{"id":138655,"date":"2008-06-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008"},"modified":"2014-08-12T14:16:56","modified_gmt":"2014-08-12T08:46:56","slug":"rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 2450 of 2007()\n\n\n1. RAJAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI. BIJU MARTIN [STATE BRIEF]\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :19\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                              R.BASANT, J\n                      ------------------------------------\n                  Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007\n                      -------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     This appeal is preferred by the appellant who is undergoing<\/p>\n
imprisonment against the verdict of guilty, conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence imposed on him in a prosecution under Section 58 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is<\/p>\n
that on 02.11.2000, he was found carrying \/transporting 10 litres<\/p>\n
of arrack when an excise party led by PW4, of which PW3 was a<\/p>\n
member, intercepted him, effected seizure and arrested him. The<\/p>\n
contraband article in M.O 1 container was seized under Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
PWs 1 and 2 are the attestors to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PWs 3<\/p>\n
and 4, as stated earlier, are the detecting officer and an officer<\/p>\n
who accompanied him. Ext.P2 is the arrest memo. Ext.P3 the<\/p>\n
occurrence report and Ext.P4 remand report and Ext.P5 the<\/p>\n
property list and Ext.P6 the chemical examiner’s report. Exts.P7<\/p>\n
to P9 were wrongly marked in this case and they are not relevant<\/p>\n
to the controversy.     Exts.P11 to P13 are the covering letter,<\/p>\n
sample seal and the forwarding note under which sample of the<\/p>\n
contraband article was forwarded to the chemical examiner to<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007      2<\/span><\/p>\n
secure Ext.P6 report. PW5 is the Investigating Officer and PW6 is<\/p>\n
the property clerk. Final report was filed by PW5 after completing<\/p>\n
the investigation. Cognizance was taken. Accused denied the<\/p>\n
charges after committal before the Additional Sessions Court.<\/p>\n
Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and proved<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P13. PWs 1 and 2 turned completely hostile to the<\/p>\n
prosecution. They did not even admit their signatures in Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
The petitioner examined DW1, a friend of his.      He is a public<\/p>\n
activist. According to him, he had seen the arrest. But the arrest<\/p>\n
was at a different time and place. He was cross examined by the<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The court below considered all the relevant inputs and<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that there is satisfactory evidence to<\/p>\n
come to a conclusion beyond doubt about the complicity of the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Before me the learned counsel for the appellant and<\/p>\n
the learned Public Prosecutor have advanced their arguments.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant assails the verdict of guilty<\/p>\n
and conviction on the following grounds.\n<\/p>\n
      i)   The oral evidence of PWs 3 and 4 must have been<\/p>\n
discarded by the court below;\n<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007      3<\/span><\/p>\n
     ii)   At any rate, the sentence imposed is excessive;<\/p>\n
     5.    The prosecution primarily relies on the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PWs 3 and 4. The prosecution wanted to rely on the oral evidence<\/p>\n
of PWs 1 and 2 as also Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. But PWs 1 and 2<\/p>\n
turned hostile to the prosecution completely.      The prosecution<\/p>\n
was thus left with the oral evidence of PWs 3and 4 to establish<\/p>\n
the overt act alleged against the appellant. PWs 3 and 4 gave<\/p>\n
evidence about the incident proper. The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant submits that the oral evidence of PWs 3 and 4 should<\/p>\n
not have been accepted or acted upon inasmuch as they are<\/p>\n
interested. They have contradicted each other about the name of<\/p>\n
the place where from the arrest took place. Inherently on broad<\/p>\n
probabilities their evidence do not commend acceptance,<\/p>\n
contends counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    The challenge raised on the ground of interestedness<\/p>\n
does not at all appeal to me. There is no specific suggestion that<\/p>\n
PWs 3 and 4 had any motive, ill will or malice against the<\/p>\n
appellant. They are of course exercise officials. But the mere<\/p>\n
fact that they are excise officials cannot persuade the Court to<\/p>\n
approach the evidence with any undeserved doubt, distrust or<\/p>\n
suspicion. Hostility of PWs 1 and 2 is heavily relied on. That mere<\/p>\n
fact cannot also in any way justify an approach with doubt and<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007       4<\/span><\/p>\n
distrust against the oral evidence of PWs 3 and 4. They, it must<\/p>\n
be noted, are public officials whose duty it is to detect offences<\/p>\n
and bring the offenders to book. That duty, which the law enjoins<\/p>\n
on them, cannot persuade the Courts to approach their testimony<\/p>\n
with any unjustified suspicion.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    The counsel submits that there is some incongruity<\/p>\n
about the name of the place proper. The place stated in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
seizure mahazar does not tally with the oral evidence of PWs 3<\/p>\n
about such place. The counsel further contends that there is a<\/p>\n
dispute as to whether the road at the place is Marayamuttam<\/p>\n
Aruvippuram or Marayamuttam Malakulangara road. The counsel<\/p>\n
then relies on the circumstances that in Ext.P4 the name of the<\/p>\n
accused has been described as Sasi though Rajan is his real<\/p>\n
name. The counsel also relies on the improbability of the version<\/p>\n
of the prosecution that the accused was carrying the contraband<\/p>\n
article for retail sale. He did not even have a glass\/tumbler with<\/p>\n
him to effect such retail sales.    The counsel submits that the<\/p>\n
investigation must be approached with doubt and reservation as<\/p>\n
Exts.P7 to P9 documents have been marked which have no<\/p>\n
relevance whatsoever with the case and long later realizing the<\/p>\n
folly Exts.P10 to 13 have been pressed into service. The counsel<\/p>\n
then points out that in Ext.P13 there is no sample seal at the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007      5<\/span><\/p>\n
space shown. In Ext.P12 though there is a sample seal, there is<\/p>\n
no crime number noted there. For all these reasons the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant submits that the oral evidence of PWs 3<\/p>\n
and 4 may be approached with due care and caution. Their<\/p>\n
evidence may be discarded and the accused may be given the<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt. He may be acquitted, it is prayed.<\/p>\n
      8.   I am unable to accept any of these contentions. As<\/p>\n
already stated PWs 3 and 4 are public officials and they have<\/p>\n
tendered evidence on oath. There is no reason to disbelieve the<\/p>\n
testimony on inherent probabilities.   Not even a semblance of<\/p>\n
suggestion is made that PWs 3 and 4 have any reason to depose<\/p>\n
falsely against the appellant. The fact that the name Sasi had<\/p>\n
crept into Ext.P4 remand report is irrelevant in as much we see<\/p>\n
that in the same document the appellant is described as Rajan,<\/p>\n
S\/o.Jacob. In all other contemporaneous documents the name has<\/p>\n
been correctly recorded as Rajan, S\/o.Jacob. The name of the<\/p>\n
accused happened to be incorrectly made in one place in the<\/p>\n
remand report. Though dissatisfied about the quality of the<\/p>\n
investigation, it cannot at any rate deliver any undue advantage<\/p>\n
to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   The alleged inaccuracy in the description of the road<\/p>\n
does not at all generate any doubt in my mind as there is no<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007       6<\/span><\/p>\n
material   whatsoever     to   show    that    the   Marayamuttam<\/p>\n
Aruvippuram or Marayamuttam Malakulangara road are not one<\/p>\n
and the same road. Different description of end points may be<\/p>\n
made by persons while describing the road. There is not even a<\/p>\n
semblance of suggestion that Marayamuttam Aruvippuram or<\/p>\n
Marayamuttam Malakulangara roads are different roads and that<\/p>\n
the version of the two witnesses cannot simultaneously stand.<\/p>\n
Moreover, it is seen that in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar as also in the<\/p>\n
oral evidence of Pws 3 and 4 the scene is described with<\/p>\n
reference to an electric post which is specifically described in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 and in the evidence of Pws 3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
      10. That no tumbler was carried by the petitioner is of no<\/p>\n
crucial relevance.    The accused was allegedly carrying the<\/p>\n
contraband article for retail sale eventually and not at the spot of<\/p>\n
detection. The fact that there was no tumbler available with the<\/p>\n
appellant does not also generate any doubt against the very case<\/p>\n
of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      11. Exts.P11, 12 and 13 like Exts.P7, P8 and P9 together<\/p>\n
constitute a set of documents.       Marking of Exts.P7 to P9 an<\/p>\n
obvious mistake only. Though in Ext.P11 there is a space for<\/p>\n
affixing the sample seal impression, it is not affixed there. But we<\/p>\n
find that Ext.P12 is accompanying Exts.P11 and P13 and Ext.P12<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007      7<\/span><\/p>\n
is the specimen impression of the sample seal. In Ext.P12, of<\/p>\n
course, the crime number is not noted.          Ext.P11 cannot be<\/p>\n
considered in isolation. It is part of one set of documents, ie.<\/p>\n
Exts.P11 to P13.      They are sent together to the chemical<\/p>\n
examiner. There is no sample seal affixed against the column in<\/p>\n
Ext.P13; whereas in a separate paper, before the sample seal is<\/p>\n
sent as Ext.P12 along with Exts.P11 and P13. This circumstance<\/p>\n
does not also generate any reasonable doubt in my mind.<\/p>\n
      12. No other serious contentions are raised and I am<\/p>\n
satisfied that the court below committed no error in accepting and<\/p>\n
acting upon the oral evidence of Pws 3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Finally it is contended that the sentence imposed is<\/p>\n
excessive. I find merit in that contention. The petitioner is not<\/p>\n
shown to have any criminal antecedents. He has been sentenced<\/p>\n
to undergo R.I for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1<\/p>\n
lakh. In default he is sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 6<\/p>\n
months. The sentence of fine imposed is the minimum prescribed<\/p>\n
under statue. I am satisfied in the totality of circumstances that a<\/p>\n
lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be modified and<\/p>\n
reduced.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal. No.2450 of 2007      8<\/span><\/p>\n
     14. In the result:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     a)    This Appeal is allowed in part;\n\n     b)    The impugned verdict of guilty and conviction of the\n\nappellant are upheld;\n\n     c)    The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on\n\n<\/pre>\n
the appellant is reduced from R.I for a period of 3 years to R.I for<\/p>\n
a period of 1 year and the default sentence is reduced from R.I for<\/p>\n
a period of 6 months to R.I for a period of 3 months.          The<\/p>\n
sentence of fine is upheld.\n<\/p>\n
     15. The court below shall take necessary steps to issue<\/p>\n
revised warrant of commitment forthwith.        The Registry shall<\/p>\n
ensure that the records are sent to the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
                                            (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
\nrtr\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 2450 of 2007() 1. RAJAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI. BIJU MARTIN [STATE BRIEF] For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :19\/06\/2008 O R […]<\/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-138655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-12T08:46:56+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-12T08:46:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1632,\"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\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-12T08:46:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-12T08:46:56+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-12T08:46:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008"},"wordCount":1632,"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\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008","name":"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-12T08:46:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 19 June, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138655","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=138655"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138655\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}