{"id":114303,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-11T14:38:17","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T09:08:17","slug":"malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1503 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. MALU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHELANNUR RANGE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.M.JAMES\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :06\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,\n\n           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Crl. R.P. No. 1503 of 2001\n           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n            Dated this the 5th day of April , 2010\n\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>       This revision petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 328 of<\/p>\n<p>1996 on the file of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate,<\/p>\n<p>Kunnamangalam under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and was also<\/p>\n<p>the appellant in Crl. Appeal. No. 22\/1999 on the file of the District<\/p>\n<p>and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode.\n<\/p>\n<p>       2.    This revision petitioner was charge- sheeted under<\/p>\n<p>Section 58 of the Abkari Act by the 1st respondent.<\/p>\n<p>       3. The prosecution case is that on 3.7.1995 at about 3.30<\/p>\n<p>p.m., the revision petitioner was found transporting about 2 =<\/p>\n<p>litres of illicit arrack in a plastic cannas of 5 litres capacity through<\/p>\n<p>the Panchayath Road from Chalil Thazham to Oottukulam at<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    Padinjattummuri in Kakkodi Village, Kozhikode Taluk.<\/p>\n<p>          4. The revision petitioner faced trial before the Judicial 1st<\/p>\n<p>    class Magistrate Court, Kunnmangalam in C.C. No. 328 of 1996<\/p>\n<p>    and the Prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked<\/p>\n<p>    Exhibits P1 to P6 and MO1.          The revision petitioner was<\/p>\n<p>    questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n<p>          5. After closing evidence, the Magistrate Court heard both<\/p>\n<p>    sides, and the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to<\/p>\n<p>    undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n<p>    Rs.3,000\/- (Rupees three thousand only) in default to undergo<\/p>\n<p>    simple imprisonment for one month under Section 58 of the<\/p>\n<p>    Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>          6. Against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial<\/p>\n<p>    court, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the<\/p>\n<p>    District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode in Crl. Appeal No. 22\/99.<\/p>\n<p>    The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence<\/p>\n<p>    imposed by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>          7. Aggrieved by that judgment, the accused filed this C.R.P.<\/p>\n<p>          8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and<\/p>\n<p>    the learned Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n<p>          9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted<\/p>\n<p>    that the courts below ought to have held that the prosecution<\/p>\n<p>    suppressed the material facts from the court for the reason that the<\/p>\n<p>    then C.I. with whom the M.Os and records were produced was not<\/p>\n<p>    even cited as a witness. The learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n<p>    petitioner further submitted that PW1 deposed that M.Os and<\/p>\n<p>    records were produced before one N.S. Chandra Sekharan Nair,<\/p>\n<p>    the then C.I., PW6 had deposed that he does not know whether<\/p>\n<p>    the M.Os and records were produced before C.I. Chandra<\/p>\n<p>    Sekharan Nair. Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner<\/p>\n<p>    submitted that Lower Court ought to have held that Ext.P3 and P4,<\/p>\n<p>    the occurrence reports ought to have been dated and omissions to<\/p>\n<p>    put dates on Ext.P3 and P4 are crucial and this aspect ought to<\/p>\n<p>    have been considered in favour of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>          10. PW1 was the Preventive Officer attached to Kozhikode<\/p>\n<p>    Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad. PW2 was<\/p>\n<p>    then Excise Guard attached to the Special Squad. PW1 and PW2<\/p>\n<p>    deposed that on 3.7.1995 at about 3.30 pm while they were<\/p>\n<p>    conducting patrol duty from the Panchayath Road from Chalil<\/p>\n<p>    Thazham to Oottukulam and when they reached near the house of<\/p>\n<p>    one Rajan, they saw the accused coming with a black plastic<\/p>\n<p>    canass in her hand and on seeing the Excise party she became<\/p>\n<p>    perplexed and tried to go back. Then she was prevented by the<\/p>\n<p>    Excise party and the contents in the cannas were examined by<\/p>\n<p>    tasting and smelling in the presence of two witnesses and it was<\/p>\n<p>    found to be illicit arrack. Then the accused was questioned and<\/p>\n<p>    she told that she carried it for sale. She was arrested on the spot<\/p>\n<p>    and was taken into custody. Out of the illicit arrack, sample was<\/p>\n<p>    taken in a 180 ml bottle and labels containing signature of the<\/p>\n<p>    accused were affixed on the sample bottle and the MO1 cannas<\/p>\n<p>    containing remaining arrack was seized. PW1 and PW2 would<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    swear that there was about 2 = litres of illicit arrack in that M.O1<\/p>\n<p>    cannas having 5 litre capacity.\n<\/p>\n<p>          11. Ext.P1 is the mahasar prepared and the accused was<\/p>\n<p>    released on bail and the thondi articles and records were produced<\/p>\n<p>    before the C.I. of Excise, Kozhikode. PW1 and PW2 identified<\/p>\n<p>    MO1 cannas seized from the accused who was present in the<\/p>\n<p>    court. PW4      and PW5 are independent witnesses examined to<\/p>\n<p>    prove Ext.P1 mahazar.      Even though they turned hostile they<\/p>\n<p>    admitted their signature in Ext.P1. The offence was dated as<\/p>\n<p>    3.7.1995 at 3.30 pm and Ext.P5 forwarding note by which the<\/p>\n<p>    sample of illicit arrack seized from the possession of the accused<\/p>\n<p>    was sent to the Magistrate Court for getting the same analysed by<\/p>\n<p>    chemical examiner is dated 5.7.1995. So as observed by the courts<\/p>\n<p>    below it cannot be said that there was much delay in producing the<\/p>\n<p>    same before the Magistrate court.\n<\/p>\n<p>          12. Ext.P2 report of the Chemical examiner would show<\/p>\n<p>    that seals of the sample bottle was in tact and tallied with the<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    specimen impression of the seal contained in the forwarding note.<\/p>\n<p>    Ext.P2 report of the Chemical examiner would show that the<\/p>\n<p>    sample contained 57.74 % by volume of ethyl alcohol. PW3 the<\/p>\n<p>    then Excise Inspector would say that the strength of the arrack<\/p>\n<p>    distributed by the Government during that the period was 42.86%<\/p>\n<p>    by volume of ethyl alcohol. The accused has no case that she<\/p>\n<p>    possessed the illicit arrack without knowing of nature of the<\/p>\n<p>    liquor. Eventhough independent witnesses who signed seizure<\/p>\n<p>    mahazar are resiled from their former version it would not mean<\/p>\n<p>    that the prosecution case regarding the occurrence is not correct.<\/p>\n<p>    Identify of the accused cannot be doubted as she was arrested on<\/p>\n<p>    the sport. Even though C.I. before whom the seized articles were<\/p>\n<p>    produced is not examined;      Ext.P3 report is proved by the<\/p>\n<p>    examination of PW6. Ext.P1, P3, P4 and P5 are seen proved<\/p>\n<p>    before the Magistrate court on 5.7.1995 itself and therefore the<\/p>\n<p>    omission to put date on Ext.P3 and ExtP4 is not fatal to the<\/p>\n<p>    prosecution case.    Nothing is brought out to discredit the<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    testimony of official witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>          13.    Both the courts below properly considered and<\/p>\n<p>    appreciated the evidence on record and found that the accused has<\/p>\n<p>    committed an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari<\/p>\n<p>    Act by possessing illicit arrack and the the accused was convicted.<\/p>\n<p>    Since the above conviction has been recorded on a careful<\/p>\n<p>    evaluation of both the oral and documentary evidence, I do not<\/p>\n<p>    find any error, illegality    or impropriety in the conviction so<\/p>\n<p>    recorded concurrently by courts below and the same is hereby<\/p>\n<p>    confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>          14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted<\/p>\n<p>    that the revision petitioner\/ accused is an aged poor widow and she<\/p>\n<p>    is the only earning member. Considering this aspect and the facts<\/p>\n<p>    and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that interest of<\/p>\n<p>    justice would be served by reducing the sentence to undergo<\/p>\n<p>    simple imprisonment for two months to imprisonment for one<\/p>\n<p>    month and by maintaining the fine of Rs.3,000\/-.<\/p>\n<p>Crl.R.P. No. 1503 of 2001<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         Accordingly this C.R.P. is allowed in part. The conviction<\/p>\n<p>    of the accused in C.C. No. 328 of 1996 on the file JFCM<\/p>\n<p>    Kunnamangalam under Section 58 of the Abkari Act is confirmed.<\/p>\n<p>    The sentence is modified and that the accused is sentenced to<\/p>\n<p>    undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n<p>    Rs.3,000\/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another<\/p>\n<p>    one month under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. JFCM,<\/p>\n<p>    Kunnamangalam is directed to implement the modified sentence.<\/p>\n<p>                              M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>dl\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1503 of 2001() 1. MALU &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHELANNUR RANGE &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.M.JAMES For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :06\/04\/2010 O R D E [&hellip;]<\/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-114303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T09:08:17+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\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T09:08:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1249,\"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\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T09:08:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T09:08:17+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\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T09:08:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010"},"wordCount":1249,"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\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010","name":"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T09:08:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malu-vs-excise-inspector-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Malu vs Excise Inspector on 6 April, 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:\/\/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\/114303","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=114303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}