{"id":12384,"date":"2010-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-26T16:32:40","modified_gmt":"2017-07-26T11:02:40","slug":"sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 329 of 2010()\n\n\n1. SRI.HIMANSHU BAID,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SRI.RISHI BAID,\n3. SRI.D.R.METHA, CHAIRMAN,\n4. SRI.AJAY SHARMA,\n5. M\/S. POLY MEDICURE LIMITED,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.ASOKAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :17\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                           ---------------------------\n                        Crl.M.C. No. 329 OF 2010\n                            --------------------------\n                 Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010\n\n                                 O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
          Petitioners are accused 2 to 6 in C.C. No.412\/2009 on the<\/p>\n
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode taken cognizance<\/p>\n
for the offences under Section 27(b)(ii) and 27(d) of the Drugs and<\/p>\n
Cosmetics Act, 1940 on Annexure-I complaint filed by the Drugs<\/p>\n
Inspector for Kozhikode. The first petitioner is implicated as the<\/p>\n
second accused being the Managing Director, second petitioner was<\/p>\n
implicated as third accused being the Executive Director, third<\/p>\n
petitioner was implicated as fourth accused being the Chairman and<\/p>\n
fourth petitioner was implicated as the fifth accused being the<\/p>\n
Assistant General Manager of fifth petitioner the sixth accused<\/p>\n
company M\/s.Poly Medicure Limited. Petition is filed under Section<\/p>\n
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken<\/p>\n
as against the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
          2   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and<\/p>\n
learned Public Prosecutor were heard.\n<\/p>\n
          3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted<\/p>\n
that petitioners are confining the relief of quashing the cognizance<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.329\/2010
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
taken against petitioners 1 to 3 alone who are respectively accused 2<\/p>\n
to 4.   The learned counsel argued that in the absence of an<\/p>\n
allegation in Annexure-I complaint that petitioners 1 to 3 were either<\/p>\n
in charge and was responsible to company for the conduct of the<\/p>\n
business of the company, they cannot be vicarious liable or<\/p>\n
prosecuted and therefore the cognizance taken against them is to be<\/p>\n
quashed. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex Court<\/p>\n
in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal<\/a> (1998 (5) SCC 343) argued<\/p>\n
that for the sole reason that petitioners 1 to 3 are either the<\/p>\n
Managing Director, Executive Director or Chairman of the Company,<\/p>\n
they cannot be prosecuted as there is no case for the prosecution<\/p>\n
that they were either in charge and was responsible to the company<\/p>\n
for the conduct of the business of the company at the time of<\/p>\n
commission of the offence and therefore, the case as against them is<\/p>\n
to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
         4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though there is<\/p>\n
no specific allegation in Annexure-I complaint that petitioners 1 to 3<\/p>\n
were either in charge and was responsible to company for the<\/p>\n
conduct of the business of the company, the case as against the first<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.329\/2010
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner stands on a different footing as he is the Managing Director<\/p>\n
and in such circumstances, even if the cognizance taken against<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 and 3 is bad, the cognizance taken against the first<\/p>\n
petitioner cannot be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
         5.    Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940<\/p>\n
provides the offences by companies. Under sub section 1, where an<\/p>\n
offence under the Act has been committed by a Company every<\/p>\n
person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge and<\/p>\n
was responsible to company for the conduct of the business of the<\/p>\n
company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the<\/p>\n
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished<\/p>\n
accordingly. Proviso further provides that nothing contained in the<\/p>\n
sub section, shall render any such person liable if he proves that the<\/p>\n
offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised<\/p>\n
due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.          Sub<\/p>\n
section 2 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub<\/p>\n
section 1, where an offence under the Act has been committed by a<\/p>\n
Company and it is proved that offence has been committed with the<\/p>\n
consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on the part of<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.329\/2010
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company,<\/p>\n
such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer is also deemed to<\/p>\n
be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against<\/p>\n
and punished accordingly. Therefore, unless there is an allegation in<\/p>\n
the complaint that the Directors of the company, who are implicated<\/p>\n
in the case, were in charge and was responsible to company for the<\/p>\n
conduct of the business of the company, they cannot be prosecuted,<\/p>\n
unless there is an allegation that even though they were not in<\/p>\n
charge of and were not responsible to company for the conduct of<\/p>\n
the business of the company, the offence was committed with either<\/p>\n
their consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on their<\/p>\n
part.\n<\/p>\n
         6. The honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.<\/p>\n
Brij Lal Mittal<\/a> (supra) considering the provision held:<\/p>\n
        “It is thus seen that the vicarious liability of a person for
\n        being prosecuted for an offence committed under the Act
\n        by a company arises if at the material time he was in
\n        charge of and was also responsible to the company for
\n        the conduct of its business. Simply because a person is
\n        a director of the company it does not necessarily mean
\n        that he fulfills both the above requirements so as to
\n        make him liable. Conversely, without being a director a
\n        person can be in charge of and responsible to the
\n        company for the conduct of its business.           From the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.329\/2010
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
        complaint in question we, however, find that except a
\n        bald statement that the respondents were directors of
\n        the manufacturers, there is no other allegation to
\n        indicate, even prima facie, that they were in charge of
\n        the company and also responsible to the company for
\n        the conduct of its business.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The decision applies for the facts of this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         7. But that decision cannot be made applicable to the case<\/p>\n
of the Managing Director. The question whether he was in charge<\/p>\n
and was responsible to company for the conduct of the business of<\/p>\n
the company can only be decided at the time of trial based on<\/p>\n
evidence. On the basis of absence of pleading alone, the case as<\/p>\n
against the Managing Director cannot be quashed exercising the<\/p>\n
powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
         8. But the question is different as far as the petitioners 2<\/p>\n
and 3 are concerned.       The second petitioner, who is the third<\/p>\n
accused, was implicated only in his capacity as the Executive<\/p>\n
Director and that too without an allegation that he was either in<\/p>\n
charge and was responsible to company for the conduct of the<\/p>\n
business of the company or that the offence was committed with<\/p>\n
either his consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on<\/p>\n
his part.     Therefore second petitioner cannot be prosecuted<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.329\/2010
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
vicariously for the offence committed by the company. Hence the<\/p>\n
cognizance taken is bad. Same is the case with the third petitioner,<\/p>\n
who is the fourth accused Chairman of the Company. In the absence<\/p>\n
of an allegation in the complaint that he was either in charge and<\/p>\n
was responsible to company for the conduct of the business of the<\/p>\n
company or that offence was committed with either his consent or<\/p>\n
connivance or is attributable to any neglect on his part, he cannot be<\/p>\n
prosecuted vicariously for the offence committed by the company.<\/p>\n
Hence the cognizance taken as against the third petitioner is also<\/p>\n
bad.\n<\/p>\n
         Petition is allowed in part. The cognizance taken by the<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kozhikode in C.C. No.412\/2009<\/p>\n
against accused 3 and 4 is quashed. Other petitioners are at liberty<\/p>\n
to raise the contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of<\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                                  (JUDGE )<\/p>\n
vps<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.329\/2010
\n                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.329\/2010
\n                       8<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 329 of 2010() 1. SRI.HIMANSHU BAID, … Petitioner 2. SRI.RISHI BAID, 3. SRI.D.R.METHA, CHAIRMAN, 4. SRI.AJAY SHARMA, 5. M\/S. POLY MEDICURE LIMITED, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.ASOKAN For […]<\/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-12384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010 - 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\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-26T11:02:40+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T11:02:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1211,\"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\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T11:02:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010 - 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\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-26T11:02:40+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T11:02:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010"},"wordCount":1211,"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\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010","name":"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T11:02:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-himanshu-baid-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri.Himanshu Baid vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12384","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=12384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}