocate, seeking to challenge the same trial court judgment. This second appeal was filed with a delay of 1,223 days, explained through Crl.M.P. No. 60/2015. The delay was condoned, and the appeal admitted on 20 February 2015. Hearings took place between July 2015 and January 2016, with final arguments on 28 January 2016. Judgment was delivered on 30 January 2016 acquitting the appellant.

At no stage during these proceedings did the Registry of the appellate court or the Public Prosecutor inform the court about the earlier appeals of 2012 and their dismissal in 2013. This led to two conflicting appellate judgments — one upholding the conviction, the other granting acquittal.

The Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, brought this anomaly to the High Court’s attention, prompting a suo motu revision. On 9 June 2025, the High Court ordered notices, directed service through counsel in the second appeal, and tasked the Registrar (Vigilance) with enquiring into existing systems for detecting duplicate appeals and whether trial court records were requisitioned.

The Registrar (Vigilance) reported that while appellate registers record essential case details, detecting prior appeals requires manual inspection, and no automated system exists. The trial court records in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2015 had been requisitioned, with confirmation from the trial court that they were already before the appellate court in another matter. The presiding officer in the second appeal had retired in 2021. The advocate in that appeal stated he was unaware of the earlier proceedings when filing. No foul play was detected.

The Registrar (Computerisation)-cum-Director (IT) informed the court that a standardised, unified case-type system capable of automatically flagging related matters was being developed for statewide implementation on 1 January 2026. Until then, all district courts would manually verify prior appeals before numbering new cases.

Notice to the second respondent was served, but there was no appearance.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan first acknowledged the undisputed procedural history: “Admittedly, the second respondent filed Crl. Appeal No.30/2012 against the conviction and sentence imposed on him, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate court.”

The court noted that the same accused subsequently initiated a second appeal before the same appellate court: “Thereafter, the 2nd respondent again filed the second Crl. Appeal through another lawyer as Crl. Appeal No.18/2015 before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara, itself.” This second appeal, unlike the first, ended in acquittal.

Justice Kunhikrishnan expressed concern at the suppression of the earlier proceedings: “In the light of the first order dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence, the 2nd respondent ought not to have filed a second appeal suppressing the same.” The court characterised the incident as one that must serve as an example, stating: “It should be a lesson to all, and it is to protect our system.”

Turning to systemic safeguards, the judgment recorded: “The Registrar (District Judiciary) can be directed to send this judgment to all the Principal District Judges in the State, to ensure that such issues do not happen till 01.01.2026, the date on which the unification of case types across all courts is set to be implemented.”

The court stressed the importance of verification before numbering cases: “Strict directions should be given by the Principal District Judge to his office to number all cases only after manually verifying that there are no earlier proceedings on the same issue.”

On the role of other stakeholders, the judge stated: “The registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala and the State Police Chief. It is also the duty of the police to inform the prosecutor concerned about the earlier proceedings so that the prosecutor can submit the same to the court.”

These observations formed the reasoning basis for the orders that followed.

The High Court allowed the suo motu criminal revision and set aside the order dated 30 January 2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2015 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara.

Also Read: Pregnancy Care Not An Extraordinary Ground | Kerala High Court Rejects Convict’s Plea For Emergency Parole To Assist Wife

The Registrar (District Judiciary) was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to all Principal District Judges in Kerala. Until 31 December 2025, Principal District Judges were to issue strict instructions ensuring that new cases are numbered only after manual verification confirms that no earlier appeals or proceedings against the same judgment exist.

The second respondent was ordered to pay a cost of ₹1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within one month. If payment is not made, the Authority may initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.

The Registry of the High Court was instructed to send copies of the judgment to the Home Secretary, Government of Kerala, and the State Police Chief. Both authorities were to take measures to ensure that police officers inform prosecutors of prior proceedings so that such information is placed before the court.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sr. Public Prosecutor Seetha S.

For the Respondents: Advocate B. Tijumon (Crl. A. No. 18/2015)

Case Title: Suo Motu Revision – Re State of Kerala & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:58449

Case Number: Crl.RC No. 02 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan