{"id":123686,"date":"2007-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-30T07:37:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-30T02:07:42","slug":"rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 874 of 2007()\n\n\n1. RAJENDRAN @ RAJU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :LIJU M.P[STATE BRIEF]\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN\n\n Dated :24\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                         K. THANKAPPAN, J.\n                ------------------------------------------\n                       CRL.A.NO.874 OF 2007\n                ------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 24th day of July, 2007.\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The accused was charge sheeted by the police for an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act for possession of 4<\/p>\n
liters of arrack on 28.3.2000 at about 8.50 a.m.       To prove the case<\/p>\n
against the appellant, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and relied on<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P9. MO1 is also produced.       The appellant denied      the<\/p>\n
prosecution case and had stated that          he was arrested not as<\/p>\n
spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, but        from a shop in the<\/p>\n
previous night of 28.3.2000.       However, the trial court found the<\/p>\n
appellant guilty under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and he was<\/p>\n
convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and<\/p>\n
to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh with default sentence of payment of<\/p>\n
fine, to undergo R.I for a further period of three months.          The<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial court is challenged in this appeal.<\/p>\n
2.     This appeal is filed through the jail authorities.     Since the<\/p>\n
appellant is not having his own counsel         to argue the matter, a<\/p>\n
member from the State brief panel has been appointed to argue the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.874\/2007                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
matter.      This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.     The learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant mainly had      taken   three contentions<\/p>\n
before this Court.    Firstly it is submitted that the trial court had<\/p>\n
committed a serious error in placing reliance on the evidence of Pws<\/p>\n
1 and 2, who were the police officials, to prove the case against the<\/p>\n
appellant as the prosecution has not examined        any independent<\/p>\n
witnesses to prove the seizure of     MO1 or even the action taken by<\/p>\n
PW2.      Secondly, it is contended that while detecting the offence,<\/p>\n
PW2 – the Sub Inspector of Police had committed a serious error in<\/p>\n
not    getting the presence of independent witnesses    to watch the<\/p>\n
action taken by him and hence, PW2- Sub Inspector had violated the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Abkari Act as well as the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Excise Manuel. Thirdly, it is contended that the evidence of PWs 1<\/p>\n
and 2 does not prove that the contraband was kept in safe custody<\/p>\n
till the sample was taken for analysis, hence there is substitution of<\/p>\n
the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.      The prosecution case as spoken to by Pws 1 and 2 is that<\/p>\n
while PW2 – the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellarada Police Station was<\/p>\n
on patrol duty along with the other police officials reached at the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.874\/2007                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
place   called  Vattavila and      got information that    a person was<\/p>\n
engaged in selling arrack at Vattavila, Pulloorkulangara. On getting<\/p>\n
the above information,      the police party reached the place called<\/p>\n
Vattavila at Chenkal Village and found that the appellant was in<\/p>\n
possession of a jerry can having the capacity of 5 liters and on seeing<\/p>\n
the police party, the appellant tried to escape from the spot. However,<\/p>\n
he was    stopped     and questioned.      On questioning him     it was<\/p>\n
revealed that the can contained arrack and it was kept for sale. On<\/p>\n
preparing Ext.P1 mahazar, MO1 can was seized           in the presence of<\/p>\n
independent witnesses and on issuing an arrest memo, the appellant<\/p>\n
was arrested. Both the appellant and the contraband were produced<\/p>\n
before the court on the same day.       After filing requisite requisition<\/p>\n
before the court     for analysing the sample taken from MO1 can and<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P5 it was reported that the sample contained 26.62% ethyl<\/p>\n
alcohol by volume and hence, the final charge has been filed before<\/p>\n
the court.   The trial court found that the evidence of Pw1- the Head<\/p>\n
Constable,    who accompanied PW2- the Sub Inspector,                was<\/p>\n
acceptable and      non-examination of the independent witnesses,<\/p>\n
whose name appeared in Ext.P2 mahazar,              was not a reason to<\/p>\n
believe Pws 1 and 2.     The criticism levelled against the evidence of<\/p>\n
these   witnesses was that even though Ext.P1 mahazar contained<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.874\/2007                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
the names of two independent witnesses, none of that independent<\/p>\n
witnesses was examined by the prosecution to prove the action taken<\/p>\n
by PW2 at the spot and at the time of arrest of the appellant. In this<\/p>\n
context the trial court had found that even though two names were<\/p>\n
found in Ext.P1 mahazar as independent witnesses, the Prosecution<\/p>\n
had given up these witnesses.         The trial court found that if the<\/p>\n
evidence of these witnesses is acceptable and that             does not<\/p>\n
contain any infirmity,      there is no bar for proving the prosecution<\/p>\n
case against the appellant. The contention raised by the counsel is<\/p>\n
that    as Ext.P1 contained the names of two independent witnesses<\/p>\n
and     the prosecution was also aware that if these witnesses were<\/p>\n
examined before the court,       they would not support the prosecution<\/p>\n
case at all. But that by itself may not be a reason for not examining<\/p>\n
any independent witnesses.        However, the case suggested to Pws 1<\/p>\n
and 2     and     the case set up by the      appellant   when he was<\/p>\n
questioned under Section 313 would not suggest that the appellant<\/p>\n
was implicated falsely by the      police and the police officials have<\/p>\n
foisted the case against the appellant with an ulterior motive or with<\/p>\n
any prior enmity.     In the above circumstances, the trial court is fully<\/p>\n
justified in placing reliance on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2.       Apart<\/p>\n
from the evidence of PW2, PW3- the Thondi Clerk attached to the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.874\/2007                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
committal court was     examined before the court.     PW3 had given<\/p>\n
evidence before the court that the thondi article namely MO1 was<\/p>\n
reached at the court on 29.3.2000 itself, i.e, on the next day of<\/p>\n
detection of the crime.     However, in Ext.P4 thondi list it was seen<\/p>\n
that     magistrate had recorded that MO1       may be     verified and<\/p>\n
received on 28.3.2000 as per the initial of the magistrate. Apart from<\/p>\n
the above,    it was the case of PW2 – the Sub Inspector that MO1<\/p>\n
and the appellant were produced before the court on the same day.<\/p>\n
In the above circumstances, the evidence given by PW3 that MO1<\/p>\n
was seen or received in the court on 29.3.2000 may not have much<\/p>\n
consequences.. However this witness has stated before the court<\/p>\n
that as per the direction given by the magistrate, the sample has been<\/p>\n
collected and sent for chemical analysis by himself.       Though this<\/p>\n
witness was cross examined at length, his evidence has not been<\/p>\n
shattered to prove that the sample has been taken from MO1 and<\/p>\n
got analysed as per the direction given by the court.     In the above<\/p>\n
circumstances, Ext. P5 report clearly proves that the sample      taken<\/p>\n
from MO1 can was produced before the court on the same day.<\/p>\n
Hence, non-examination of the independent witnesses, whose names<\/p>\n
appeared in Ext.P1- mahazar may not fatal to the prosecution case.-<\/p>\n
Even though it was suggested to Pws 1 and 2 that the seal and the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.874\/2007                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
label fixed by PW2 on MO1 have not seen when it was examined in<\/p>\n
the court during trial, that by itself was not a reason to reject the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pw 2, who had given evidence before the court that MO1<\/p>\n
was seized from the appellant and it was duly labeled and sealed.<\/p>\n
Unless and until it is proved or        suggested that the contraband<\/p>\n
article has been substituted by the prosecution, it is not possible to<\/p>\n
hold that the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 cannot be the basis for<\/p>\n
finding that the appellant was found in possession of MO1 and MO1<\/p>\n
was seized    as   spoken    to by Pws       1 and 2.     In the above<\/p>\n
circumstances, the finding of the trial court is on evidence.<\/p>\n
4.     However, the trial court on the basis of the evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by the prosecution witnesses found that the appellant had committed<\/p>\n
an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.         The<\/p>\n
prosecution case is that the appellant was found in possession of 4<\/p>\n
liters of arrack on 28.3.2000 at about 8.50 a.m without having any<\/p>\n
permit or license under the provisions of the Abakri Act.         If a<\/p>\n
person is found in possession of arrack without having any license or<\/p>\n
permit, which would constitute an offence under Section 8(1) read<\/p>\n
with Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.874\/2007                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    In the above circumstances, the finding of the trial court that<\/p>\n
the appellant committed     an offence punishable under Section 58 is<\/p>\n
set aside instead he is found guilty for an offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The trial court<\/p>\n
had imposed R.I for two years and        fine of Rs. One lakh against<\/p>\n
the appellant.    After considering the fact that the case was of the<\/p>\n
year 2000 and      the prosecution   has not adduced any evidence to<\/p>\n
show that the appellant was engaged in selling arrack, the sentence<\/p>\n
imposed against the appellant has to be reduced.<\/p>\n
6.      Accordingly, appellant is convicted under Section 8(1) read<\/p>\n
with 8(2) of the Abkari Act.  He is sentenced to undergo R.I for one<\/p>\n
year and to pay a fine of Rs.One lakh with default sentence of<\/p>\n
payment of fine, to undergo S.I for a period of three months. The<\/p>\n
appellant is entitled for the benefit of set off under Section 428 of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      With the above modifications in the conviction and sentence, in<\/p>\n
all other respects the appeal stands dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                  K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n   cl<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.874\/2007    8<\/span><\/p>\n
                      K THANKAPPAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                      CRL.A.NO.874 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                        24th July, 2007.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 874 of 2007() 1. RAJENDRAN @ RAJU … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :LIJU M.P[STATE BRIEF] For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN […]<\/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-123686","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007 - 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\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-30T02:07:42+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\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T02:07:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1553,\"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\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T02:07:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007 - 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\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-30T02:07:42+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\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T02:07:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007"},"wordCount":1553,"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\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007","name":"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T02:07:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-raju-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendran @ Raju vs State Of Kerala on 24 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/123686","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=123686"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123686\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123686"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123686"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}