{"id":121951,"date":"2008-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-19T23:52:29","modified_gmt":"2015-10-19T18:22:29","slug":"palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 520 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. PALLIYALI ABDUL KAREEM\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ASST.COLLECTOR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :04\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n\n                           --------------------------------------\n                             Crl.R.P.No.520 of 2001\n                           --------------------------------------\n                   Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008.\n\n                                        ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
       Revision petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Additional Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, `the Act’). He was<\/p>\n
found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six<\/p>\n
months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000\/-. He preferred an appeal. In appeal,<\/p>\n
conviction was confirmed but substantive sentence was modified as rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three months. Hence this revision.<\/p>\n
       2.     Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     Following points arise for consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
                    I.     Whether conviction of the revision petitioner is legal<\/p>\n
and proper?\n<\/p>\n
                    II.    Whether sentence is excessive?\n\n       4.     Perused records.\n\n       5.           Point No.I.\n\n<\/pre>\n
              Case of the prosecution is that on 10.8.1991 revision petitioner who<\/p>\n
was then working abroad was coming to his native place              from Bombay to<\/p>\n
Kasaragod in the bus belonging to Soudi Travels. On getting information that<\/p>\n
revision petitioner was carrying smuggled articles, PW1 and party checked the<\/p>\n
bus at Kumbala and found the revision petitioner sitting in seat number 19 of<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.520\/2001<\/p>\n
                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
that bus. Though initially he denied carrying any smuggled items, on search he<\/p>\n
was found carrying three gold biscuits and five gold coins. He was taken to the<\/p>\n
office of PW1 where he was subjected to thorough search. Then, a few video<\/p>\n
cassettes and watches were also detected. The gold was got assayed by PW4,<\/p>\n
a gold smith who certified its purity and weight. Later, the gold biscuits and gold<\/p>\n
coins were     examined by the Chemical Examiner attached to the Customs<\/p>\n
Department. Chemical Examiner also certified its purity and weight. According<\/p>\n
to the prosecution, the gold biscuits and gold coin were valued at Rs.1,31,148\/-<\/p>\n
and other articles were valued at Rs.15,400\/-. Accordingly, prosecution was<\/p>\n
launched against the revision petitioner.       PW1,    Superintendent of Special<\/p>\n
Customs and PW2, Inspector of Special Customs Unit gave evidence regarding<\/p>\n
the alleged search and seizure. Ext.P1 is the assay certificate issued by PW4.<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 is the mahazar for seizure.          Revision petitioner was released on<\/p>\n
10.8.1991 with direction to appear before PW1 the next day. Accordingly on<\/p>\n
11.8.1991 revision petitioner appeared in the office of PW1 and his statement<\/p>\n
under Section 108 of the Act was recorded by PW5. According to PWs 1, 2 and<\/p>\n
5, revision petitioner was not able to write the statement properly in Malayalam<\/p>\n
and hence, it was recorded by PW5 and signed by PWs 1, 2 and 5 and the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner. PW4 stated that as instructed by PW1, he ascertained the<\/p>\n
purity of the three gold biscuits and five gold coins and issued Ext.P1, certificate.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.520\/2001<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
According to PW1, he used touchstone method to ascertain the purity of the<\/p>\n
gold.    PW3 is an attestor in Exts.P1 and P2 but he reused to support the<\/p>\n
prosecution. He however, admitted that he signed in Exts.P1 and P2               on<\/p>\n
10.8.1991. It is his further case that he had seen three gold biscuits, five gold<\/p>\n
coins and a few electronic items in the customs office. PW6 who is the Assistant<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner of the Cochin Customs House examined                   the    gold<\/p>\n
biscuits and gold coins and certified its purity as per Ext.P13. It is also the case<\/p>\n
of the prosecution that revision petitioner filed applications to the officer<\/p>\n
concerned in the department vide Exts.P9 and P10 dated 4.9.1991 and<\/p>\n
14.10.1991 and the Collector of Customs issued Ext.P11, adjudication order.<\/p>\n
Ext.P12 is the sanction for prosecution issued by the Collector of Central Excise<\/p>\n
and Customs. Learned counsel contended that there is no independent evidence<\/p>\n
regarding the alleged search and seizure. It is also contended that Exts.P3, P9<\/p>\n
and P10 are the result of coercion.\n<\/p>\n
              6.     It is true that PW3 has not supported the prosecution case<\/p>\n
but he also admitted signing Exts.P1 and P2. He further admitted that he had<\/p>\n
seen three gold biscuits and five gold coins along with some electronic items in<\/p>\n
the office of the officer of the customs concerned. To that extent, his evidence<\/p>\n
corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is also<\/p>\n
corroborates with Ext.P2 and to some extent, PW4 as well.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.520\/2001<\/p>\n
                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
               7.    Ext.P3 is the statement given by the revision petitioner and<\/p>\n
recorded by PW5 under Section 108 of the Act. Since customs officer is not<\/p>\n
invested with all powers of police officer in charge of a station, statement given<\/p>\n
to such officer is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is true that<\/p>\n
statement of revision petitioner (Ext.P3) was recorded by PW5 for the reason<\/p>\n
that revision petitioner was not able to write the statement properly in Malayalam.<\/p>\n
But it is not shown that there was any foul play on the part of PWs 1, 2 and 5. It<\/p>\n
is also to be born in mind that statement of the revision petitioner was recorded<\/p>\n
on 11.8.1991, he, having been released on bail on 10.8.1991. Exts.P9 and P10<\/p>\n
applications submitted by the revision petitioner after his arrest and release on<\/p>\n
bail. In Exts.P9 and P10 it is specifically admitted that gold biscuits and gold<\/p>\n
coins were seized from him on 10.8.1991. I am not inclined to think that Exts.P3,<\/p>\n
P9 or P10 is the result coercion as contended by the learned counsel. Thus, the<\/p>\n
fact of seizure is proved by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
        8.     Then the question is whether the gold seized is smuggled into the<\/p>\n
country. It is not disputed that revision petitioner was working abroad during that<\/p>\n
time and was on his way to his house. Revision petitioner was not able to<\/p>\n
prove that he was authorized to transport the gold in question. He has no case<\/p>\n
that he had purchased the gold anywhere in the country. Therefore, the courts<\/p>\n
below were justified in concluding that the articles seized from the revision<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.520\/2001<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner were smuggled into the country.\n<\/p>\n
       9.     It is then contended by the learned counsel that there is no<\/p>\n
evidence to show that the value of gold seized is Rs.1,31,148\/- as stated by<\/p>\n
PW1. According to the learned counsel, market value of the gold is not proved<\/p>\n
by appropriate evidence. Though, contention at the first blush appeared to be<\/p>\n
meritorious, it is seen from the evidence of PW1 that his version regarding the<\/p>\n
market value of the gold seized was not objected in cross-examination.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve that statement of PW1. Concurrent<\/p>\n
finding entered by the courts below that revision petitioner committed offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act therefore requires no interference.<\/p>\n
       10.           Point No.II.\n<\/p>\n
              In the matter of     sentence, learned Additional Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate observed that      the policy of law regarding import of gold .is<\/p>\n
undergoing drastic change and that revision petitioner, according to him, was<\/p>\n
taking the gold seized in connection with the marriage of his sisters. Though, not<\/p>\n
when questioned on the sentence to be awarded, revision petitioner has stated<\/p>\n
so in Ext.P10. That appears to have weighed with the Additional Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate in limiting the substantive sentence to six months. Learned Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge was inclined to reduce the substantive sentence to three months. Now<\/p>\n
the request of the learned counsel is to confine the substantive sentence to the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.520\/2001<\/p>\n
                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
period of detention undergone by the revision petitioner, according to the<\/p>\n
counsel, for nine days from 12.8.1991 to 21.8.1991.          In Ext.P3, revision<\/p>\n
petitioner who was then aged 36 years stated that he has a family consisting of<\/p>\n
wife, two daughters and two sons to be looked after, he has studied only upto<\/p>\n
the first standard and that during that time, he was working as driver abroad on<\/p>\n
a salary of 700 riyals per month. Even according to the prosecution, revision<\/p>\n
petitioner was not able to write Malayalam properly. Therefore, I find no reason<\/p>\n
to reject the statement of the revision petitioner that he has studied only upto<\/p>\n
first standard.   Considering these aspects and since it is       not shown that<\/p>\n
transportation of the gold by the revision petitioner was for any nefarious<\/p>\n
activity and considering the fact that he has already undergone detention for nine<\/p>\n
days, I am inclined to think that the substantive sentence can be confined to the<\/p>\n
period of detention already undergone. However, considering the adverse effect<\/p>\n
of the act of the revision petitioner, I am inclined to think that he has to pay<\/p>\n
substantial amount as fine which in the facts and circumstances of the case is<\/p>\n
fixed at Rs.25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
              Resultantly, revision petition is allowed in part in the following<\/p>\n
lines:-\n<\/p>\n
                     i.    Substantive    sentence    awarded   to  the  revision<\/p>\n
petitioner is modified and confined to the period of detention already undergone<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.520\/2001<\/p>\n
                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
by him.\n<\/p>\n
                   ii.     Revision petitioner is sentenced to        pay fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand only) in the trial court within three<\/p>\n
months from this day failing which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two<\/p>\n
months.\n<\/p>\n
                   iii.    Revision petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on<\/p>\n
12.3.2009 to receive the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
                   iv.     Bail bond is cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
             Crl.M.P.Nos.2504 and 5085 of 2001 will stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                               THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                        JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.520\/2001<\/p>\n
                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
                          Thomas P.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
                          Crl.R.P.No.520 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                ORDER<\/p>\n
                          4th December, 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 520 of 2001() 1. PALLIYALI ABDUL KAREEM … Petitioner Vs 1. ASST.COLLECTOR … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER For Respondent :SRI.M.V.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :04\/12\/2008 O R D E […]<\/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-121951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPalliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008 - 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\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-19T18:22:29+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T18:22:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1517,\"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\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T18:22:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008 - 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\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-19T18:22:29+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T18:22:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008"},"wordCount":1517,"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\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008","name":"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T18:22:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliyali-abdul-kareem-vs-asst-collector-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Palliyali Abdul Kareem vs Asst.Collector on 4 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/121951","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=121951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121951\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}