{"id":102285,"date":"2009-01-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009"},"modified":"2014-07-06T12:47:51","modified_gmt":"2014-07-06T07:17:51","slug":"prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 475 of 2008()\n\n\n1. PRASOB,S.I.OF POLICE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :08\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n              Crl.R.P.No.4202\/2007 &\n                    475 OF 2008\n            ===========================\n\n      Dated this the 8th day of January,2009\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Whether a Sub Inspector of Police could be<\/p>\n
prosecuted for an act allegedly done by him while<\/p>\n
acting or purporting to act in discharge    of his<\/p>\n
official duty, without obtaining sanction under<\/p>\n
section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?.<\/p>\n
Whether dismissal of a petition filed for discharge<\/p>\n
under section 245(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
on the ground that Sub Inspector of Police is not<\/p>\n
considering whether sanction is necessary to an<\/p>\n
officer not removable from his office only with the<\/p>\n
sanction of the Government and so sanction    under<\/p>\n
sub section (1) of Section 197 is not necessary is<\/p>\n
a bar for considering the claim that sanction is<\/p>\n
necessary as provided under sub section (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure?.   These<\/p>\n
are the questions to be decided in these revision<\/p>\n
petitions.\n<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        2\n\n     2.        Crl.R.P.4202\/2007    is  filed  by   first\n\naccused,         the   then  Sub  Inspector  of   Police,\n\n<\/pre>\n
Irinjalakuda challenging the order of dismissal of<\/p>\n
C.M.P.768\/2007 filed by him under sub section (2)<\/p>\n
of Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.475\/2008 is filed by him challenging the<\/p>\n
order framing charge against him subsequent to the<\/p>\n
dismissal of CMP 768\/2007.        First respondent is the<\/p>\n
complainant.         The complaint was filed before the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate alleging that the four accused<\/p>\n
including        the    revision   petitioner   committed<\/p>\n
offences under sections 323,324,341,342,427,506(i)<\/p>\n
read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.          First<\/p>\n
respondent was a practising lawyer.          Case of the<\/p>\n
first respondent in the private complaint was that<\/p>\n
on 23.2.2006 at about 5 p.m he was manhandled by<\/p>\n
the accused near Irinjalakuda Post Office after<\/p>\n
wrongfully detaining him and also later at the<\/p>\n
Police Station. Case of the revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
that     the     incident    occurred  when      revision<\/p>\n
petitioner in his capacity as the Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007    3<\/p>\n
Police was questioning the driver involved in a<\/p>\n
collision of a car and bus at the public road on<\/p>\n
23.2.2006, near Irinjalakuda  Head post office at 5<\/p>\n
p.m.     It is the case of the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
that first respondent interfered and obstructed the<\/p>\n
official duties of the revision petitioner as a<\/p>\n
public servant and he caught hold of his    uniform<\/p>\n
and also beat him and therefore along with the<\/p>\n
police constables, first respondent was arrested<\/p>\n
and at that time some force had to be used and<\/p>\n
first respondent was then taken to     Irinjalakuda<\/p>\n
Police Station and Crime 111\/2002 of Irinjalakuda<\/p>\n
Police Station for the offences under sections<\/p>\n
341,353 and 332 of IPC was registered.       It is<\/p>\n
contended that first respondent escaped from police<\/p>\n
custody with the help of his friends and    another<\/p>\n
crime 113\/2002 of Irinajalakuda Police Station was<\/p>\n
reigistered for the offences under section 143,147,<\/p>\n
506(i),225(b), 353 read with section 149 of IPC<\/p>\n
was registered and the private complaint was lodged<\/p>\n
as a counterblast to the criminal cases registered<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        4<\/p>\n
against him and as the revision petitioner at the<\/p>\n
time of the alleged commission of the offences was<\/p>\n
discharging his official duty as the Sub Inspector,<\/p>\n
he is entitled to the protection under Section 64<\/p>\n
of Police Act and without obtaining sanction he<\/p>\n
cannot be prosecuted.         It is also contended that<\/p>\n
without      obtaining     sanction  as  provided   under<\/p>\n
section      197      of  Code  of   Criminal   Procedure<\/p>\n
prosecution as against him         will not lie.    First<\/p>\n
respondent          resisted the claim contending that<\/p>\n
revision petitioner did not commit the offences in<\/p>\n
discharge of his official duty.         It was contended<\/p>\n
that revision petitioner cannot inflict injuries on<\/p>\n
first respondent as done in this case and        offences<\/p>\n
under sections 323,324, 427 and 506(i) cannot be<\/p>\n
committed while performing         his official duty and<\/p>\n
therefore no sanction is necessary either           under<\/p>\n
section 64 of the Police        Act or Section 197 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure.        It was also contended<\/p>\n
that for the very same purpose revision        petitioner<\/p>\n
had   earlier          filed  CMP  9899\/2005  which   was<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        5<\/p>\n
dismissed on 25.2.2006 and another petition for the<\/p>\n
same    relief       is    not  maintainable.    Learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate as per order dated 17.9.2007 though<\/p>\n
found     that      dismissal of the earlier petition is<\/p>\n
not a bar, dismissed the application holding that<\/p>\n
sanction is not necessary under section 197(1) of<\/p>\n
the    Code      of    Criminal  Procedure  as  revision<\/p>\n
petitioner being a Sub Inspector is not a public<\/p>\n
servant     who      is  removable  only  by  the  State<\/p>\n
Government as provided under          sub section (1) of<\/p>\n
Section      197     of   Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.<\/p>\n
Revision is filed challenging the order contending<\/p>\n
that in view of the Division Bench decision of this<\/p>\n
court in Sarojini v. Prasannan (1996 (2) KLT 859),<\/p>\n
no prosecution will lie against a Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police or a Police Constable in respect of the act<\/p>\n
committed by him as a public servant in discharge<\/p>\n
of his official duty under sub section (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 197 in view of the Notification issued by<\/p>\n
the Government dated 16.12.1997 which was followed<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        6<\/p>\n
by this court in Shoukkathali v. State of Kerala<\/a><\/p>\n
(2005(3) KLT 634). Learned counsel relying on the<\/p>\n
decision in Shoukkathali’s case and the Apex Court<\/p>\n
in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das<\/a> (2006(4) SCC 584),<\/p>\n
Rakeshkumar Mishra v. State of Bihar (2006) 1 SCC<\/p>\n
557) argued that sanction is mandatory as provided<\/p>\n
under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure       to<\/p>\n
prosecute       the    revision petitioner   as  he  was<\/p>\n
discharging his official duty as a Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police at the time of alleged          commission of the<\/p>\n
offence and therefore          learned Magistrate should<\/p>\n
have discharged the petitioner under section 245(2)<\/p>\n
of Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     3.          Learned   counsel  appearing for  first<\/p>\n
respondent relying on the decision of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu (A.I.R.<\/a> 1955<\/p>\n
S.C.309) and in Sankaran Moitra’s Case (supra)<\/p>\n
argued that revision petitioner cannot commit an<\/p>\n
offence under section 323 and 324 and claim that<\/p>\n
those offences were committed while          discharging<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        7<\/p>\n
his official duty and therefore no sanction is<\/p>\n
necessary.        Learned counsel also argued that when<\/p>\n
the    earlier       petition  filed  by  the   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner was dismissed by the learned Magistrate,<\/p>\n
a   second application will not lie and therefore<\/p>\n
there is no reason to interfere with the order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     Sub section (2) of Section 245 of the Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure provides that nothing in the<\/p>\n
section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate<\/p>\n
from discharging the accused at any previous stage<\/p>\n
of the case if he considers the charge to be<\/p>\n
groundless after recording         reasons.   Under sub<\/p>\n
section (1) of Section 245, if after recording the<\/p>\n
evidence as provided under section 244 of Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure the Magistrate considers that no<\/p>\n
case against the accused has been made out which if<\/p>\n
unrebutted          would   warrant   his    conviction,<\/p>\n
Magistrate       shall   discharge him  after recording<\/p>\n
reasons.      The discharge provided under sub section<\/p>\n
(1) is      after recording the evidence as provided<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        8<\/p>\n
under section 244 and considering the evidence and<\/p>\n
satisfying that even if the said evidence stand<\/p>\n
unrebutted, the accused cannot be convicted.         But<\/p>\n
sub section (2) of Section 245 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure enables the Magistrate to discharge the<\/p>\n
accused         before   recording  the  evidence  under<\/p>\n
section 244,          if he considers the charge to be<\/p>\n
groundless.\n<\/p>\n
     5.        Section    197(1) of  Code  of   Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure       provides that when any person who is a<\/p>\n
public servant not removable from his office        save<\/p>\n
by   or with sanction of the Government is accused<\/p>\n
of any offence alleged to have been committed by<\/p>\n
him while acting or purporting to act in the<\/p>\n
discharge of his official duty, no court shall take<\/p>\n
cognizance of such offence except with the previous<\/p>\n
sanction       as provided under clause (a) or clause<\/p>\n
(b) as the case may be.         Sub section (2) provides<\/p>\n
that no court shall take cognizance of any offence<\/p>\n
alleged to have been committed by any member of the<\/p>\n
Armed     Forces       of the  Union  while  acting   or<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        9<\/p>\n
purporting to act in the discharge of his official<\/p>\n
duty except with the previous sanction of the<\/p>\n
Central Government.          Learned Magistrate holding<\/p>\n
that revision petitioner is only a Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police who is not a public servant        removable from<\/p>\n
his   office       only     with  the  sanction  of  the<\/p>\n
Government held that sub section (1) of Section 197<\/p>\n
is not attracted.          As rightly pointed out by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner,<\/p>\n
applicability of sub section (2) of Section 197 of<\/p>\n
the Code      in view of the Notification issued by the<\/p>\n
State Government was not considered by the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate, evidently because the decision of the<\/p>\n
court on the point was not brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
the    learned       Magistrate.    That   question  was<\/p>\n
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
Sarojini’s case (supra).          By Notification dated<\/p>\n
16.12.1977         State of Kerala directed that     sub<\/p>\n
section (2) of Section 197 of the Code shall apply<\/p>\n
to   all    members     of    Forces  charged  with  the<\/p>\n
maintenance of public order.       Under sub section (3)<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        10<\/p>\n
of   Section        197,     State   Government  may  by<\/p>\n
notification,         direct that     provisions  of  sub<\/p>\n
section (2) shall apply to such class or category<\/p>\n
of the members of the Forces charged with the<\/p>\n
maintenance of public order as may be specified<\/p>\n
therein,       wherever    they   may  be  serving,   and<\/p>\n
thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will<\/p>\n
apply      as      if   for   the   expression   “Central<\/p>\n
Government”occurring therein, the expression “State<\/p>\n
Government”        were   substituted.    Construing  the<\/p>\n
notification in the light of sub section (3) of<\/p>\n
Section 197 of the Code, the Division Bench held<\/p>\n
that by the        Notification provisions of sub section<\/p>\n
(2) have been made applicable to members of Kerala<\/p>\n
State      Police Force charged with maintenance of<\/p>\n
public order who formed a class of Police Force and<\/p>\n
though conceptually distinct, law and order are<\/p>\n
perhaps       two sides of the same coin and it is<\/p>\n
unnecessary that there should be anything specific<\/p>\n
to show     that those charged with maintenance of law<\/p>\n
and order have also been entrusted              with the<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        11<\/p>\n
maintenance of public order             which is not so<\/p>\n
different       or    unrelated  to  require  a  specific<\/p>\n
investiture but is implicit in the former function.<\/p>\n
It was therefore held that even for prosecuting a<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector of Police or a Police Constable<\/p>\n
sanction as provided under sub section (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 197 is necessary and the decision to the<\/p>\n
contrary by a learned single Judge in         Muhammed v.<\/p>\n
Sasi (1985 KLT 404) is not         good law. It was held<\/p>\n
that     if there is reasonable nexus        between the<\/p>\n
impugned act\/offence and        discharge of his official<\/p>\n
duty, he is entitled to the protection intended by<\/p>\n
the Notification.         This decision was followed by<\/p>\n
this    Court       in     Shoukkathali’s  case  (supra).<\/p>\n
Therefore revision petitioner who was admittedly a<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector of Police, having jurisdiction in<\/p>\n
that area and was discharging        his official duty is<\/p>\n
definitely entitled to claim the protection under<\/p>\n
section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,<\/p>\n
provided the act alleged        was done in  discharge of<\/p>\n
his official duty as a public servant.<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007       12<\/p>\n
     6.     Though learned counsel appearing for first<\/p>\n
respondent       argued that revision petitioner is not<\/p>\n
entitled to file another petition for the same<\/p>\n
relief in view of dismissal of CMP 9899\/2005 on<\/p>\n
25.2.2006,        by the said order learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
did not consider the question whether revision<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to the protection under sub<\/p>\n
section (2) of Section 197 of the Code.         As that<\/p>\n
aspect was not decided earlier it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that an application will not lie, especially when<\/p>\n
sub section (2) of Section 245 enables the court to<\/p>\n
discharge the accused at any stage prior to the<\/p>\n
stage under sub section (1) of Section 245 of Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     7.     The crucial question then is whether the<\/p>\n
alleged acts done         by the revision petitioner was<\/p>\n
in  discharge of his official duty.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     Section 197 provides for    sanction to take<\/p>\n
cognizance of an offence committed by an accused,<\/p>\n
while acting or purporting to act in        discharge of<\/p>\n
his   official        duty.   Even  according  to  first<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007       13<\/p>\n
respondent, the alleged incident occurred at the<\/p>\n
time when revision petitioner was discharging his<\/p>\n
duty as     Sub Inspector of Police.   The case is that<\/p>\n
when a      car collided with a bus at the scene of<\/p>\n
occurrence and revision petitioner was questioning<\/p>\n
the driver, first respondent intervened.         Though<\/p>\n
learned     counsel     appearing for first  respondent<\/p>\n
argued that in discharge of his official duty, or<\/p>\n
purporting to discharge his official duty revision<\/p>\n
petitioner is not entitled to cause any hurt or<\/p>\n
commit     the     offences  alleged and therefore   no<\/p>\n
sanction to prosecute is necessary, the question<\/p>\n
whether       hurt if any caused is as alleged by first<\/p>\n
respondent or as claimed by revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
to be       decided only after recording the evidence.<\/p>\n
It is the case of the revision petitioner that<\/p>\n
while he was discharging his duty as a public<\/p>\n
servant, first respondent intervened and caused<\/p>\n
obstruction in discharge of his official duty       and<\/p>\n
caught cold of his shirt and therefore revision<\/p>\n
petitioner along with the police constables had to<\/p>\n
CRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        14<\/p>\n
arrest the first respondent and in that process had<\/p>\n
to use some force.           Whether it is correct and<\/p>\n
justifiable are          matters which could be decided<\/p>\n
only on recording the evidence.       But in view of the<\/p>\n
settled legal position in Sankaran Moitra’s case<\/p>\n
(supra) and Rakeshkumar Mishra’s case(supra) it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that even if the act alleged by<\/p>\n
first respondent occurred, it was not done by the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner not in the discharge of his<\/p>\n
duty as a public servant.          Therefore  finding of<\/p>\n
the   learned        Magistrate  that  sanction  is  not<\/p>\n
necessary is not correct.         The fact that sanction<\/p>\n
is necessary to prosecute the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
does not mean that revision petitioner cannot be<\/p>\n
prosecuted. It only means that for the purpose of<\/p>\n
prosecuting revision petitioner         first respondent<\/p>\n
has    to obtain sanction under section 197(2) of<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure            and the order of<\/p>\n
discharge will not amount to an order of acquittal.<\/p>\n
\n\n     The     order     passed  in  C.M.P.768\/2007  dated\n\n17.9.2007 is not sustainable and it is to be        held\n\nCRRP 475\/08 & 4202\/2007        15\n\nthat    revision       petitioner  cannot be   prosecuted\n\nwithout      obtaining     sanction  as  provided   under\n\n<\/pre>\n
section 197(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
     Crl.R.P.4202\/2007        is    allowed.     Revision<\/p>\n
petitioner is discharged under section 245(2) of<\/p>\n
the   Code     of    Criminal  Procedure    holding  that<\/p>\n
sanction as provided under section 197(2) of Code<\/p>\n
of   Criminal        Procedure   is  necessary  to   take<\/p>\n
cognizance       of    the offence  alleged  against  the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner. It is made         clear that after<\/p>\n
obtaining sanction first respondent is entitled to<\/p>\n
proceed against the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
     In    view     of   the order  in  Crl.R.P.4202\/2007<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.475\/2008 is disposed of setting aside the<\/p>\n
charge framed as against the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
                                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                              JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n
    W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 475 of 2008() 1. PRASOB,S.I.OF POLICE … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :08\/01\/2009 O R D […]<\/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-102285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 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\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-06T07:17:51+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-06T07:17:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2321,\"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\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-06T07:17:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 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":"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 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\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-06T07:17:51+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-06T07:17:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009"},"wordCount":2321,"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\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009","name":"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-06T07:17:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasob-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prasob vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 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\/102285","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=102285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}