{"id":126764,"date":"2009-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-06T19:06:00","modified_gmt":"2017-10-06T13:36:00","slug":"p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 15034 of 2003(M)\n\n\n1. P.MARYKUTTY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND\n\n3. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :09\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n       -------------------------------------------------------------------\n         O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003\n                      and W.P.C.No.7100\/2007\n        -----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                   Dated       9th    November 2009\n\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
             Special Judge, Vigilance, Thrissur received<\/p>\n
an unsigned and undated petition from unidentifiable<\/p>\n
“employees     standing          against         corruption           in    civil<\/p>\n
service”   alleging         that         they       had     sent      a    letter<\/p>\n
addressed     to       Deputy         Superintendent              of      Police,<\/p>\n
Vigilance and Anti Corruption                         Bureau              wherein<\/p>\n
several   instances         of     corruption          were      pointed      out<\/p>\n
involving     the       officers           connected          with        General<\/p>\n
election,      claiming           expenses for engaging in the<\/p>\n
election   work,        and     contending           that          the     Deputy<\/p>\n
Superintendent of police is not taking                             appropriate<\/p>\n
action  and      therefore,           a     direction          to         conduct<\/p>\n
immediate       enquiry is to be given to the Deputy<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police. From the records called for<\/p>\n
from the concerned            Vigilance court, it is seen that<\/p>\n
the learned Special Judge on receipt of the complaint<\/p>\n
called for a report from District Collector, Thrissur<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
on the allegations. A report is seen received by the<\/p>\n
Vigilance      Judge      from     the  District  Collector  dated<\/p>\n
29\/3\/2003 stating that on examination several bills<\/p>\n
produced appeared to be bogus. On receipt of the report<\/p>\n
from the District Collector, Vigilance Judge passed an<\/p>\n
order       dated 31\/3\/2003 directing forwarding of the<\/p>\n
materials before the Special Judge to the Director of<\/p>\n
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram<\/p>\n
under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure             for<\/p>\n
registration of a crime                in each  instances against<\/p>\n
public servants           disclosed by the records, making it<\/p>\n
clear that the criminal matters involving the public<\/p>\n
servants      functioning             under  the  State   Election<\/p>\n
Commission who were under deputation or directly, could<\/p>\n
be investigated by the Vigilance. The Vigilance and Anti<\/p>\n
Corruption Bureau was permitted to seize              and   peruse<\/p>\n
the records for the purpose of investigation. Based on<\/p>\n
this order, crime No.10\/2003               of Vigilance and Anti<\/p>\n
Corruption       Bureau,       Thrissur    was  registered.  These<\/p>\n
petitions      are filed by the respective accused to quash<\/p>\n
the    order     passed      by    the   Special  Judge  directing<\/p>\n
investigation.\n<\/p>\n
             2.     Petitioners would contend that the very<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
procedure adopted by the Special Judge is illegal and<\/p>\n
erroneous. It is pointed out that the petition based on<\/p>\n
which Special Judge has taken action, is             an  anonymous<\/p>\n
petition and names          of the office bearers of the members<\/p>\n
of the association is not disclosed in the complaint and<\/p>\n
such a complaint should not have             been  accepted by the<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge and as it is not a complaint as<\/p>\n
provided under Code of Criminal Procedure,                 learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge            should not have acted on the said<\/p>\n
petition. It was also contended that by the impugned<\/p>\n
order Special Judge                has found prima facie      that<\/p>\n
allegations are true            and when a complaint is sent for<\/p>\n
investigation under Section               156(3), learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge cannot give his opinion on the merits or otherwise<\/p>\n
of   the     complaint.        It   was  pointed   out  that  once<\/p>\n
cognizance is taken on the complaint             under Section 200<\/p>\n
of    the     Code,      there     cannot   be  a   direction  for<\/p>\n
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, though<\/p>\n
investigation could be ordered as provided under Sub<\/p>\n
Section 1 of Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
It is pointed out that the impugned order is for<\/p>\n
directing investigation              under Section 156(3)  and not<\/p>\n
an   investigation         under     Section  202(1)  of  Code  of<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure.            It is also pointed out that the<\/p>\n
Special Judge cannot give his opinion on the prima facie<\/p>\n
case when investigation is ordered under Section 156(3)<\/p>\n
and if cognizance is to be taken as provided under<\/p>\n
Section 200, it is mandatory that complainant and his<\/p>\n
witness present should be examined and then only Special<\/p>\n
Judge can proceed under Section 202 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure. It is therefore,               argued   that the very<\/p>\n
procedure adopted is illegal and has to be quashed.<\/p>\n
             3.     Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that<\/p>\n
even if for the illegal procedure adopted by the Special<\/p>\n
Judge, the order is quashed            liberty is to be granted to<\/p>\n
the State to proceed against the corrupt officials.<\/p>\n
             4.     There is force in the submission made on<\/p>\n
behalf of the petitioners. If cognizance on a complaint<\/p>\n
is taken by the learned Special Judge, he has to conduct<\/p>\n
enquiry     as    provided      under   Section  200 or   202.  If<\/p>\n
cognizance is taken thereafter learned Magistrate or<\/p>\n
Special Judge cannot direct the investigation under<\/p>\n
Section      156(3)      of    Code    of Criminal  Procedure   by<\/p>\n
reverting to the pre-cognizance stage. True, as provided<\/p>\n
under Sub Section 1 of Section 202 the Special Judge can<\/p>\n
direct an the investigation to be made by the Police<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
officer     but that investigation          is not an investigation<\/p>\n
under Section 156(3) which can end only on filing a<\/p>\n
final report under Section 173(2) but an investigation<\/p>\n
limited as provided under Sub Section 1 of Section 202.<\/p>\n
If Special Judge finds that the complaint is to be sent<\/p>\n
for investigation under Section 156(3), which is a pre-<\/p>\n
cognizance stage he cannot proceed with the complaint<\/p>\n
under Section 200 or Section 202 and instead has to send<\/p>\n
it   for    investigation           under   Section  156(3)  before<\/p>\n
considering        merit of the complaint. As provided under<\/p>\n
Section 200 Special Judge              on receipt of the complaint<\/p>\n
without examining the complainant and the witness if any<\/p>\n
present provided under Section 200, cannot call for a<\/p>\n
report from the District Collector. Special Judge can<\/p>\n
call for the report in that petition, only if he is<\/p>\n
taking cognizance on the complaint, though he can decide<\/p>\n
later after conducting inquiry under Section 202 whether<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence is to be taken and summons is<\/p>\n
to be issued under Section 204 or complaint is to be<\/p>\n
dismissed under Section 203. But once he has acted upon<\/p>\n
the complaint and finds a prima facie case, it is taking<\/p>\n
cognizance       of     the     complaint,    in   which  case  he<\/p>\n
necessarily has to follow              the procedure provided under<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 200 or 202 of the Code. The order of the Special<\/p>\n
Judge shows that after getting the report from the<\/p>\n
District      Collector,       Special    Judge  heard  the  legal<\/p>\n
advisor of the vigilance Anti Corruption Bureau                and<\/p>\n
thereafter passed a detailed order regarding a prima<\/p>\n
facie     case on the allegations          raised and also lack of<\/p>\n
bonafides on the part of                the persons against whom<\/p>\n
allegations        are     raised      and     then  directed   an<\/p>\n
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. Special<\/p>\n
Judge     could     not    have     legally  proceeded  thereafter<\/p>\n
reverting to           the pre-cognizance stage by directing<\/p>\n
investigation under Section 156(3). The legal position<\/p>\n
is settled by the Apex court in D.Laxminarayan v.<\/p>\n
V.Narayana (AIR 1976 SC 1672) as follows.<\/p>\n
                          \"16. The     position   under\n           the Code of 1898 with regard to the\n           diction        to     send     a   complaint\n           disclosing        a   cognizable   offence--\n<\/pre>\n
           whether or not triable exclusively
\n           by the Court of Session– to the
\n           Police        for     investigation    under
\n           Section       156(3),     remains  unchanged
\n           under       the     Code    of   1973.  The
\n           distinction          between     a    police
\n           investigation ordered under Section<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
           156(3) and the one directed under
\n           Section        202,       has   also    been
\n           maintained under the new Code; but a
\n           rider has been clamped by the 1st
\n           proviso to Sec.202(1) that if it
\n           appears to the Magistrate that an
\n           offence triable exclusively by the
\n           Court of Session has been committed,
\n           he shall not make any direction for
\n           investigation.\n<\/p>\n
                          17. Section 156(3) occurs
\n           in Chapter XII, under the caption:\n<\/p>\n
           “Information to the Police and their<\/p>\n
           powers        to      investigate”;    while
\n           Section 202 is in Chapter XV which<\/p>\n
           bears the heading “Of complaints to<\/p>\n
           Magistrate”.        The    power  to   order
\n           police investigation under Section
\n           156(3) is different from the power
\n           to direct investigation conferred by
\n           Sec.202(1).        The    two  operate    in
\n           distinct         spheres     at    different
\n           stages. The first is exercisable at
\n           the pre-cognizance stage, the second
\n           at the post-cognizable stage when
\n           the Magistrate is in seisin of the
\n           case. That is to          say in the case of
\n           a      complaint         regarding       the
\n           commission of a cognizable offence,<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
           the power under Sec.156(3) can be
\n           invoked by the Magistrate before the
\n           takes cognizance            of the offence
\n           under Section 190(1)(a). But if he
\n           once      takes     such     cognizance  and
\n           embarks upon the procedure embodied
\n           in Chapter XV, he is not competent
\n           to switch back to the pre-cognizance
\n           stage and avail of Section 156(3).\n<\/p>\n
           It may be noted further that an
\n           order made under sub-section (3) of
\n           Section 156, is in the nature of a
\n           peremptory         reminder or intimation
\n           to    the     police     to  exercise  their
\n           plenary       powers      of   investigation
\n           under       Section      156(1).   Such   an
\n           investigation         embraces   the  entire
\n           continuous          process    which  begins
\n           with     the     collection     of  evidence
\n           under Section 156 and ends with a
\n           report or charge sheet under Section\n<\/p>\n
           173. On the          other hand,     Section
\n           202 comes in at a stage            when some
\n           evidence has been collected by the
\n           Magistrate         in    proceedings   under
\n           Chapter XV, but the same is deemed
\n           insufficient to take a decision as
\n           to the next step in the prescribed
\n           procedure. In such a situation, the
\n           Magistrate        is        empowered  under<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
           Section       202 to direct, within the
\n           limits        circumscribed       by    that<\/p>\n
           section, an investigation “for the
\n           purpose of deciding whether or not
\n           there      is     sufficient    ground   for<\/p>\n
           proceeding”. Thus the object of an
\n           investigation under Section 202 is
\n           not to initiate a fresh case on
\n           police      report     but   to  assist  the
\n           Magistrate                  in    completing
\n           proceedings already instituted          upon
\n           a complaint before him.\n<\/p>\n
             5.     As rightly pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel      appearing        for     the  petitioners,  complaint<\/p>\n
received by the learned Special Judge and acted upon is<\/p>\n
not signed by any person. Name of the person who sent<\/p>\n
the    petition      is   also     not   disclosed. Though  it  is<\/p>\n
purportedly sent by “the employees standing against<\/p>\n
corruption in civil service” its office bearers are not<\/p>\n
disclosed and it              is not a defined     body or group.<\/p>\n
This petition can only be treated as an anonymous<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
             6.     Complaint is defined under       clause (d) of<\/p>\n
Section 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure                 means any<\/p>\n
allegations        made       orally     or    in  writing, to   a<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
Magistrate with a view to              his taking action under the<\/p>\n
Code that some person, whether known or unknown, has<\/p>\n
committed an offence, but does not include a police<\/p>\n
report. Section 200 provides that a              Magistrate taking<\/p>\n
cognizance        of an offence on complaint shall examine<\/p>\n
upon oath the complainant and the               witnesses, if any<\/p>\n
present and the          substance of such examination shall be<\/p>\n
reduced     to     writing        and   shall  be  signed  by  the<\/p>\n
complainant        and     the     witnesses  and   also  by  the<\/p>\n
Magistrate.        Therefore,        to  take   cognizance  of   a<\/p>\n
complaint, there should be a complainant whose identity<\/p>\n
could be ascertained and who can be examined by the<\/p>\n
Magistrate, as provided under Section 200 of Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure. Therefore, an anonymous               petition<\/p>\n
cannot be treated as a complaint which can be taken<\/p>\n
cognizance by the Magistrate under Section 200 of the<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
             7.     As stated earlier records of the Special<\/p>\n
Judge shows that Magistrate had acted upon the anonymous<\/p>\n
petition and called for a report and thereafter passed<\/p>\n
the order, without making any attempt to               comply with<\/p>\n
the procedure provided under Section 200 of the Code.<\/p>\n
Learned Special Judge acted illegally and entered a<\/p>\n
O.P.NO.15034\/2003, W.P.C.NOs.18262\/2003
\nand W.P.C.No.7100\/2007
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
finding of prima facie case, without following the<\/p>\n
procedure provided under Section 200 or 202 of the Code<\/p>\n
and then illegally sent the petition and the records to<\/p>\n
the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the<\/p>\n
Code.     Even though the learned Special Judge passed the<\/p>\n
impugned order,            after getting a report, the order<\/p>\n
passed     for investigation           under Section 156(3) is not<\/p>\n
on the report submitted by the District Collector but on<\/p>\n
the anonymous petition. In such circumstances, the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Special Judge is clearly illegal and can<\/p>\n
only be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
             8.        All the petitions are       allowed and the<\/p>\n
order passed by Special Judge, Vigilance, Thrissur dated<\/p>\n
31\/3\/2003, directing registration of a case and its<\/p>\n
investigation            and   registration    of  the  case    in<\/p>\n
compliance with the order             are quashed. It is also made<\/p>\n
clear that quashing           of the    order  will not affect the<\/p>\n
right of the State to proceed against the corrupt<\/p>\n
officials in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                                        JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 15034 of 2003(M) 1. P.MARYKUTTY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND 3. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR […]<\/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-126764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 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\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-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=\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-06T13:36:00+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T13:36:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1994,\"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\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009\",\"name\":\"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T13:36:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 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":"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 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\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-06T13:36:00+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T13:36:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009"},"wordCount":1994,"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\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009","name":"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T13:36:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-marykutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Marykutty vs The State Of Kerala on 9 November, 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\/126764","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=126764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}