{"id":124766,"date":"2009-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-08T05:09:54","modified_gmt":"2016-07-07T23:39:54","slug":"anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 613 of 2009()\n\n\n1. ANSON D.M., AGED 42 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n\n3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,\n\n4. M.K. KRISHNAN, MANGAT HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :09\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n              ------------------------------------------\n                CRL.M.C.NO. 613 OF 2009\n              ------------------------------------------\n\n                 Dated       9th     June 2009\n\n\n\n                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
    This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure 6 order passed<\/p>\n
by  first   respondent,         Sub      Divisional      Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Muvattupuzha  dated     2-3-2005         in     A3.804\/2004.     Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Magistrate passed that order purportedly<\/p>\n
under Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure on a<\/p>\n
complaint received from fourth respondent.                  From the<\/p>\n
case  records  of     Sub      Divisional          Magistrate,  made<\/p>\n
available by learned Public Prosecutor, it is seen<\/p>\n
that on 29-1-2004 fourth respondent filed a complaint<\/p>\n
before  Revenue     Divisional            Officer,       Muvattupuzha<\/p>\n
stating that with regard to the obstruction of a way<\/p>\n
being used by fourth respondent and his neighbours<\/p>\n
caused by Moolamattathil Devassia and his children<\/p>\n
Manuel and petitioner herein, a complaint was filed by<\/p>\n
fourth respondent on 28-5-2003 and the matter was<\/p>\n
enquired by Revenue Divisional Officer on 21-12-2003<\/p>\n
and inspite of the promise to take action, no action<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
was taken.  It was contended that due to the inaction,<\/p>\n
Devassia and his children had closed the way and it is<\/p>\n
causing much difficulty to the children to go to<\/p>\n
nursery school and therefore immediate action is to be<\/p>\n
taken.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    The file shows that a report was called for<\/p>\n
from the Village Officer by the Revenue Divisional<\/p>\n
Officer and a report dated 3-2-2004 was received.<\/p>\n
Thereafter notice was issued to fourth respondent,<\/p>\n
Devassia and Manual directing them to appear on 15-3-<\/p>\n
2004, then to 5-7-2004, then to 6-9-2004 and then to<\/p>\n
20-10-2004.     The  file  does   not  disclose   what<\/p>\n
transacted on the respective dates. On 8-2-2005 a<\/p>\n
conditional order was passed under Section 133 of Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure directing Devassia and Manual to<\/p>\n
take immediate and effective steps to remove the<\/p>\n
obstruction in the pathway within one week on receipt<\/p>\n
of the order or to   appear   before  the   Court   on<\/p>\n
28-2-2005  and show cause why this order should not be<\/p>\n
made absolute.  From a reading of the order, the said<\/p>\n
order satisfies a conditional order as provided under<\/p>\n
Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure.   The case<\/p>\n
records do not show what happened on 28-2-2005.    It<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
does not show that counter petitioners, Devassia and<\/p>\n
Manual, did not appear and did not show any cause or<\/p>\n
if they had appeared whether they were questioned as<\/p>\n
provided   under  Section  137  of  Code  of  Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure   and  if  so,  whether  they  disputed  the<\/p>\n
existence of the public right or not.  It is seen from<\/p>\n
the records that a statement is filed by the counter<\/p>\n
petitioners therein dated 1-3-2005 for condoning their<\/p>\n
failure to appear on the previous posting date and to<\/p>\n
set aside the conditional order.  Annexure 6 order was<\/p>\n
thereafter seen passed on 2-3-2005 purportedly under<\/p>\n
Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure (and not<\/p>\n
under Section 138).   The order shows that it has been<\/p>\n
made to appear to Sub Divisional Magistrate that the<\/p>\n
pathway that passed near to the property of counter<\/p>\n
petitioners and ends at the property of the petitioner<\/p>\n
is  closed  down  and  obstructed  and  therefore  Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Magistrate do thereby directed the counter<\/p>\n
petitioners Devassia and Manual to take immediate and<\/p>\n
effective steps to remove the obstruction in the<\/p>\n
pathway.   Annexure-6 order is sought to be quashed by<\/p>\n
filing this petition under Section 482 of Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, who is not a<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
party to the proceedings. He is the son of first<\/p>\n
counter petitioner Devassia before the Sub Divisional<\/p>\n
Magistrate.    According  to  the   petitioner,  first<\/p>\n
counter petitioner in the proceedings, Devassia, sold<\/p>\n
the property in his favour as per Annexure 1 Sale Deed<\/p>\n
dated 1-3-2004 and he did not get any notice in the<\/p>\n
proceedings and so Annexure-6 order is illegal and has<\/p>\n
to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          3.  Learned  Counsel  appearing  for  fourth<\/p>\n
respondent submitted that after Annexure 6 order was<\/p>\n
passed first counter petitioner  challenged that order<\/p>\n
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.7448\/2005 and the Writ<\/p>\n
Petition   was dismissed  on  4-3-2005   finding  that<\/p>\n
remedy of the petitioner therein is to file a revision<\/p>\n
challenging that order.\n<\/p>\n
           4. Learned counsel argued that   in   spite<\/p>\n
of the writ petition,   the father and brother of the<\/p>\n
petitioner did not challenge that order by filing    a<\/p>\n
revision and the order became final and  as the order<\/p>\n
passed under Section 138 of Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
was not executed,  fourth respondent was compelled to<\/p>\n
file Crl.M.C.4506\/2008 before this court which was<\/p>\n
disposed   on 27\/1\/2009 with a direction to the Sub<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
Divisional  Magistrate to execute the order  and it is<\/p>\n
thereafter the present petition is filed without any<\/p>\n
bonafides.  Learned counsel also argued that  as seen<\/p>\n
from the order in   I.A.682\/2005 and I.A.1066\/2005 in<\/p>\n
O.S.123\/2005  on   the     file   of  Munsiff   court,<\/p>\n
Muvattupuzha available in the case records produced by<\/p>\n
the Public Prosecutor,  case of the petitioner in this<\/p>\n
petition can only be rejected as   the petitioner was<\/p>\n
aware  of  the  proceedings  pending  before  the  Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Magistrate and in such circumstances when<\/p>\n
the  validity  of  the  proceedings  under  Annexure-6<\/p>\n
order was upheld by this court in the writ petition,<\/p>\n
as well as in the earlier criminal M.C., a different<\/p>\n
view cannot be taken and therefore the petition can<\/p>\n
only  be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          5.   Section  133   of  Code   of   Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure enables the Sub Divisional Magistrate     or<\/p>\n
Executive Magistrate, on receiving a report of police<\/p>\n
officer or    other information and on taking such<\/p>\n
evidence   which he   thinks fit,  and considers that<\/p>\n
any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed<\/p>\n
from any public place or from any way, river or<\/p>\n
channel which is    or may be lawfully used by the<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
public, to pass a conditional order requiring the<\/p>\n
person causing  such obstruction or nuisance to remove<\/p>\n
such obstruction or nuisance within a time to be fixed<\/p>\n
in the order   and if he objects so to do, to appear<\/p>\n
before himself  or some other Executive Magistrate at<\/p>\n
a time   and place to be fixed by the   order and show<\/p>\n
cause why the order should not be made absolute.<\/p>\n
Section 136 provides the consequence of failure to<\/p>\n
comply with the order. Under the said section, if such<\/p>\n
person does not perform the said act or failed to<\/p>\n
appear and show cause he shall be liable to the<\/p>\n
penalty prescribed under Section 188 of Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code and the conditional order shall be made absolute.<\/p>\n
Section 137 prescribes the procedure to be followed by<\/p>\n
the  Magistrate  when   such  person  appears   before<\/p>\n
Magistrate. Under Section (1) when such person appears<\/p>\n
the Magistrate is bound to    question him whether he<\/p>\n
denies the existence of any public right in respect of<\/p>\n
the way or not and if, he denies the existence of<\/p>\n
public right, under sub section 2 the Magistrate has<\/p>\n
to conduct an enquiry and find whether there is any<\/p>\n
reliable evidence in support of such denial. If it is<\/p>\n
found that there is reliable evidence to support the<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
denial, he shall stay the proceedings till a civil<\/p>\n
court decides that question and if not Magistrate has<\/p>\n
to proceed as provided under Section 138. A final<\/p>\n
order under Section 138 could be passed only after an<\/p>\n
enquiry including recording the evidence as in a<\/p>\n
summons    case  as   provided  therein.   Thereafter,<\/p>\n
Magistrate can either make the order absolute as it is<\/p>\n
or with modification and  and if he is  not satisfied,<\/p>\n
can  drop the proceedings. This is the procedure which<\/p>\n
is to be followed by any Sub Divisional Magistrate.<\/p>\n
Question is whether Annexure-6 order was passed by<\/p>\n
complying with this procedure.\n<\/p>\n
          6.   Annexure-6 order as is seen from the<\/p>\n
records of the Sub Divisional Magistrates is not<\/p>\n
passed either under Sections 133, 136 or 138. A<\/p>\n
conditional order under Section 133 was passed    much<\/p>\n
earlier   and  no further  order  is  seen  passed  as<\/p>\n
provided under the order. Annexure-6 order is not the<\/p>\n
final order either under Section 136 or 138.   If the<\/p>\n
counter petitioners against whom conditional order<\/p>\n
under Section 138 was passed    did not appear,    Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional   Magistrate  is  competent  to  make   the<\/p>\n
conditional order   absolute as provided under Section<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
136. Annexure-6 order dated 2\/3\/2005 does not show<\/p>\n
that, that order was passed for the failure of counter<\/p>\n
petitioners therein to appear or to show cause. If<\/p>\n
that be so,  a final order could be passed only after<\/p>\n
enquiry as provided under Section 138   therein.   The<\/p>\n
order  does  not  show  that  any  such   enquiry  was<\/p>\n
conducted.   Records also show that no witness was<\/p>\n
examined as  in the summons case and even the factum<\/p>\n
of existence of public way or its obstruction was<\/p>\n
considered.   Annexure-6 order shows that as it has<\/p>\n
been made to appear to the Sub Divisional Magistrate<\/p>\n
that pathway near to the       property of     counter<\/p>\n
petitioners and ends at the property of the fourth<\/p>\n
respondent was closed down and obstructed, counter<\/p>\n
petitioners were directed to take immediate steps to<\/p>\n
remove the  obstruction in the pathway. Records  shows<\/p>\n
that even though based on the complaint received from<\/p>\n
the  fourth respondent a report was called for from<\/p>\n
the  Village  Officer,  based  on  that  report  dated<\/p>\n
3\/2\/2004, no order was passed till a conditional order<\/p>\n
was passed on 28\/2\/2005. Proceedings under Section 133<\/p>\n
is seen initiated only with effect from the said<\/p>\n
order. Though records shows that statement of the<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
counter petitioners were filed denying the existence<\/p>\n
of  the   way,  Sub  Divisional  Magistrate   has  not<\/p>\n
conducted   any enquiry to find out whether there is<\/p>\n
reliable evidence to support the denial and it was<\/p>\n
obstructed and if so, whether fourth respondent is<\/p>\n
entitled to get an order as provided under Section 138<\/p>\n
of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the   entire<\/p>\n
proceedings taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is<\/p>\n
in violation of the provisions of Sections 133 to 138<\/p>\n
of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore illegal.<\/p>\n
          7.  Though  learned  counsel  appearing  for<\/p>\n
fourth respondent submitted that the order was upheld<\/p>\n
by this court in the earlier proceedings and therefore<\/p>\n
a different view cannot be taken, I find      from the<\/p>\n
judgment in W.P.C.7448\/2005 that   this court did not<\/p>\n
consider   validity of Annexure-6 order. That writ<\/p>\n
petition was disposed holding that the writ petitioner<\/p>\n
has a remedy   of filing a   revision challenging that<\/p>\n
order  and   therefore  the   writ  petition   is  not<\/p>\n
maintainable. In Criminal M.C filed by the      fourth<\/p>\n
respondent also, the validity of the order passed<\/p>\n
under Section 138 was not considered with reference to<\/p>\n
the records of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. There<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
was  no   finding  that,  that  order  was  passed   by<\/p>\n
complying with the proceedings provided    in the Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure. Hence, those orders will not<\/p>\n
fetter this court from interfering with Annexure-6<\/p>\n
order. When it is  found that the  order was passed in<\/p>\n
violation   of  the  procedure.   When  petitioner   is<\/p>\n
challenging the validity of the order and the records<\/p>\n
of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was made available<\/p>\n
and  it   is  found  that  order  was  passed   without<\/p>\n
complying with the procedure and therefore illegal,<\/p>\n
this court is bound to correct the mistake committed<\/p>\n
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
          8.   Hence Annexure-6 order passed by the Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Magistrate is quashed. It is made clear<\/p>\n
that Sub Divisional Magistrate is entitled to proceed<\/p>\n
from the stage under Section 133. As     subsequent to<\/p>\n
the petition originally filed by fourth respondent,<\/p>\n
first counter petitioner therein had transferred the<\/p>\n
property   in   favour  of   the   petitioner   herein,<\/p>\n
petitioner  is  entitled  to  appear  before  the   Sub<\/p>\n
Divisional Magistrate. Sub Divisional Magistrate on<\/p>\n
such appearance  shall question him  whether he denies<\/p>\n
existence of public right as provided under Section<\/p>\n
CRMC 613\/09
\n                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
137(1). Fourth respondent and petitioner  are directed<\/p>\n
to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on<\/p>\n
8\/7\/2009. Petitioner shall file a statement, if any,<\/p>\n
on that day. Sub Divisional Magistrate shall the<\/p>\n
question the petitioner as provided under Section 137<\/p>\n
whether he denies the public way or not. If he denies<\/p>\n
as  provided  under  Section  137(2),  Sub  Divisional<\/p>\n
Magistrate shall conduct an enquiry and if it is found<\/p>\n
that there is no reliable evidence, Magistrate shall<\/p>\n
proceed under Section 138 and only after recording the<\/p>\n
evidence in a summons case, the final order is to be<\/p>\n
passed. It is made clear that what is to be decided by<\/p>\n
the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not the       present<\/p>\n
stage of the way but that on the date on which the<\/p>\n
first  order   under  Section   133.   Sub  Divisional<\/p>\n
Magistrate to pass final order within six months from<\/p>\n
the date of appearance of the parties.<\/p>\n
                                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                            JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nuj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 613 of 2009() 1. ANSON D.M., AGED 42 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, … Respondent 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, 4. M.K. KRISHNAN, […]<\/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-124766","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 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\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-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=\"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-07T23:39:54+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T23:39:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2045,\"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\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T23:39:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 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":"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 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\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-07T23:39:54+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T23:39:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009"},"wordCount":2045,"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\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009","name":"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T23:39:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anson-d-m-vs-the-sub-divisional-magistrate-on-9-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anson D.M. vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate on 9 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\/124766","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=124766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124766\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}