{"id":10247,"date":"2007-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-30T06:50:37","modified_gmt":"2015-01-30T01:20:37","slug":"raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 2500 of 2006()\n\n\n1. RAVEENDRAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :ADV.MANJU ANTONEY(STATE BRIEF)\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :28\/05\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                          V.RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n                           ----------------------------\n\n                         Crl.A. No. 2500\/2006\n\n                          -----------------------------\n\n                  Dated this  28th day of May, 2007\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
             In   this   appeal   preferred   from   the   Central   Prison,<\/p>\n
Viyyoor,   the   appellant   who   was   the   accused   in   the   Sessions<\/p>\n
Case No.422\/2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,<\/p>\n
North   Paravur   for   offences   punishable   under   Sections   489B<\/p>\n
and 489C read with Section 34 IPC, challenges the conviction<\/p>\n
entered   and   the   sentence   passed   against   him   by   the   said<\/p>\n
Court for the aforesaid offences.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.     The case of the prosecution can be summarized  as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.     On 10.7.1999 at about 8.15 p.m., inside the Alankar<\/p>\n
bar   near   the   Aluva   railway   station,     accused   Nos.   1   and   2<\/p>\n
(Abdul  Salam  and  Ravindran)   were   each  found  in  possession<\/p>\n
of   a   counterfeit   note   of   Rupees   five   hundred   denomination<\/p>\n
and knowing the same to be forged, the accused persons gave<\/p>\n
the   said   counterfeit   notes   at   the   bar   for   purchasing   foreign<\/p>\n
liquor.     The   accused   have   thereby   committed   offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section<\/p>\n
34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
      4.     Out   of   the   two   accused   persons,   the   second<\/p>\n
accused,   Ravindran,   (the   appellant   herein)   alone   stood   trial<\/p>\n
since the first accused was allegedly absconding.<\/p>\n
      5.     On the appellant pleading not guilty to the charge<\/p>\n
framed   against   him   by   the   Court   below   for   the<\/p>\n
aforementioned   offence,   the   prosecution   was   permitted   to<\/p>\n
adduce   evidence   in   support   of   its   case.       The   prosecution<\/p>\n
altogether   examined   eight   witnesses   as   PWs1   to   8   and   got<\/p>\n
marked   five   documents   as   Exts.   P1   to   P5   and   two   material<\/p>\n
objects as Mos 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.     After   the   close   of   the   prosecution   evidence,   the<\/p>\n
appellant  was  questioned under Sec. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with<\/p>\n
regard   to  the   incriminating  circumstances  appearing   against<\/p>\n
him    in  the evidence for the  prosecution.      He    denied  those<\/p>\n
circumstances and maintained his  innocence.<\/p>\n
      7.     Since   the     Court   below   did   not   consider   this   a   fit<\/p>\n
case   for   recording   an   order   of   acquittal   under   Sec.   232<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. the appellant was,   therefore, called upon to enter on<\/p>\n
his defence  and to adduce any evidence which he might  have<\/p>\n
in support there of.  He did not adduce any defence evidence.<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.     The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after trial, as per<\/p>\n
judgment   dated   7-6-2006   found   the   appellant   guilty   of   the<\/p>\n
offences   punishable   under   Secs.   489B   and   489C   IPC   and<\/p>\n
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment  for 5 years   for the<\/p>\n
conviction   under   Section   489B   IPC   and   to   rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three years for the conviction under Section<\/p>\n
489C  IPC.   The sentences were directed to run concurrently.<\/p>\n
It is the said judgment which is assailed in this appeal.<\/p>\n
      9.     I   heard   Advocate   Sri.     Manju   Antony     the   learned<\/p>\n
counsel   who   defended   the   appellant   on   State   Brief     and<\/p>\n
Advocate Sri. K. S. Sivakumar, the learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
who defended  the State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.    The   only   point   which   arises   for   consideration   in<\/p>\n
this   appeal   is   as   to   whether   the   conviction   entered   and   the<\/p>\n
sentence passed against the appellant are sustainable or not ?<\/p>\n
THE POINT:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      11.    P.W.1 was the barman at Alankar bar, Aluva, where<\/p>\n
the   occurrence   allegedly   took   place.     P.W.2   is   the   Assistant<\/p>\n
Manager of the said bar.  He is an attestor to Ext.P1 mahazar<\/p>\n
prepared   by   the   Sub   Inspector   while   seizing   the   counterfeit<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
notes (Mos 1 and 2)   PW3 was the waitor in Alankar bar.  He<\/p>\n
turned hostile to the prosecution.  P.W.4 was the room boy in<\/p>\n
the   tourist   home   attached   to   Alankar   bar.     He   is   also   the<\/p>\n
signatory   to   Ext.P1   mahazar.     PW5   was  the   police   constable<\/p>\n
attached to Aluva police station.   He came in the company of<\/p>\n
PW6,   the   Sub   Inspector.     PW6   was   the     Sub   Inspector   of<\/p>\n
police,   Aluva,   who   has   arrested   the   accused   persons   and<\/p>\n
seized   Mos   1   and   2   under   Ext.P1   mahazar.     PW7   was   the<\/p>\n
detective Inspector, CBCID, who inter alia deposed that both<\/p>\n
the accused persons had told him   that it was one Baby who<\/p>\n
had supplied the counterfeit notes to them.  PW8 is the officer<\/p>\n
who   conducted further investigation of the case and laid the<\/p>\n
charge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.    After hearing both sides and after perusing the oral<\/p>\n
and   documentary   evidence   in   the   case,   I   am   not   inclined   to<\/p>\n
concur   with   the   conclusions   reached   by   the   Court   below   in<\/p>\n
support   of   the   conviction   entered   and   the   sentence     passed<\/p>\n
against the appellant.  As noted earlier,  PW1 is the barman of<\/p>\n
Alankar   bar   at   Aluva.     He   deposed   before     Court   that     one<\/p>\n
person     came   and   gave   a   five   hundred   rupee   note   for<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
purchasing   liquor   and   PW1   entertained   some   suspicion<\/p>\n
regarding     genuineness   of   the   note   handed   over   by   the   said<\/p>\n
person.     His evidence further shows that thereafter the said<\/p>\n
person     went   out   and   later   came  in   the   company   of   another<\/p>\n
person   and   that   the   other   person   handed   over   another   five<\/p>\n
hundred   rupee   note   which   also   aroused   some   suspicion   in<\/p>\n
PW1.     Even   though   the     case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   the<\/p>\n
appellant,   the   second   accused,   was   the   person   who<\/p>\n
subsequently   entered   the   tavern   in   the   company   of   the   first<\/p>\n
accused  and  handed over  the counterfeit  note  of rupees  five<\/p>\n
hundred  denomination,   PW1 who is the star witness for  the<\/p>\n
prosecution did not identify the appellant standing in the dock<\/p>\n
to   be   the   person   who   came   subsequently   in   the   company   of<\/p>\n
the person who had initially handed over the first counterfeit<\/p>\n
five     hundred rupee  note.       His    testimony  to  the  effect that<\/p>\n
one of the two persons had  a burn  scar  on his  face does not<\/p>\n
in   any   way   advance   the   case   of   the   prosecution   since   the<\/p>\n
appellant was not identified as the person  who had the burn<\/p>\n
scar on the face.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13.    The   evidence   of   PW2,   the   Assistant   Manager   of<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
Alankar bar, is also of no avail to the prosecution.  First of all,<\/p>\n
he   reached   the   bar   only   after   the   two   persons   had   handed<\/p>\n
over   the   counterfeit   notes   to   PW1.     In   other   words,   he   does<\/p>\n
not have any first hand knowledge of any of the two persons<\/p>\n
handing over the currency notes to PW1 who was the barman.<\/p>\n
His   information is only through the narration made to him by<\/p>\n
PW1.     Even   this   witness   had   not   identified   the   appellant<\/p>\n
standing   in   the   dock   as   the   person   who   had   subsequently<\/p>\n
entered the bar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      14.    PW3, the waitor of Alankar bar turned unfriendly to<\/p>\n
the   prosecution.     Except   saying   that   two   persons   were<\/p>\n
restrained  by the  police for bringing  fake notes, this witness<\/p>\n
also did not identify the  appellant standing in the dock as one<\/p>\n
of the two persons who had allegedly brought the counterfeit<\/p>\n
notes.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      15.    The position with regard to  PW4,  the room boy, is<\/p>\n
also no  better.  First of all, this witness  admitted that he was<\/p>\n
the   room   boy   in   the   tourist   home   which   is   distinct   and<\/p>\n
different from the bar.   He would say that   he signed Ext.P1<\/p>\n
mahazar from the tourist home.  But the case of PW6, the Sub<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
Inspector, is that the mahazar was signed from the bar itself.<\/p>\n
PW4 also has not identified the appellant standing in the dock<\/p>\n
as the person who was one among the two  persons who were<\/p>\n
detained in the bar for having possessed counterfeit notes.<\/p>\n
      16.    PW5,   the   police   constable   who   accompanied   the<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector, no doubt,   identified the appellant standing in<\/p>\n
the   dock   as   one   of   the   two   persons   who   were   arrested   on<\/p>\n
10.7.1999.    He  also  stated  that  the  appellant   has  burn  scars<\/p>\n
on  his  face.   But  his  knowledge  about the appellant  handing<\/p>\n
over the counterfeit notes to PW1 is only hearsay as narrated<\/p>\n
to him by   PW1 himself who  has  not identified  the appellant<\/p>\n
standing   in   the   dock   as   one   of   those   two   persons.     PW5<\/p>\n
confessed   that   when   the   police   party   reached   the   bar,     the<\/p>\n
counterfeit notes were in the hands of PW1 and it was   from<\/p>\n
PW1 that the police seized the counterfeit notes.<\/p>\n
      17.    The testimony of PW6, the Sub Inspector, is also to<\/p>\n
the   same   effect.     What   he   has   deposed   is   that   PW1,   the<\/p>\n
barman,   had   detained   two   persons   for   allegedly   keeping<\/p>\n
possession of counterfeit notes.   But Mos 1 and 2 counterfeit<\/p>\n
notes were admittedly seized by PW6 from PW1 under Ext.P1<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
mahazar.   When PW6 has no direct knowledge regarding the<\/p>\n
handing over of the counterfeit note by the appellant to PW1,<\/p>\n
his testimony to the effect that the appellant was one among<\/p>\n
the two persons detained in the bar does not in any way help<\/p>\n
the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      18.    Even if it were to be conceded that Mos 1 and 2 are<\/p>\n
counterfeit   notes,   a   conviction   under   Section   489C   IPC   can<\/p>\n
legitimately be recorded only if it is proved that the accused<\/p>\n
was   found   in   possession   of   counterfeit   currency   notes<\/p>\n
knowing   or   having   reason   to   believe   the   same   to   be<\/p>\n
counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it<\/p>\n
may   be   used   as   genuine.     Likewise,     a   conviction   under<\/p>\n
Section 489B is possible only if it is proved that the accused<\/p>\n
sold to PW1 the counterfeit currency notes knowing or having<\/p>\n
reason to believe the same to be counterfeit.     When none of<\/p>\n
the   prosecution   witnesses   has   deposed   that   it   was   the<\/p>\n
appellant   standing   in   the   dock   who   handed   over   one   of   the<\/p>\n
two counterfeit  notes to PW1, the essential ingredient of both<\/p>\n
the offences does not stand proved.   The conviction recorded<\/p>\n
and the sentence passed by the Court below overlooking the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
above   vital   aspect     of   the   matter   cannot   therefore   be<\/p>\n
supported.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         19.    The appellant is accordingly  found not guilty of the<\/p>\n
offences   punishable   under   Secs.   489B   and   489C   read   with<\/p>\n
Section   34   IPC   and   is   acquitted   thereunder.     He   is   set   at<\/p>\n
liberty.  He shall be released from prison forthwith unless his<\/p>\n
continued   detention   is   needed   in   connection   with   any   other<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                In   the   result,   this   Criminal   Appeal   is   allowed   as<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   V.RAMKUMAR<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
mrcs<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.2500\/2006<\/p>\n
                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
mrcs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 2500 of 2006() 1. RAVEENDRAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA. … Respondent For Petitioner :ADV.MANJU ANTONEY(STATE BRIEF) For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :28\/05\/2007 […]<\/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-10247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007 - 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\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-30T01:20:37+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T01:20:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1605,\"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\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T01:20:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007 - 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\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-30T01:20:37+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T01:20:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007"},"wordCount":1605,"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\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007","name":"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T01:20:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-28-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raveendran vs The State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/10247","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=10247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}