{"id":144929,"date":"2007-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007"},"modified":"2016-09-24T08:24:59","modified_gmt":"2016-09-24T02:54:59","slug":"monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 1116 of 2007()\n\n\n1. MONACHAN, S\/O\/MATHAI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :G.G.MANOJ[STATE BRIEF]\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN\n\n Dated :30\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                        K. THANKAPPAN, J.\n               ------------------------------------------\n                     CRL.A.NO.1116 OF 2007\n               ------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 30th day of July, 2007.\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The accused in S.C.No.989\/2003 on the file of the Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge (Abkari Cases), Kottarakkara, is the appellant.     He<\/p>\n
faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 55 (a) read<\/p>\n
with Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that he<\/p>\n
was fond in possession of 1.5 liters of arrack and engaged in selling<\/p>\n
the same    at 3.50 a.m     on 24.2.2002 within the limits of  Yeroor<\/p>\n
Police Station  near Andannoor Bhagavathy Temple in Ayiranalloor<\/p>\n
villlage and thereby committed the said offence.         To prove the<\/p>\n
charge against the appellant, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and<\/p>\n
relied on Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 was also produced before the court.<\/p>\n
After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned<\/p>\n
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the<\/p>\n
prosecution allegation and had stated that while he was engaged in<\/p>\n
playing cards, he was arrested from the festival compound      and he<\/p>\n
has not    committed    the offence as alleged by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
However, relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial<\/p>\n
court   found that the appellant committed the offences punishable<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.1116\/2007                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 55(a) read with Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act<\/p>\n
and he was found guilty thereunder and sentenced to undergo S.I for<\/p>\n
two years and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh with default sentence of<\/p>\n
payment of     fine to undergo S.I for three months more.           The<\/p>\n
appellant was also given the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    This appeal is filed through the jail authorities and since the<\/p>\n
appellant is not having a counsel of his own choice, a member from<\/p>\n
the State brief panel has been appointed to argue the case for and<\/p>\n
on behalf of the appellant.  Heard the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor.   The learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial<\/p>\n
court legally or factually is not sustainable.     The counsel further<\/p>\n
submits that the trial court had committed    a serious error in placing<\/p>\n
reliance on the evidence of Pws 3 and 4, the Police Officials, to find<\/p>\n
that the appellant was in possession of 1.5 liters of arrack as alleged<\/p>\n
by the prosecution since independent witnesses Pws 1 and 2 had not<\/p>\n
supported the prosecution case at all. Further the counsel submits<\/p>\n
that PW4 while detecting the offence did not comply with the<\/p>\n
provisions of Kerala Excise Manual as well as the Abkari Act and while<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.1116\/2007                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
he was taking the sample for analysis.       Lastly, the counsel submits<\/p>\n
that the evidence of PW4 regarding        seizure of MO1 and taking of<\/p>\n
the sample for analysis have       not been supported by      any other<\/p>\n
evidence and as the prosecution has not offered any explanation for<\/p>\n
the delay in producing the contraband and the sample, so as to rule<\/p>\n
out the chance for substitution of the contraband and the sample<\/p>\n
and that has not been proved          by the prosecution.   Hence, the<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial court is not in accordance with the principles laid<\/p>\n
down by this Court in the judgment reported Narayani v. Excise<\/p>\n
Inspector<\/a> (2002 (3) KLT 725).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    The trial court relied on the evidence of Pws 3,4 and 5, who were<\/p>\n
the police officials, out of whom PW4 is the Sub Inspector of Police,<\/p>\n
who detected the crime and filed the final charge before the court.<\/p>\n
PW3 was the head constable, who accompanied Pw 4            at the time<\/p>\n
of detection of the offence.       PW4 had given evidence before the<\/p>\n
court that while he was in the station on 24.2.2002, he got a phone<\/p>\n
message    to the effect that the     appellant was engaged in selling<\/p>\n
arrack near the festival compound of Aandannoor Bhagavathy Temple.<\/p>\n
On getting that information, he went to the temple compound        along<\/p>\n
with   PW3 and he         had seen that the appellant was holding MO1<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.1116\/2007               4<\/span><\/p>\n
plastic can and on seeing the police party, the appellant thrown<\/p>\n
away     the glass and he put down    the MO1 can and on further<\/p>\n
examination it was found that the can contained about 1.5 liters of<\/p>\n
arrack.    This witness has  further stated that the appellant was<\/p>\n
questioned and MO1 can was seized as per Ext.P1 mahazar in the<\/p>\n
presence of the independent witnesses.    This witness has further<\/p>\n
stated that he had taken the sample from MO1 for analysis.       The<\/p>\n
evidence of this   witness  has been supported by PW3, the head<\/p>\n
constable, who accompanied PW4. However, the question to be<\/p>\n
considered is whether the evidence of these two witnesses could be<\/p>\n
believed to hold that the appellant was found in possession of MO1<\/p>\n
jerry can which contained 1.5 liters of arrack   as alleged by the<\/p>\n
prosecution.   PW4 was    cross examined by the defence     and the<\/p>\n
definite  case of PW4 was that he had got information      that the<\/p>\n
appellant was selling arrack near the festival compound but this<\/p>\n
witness has not given any evidence regarding the information which<\/p>\n
he had got about selling of arrack by the appellant. Further, either<\/p>\n
PW4 or PW5 had not given any satisfactory explanation for the delay<\/p>\n
caused in producing MO1 and the sample before the court as it is seen<\/p>\n
from Ext.P4 thondi list that   MO1 and the sample were produced<\/p>\n
only on 13.3.2002 whereas, the crime was detected on 24.2.2002.<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.1116\/2007                5<\/span><\/p>\n
Though a specific question was put to PW5 about the delay occurred<\/p>\n
in producing MO1 before the court,   he had not given any explanation<\/p>\n
but,  only said that he was not aware how the delay was occurred.<\/p>\n
With the above background, this Court has to consider the evidence<\/p>\n
of Pws 1 and 2, who were examined as occurrence witnesses. Pws 1<\/p>\n
and 2 were specific in their evidence that they were not seen     the<\/p>\n
appellant  selling arrack or MO1 was seized from the appellant by<\/p>\n
the   Sub Inspector.   Though these     witnesses were    signed the<\/p>\n
mahazar,     they have   stated that they    have not seen the Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector seizing of  MO1     from the appellant.     Apart from the<\/p>\n
evidence of   these witnesses, it is to be noted   when   MO1    was<\/p>\n
produced before the court and verified in the court,  that the seal or<\/p>\n
label alleged to have been put by PW4 at the time of detection of the<\/p>\n
offence were not seen on MO1.       Coupled with the evidence of Pws<\/p>\n
1 and 2 and the fact that MO1 did not contain any seal or label<\/p>\n
create doubt on the    evidence of Pws 3 and 4 regarding seizure of<\/p>\n
MO1 from the appellant.       Apart from the above infirmity,     the<\/p>\n
prosecution had not explained the delay caused in producing MO1<\/p>\n
before the court.    As per the dictum laid down by this Court in<\/p>\n
Narayani’s case (cited supra), it is the duty of the prosecution to<\/p>\n
give explanation that the sample and the contraband were kept in<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.1116\/2007                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
safe custody till they produced before the court and the prosecution<\/p>\n
had to rule out    any possibility of substitution of the same.    In the<\/p>\n
light of the fact that MO1 did not contain      any label or seal     and<\/p>\n
non explanation of the delay caused in producing the same and also<\/p>\n
the case suggested by the appellant when he was questioned under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Code that he was arrested from the temple<\/p>\n
compound      while  he was playing cards      create reasonable doubt<\/p>\n
regarding the prosecution case that MO1 which contained 1.5 liters<\/p>\n
of arrack has been seized from the appellant.       The benefit of doubt<\/p>\n
has to be given to the appellant. Apart from the above infirmity in the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pws 3 and 4 regarding seizure of MO1 and production of<\/p>\n
the same before the court, the trial court had not put the contents of<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 report of the chemical analyst to the appellant when he was<\/p>\n
questioned under Section 313.     This is an infraction of the right of an<\/p>\n
accused available under Section 313.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Considering all these aspects and failure of the prosecution to<\/p>\n
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, the<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial court is not legally sustainable.      Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial court is set aside and the appellant is<\/p>\n
acquitted of all the charges.     Consequently, the appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.1116\/2007               7<\/span><\/p>\n
The appellant\/accused in     S.C.No.989\/2003 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions   Judge (Abkari Cases), Kottarakkara, shall be<\/p>\n
released forthwith, if he is not  required  to be kept in jail  in<\/p>\n
connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n  cl<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.1116\/2007    8<\/span><\/p>\n
                        K. THANKAPPAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                        CRL.A.NO.1116 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                         30th day of July, 2007.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 1116 of 2007() 1. MONACHAN, S\/O\/MATHAI, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :G.G.MANOJ[STATE BRIEF] For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN Dated :30\/07\/2007 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-144929","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMonachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-24T02:54:59+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T02:54:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1416,\"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\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T02:54:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-24T02:54:59+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T02:54:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007"},"wordCount":1416,"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\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007","name":"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T02:54:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monachan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Monachan vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144929","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=144929"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144929\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}