{"id":101008,"date":"2009-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-11-09T07:41:49","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T02:11:49","slug":"venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1865 of 2009()\n\n\n1. VENUGOPAL, S\/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. E.K.JOHN, S\/O.KORA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.J.JOSEMON\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :17\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                             Crl.R.P.No.1865 of 2009\n                           --------------------------------------\n                     Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009.\n\n                                        ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
       Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am<\/p>\n
proposing to pass in this revision         which is not prejudicial to him.         Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.    This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No.245 of 2007 confirming conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”). According to respondent No.1,<\/p>\n
there was an agreement for sale of his property between himself and petitioner<\/p>\n
fixing the sale consideration at Rs.4,50,000\/-,              property was sold for that<\/p>\n
consideration to the petitioner and in that transaction, a sum of Rs.1,45,000\/- is<\/p>\n
outstanding to be paid to him.              Petitioner issued Ext.P1, cheque dated<\/p>\n
22.8.2005 for payment of that amount.              That cheque was dishonoured for<\/p>\n
insufficiency of funds as proved by Exts.P2 and P3.                Statutory notice was<\/p>\n
served on petitioner as proved by Exts.P4 to P5.               According to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
he purchased the property from respondent No.1 for a total consideration of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,40,000\/-. Before that, he had borrowed Rs.15,000\/- from respondent No.1<\/p>\n
and given two signed blank cheques as security.               The understanding was that<\/p>\n
he would repay the said sum of Rs.15,000\/- in instalments of Rs.1,050\/- per<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1865\/2009<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
month. Petitioner has paid Rs.15,000\/- and the balance amount payable was<\/p>\n
only Rs.6,000\/-. Misusing one of the signed blank cheques respondent No.1 has<\/p>\n
preferred the complaint. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. PW2 has<\/p>\n
given evidence in favour of respondent No.1.      Ext.P6 is the copy of agreement<\/p>\n
for sale executed between petitioner and respondent No.1 on 23.12.2004.<\/p>\n
Petitioner gave evidence as DW1 and spoke to his case. DW2 is a witness<\/p>\n
examined by petitioner.      DW2 stated that petitioner and respondent No.1 are<\/p>\n
known to him, the latter is a money lender who used to advance loans on the<\/p>\n
security of   documents of vehicle.    It is the   further version  of    DW2 that<\/p>\n
petitioner had purchased property belonging to respondent No.1 for a total<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.3,40,000\/-. Petitioner had availed a loan of Rupees three<\/p>\n
lakhs from the bank and paid that amount to respondent No.1 as part of the sale<\/p>\n
consideration. DW2 claimed that respondent No.1 had told him that he had<\/p>\n
given    some time to the petitioner to pay the balance sum of Rs.40,000\/-<\/p>\n
(towards the sale consideration). On the side of petitioner apart from Exts.D6<\/p>\n
and D7, the reply notice and acknowledgment card referred to above, Exts.D1 to<\/p>\n
D5 were also marked. Ext.D2 is a complaint preferred by the petitioner to the<\/p>\n
local police stating that balance amount payable to respondent No.1 is only<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- and that the latter attacked him. Ext.D3 is the copy of the complaint<\/p>\n
register where it is endorsed that since respondent No.1 had already taken the<\/p>\n
matter to the court, parties could agitate the issue in court. Ext.D4 is the copy of<\/p>\n
the title deed. It is contended by learned counsel that evidence on record is not<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1865\/2009<\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
sufficient to warrant a conclusion that petitioner issued the cheque for discharge<\/p>\n
of a legally enforceable debt\/liability. Learned counsel also referred to what is<\/p>\n
described as     contradictory findings entered by the appellate court originally<\/p>\n
before the case was remitted and the appellate judgment under challenge in<\/p>\n
this revision as to the writings in Ext.P1, cheque.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The crucial question is whether petitioner has issued the cheque for<\/p>\n
discharge of a legally enforceable debt\/liability. Exts.D2 and D3 will not help<\/p>\n
the petitioner since it is seen that Ext.P1, cheque is dated 22. 8.2005 and<\/p>\n
Ext.D2, complaint was preferred by petitioner to the police on the same day. It<\/p>\n
is seen from Ext.P6, agreement for sale dated 23.12.2004 admittedly executed<\/p>\n
between the petitioner and respondent No.1 that 16 cents and house belonging<\/p>\n
to respondent No.1 was agreed to be purchased by             petitioner for a total<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.4,50,000\/-.      It is admitted by the petitioner that he has<\/p>\n
executed Ext.P6, produced the same in the bank and on the strength of that,<\/p>\n
raised a loan for payment of the sale consideration.         Ext.D4, copy of the<\/p>\n
assignment deed in favour of petitioner states that sale consideration stated<\/p>\n
therein is only Rs.75,000\/-.       It is admitted by both sides that actual sale<\/p>\n
consideration is not Rs.75,000\/- as stated therein. Then Ext.P6 shows that it is<\/p>\n
Rs.4,50,000\/-. Even as per petitioner, he raised a loan of Rupees three lakhs<\/p>\n
from the bank for payment of sale consideration on the strength of Ext.P6 and<\/p>\n
paid that amount to respondent No.1. Thus it is clear that the actual sale<\/p>\n
consideration was Rs.4,50,000\/- and only Rs.3,00,000\/- was paid to respondent<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1865\/2009<\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
No.1 and a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- was due to respondent No.1. Ext.P1, cheque<\/p>\n
is only for Rs.1,45,000\/-. It is not disputed that Ext.P1 contained the signature of<\/p>\n
the petitioner, is drawn on his account and he had entrusted the same to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1. Evidence of respondent No.1 regarding due execution of the<\/p>\n
cheque gets corroboration from Ext.P6 as well. In these circumstances, I do not<\/p>\n
find reason to interfere with the finding of courts below as to the due execution<\/p>\n
of Ext.P1 and    failure of petitioner to rebut the presumption under Section 139<\/p>\n
of the Act<\/p>\n
       4.     Learned magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three months.          There was       a direction for payment of<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.1,50,000\/- to respondent No.2 with default sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for two months.          Appellate court did not interfere with the<\/p>\n
sentence. Learned counsel submits that the sentence awarded is excessive.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted six months’ time to<\/p>\n
pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     Considering the nature of offence and the object of legislation,     I<\/p>\n
am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation<\/p>\n
as awarded by        learned magistrate is sufficient in the ends of justice.<\/p>\n
Considering all relevant facts, the amount involved and the fact that substantive<\/p>\n
sentence     is being modified, I direct       that    in case of non-payment of<\/p>\n
compensation petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for five months.<\/p>\n
Considering the financial difficulty of the      petitioner expressed by    learned<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1865\/2009<\/p>\n
                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel, petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit compensation.<\/p>\n
      Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent:<\/p>\n
                     i.     Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is<\/p>\n
              modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     ii.    Petitioner is granted time till 30.12.2009 to deposit<\/p>\n
               compensation as directed by learned magistrate for payment to<\/p>\n
               respondent No.1.       In case of failure, petitioner has to undergo<\/p>\n
               simple imprisonment for five months.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     iii.   It is made clear that it will be sufficient compliance of<\/p>\n
              the direction for deposit of compensation if petitioner paid<\/p>\n
              compensation to respondent No.1 through his counsel in the trial<\/p>\n
              court and respondent No.1 filed a statement in the trial court<\/p>\n
              through his counsel acknowledging receipt of compensation within<\/p>\n
              the above said period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.12.2009 to receive the<\/p>\n
sentence.   Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in<\/p>\n
abeyance till 31.12.2009. Registry is directed to send the records to the trial<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1865 of 2009() 1. VENUGOPAL, S\/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, … Petitioner Vs 1. E.K.JOHN, S\/O.KORA, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.JOSEMON For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :17\/07\/2009 O R […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVenugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T02:11:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T02:11:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1230,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T02:11:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T02:11:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T02:11:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2"},"wordCount":1230,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2","name":"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T02:11:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venugopal-vs-e-k-john-on-17-july-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venugopal vs E.K.John on 17 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101008","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}