{"id":109015,"date":"2010-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-12T21:03:39","modified_gmt":"2018-07-12T15:33:39","slug":"venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 2891 of 2010()\n\n\n1. VENKITESWARAN, S\/O.NARAYANA SARMA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MURALIDHARAN, S\/O.RAMANESZHUTHACHAN,\n3. S.I.OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM,THRISSUR,\n4. STATE OF KERALA\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n1. NANDAKUMAR @ KANNAN AND OTHERS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.R.DHANIL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.A.ANOOP\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :15\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                            V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n                      -------------------------------\n                     Crl. R.P.No.2891 of 2010\n                      -------------------------------\n            Dated this the 15thday of October, 2010.\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The defacto complainant in a prosecution for an offence<\/p>\n
punishable u\/s.420 of IPC and S.3 r\/w.17 of Kerala Money<\/p>\n
Lending Act, is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
order of acquittal recorded by the trial court as per its judgment<\/p>\n
dated 24.12.2009 in C.C.No.1496\/06.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The case of the prosecution is that, PW1 availed a loan<\/p>\n
of Rs.60,000\/- from the 1st accused. According to the<\/p>\n
prosecution, as a security for the said loan amount, as insisted<\/p>\n
by A1, the revision petitioner, namely, PW1 executed a sale deed<\/p>\n
in favour of the 2nd accused. It is also the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
that, A1 represented before PW1 that in the event of repayment<\/p>\n
of the loan amount, the property would be reconveyed to the<\/p>\n
revision   petitioner.   But     according        to  the prosecution,<\/p>\n
subsequently in gross violation of the assurance given to PW1,<\/p>\n
A2 alienated the property in favour of CW4 and thereby cheated<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.2891 of 2010<\/p>\n
PW1. Thus according to the prosecution, the accused who are<\/p>\n
engaged in money lending business have committed the offence<\/p>\n
under S.3 r\/w.17 of the Kerala Money Lending Act, 1958, also.<\/p>\n
On the said allegation, Crime No.529\/05 happened to be<\/p>\n
registered in the Peramangalam Police Station, on receiving<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 petition from DIG, Thrissur. Thus the police undertook<\/p>\n
investigation in Crime No.529\/05 and thereafter a report was<\/p>\n
filed based upon which cognizance was taken for the said<\/p>\n
offences in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-<\/p>\n
Kunnamkulam             and instituted C.C.No.1496\/06. On  the<\/p>\n
appearance of the accused, after hearing them and the APP, the<\/p>\n
court below framed a formal charge u\/s.420 of IPC and S.3 r\/w<\/p>\n
17 of Kerala Money Lending Act, which when read over and<\/p>\n
explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty, which<\/p>\n
necessitated further trial during which, Pws.1 to 8 were<\/p>\n
examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked from the side of the<\/p>\n
defence.         The accused were questioned u\/s.313 of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
When the incriminating circumstances and evidences put to<\/p>\n
them, they denied the same and took the defence of total denial.<\/p>\n
                                   3<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.2891 of 2010<\/p>\n
Finally, the learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence<\/p>\n
on record, came into a conclusion that absolutely there is no<\/p>\n
evidence in support of the prosecution case and no criminal<\/p>\n
liability can be fastened against the accused and accordingly<\/p>\n
found against the prosecution and the accused are acquitted. It<\/p>\n
is the above order of acquittal challenged in this revision<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
         3. I have heard Adv.Sri.M.R.Dhanil, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the revision petitioner and also Adv.Sri.C.A.Anoop,<\/p>\n
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
also the learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 3 and 4.<\/p>\n
         4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted<\/p>\n
that, the findings of the trial court is not sustainable, since the<\/p>\n
same is against the materials and evidence on record. It is also<\/p>\n
the submission of the learned counsel that the court below has<\/p>\n
committed a wrong in finding that the oral evidence of Pws.1, 2<\/p>\n
and 3 are not sufficient to prove the transaction. It is also the<\/p>\n
submission of the counsel that, even if the evidence of the<\/p>\n
witnesses viz., Pws.1 to 4 are not acceptable to the court, there<\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.2891 of 2010<\/p>\n
is no justification for not acting upon the evidence of the official<\/p>\n
witnesses, including the police and therefore the order of<\/p>\n
acquittal recorded by the court below is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
         5. The learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the<\/p>\n
findings of the court below submitted that, the prosecution has<\/p>\n
miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence<\/p>\n
regarding the alleged agreement and regarding the offer to<\/p>\n
reconvey property in question and therefore the findings of the<\/p>\n
court below is absolutely correct, legal and proper.<\/p>\n
         6. I have heard both the counsels for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
as well as the respondents. I have also gone through the<\/p>\n
judgments of the court below.\n<\/p>\n
         7. At the very outset it has to be noted that though the case<\/p>\n
in the trial court was instituted upon a report filed by the police<\/p>\n
after investigation, the investigating agency has not filed any<\/p>\n
appeal or revision against the acquittal of the accused.           As<\/p>\n
indicated earlier, the present revision petition is filed by one of<\/p>\n
the witnesses viz., the defacto complainant.<\/p>\n
         8. The specific case of the prosecution is that A1 borrowed<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.2891 of 2010<\/p>\n
a sum of Rs.60,000\/- from the revision petitioner and towards<\/p>\n
the said transaction, according to PW1 he had executed a sale<\/p>\n
deed in favour of A2 as insisted by A1 and subsequently, A2<\/p>\n
without the consent and knowledge of PW1 and against the<\/p>\n
verbal agreement between PW1 and A1, sold the property to a<\/p>\n
third party viz., CW4. According to PW1, there was a specific<\/p>\n
undertaking as per the terms of the transaction that the property<\/p>\n
given as a security would be handed over to PW1 as and when<\/p>\n
the liability is cleared. The trial court after an elaborate<\/p>\n
consideration of the prosecution witnesses mainly, Pws.1 to 3<\/p>\n
came into a conclusion that to prove the fact regarding the<\/p>\n
agreement or the undertaking of A1 and A2 for the reconvey of<\/p>\n
the property, absolutely there is no documentary evidence and<\/p>\n
the only evidence is that of Pws.1 to 3. The trial court further<\/p>\n
found that the prosecution has also not produced the so called<\/p>\n
sale deed which is allegedly executed by PW1 in the name of<\/p>\n
A2. It is also relevant in this juncture that, the specific plea set<\/p>\n
up by the accused is that, absolutely there is no transaction<\/p>\n
between PW1 and A1. The main plank of the prosecution case<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.2891 of 2010<\/p>\n
that A1 borrowed money from PW1 and towards the security of<\/p>\n
that transaction, as insisted by A1, PW1 executed a sale deed in<\/p>\n
favour of A2. There is no evidence regarding the borrowal of<\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/- by A1 from PW1. When there is no evidence at all<\/p>\n
regarding the loan transaction between PW1 and A1, it can not<\/p>\n
be said that prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case<\/p>\n
against the accused, especially when there is no documentary<\/p>\n
evidence regarding the sale of the property as alleged and<\/p>\n
claimed by PW1. In the absence of cogent and satisfactory<\/p>\n
evidence regarding the above two aspects I find no illegality with<\/p>\n
the findings of the trial court and acquitting the accused.<\/p>\n
         9. The revision petitioner is miserably failed to establish<\/p>\n
that the trial court has committed any manifest error or violated<\/p>\n
any procedure or law. In the absence of any such grounds, this<\/p>\n
court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal<\/p>\n
by exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a<\/p>\n
private party, even if he is the defacto complainant. So there is<\/p>\n
no sufficient ground to interfere with the order of acquittal, by<\/p>\n
exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this court.<\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.2891 of 2010<\/p>\n
         10. It is also relevant to note that the trial court which got<\/p>\n
the opportunity to assess the evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses and to watch their demeanor, has came into a<\/p>\n
conclusion that they are not guilty and by such a finding, the<\/p>\n
presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced. Though<\/p>\n
I have heard the counsel at length and repeatedly gone through<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial court and considered the evidence and<\/p>\n
materials referred to by the court below, I find no compelling<\/p>\n
reason or substantial grounds to interfere with the order of<\/p>\n
acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
         In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and<\/p>\n
accordingly, the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       V.K.MOHANAN,
\n                                                           Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ami\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2891 of 2010() 1. VENKITESWARAN, S\/O.NARAYANA SARMA, … Petitioner 2. MURALIDHARAN, S\/O.RAMANESZHUTHACHAN, 3. S.I.OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM,THRISSUR, 4. STATE OF KERALA Vs 1. NANDAKUMAR @ KANNAN AND OTHERS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.DHANIL […]<\/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-109015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVenkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010 - 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\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-12T15:33:39+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T15:33:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1294,\"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\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T15:33:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010 - 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\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-12T15:33:39+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T15:33:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010"},"wordCount":1294,"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\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010","name":"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T15:33:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/venkiteswaran-vs-nandakumar-kannan-and-others-on-15-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Venkiteswaran vs Nandakumar @ Kannan And Others on 15 October, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/109015","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=109015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}