{"id":115078,"date":"2000-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000"},"modified":"2016-08-11T05:21:25","modified_gmt":"2016-08-10T23:51:25","slug":"roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: S S Quadri<\/div>\n
Bench: S.N.Phukan, S.S.M.Quadri<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nROY V.\tD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.N.Phukan, S.S.M.Quadri\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Leave  to appeal is granted.  This appeal is  directed
\nagainst\t the  order  dated June 4, 1998 passed by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissing Crl.M.C.No.2417  of
\n1996  which was filed by the appellant praying the Court  to
\nquash  proceedings in Session Case No.78 of 1993 on the file
\nof Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha.  The appellant was
\nsearched  by  the  Excise   Inspector,\tDevikulam.   On\t the
\nallegation  of\trecovering Ganja from his  possession  the
\nappellant  was\ttaken  into custody on\tNovember  21,  1990.
\nUnder  Section\t20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and\tPsychotropic
\nSubstances  Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act), a  charge
\nwas laid against him by the Excise Inspector on February 20,
\n1991,  whereas\tthe  statutory notification under  which  he
\nbecame\tcompetent so to do, was issued by the Government  of
\nKerala\tin G.O.(MS)No.168\/92\/TD, authorising officers of and
\nabove the rank of Excise Inspectors of the Excise Department
\nto  file complaints under Section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act,
\non  October  20,  1992.\t  On  the  ground  that\t the  Excise
\nInspector  was\tnot  authorised\t to file  the  charge  sheet
\nagainst\t the appellant and, therefore, the complaint was not
\nmaintainable, the appellant was discharged under Section 227
\nof  Code  of  Criminal Procedure by the\t learned  Additional
\nSessions  Judge, Thodupuzha, on February 22, 1993.  The said
\nExcise\tInspector, Devikulam, however, filed a fresh  charge
\nsheet  against the appellant in Crime No.56 of 1990 for\t the
\nvery  same offence on May 17, 1993.  The case was  committed
\nto  the court of the Additional Sessions Judge,\t Thodupuzha,
\nand  was  numbered  as\tSession Case  No.78  of\t 1993.\t The
\nappellant  filed  Crl.M.C.  No.2417 of 1996 before the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Kerala  praying that the  entire  proceedings  in
\nSession\t Case  No.78  of  1993 on  the\tfile  of  Additional
\nSessions  Judge, Thodupuzha be quashed.\t By the order  under
\nchallenge the High Court dismissed the petition.  Hence this
\nappeal.\t   Mr.K.Sukumaran,   the   learned  senior   counsel
\nappearing  for the appellant, contended that on the basis of
\nrecovery  of illicit material on search and seizure made  by
\nan  Excise Inspector, not authorised under Sections 41(2) or
\n42(1)  of  the\tNDPS  Act, no charge could  have  been\tlaid
\nagainst\t the  appellant\t so  the High Court  ought  to\thave
\nquashed\t the  impugned proceedings.  Mr.Mukul  Rohtagi,\t the
\nlearned\t Additional  Solicitor\tGeneral\t appearing  for\t the
\nState\/respondent,  argued  that the appellant could as\twell
\nraise  this plea at his trial before the Sessions Court\t and
\nwhen  the  High Court declined to quash the  proceedings  it
\nwould  not  be\tappropriate  for this  Court  to  quash\t the
\nproceedings.  On these contentions, the question that arises
\nfor  consideration is :\t whether the impugned proceedings in
\nSession\t Case  No.78 of 1993 are liable to be quashed  under
\nSection\t 482  of the Criminal Procedure Code.  The life\t and
\nliberty\t of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be
\nallowed\t to be interfered with except under the authority of
\nlaw.   It  is  a  principle which has  been  recognised\t and
\napplied\t in  all civilised countries.  In our  Constitution,
\nArticle\t 21  guarantees\t protection  of\t life  and  personal
\nliberty\t not  only to citizens of India but also to  aliens.
\nThe ground on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed
\nis  that search, seizure and the alleged recovery of Ganja
\nare  all  in violation of Section 42(1) being by  an  Excise
\nInspector  who was not empowered under Sections 41(2) of the
\nsaid  Act.   A reference to Sections 41 and 42 of  the\tNDPS
\nwill  be  apposite.   They read as under:  41.\t Power\tto
\nissue warrant and authorisation.-\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  A Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of\t the
\nfirst  class or any Magistrate of the second class specially
\nempowered  by the State Government in this behalf, may issue
\na warrant for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to
\nbelieve\t to  have  committed any  offence  punishable  under
\nchapter\t IV, or for the search, whether by day or by  night,
\nof  any building, conveyance or place in which he has reason
\nto  believe  any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance  in
\nrespect\t of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV has
\nbeen  committed\t or any document or other article which\t may
\nfurnish\t evidence of the commission of such offence is\tkept
\nor concealed.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  Any\tsuch  officer  of   gazetted  rank  of\t the
\ndepartments  of central excise, narcotics, customs,  revenue
\nintelligence   of  any\tother\tdepartment  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  or of the Border Security Force as is  empowered
\nin  this  behalf by general or special order by the  Central
\nGovernment,  or\t any  such  officer of\tthe  revenue,  drugs
\ncontrol,  excise, police or any other department of a  State
\nGovernment  as\tis  empowered in this behalf by\t general  or
\nspecial\t order of the State Government, if he has reason  to
\nbelieve\t from personal knowledge or information given by any
\nperson and taken in writing that any person has committed an
\noffence\t punishable  under Chapter IV or that  any  narcotic
\ndrug,  or  psychotropic\t substance in respect of  which\t any
\noffence\t punishable  under Chapter IV has been committed  or
\nany  document or other article which may furnish evidence of
\nthe commission of such offence has been kept or concealed in
\nany building, conveyance or place, may authorise any officer
\nsubordinate to him but superior in rank to a peon, sepoy, or
\na  constable, to arrest such a person or search a  building,
\nconveyance  or\tplace whether by day or by night or  himself
\narrest a person or search a building, conveyance or place.\n<\/p>\n
      (3)  The Officer to whom a warrant under sub-  section
\n(1)  is addressed and the officer who authorised the  arrest
\nor  search  or\tthe  officer  who  is  so  authorised  under
\nsub-section  (2)  shall\t have all the powers of\t an  officer
\nacting under Section 42.\n<\/p>\n
      42.   Power  of  entry,  search,\tseizure\t and  arrest
\nwithout warrant or authorisation.-\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  Any\tsuch officer (being an officer\tsuperior  in
\nrank  to  a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments  of
\ncentral\t excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or
\nany  other  department of the Central Government or  of\t the
\nBorder\tSecurity  Force\t as is empowered in this  behalf  by
\ngeneral\t or special order by the Central Government, or\t any
\nsuch  officer (being an officer superior in rank to a  peon,
\nsepoy  or constable) of the revenue, drugs control,  excise,
\npolice\tor any other department of a State Government as  is
\nempowered  in this behalf by general or special order of the
\nState  Government, if he has reason to believe from personal
\nknowledge  or information given by any person and taken down
\nin   writing,  that  any   narcotic  drug,  or\tpsychotropic
\nsubstance,  in respect of which an offence punishable  under
\nChapter\t IV  has  been committed or any\t document  or  other
\narticle which may furnish evidence of the commission of such
\noffence\t is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or
\nenclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset,-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)   enter  into\t and   search  any  such   building,
\nconveyance or place;\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  in  case of resistance, break open any  door\t and
\nremove any obstacle to such entry;\n<\/p>\n
      (c)  seize  such drug or substance and  all  materials
\nused  in  the manufacture thereof and any other article\t and
\nany  animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe  to
\nbe liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or
\nother  article\twhich he has reason to believe\tmay  furnish
\nevidence  of the commission of any offence punishable  under
\nChapter IV relating to such drug or substance;\tand<\/p>\n
      (d) detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest
\nany  person whom he has reason to believe to have  committed
\nany  offence  punishable under Chapter IV relating  to\tsuch
\ndrug or substance:\n<\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat  if such officer has reason to  believe
\nthat  a\t search warrant or authorisation cannot be  obtained
\nwithout\t affording  opportunity\t for   the  concealment\t  of
\nevidence  or facility for the escape of an offender, he\t may
\nenter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place
\nat any time between sun set and sun rise after recording the
\ngrounds of his belief.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  Where  an officer takes down any  information  in
\nwriting\t under\tsub-section (1) or records grounds  for\t his
\nbelief\tunder the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a
\ncopy thereof to his immediate official superior.\n<\/p>\n
      Sub-section  (1) of Section 41 of the NDPS Act enables
\na Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class
\nor  any\t Magistrate  of the second class who  is  especially
\nempowered  by the State Government in this behalf to issue a
\nwarrant\t for the arrest of any person whom he has reason  to
\nbelieve\t to  have  committed any  offence  punishable  under
\nchapter\t IV  of\t the said Act.\tSuch a warrant may  also  be
\nissued\tfor the search of any building, conveyance or  place
\nin  which he has reason to believe that any narcotic drug or
\npsychotropic  substance\t in  respect  of  which\t an  offence
\npunishable  under  Chapter  IV\thas been  committed  or\t any
\ndocument  or other article which may furnish evidence of the
\ncommission  of such offence is kept or concealed.  Arrest or
\nsearch\tunder a warrant issued in this provision can be made
\nat  any time whether by day or by night.  Sub-section (2) of
\nSection\t 41 of the NDPS Act entitles any officer of gazetted
\nrank  of  the  departments  of\tcentral\t excise,  narcotics,
\ncustoms, revenue intelligence or any other department of the
\nCentral\t Government or of the Border Security Force who\t has
\nbeen empowered in that behalf by general or special order of
\nthe Central Government, or any officer of the revenue, drugs
\ncontrol,  excise, police or any other department of a  State
\nGovernment  as\tis  empowered in that behalf by\t general  or
\nspecial order of the State Government, to arrest a person or
\nsearch a building, conveyance or a place or to authorise any
\nofficer\t subordinate to him but superior in rank to a  peon,
\nsepoy  or  a constable, to arrest such a person or search  a
\nbuilding,  conveyance  or place whether by day or by  night.
\nSub-section  (3) of Section 41 of the NDPS Act says that the
\nOfficer to whom a warrant under sub-section (1) is addressed
\nand  the officer who authorised the arrest or search and the
\nofficer\t who  is so authorised under sub- section (2)  shall
\nhave  all the powers of an officer acting under Section\t 42.
\nSub-section  (1)  of Section 42 of the NDPS  enumerates\t the
\npowers\tof any such officer as is specified therein and\t who
\nis  duly  empowered by the Central Government or  the  State
\nGovernment, as the case may be.\t If he has reason to believe
\neither\tfrom  personal knowledge or on information given  by
\nany  person and taken down in writing, that (a) any narcotic
\ndrug,  or  psychotropic\t substance, in respect of  which  an
\noffence\t punishable under Chapter IV has been committed;  or\n<\/p>\n
(b) any document or other article which may furnish evidence
\nof  the\t commission of such offence is kept or concealed  in
\nany  building, conveyance or enclosed place, he may exercise
\nthe following powers, between sunrise and sunset.  They are:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  enter  into any building and search any such  building,
\nconveyance  or place and if faced with any resistance, break
\nopen  any  door and remove any such obstacle to such  entry;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  seize:  (a) such drug or substance and other materials
\nany  other article or any animal or conveyance which he\t has
\nreason to believe to be liable to confiscation under the Act
\nand (b) any document or other article which he has reason to
\nbelieve\t may  furnish  evidence\t of the\t commission  of\t any
\noffence\t relating  to  such drug or  substance;\t  and  (iii)
\ndetain and search and if he thinks proper, arrest any person
\nwhom  he has reason to believe to have committed any offence
\npunishable  under  Chapter  IV\trelating  to  such  drug  or
\nsubstance.   The  proviso to sub- section (1) says  that  an
\nempowered   officer  may  also\t enter\tinto  any  building,
\nconveyance  or enclosed place at any time between sunset and
\nsunrise if he has reason to believe that a search warrant or
\nauthorisation\tcannot\t be   obtained\t without   affording
\nopportunity  for the concealment of evidence or facility for
\nthe  escape  of\t an offender but in such a  case  before  so
\nproceeding  he\tis  enjoined to record the  grounds  of\t his
\nbelief.\t Sub-section (2) of Section 42 contains a procedural
\ndirective  to the officer who takes down any information  in
\nwriting\t under\tsub-section (1) or records grounds  for\t his
\nbelief\tunder  the proviso thereto to send forthwith a\tcopy
\nthereof to his immediate official superior.  It is thus seen
\nthat  for exercising powers enumerated under sub-section (1)
\nof  Section  42\t at any time whether by day or\tby  night  a
\nwarrant\t of  arrest  or\t search\t issued\t by  a\tMetropolitan
\nMagistrate  or\ta  Magistrate  of the  first  class  or\t any
\nMagistrate  of\tthe  second  class who\thas  been  specially
\nempowered  by  the  State Government in that  behalf  or  an
\nauthorisation  under  sub-section  (2) of Section 41  by  an
\nempowered  officer is necessary.  Without such a warrant  or
\nan  authorisation,  an empowered officer can exercise  those
\npowers\tonly  between  sunrise\tand  sunset.   However,\t the
\nproviso\t permits such an empowered or authorised officer  to
\nexercise  the  said  powers at any time between\t sunset\t and
\nsunrise\t if  he\t has reason to believe that  such  a  search
\nwarrant\t  or  authorisation  cannot   be  obtained   without
\naffording  opportunity\tfor the concealment of\tevidence  or
\nfacility  for  the escape of an offender and he records\t the
\ngrounds\t of  his belief.  Now, it is plain that\t no  officer
\nother  than an empowered officer can resort to Section 41(2)
\nor  exercise  powers under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act  or
\nmake  a\t complaint  under clause (d) of sub-section  (1)  of
\nSection 36A of the NDPS Act.  It follows that any collection
\nof  material, detention or arrest of a person or search of a
\nbuilding or conveyance or seizure effected by an officer not
\nbeing  an  empowered officer or an authorised officer  under
\nSection\t 41(2) of the NDPS Act, lacks sanction of law and is
\ninherently  illegal  and  as such the same cannot  form\t the
\nbasis  of a proceeding in respect of offences under  Chapter
\nIV  of\tthe  NDPS  Act and use of such\ta  material  by\t the
\nprosecution  vitiates the trial.  To the same effect is\t the
\nview  expressed by this Court in State of Punjab Vs.  Balbir
\nSingh  [1994 (3) SCC 299].  In para 13 Jayachandra Reddy, J.
\nspeaking  for the Court observed thus :\t Therefore, if\tan
\narrest\tor  search contemplated under Sections 41 and 42  is
\nmade  under  a warrant issued by any other Magistrate or  is
\nmade  by  any officer not empowered or authorised, it  would
\nper  se be illegal and would affect the prosecution case and
\nconsequently vitiate the trial.\n<\/p>\n
      It is well settled that the power under Section 482 of
\nthe  Cr.P.C.   has to be exercised by the High Court,  inter
\nalia,  to  prevent the abuse of the process of any court  or
\notherwise  to  secure the ends of justice.   Where  criminal
\nproceedings   are  initiated  based   on  illicit   material
\ncollected  on search and arrest which are per se illegal and
\nvitiate\t not  only a conviction and sentence based  on\tsuch
\nmaterial  but also the trial itself, the proceedings  cannot
\nbe  allowed to go on as it cannot but amount to abuse of the
\nprocess\t of  the  court;  in such a case  not  quashing\t the
\nproceedings  would  perpetuate abuse of the process  of\t the
\ncourt  resulting  in  great hardship and  injustice  to\t the
\naccused.   In  our opinion, exercise of power under  Section
\n482  of the Cr.P.C.  to quash proceedings in a case like the
\none  on hand, would indeed secure the ends of justice.\t The
\nlearned\t Additional Solicitor General, however, relying upon
\nconclusion  No.3  in para 57 of State of Punjab Vs.   Baldev
\nSingh [1999 (6) SCC 172], contends that a search and seizure
\nin  violation  of Sections 41 & 42 of the NDPS Act does\t not
\nvitiate\t the trial but would render the recovery of  illicit
\narticle\t suspect  and would only vitiate the conviction\t and
\nsentence  of the accused if the conviction has been recorded
\nsolely\ton  the basis of such illicit article, so  the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  right in not quashing the proceedings.   We\t are
\nafraid,\t we  cannot accede to the contention of the  learned
\nAdditional  Solicitor General.\tThe conclusion, referred  to
\nabove,\tmay be extracted here :\t That a search made by\tan
\nempowered  officer, on prior information, without  informing
\nthe  person of his right that if he so requires, he shall be
\ntaken  before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for  search
\nand in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before
\na  gazetted  officer  or a Magistrate, may not\tvitiate\t the
\ntrial  but would render the recovery of the illicit  article
\nsuspect\t and  vitiate  the  conviction and  sentence  of  an
\naccused,  where the conviction has been recorded only on the
\nbasis  of  the possession of the illicit article,  recovered
\nfrom  his person, during a search conducted in violation  of
\nthe provisions of Section 50 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      It  may be noticed that that conclusion was reached by
\nthe  Constitution Bench in the context of non-compliance  of
\nSection\t 50  of the NDPS Act.  While emphasising that it  is
\nimperative  on the officer who is making search of a  person
\nto  inform him of his right under sub-section (1) of Section
\n50  of\tthe NDPS Act, it was held that the recovery  of\t the
\nillicit\t article in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS\t Act
\nwould render the recovery of illicit article suspect and use
\nof  such material would vitiate the conviction and  sentence
\nof  an accused.\t It is manifest that the recovery of illicit
\narticle\t in that case was by a competent officer but was  in
\nviolation  of  Section 50 of the NDPS Act.  In\tthe  instant
\ncase,  however,\t the search and recovery were by an  officer
\nwho  was not empowered so to do.  Further in Balbir  Singhs
\ncase (supra) this Court took the view that arrest and search
\nin violation of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act being per
\nse  illegal  would vitiate the trial.  Therefore,  the\tsaid
\nconclusion  cannot  be\tcalled in aid to support  the  order
\nunder challenge.  If the proceedings in the instant case are
\nnot quashed, the illegality will be perpetuated resulting in
\ngrave hardship to the appellant by making him to undergo the
\nordeal\tof  trial  which is vitiated by the  illegality\t and
\nwhich  cannot result in conviction and sentence.  It is,  in
\nour  view, a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of
\nCr.P.C.\t  to  quash  the   impugned  proceedings.   For\t the
\nafore-mentioned\t reasons, we set aside the order of the High
\nCourt,\t allow\tCrl.M.C.No.2417\t of   1996  and\t quash\t the
\nproceedings  in\t Session Case No.78 of 1993 on the  file  of
\nAdditional  Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha.\t The appeal is\tthus
\nallowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000 Author: S S Quadri Bench: S.N.Phukan, S.S.M.Quadri PETITIONER: ROY V. D. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/11\/2000 BENCH: S.N.Phukan, S.S.M.Quadri JUDGMENT: L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. Leave to appeal is granted. This appeal is directed against […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRoy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000 - 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\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-10T23:51:25+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T23:51:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3101,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000\",\"name\":\"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T23:51:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000 - 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\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-10T23:51:25+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T23:51:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000"},"wordCount":3101,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000","name":"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T23:51:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-v-d-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Roy V. D vs State Of Kerala on 10 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/115078","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=115078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}