While taking a very pragmatic step, the Kerala High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Suo Motu proceedings initiated by the High Court vs State of Kerala & Ors in Crl.RC No. 2 of 2025 Crime No.715/2009 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha against the order/judgment dated 30.01.2016 IN Crl.A No.18 of 2015 of Additional District Court-I, Mavelikkara and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:KER:58449 that was pronounced as recently as on August 1, 2025 directed district judges to take steps to ensure that there are no duplicate filings of appeals, revision petitions, etc., in the same case. It must be laid bare that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice PV Kunhikrishnan made the key observation after coming across a case where a man accused of robbery secured an acquittal from a Sessions Court by suppressing that his earlier appeal in the same matter had already been dismissed. It must be also noted that the accused, who had lost his first appeal had managed to secure an acquittal later by filing a second appeal before the same court (Sessions Court) through another lawyer. It was thus in the fitness of things that the Kerala High Court set aside this acquittal and decided to impose a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the accused! Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice PV Kunhikrishnan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “To avoid multiplicity of appeals, revision and other proceedings arising from the same matter, it is not only the duty of the court alone, but it is the bound duty of the lawyers, litigants and the registry of the court concerned as well. Otherwise, there will be far-reaching consequences. Here is a case where two criminal appeals were filed before the Sessions court by the same accused through two different lawyers, and in one appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed, while in the other, the same accused was acquitted. Who is responsible? The Court, or the registry of the court, or the accused, or the lawyer who filed the appeal on behalf of the accused, or the prosecutor concerned?? Whoever it is, this incident serves as a lesson to all the stakeholders, and all should work together to protect the criminal justice delivery system.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “This suo moto revision is registered based on a letter from the District and Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The Kayamkulam Police registered Crime No.715/2009 against four accused under Section 457, 461, 392 and 411 r/w 34 of IPC. The case was charge sheeted and the case was taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam, as CC No.454/2010. The learned Magistrate, after trial, acquitted accused No.4 (Rajeev). The accused No.1 (Manikandan), accused No.2 (Madhavan) and accused No.3 (Krishnan @ Masanan, who is the 2nd respondent herein) were convicted and sentenced under Section 392 and 457 IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence, accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed Crl. Appeal No.342/2012 and Crl. Appeal No.30/2012 respectively before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara. Those appeals were dismissed by a common judgment on 09.04.2013, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on them.”

As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 3 laying bare stating that, “After about three years, the 2nd respondent herein, who is the 3rd accused, filed a second criminal appeal, suppressing the earlier appeal as Crl. Appeal No.18/2015 before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara, against the same judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam, in CC No.454/2010 through another counsel with a delay condonation petition of 1223 days. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was heard, and thereafter he was acquitted vide judgment dated 30.01.2016. The Registry of the appellate court and the Public Prosecutor failed to bring up the dismissal of the earlier appeal to the notice of the learned Judge. Observing the anomaly in these proceedings, the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, submitted the matter before this Court. When the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Judge dealing with the Crl. Revision Petition as per roster, it was directed to initiate a suo moto revision against the judgment dated 30.01.2016 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara, in Crl. Appeal No.18/2015. Accordingly, the present Crl. Revision Case is registered.”

Quite significantly, the Bench then points out in para 6 holding that, “Based on the report of the Registrar (Vigilance), this Court suo moto impleaded the Registrar (Computerisation)-cum-Director (IT) as additional respondent No.3. This Court directed the Addl. 3rd respondent to file a statement to find out whether any mechanism can be developed to see that such mistakes do not happen in future. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed statement. In the statement, it is clearly stated that a comprehensive exercise is currently underway to standardise and unify the case types across all District Courts. It is stated that this will ensure that, irrespective of the court or the mode of filing (online or offline), the system can intelligently identify and group cases. Since this will directly affect the numbering process in courts in the District Judiciary, it is proposed to implement the same from 01.01.2026 for data consistency, is the submission. The Addl. 3rd respondent submitted that once the same is implemented, difficulties like the one that happened in the present case will not arise. Therefore, from 01.01.2026, this type of mistake will not happen. But, till 31.12.2025, all District Courts will ensure that there are no earlier appeals or other proceedings filed by the same party against the same judgment, in order to avoid conflicting decisions.”

It is worth noting that the Bench then holds in para 7 observing precisely that, “In the enquiry report, the Registrar (Vigilance) took a statement from the lawyer who filed the second Crl. Appeal. He stated that he was not aware of the earlier proceedings. No other foul play from the side of the lawyer is detected by the Registrar in her report. This court believes the statement of the lawyer, because he is an officer of the court. Hence, I don’t want to take any action against the lawyer who filed the second criminal appeal. The presiding officer, who disposed of the second criminal appeal, is already retired from service. On 09.06.2025, this Court directed the Addl. District & Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara, to take steps to give notice to the 2nd respondent through the counsel who filed Crl. Appeal No.18/2015. The Additional District and Sessions Judge submitted a report before this Court in which it is stated that the notice was given to the counsel who filed the second Crl. Appeal and he informed that he communicated the same to the 3rd accused, who is Krishnan @ Masanan. Therefore, service to the 3rd accused, who is the 2nd respondent in this revision, is complete. There is no appearance for the 2nd respondent.”

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 8 what really constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “This Court considered the issue in detail. 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. 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. The second appeal is allowed by the appellate court by acquitting the second respondent. 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. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is to be imposed with heavy costs. I fix Rs. 1,00,000/- as the cost to be paid by the 2nd respondent. It should be a lesson to all, and it is to protect our system. Moreover, the second judgment in Crl. Appeal No.18/2015 is to be set aside, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 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. 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. 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. The Home Secretary, Government of Kerala and the State Police Chief will do the needful to avoid such instances in future.

Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed in the following manner:

1. The order dated 30.01.2016 in Crl. Appeal No.18/2015 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara, is set aside.

2. The Registrar (District Judiciary) will forward a copy of this order to all Principal District Judges of the State forthwith.

3. The 2nd respondent will pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Kerala State Legal Service Authority, within a period of one month. If the amount is not deposited, the Legal Service Authority can take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to recover the same.”

In essence, it thus merits no reiteration that it is the bounden duty of the District Judges to be on guard against duplicate appeals that lead to conflicting judgments as underscored by the Kerala High Court in this leading case. There can be just no gain saying that this will ensure that procedural lapses are prevented in future as was also pointed out by the Kerala High Court. In addition, at the risk of repetition, it must be said that the police must also inform prosecutors of prior cases so that they can bring them to the court’s attention as was pointed out also so very rightly, robustly and rationally by the Kerala High Court in this progressive, pragmatic and persuasive judgment! 

Above all, it must be underscored what the Kerala High Court highlighted in this leading case that all the stakeholders including lawyers should work together to protect the criminal justice delivery system. It was also made indubitably clear by the Kerala High Court in this leading case that avoiding multiplicity of appeals is the shared duty of courts, lawyers, litigants and court registries to prevent conflicting judgments. No denying it!