{"id":111353,"date":"2009-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-30T14:31:31","modified_gmt":"2015-03-30T09:01:31","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nST.Rev..No. 158 of 2008()\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MOLLY BABY PROPRIETRESS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :02\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n     C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                 S.T.Rev. Nos: 158, 165 & 179 OF 2008\n        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                        Dated this the 2nd March, 2009.\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The tax revision cases are filed by the revenue challenging the<\/p>\n
orders of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed<\/p>\n
acceptance of books of accounts for sales tax assessments of the<\/p>\n
respondent assessee for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04<\/p>\n
and 2004-05.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    We have heard Special Govt. Pleader appearing for the<\/p>\n
State and Shri. Harisanker V.Menon for the respondent.<\/p>\n
     3. The respondent commenced business in gold jewellery and<\/p>\n
in precious stones and diamonds in the year 2001 and continued<\/p>\n
the same without taking registration or making payment of sales<\/p>\n
tax.   The clandestine business transactions carried on in the<\/p>\n
residential premises and in two business places were detected on<\/p>\n
search conducted by the inspection team. In the course of search,<\/p>\n
the search team examined the business slips, stock statements,<\/p>\n
note books, scribbling pads etc maintained by the assessee and<\/p>\n
estimated the purchase and sales during all the four years. It was<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008    2<\/p>\n
noticed that the business transaction of the respondent in the<\/p>\n
individual capacity in       2001-02 was not of the magnitude that<\/p>\n
attract sales tax liability.    However on evaluation of the seized<\/p>\n
records for the remaining three years, the department found that<\/p>\n
the respondent while carrying on business       in the name of the<\/p>\n
partnership firm by name Ross ‘N’ Glow evaded estimated sales tax<\/p>\n
of Rs.1,01,200\/- for 2003-04 and Rs.2,98,763\/- for 2004-05. The<\/p>\n
respondent assessee however made application under Section 47<\/p>\n
and offered to compound the offence for non-maintenance of books<\/p>\n
of accounts and for non-payment of tax dues and the request for<\/p>\n
compounding was accepted by the department. The respondent<\/p>\n
accordingly remitted Rs.1,02,200 for 2002-03 and Rs.2 lakhs each<\/p>\n
for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.        The respondent<\/p>\n
thereby avoided prosecution and penalty.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The proceedings of compounding under Section 47 by the<\/p>\n
Intelligence Officer produced in this Court is dated 31.1.2005. The<\/p>\n
respondent assessee however applied for registration under the<\/p>\n
KGST Act only on 14.8.2006. Even though it is stated that the<\/p>\n
assessee has discontinued the business there is nothing on record<\/p>\n
to show that the assessee had in fact taken registration or carried<\/p>\n
on business.      When assessments were taken up for all the above<\/p>\n
three years the assessee returned the turnover estimated by the<\/p>\n
Inelligence Officer in the proceedings for compounding issued on<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008  3<\/p>\n
31.1.2005. However, from the assessment orders it is clear that<\/p>\n
tax is not paid.       The Assessing Officer however estimated the<\/p>\n
assessee’s turn over based on the seized records and in addition to<\/p>\n
the actual suppression estimated by the Intelligence Officer, the<\/p>\n
assessing officer made addition of two times. The assessments<\/p>\n
were contested in appeal before the first appellate authority who<\/p>\n
held that since the entire records are recovered there is no scope<\/p>\n
for further addition. However still he sustained the addition of one<\/p>\n
time to the suppression noticed on inspection.       When this was<\/p>\n
challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal in second appeal<\/p>\n
the Tribunal allowed the appeals holding that assessment should be<\/p>\n
made based on the suppression noticed by the intelligence officer<\/p>\n
in the compounding proceedings issued by him. It is against these<\/p>\n
orders the Revenue has filed these revisions before this Court. The<\/p>\n
issue raised is whether the estimates made by the Intelligence<\/p>\n
Officer in the course of permitting compounding binds the<\/p>\n
assessing officer or whether he is entitled to reappraise the seized<\/p>\n
records, verify the books of accounts produced by the assessee and<\/p>\n
make his own estimate for finding whether the turnover disclosed<\/p>\n
by the assessee is acceptable.      The contention raised is that,<\/p>\n
compounding under Section 47 is different from the assessment<\/p>\n
process and findings in compounding proceedings as such will not<\/p>\n
bind the assessing officer.     However the contention of the counsel<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008  4<\/p>\n
for the assessee is that entire records were seized from the<\/p>\n
respondent’s residence and two business premises of the assessee<\/p>\n
and based on the seized records the Intelligence Officer has arrived<\/p>\n
at certain conclusions and since seized records are the only<\/p>\n
materials based on which the assessment is made, the assessing<\/p>\n
officer is bound to follow the findings of the Intelligence Officer.<\/p>\n
The further contention raised by the counsel for the assessee is<\/p>\n
that the first appellate authority had in fact held that no addition is<\/p>\n
justified over and above the suppression noticed by the Intelligence<\/p>\n
Officer and this was not challenged by the department in the<\/p>\n
second appeal and so much so, the department cannot raise this<\/p>\n
issue before this Court. In answer to this the special Govt. Pleader<\/p>\n
submitted that each and every finding of the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority need not be challenged by the department if the<\/p>\n
conclusions are accepted by the department. According to him in<\/p>\n
spite of the findings and observations in favour of the assessee the<\/p>\n
first appellate authority sustained an addition of one time, in<\/p>\n
addition to the turnover declared by the assessee which was<\/p>\n
acceptable to the department.        We are unable to accept the<\/p>\n
technical objection raised by the assessee that in the absence of a<\/p>\n
second appeal by the department, the department was precluded<\/p>\n
from challenging the orders of the Tribunal in this Court by which<\/p>\n
the Tribunal directed acceptance of the turnover returned by the<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008  5<\/p>\n
assessee who has not taken registration or filed any monthly<\/p>\n
returns or maintained regular books of accounts. We are however<\/p>\n
in agreement with the proposition put forward by the counsel for<\/p>\n
the assessee that if the entire records of clandestine business are<\/p>\n
seized the assessment should not lead to any addition to the<\/p>\n
turnover, over and above what is disclosed in the records. However,<\/p>\n
the question to be considered in this case is whether seized books<\/p>\n
of accounts relate to the entire transactions. The argument raised<\/p>\n
can be accepted only if it is established that the seized records<\/p>\n
cover the entire transactions of assessee and if it does not disclose<\/p>\n
full business transactions then the turnover has to be estimated<\/p>\n
based on available materials. On going through the proceedings of<\/p>\n
the intelligence officer dated 31.1.2005 we find that the following<\/p>\n
are the items seized from the residence:-\n<\/p>\n
      1. Business slips                234 sheets\n      2. Business slips                505 sheets\n      3. Stock statements              222 sheets\n      4. Business slips                29 Nos.\n      5. Financial position statement\n         etc for the year 2000-01,\n         01-02, 02-03,03-04            80 Nos.\n      6. Bill book of Ross 'N'Glow\n          Chalakudy                    16 Nos.\n      7. Note books, pocket book\n         Diary A\/c books etc.          22 Nos.\n      8. Copy of bills of Beaut\n         Diamonds, Ross 'N' Glow etc 407 Nos.\n      9. Income Tax Files                 2 Nos.\n      10. Stock Statement as on\n           22.12.2004                  30 Nos.\n\nS.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008  6\n\n<\/pre>\n
In addition to the recoveries of the above items from the residence<\/p>\n
of the assessee the department has traced the following records<\/p>\n
from the business premises IX\/457:-\n<\/p>\n
       1. Account Books                  9 Nos.\n       2. Note book                      1 No.\n       3. Pocket Books                   5 Nos.\n       4. Order Form\/Prod. Order\n          Forms                        65 Nos.\n       5. Account Slip etc.            14 Nos.\n\n<\/pre>\n
It is seen that he has made his own estimates of purchase and sales<\/p>\n
and estimated the tax evaded for the purpose of compounding.<\/p>\n
However, on going through the assessment notice we find that the<\/p>\n
respondent had filed returns and produced records in support<\/p>\n
thereof. The assessing officer on verifying the returns filed and the<\/p>\n
records produced and those available with the department he did<\/p>\n
not accept the records as full and complete and therefore, rejected<\/p>\n
the returns filed and the books of accounts produced and made<\/p>\n
estimation by adding two times the turnover returned by the<\/p>\n
assessee which was reduced by the first appellate authority to equal<\/p>\n
addition. The Tribunal however directed acceptance of books of<\/p>\n
accounts and ordered assessment based on the returns by the<\/p>\n
assessee.\n<\/p>\n
       5. We are unable to accept contention of the assessee that<\/p>\n
the turnover returned by the assessee which is exactly the same<\/p>\n
turnover estimated by the intelligence officer should be accepted<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008   7<\/p>\n
and the assessing officer has no justification to make any<\/p>\n
estimation or addition to the turnover. In the first place as already<\/p>\n
held by us proceedings for compounding is a proceeding different<\/p>\n
from regular assessment. As per the scheme of compounding, the<\/p>\n
assessee who has been detected of an offence has to pay<\/p>\n
compounding fee which during the relevant years was double the<\/p>\n
amount of tax or Rs.2 lakhs whichever is higher. In fact for the year<\/p>\n
2003-04 the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee has been<\/p>\n
estimated by the Intelligence Officer at Rs.2,15,443\/-. Similarly for<\/p>\n
the year 2004-05 tax sought to be evaded is Rs.2,98,763\/-. For<\/p>\n
both these years the assessee was permitted to compound the<\/p>\n
offence and to avoid the prosecution and penalty on payment of<\/p>\n
Rs.2 lakhs each. The estimation of tax evasion by the Intelligence<\/p>\n
Officer in the compounding application is not for the purpose of<\/p>\n
assessment but for the purpose of collecting, compounding fee.<\/p>\n
When the tax sought be evaded is found to be more than the<\/p>\n
compounding fee, then there is no necessity for the Intelligence<\/p>\n
Officer to exactly      estimate the actual amount of tax that was<\/p>\n
evaded by the dealer. In fact it is for the assessing officer to assess<\/p>\n
the exact tax that is payable by the dealer. Therefore we are of the<\/p>\n
view that proceedings in the course of compounding will not bind<\/p>\n
the assessing officer for the purpose of assessment. The assessing<\/p>\n
officer is the authority who has the exclusive duty to make<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008   8<\/p>\n
assessment pertaining to the tax liability of the dealer.         The<\/p>\n
Tribunal in our view was not justified in directing acceptance of<\/p>\n
books of account which are admittedly not maintained by the<\/p>\n
assessee in accordance with the rules. However, we agree with the<\/p>\n
contention of the assessee that if the transactions can be co-related<\/p>\n
from the seized records and if it is proved that entire business<\/p>\n
carried on in the clandestine manner are covered by entries in the<\/p>\n
seized records, then there is no scope for further addition.<\/p>\n
However, it is for the assessee to establish and co-relate entries in<\/p>\n
the business slips, bill books, note books, purchase bills, sales bills<\/p>\n
etc and in the absence of any co-relation it is for the officer to<\/p>\n
reject books of accounts as incomplete and estimate turnover<\/p>\n
based on relevant materials.\n<\/p>\n
      6. We therefore set aside the orders of the Tribunal and that<\/p>\n
of the first appellate authority and remand the matter back to the<\/p>\n
assessing officer for giving opportunity to produce the books<\/p>\n
including the seized records if released to the assessee and to<\/p>\n
make fresh assessment based on the above observations. However,<\/p>\n
since the assessee          has closed the business and since the<\/p>\n
department has not filed second appeal against the orders of the<\/p>\n
first appellate authority we give an option to the assessee to accept<\/p>\n
the first appellate authority’s order and on the assessee’s<\/p>\n
acceptance the assessing officer shall complete the assessment by<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.Nos: 158,165 & 179\/2008   9<\/p>\n
making an addition equal to the turnover in terms of the first<\/p>\n
appellate authority’s order.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Yet another issue raised in addition to the estimation of<\/p>\n
turnover is assessee’s liability for purchase tax under Section 5A on<\/p>\n
the value of the diamonds and other precious stones sold in<\/p>\n
studded ornaments. Diamonds and precious stones are high value<\/p>\n
items which are separately billed when studded jewellery is sold. If<\/p>\n
assessee has done this, there is no scope for levy of tax under<\/p>\n
Section 5A on the stones and diamonds purchased because the<\/p>\n
commodity suffers tax at sale point under Section 5(1). This is a<\/p>\n
matter for verification by the assessing authority in the course of<\/p>\n
re-assessment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
                                          K. SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
jj<\/p>\n
                      K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
 —————————————————-<\/p>\n
                                 M.F.A.NO:\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————–<\/p>\n
                                 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                  Dated:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ST.Rev..No. 158 of 2008() 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY JOINT … Petitioner Vs 1. MOLLY BABY PROPRIETRESS, … Respondent For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER For Respondent :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-111353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-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=\"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-30T09:01:31+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-30T09:01:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1880,\"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\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-30T09:01:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 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":"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 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\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-30T09:01:31+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-30T09:01:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009"},"wordCount":1880,"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\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009","name":"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-30T09:01:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-molly-baby-proprietress-on-2-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs Molly Baby Proprietress on 2 March, 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\/111353","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=111353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}