{"id":115935,"date":"2009-06-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-20T12:02:35","modified_gmt":"2019-01-20T06:32:35","slug":"thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1630 of 2009()\n\n\n1. THURAIYAMMA JAYAKUMAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. JAYAKUMAR JAYA GAURI,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.MAJIDA.S\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :19\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                         THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                           CRL. R.P. NO.1630 of 2009\n               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                 Dated this the 19th    day of June,     2009\n\n                                  O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                  ————–\n<\/p>\n
\n      Petitioners, mother and daughter are Sri Lankan Nationals. At a<\/p>\n
time when petitioner No.2 was a young girl she, on the strength of<\/p>\n
appropriate entries in the passport of her mother (petitioner No.1)<\/p>\n
came to India and stayed in India on the             strength of temporary<\/p>\n
residential permit in connection with the study of petitioner No.2. In<\/p>\n
the year 2003      they wanted to return to their mother land            and<\/p>\n
allegedly on the strength of forged Exist Permit purporting to be issued<\/p>\n
by FRO Thiruvannamalai, Identity Certificate purporting to be issued<\/p>\n
by the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai           and Emergency Travel<\/p>\n
Document purporting to be issued by the Deputy High Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Sri Lanka at Chennai came to Thiruvananthapuram airport on<\/p>\n
18.10.2003 and cheated the Immigration authorities at the airport.<\/p>\n
Feeling suspicious about the genuineness of the above said documents<\/p>\n
the   airport authorities took up the matter.         Investigation allegedly<\/p>\n
revealed that the above said documents were forged.              Inspector of<\/p>\n
CBCID Thiruvananthapuram            submitted final report against the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the court of learned              Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 12<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. No.1630 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
(1A)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, “the Act”) and Sections<\/p>\n
465, 468 and 471        of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).<\/p>\n
Petitioners filed C.M.P. No.2802 of 2008 to discharge them under<\/p>\n
Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure       (for short, “the Code”).<\/p>\n
That petition was dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as<\/p>\n
per order dated 1.1.2009. This Court in Crl.R.P. No.297 of 2009 set<\/p>\n
aside that order and remitted the petition to the learned Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate for fresh consideration.    Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate<\/p>\n
heard both sides and passed the impugned order on             17.3.2009<\/p>\n
disallowing the prayer of the petitioners for discharge. That order is<\/p>\n
under challenge in this revision.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Learned counsel for petitioners contends that even on the<\/p>\n
allegations made     by the charging officer no offence as alleged is<\/p>\n
made out and hence         petitioners are entitled to be discharged.<\/p>\n
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the records revealed that the<\/p>\n
documents in question were actually forged and attempted to be made<\/p>\n
use of by the petitioners to travel beyond India.<\/p>\n
      3.    The charge is     that forged Exit Permit purporting to be<\/p>\n
issued by the FRO Thiruvannamalai, Emergency Travel Document<\/p>\n
purporting to be issued by Deputy High Commissioner of Sri Lanka at<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. No.1630 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Chennai and Identity Card purporting to be issued by the           District<\/p>\n
Collector Thiruvannamalai     were used by the petitioners fraudulently<\/p>\n
and dishonestly as if the same as genuine and knowing the same to<\/p>\n
be    forged documents.      Counsel for petitioners would argue that<\/p>\n
offences alleged are not made out even as per the allegations of the<\/p>\n
charging officer. Counsel referred me to the relevant provisions of the<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Section 12(1A)(b) of the Act states that whoever not being<\/p>\n
a citizen of India holds a “forged passport” or “any travel document”<\/p>\n
shall be punishable in the manner stated therein. `Travel document’<\/p>\n
is defined in Sec.2(e) of the Act as meaning “a travel document<\/p>\n
issued or deemed to have been issued under the Act”.<\/p>\n
According to counsel Schedule II Part II of the Act deals with travel<\/p>\n
documents which can be issued under the Act. Item No.1 of Part II<\/p>\n
Schedule II is Emergency Certificate which concerned citizens of India<\/p>\n
abroad, persons who have produced prima facie evidence of Indian<\/p>\n
citizenship or citizens of India abroad whose passports have been lost,<\/p>\n
stolen or damaged and persons of Indian origin. In this case that item<\/p>\n
is not applicable as petitioners are admittedly Sri Lankan Nationals.<\/p>\n
Item No.2 refers to Certificate of Identity in regard to Stateless persons<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. No.1630 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
residing in India, foreigners whose country is not represented in India<\/p>\n
or whose national status is in doubt and persons exempted under<\/p>\n
Sec.22 of the Act from the operation of the provisions of clause (a) of<\/p>\n
sub-sec. (2) of Sec.6. That item is not applicable to the case on hand<\/p>\n
since Sri Lanka is represented in India and     petitioners are neither<\/p>\n
Stateless persons nor persons exempted under Sec.22.           Therefore<\/p>\n
counsel argues that Sec.12(1A)(b) of the Act has no application.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel definition of `travel document’ given<\/p>\n
in Sec.3(b) of the Act     has no application since that definition is<\/p>\n
available only for the purpose of that Section and Sec.12(1A) does<\/p>\n
not take in Sec.3 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Section 2(e) of the Act defines `travel document’ as<\/p>\n
meaning “travel document issued or deemed to have been<\/p>\n
issued under this Act”.      Section 3(b) of the Act defines, though for<\/p>\n
the purpose of that Section “travel document” as including “a travel<\/p>\n
document which having been issued by or under the authority<\/p>\n
of the Government of           a foreign      country satisfies the<\/p>\n
conditions prescribed”.       Going by Sec.2(e) of the Act which I have<\/p>\n
extracted above, not only travel document issued under the Act but<\/p>\n
also which are “deemed to have been issued under the Act” come<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. No.1630 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
within the purview of that definition. So far as Sec.3(b) is concerned,<\/p>\n
it is clear that definition given there is only an inclusive definition. The<\/p>\n
definition given therein is not exhaustive .\n<\/p>\n
       6.    In this case it is not disputed that petitioner No.2 came to<\/p>\n
India in the year 1989 along with her mother, petitioner No.1 at a time<\/p>\n
when she was a young girl and did not then have or require a separate<\/p>\n
passport. It was sufficient that in the passport of petitioner No.1, her<\/p>\n
mother, relevant entries concerning her were made. Now petitioner<\/p>\n
No.2 has crossed the age of 15 years. Rule 19 of the Passports Rules,<\/p>\n
1980 states that the condition subject to which a passport or travel<\/p>\n
document shall be issued or renewed shall be as set out in Schedule V.<\/p>\n
Schedule V deals with conditions relating to the issue of passport and<\/p>\n
travel document.     Clause (8) of Schedule V says that children whose<\/p>\n
names are included in the passport or travel document of their parents<\/p>\n
or legal guardian should apply for a separate passport on attaining the<\/p>\n
age of 15 years. In this case at the time petitioner No.2 attempted<\/p>\n
to go to Sri Lanka through         Thiruvananthapuram airport she had<\/p>\n
crossed the age of 15 years.         Therefore she could not have gone<\/p>\n
outside India except with a separate passport. There is no case that<\/p>\n
she had a passport when she attempted to go to Sri Lanka in the year<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. No.1630 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
2003.    There is also no     case that except the travel document<\/p>\n
(allegedly forged) she and petitioner No.1 brought to the airport she<\/p>\n
had any other document enabling her to go outside the country. No<\/p>\n
person can go out of India except with a passport or other travel<\/p>\n
document recognised under the Act. One of the documents made use<\/p>\n
of by the petitioners in their attempt to go out of India is an Exit<\/p>\n
Permit purporting to be issued by the FRO Thiruvannamalai and the<\/p>\n
Emergency Travel Document purporting to be issued by the Deputy<\/p>\n
High Commissioner of Sri Lanka at Chennai.    Those documents could<\/p>\n
only be treated as travel documents deemed to be issued under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act. Therefore the contention that no offence under<\/p>\n
Sec.12(1A) is made out cannot prima facie be accepted.<\/p>\n
      7.    Now coming to the offences alleged under the IPC, there is<\/p>\n
no case that the documents in question were forged by or with the<\/p>\n
connivance of any of the petitioners. Even as stated by one of the<\/p>\n
witnesses cited by the prosecution another person had managed to<\/p>\n
procure   the documents for the petitioners.      Investigating officer<\/p>\n
could not trace that person.    Going by the records produced by the<\/p>\n
respondent along with the final report under Sec.173 of the Code,<\/p>\n
there is no material on record to show that petitioners had forged the<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. No.1630 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
documents in question. If that be so, charge under Sec.465 IPC cannot<\/p>\n
stand.   Consequently, charge under Sec.468 IPC also cannot stand<\/p>\n
since that charge can stand only if the documents in question were<\/p>\n
forged by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    But the charge under Sec.471 IPC stands on a different<\/p>\n
footing.  That    provision penalises use of a forged document as<\/p>\n
genuine and what is required by the prosecution to be proved is only<\/p>\n
the following ingredients: (1) The document in question is a forged<\/p>\n
one; (2) Accused knew or had reason to believe the said document to<\/p>\n
be a forged one and (3) The accused has fraudulently or dishonestly<\/p>\n
used that document as genuine.       In this case materials on record<\/p>\n
would prima facie show that knowing or having reason to be forged<\/p>\n
documents, petitioners used the same as genuine.         If that be so,<\/p>\n
charge under Sec.471 IPC cannot be said to be groundless so as to<\/p>\n
enable a discharge under Sec.239 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    Result of my above discussion is that petition to the extent<\/p>\n
it concerned the charge for offences punishable under Secs.465 and<\/p>\n
468 IPC should succeed.      The prayer for discharge for offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sec.3 read with Sec.12(1A)(b) of the Act and Sec.471<\/p>\n
IPC cannot stand.\n<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P. No.1630 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                   -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent:<\/p>\n
                   The petition to the extent it concerned<\/p>\n
            offences punishable under Secs.465 and 468<\/p>\n
            IPC is allowed. Petitioners are discharged of<\/p>\n
            those     offences.    Petition to the extent it<\/p>\n
            concerned offences punishable under Sec.3<\/p>\n
            read with Sec.12(1A)(b) of the Act and 471, IPC<\/p>\n
            will stand dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial<\/p>\n
and disposal of this case giving utmost priority to it since the<\/p>\n
petitioners are foreign Nationals and wanted to go to their native place<\/p>\n
after the proceedings are over.        Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate<\/p>\n
shall decide the case      untrammeled by any of the observations<\/p>\n
contained in this order as to the nature of the offence allegedly<\/p>\n
committed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nvsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1630 of 2009() 1. THURAIYAMMA JAYAKUMAR, … Petitioner 2. JAYAKUMAR JAYA GAURI, Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.MAJIDA.S For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS […]<\/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-115935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 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\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-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=\"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-20T06:32:35+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-20T06:32:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1674,\"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\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-20T06:32:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 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":"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 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\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-20T06:32:35+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-20T06:32:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009"},"wordCount":1674,"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\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009","name":"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-20T06:32:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thuraiyamma-jayakumar-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thuraiyamma Jayakumar vs The State Of Kerala on 19 June, 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\/115935","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=115935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}