{"id":144995,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-26T08:34:47","modified_gmt":"2015-01-26T03:04:47","slug":"subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1879 of 2003()\n\n\n1. SUBRAHMANIYAN, S\/O. GANAPATHY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PADAYATTEE YELDO\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :24\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                    (C.R)\n\n                      V.K.MOHANAN, J\n          ------------------------------------------\n             Crl. Appeal No. 1879 of 2003\n          -------------------------------------------\n         Dated 24th Day of February, 2010\n\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in<\/p>\n
S.C.No.71\/2002 of the Court of Addl.District and<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge (Adhoc 1), Thodupuzha, who challenges<\/p>\n
his conviction and sentence under Section 55 (a) of the<\/p>\n
Abkari Act (for short, ‘the Act’ only)<\/p>\n
     2.   The prosecution case is that on 14.6.99 at 3<\/p>\n
P.M the accused was found in possession of 3 litres of<\/p>\n
arrack in a plastic can at Vattappara junction at a place<\/p>\n
called Pothamedu. On the basis of the said allegation,<\/p>\n
crime No.8\/99 of Devikukulam Excise Range was<\/p>\n
registered. After investigation, a final report was filed<\/p>\n
in   the   Court of Judicial First Class            Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Devikulam, whereupon         C.P.No.3\/2001 was         initiated<\/p>\n
and by order dated 6.10.2001, the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                             -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha<\/p>\n
where the case was instituted as S.C.No.71\/2002, which<\/p>\n
was made over to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
but subsequently, it was transferred by the Sessions<\/p>\n
Court to the trial court for disposal.           During the<\/p>\n
course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of<\/p>\n
the prosecution and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked as<\/p>\n
documentary evidence. M.O-1 material object was also<\/p>\n
identified and marked.     The defence’s stand was total<\/p>\n
denial. No evidence was adduced from the side of the<\/p>\n
defence.     Finally, on the basis of the evidence and<\/p>\n
materials on record, the trial court found that the accused<\/p>\n
is guilty of the offence under Section 55 (a) of the Act and<\/p>\n
accordingly    he is sentenced      to undergo      rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a<\/p>\n
fine of Rs.1,00,000\/- (one lakh) with a default sentence of<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment for three months. It is the above<\/p>\n
judgment     and    order  of   conviction  and    sentence<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                            -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    I have heard Sri Padayattee Yeldo, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    The learned counsel vehemently argued that the<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial court is absolutely illegal, improper<\/p>\n
and irregular and liable to be set aside. Though several<\/p>\n
factual grounds are taken in the memorandum of appeal,<\/p>\n
during the submissions the learned counsel confined his<\/p>\n
main argument to the competency and jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
PW1 to effect the seizure and arrest of the appellant\/<\/p>\n
accused. In support of the above argument, the counsel<\/p>\n
invited my attention to Section 70 of the Act and<\/p>\n
submitted that no notification has been issued by the<\/p>\n
Department or the Government conferring the requisite<\/p>\n
power on the Assistant Excise Inspectors.<\/p>\n
     5.    The point raised by the counsel assumes prime<\/p>\n
importance and as the same is capable to shake the very<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                              -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
basis of the prosecution case, I am of the opinion that<\/p>\n
the said point can be considered as the first issue in this<\/p>\n
matter.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    The   learned    counsel    for   the   appellant<\/p>\n
emphatically submitted that PW1,        being the Assistant<\/p>\n
Excise Inspector, has no powers under Sections 40 to 53<\/p>\n
of the Act by virtue of Section 4(d) of the above Act.  It is<\/p>\n
also   his contention that there is no      notification  or<\/p>\n
Government Order, conferring such powers on Assistant<\/p>\n
Excise Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
     7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
submitted that the Government has issued notification<\/p>\n
conferring powers upon the excise officials including the<\/p>\n
Assistant Excise Inspectors.          The learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor submitted that when SRO Nos.233\/67 and<\/p>\n
234\/67 were issued, vide G.O.MS. No.356\/67\/Rev., dated<\/p>\n
10th August 1967, the post of Assistant Excise Inspector<\/p>\n
was not created in the Excise Department and, therefore,<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                             -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
in the said notifications, the powers and duties of<\/p>\n
Assistant Excise Inspector were not mentioned. It is the<\/p>\n
further submission that the post of Assistant Excise<\/p>\n
Inspector was created with effect from 10.10.1985, and<\/p>\n
the powers and duties of Assistant Excise Inspectors<\/p>\n
were fixed and assigned only with effect from 12.10.88<\/p>\n
vide G.O.(MS) 142\/88 dated 12.10.88. The learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor took me through the said Government Order<\/p>\n
and he made available to me a copy of the same for<\/p>\n
perusal. It is the further contention of the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor that the post of “Assistant Excise Inspector”<\/p>\n
will come in between the posts of “Excise Inspector” and<\/p>\n
“Preventive Officer” and therefore, by virtue of their<\/p>\n
ranking itself, and especially, in the light of the<\/p>\n
notification SRO 234\/67, they are also authorised to<\/p>\n
discharge the functions and duties that assigned to Excise<\/p>\n
Inspectors, Preventive Officers and also to the Excise<\/p>\n
Guard.      Hence, according to the learned Public<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                                -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Prosecutor, the seizure and arrest effected by PW1, the<\/p>\n
“Assistant Excise Inspector”, is in accordance with the<\/p>\n
powers conferred upon him and therefore, there is no<\/p>\n
illegality or lack of jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    In the light of the arguments advanced by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor, the question to be considered is whether the<\/p>\n
Assistant Excise Inspector is an authorized    officer as<\/p>\n
envisaged by Section 4(d) and Section 70 of the Abkari<\/p>\n
Act. In order to consider the above question, the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances involved in this case,          acquire<\/p>\n
relevance, which I shall state briefly. As stated earlier,<\/p>\n
the allegation is that the appellant\/accused was found in<\/p>\n
possession of three litres of arrack at about 3 PM on<\/p>\n
14.6.99 when PW1 and party were on patrol duty,<\/p>\n
especially, when the jeep in which they were travelling<\/p>\n
reached at Vattappara junction, they saw the accused<\/p>\n
coming from the opposite direction holding one plastic<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                            -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
can and, on suspicion, the accused was intercepted and<\/p>\n
PW1, the Assistant Excise Inspector, inspected the can<\/p>\n
and found that the can contains three litres of liquor<\/p>\n
which, on smelling and tasting, identified as arrack. Thus,<\/p>\n
the accused was arrested and Ext.P1 mahazar was<\/p>\n
prepared and M.O-1 can which contained the arrack and<\/p>\n
the contraband article were seized. Thereafter PW1 and<\/p>\n
party returned to the excise office and registered Ext.P2<\/p>\n
crime report.     Accordingly, accused as well as the<\/p>\n
contraband article were produced before the Judicial First<\/p>\n
Class Magistrate, Devikulam. The property was produced<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P3 property list. Ext.P4 was also filed before<\/p>\n
the court with a request to forward the sample for<\/p>\n
chemical analysis. Ext.P5 is the chemical analysis report,<\/p>\n
thus obtained.      PWs 2 and 3 are the independent<\/p>\n
witnesses examined to prove the seizure and arrest, but<\/p>\n
they turned hostile. The only evidence available is that of<\/p>\n
the deposition of PW1 and the documents such as Exts.P1<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                             -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
to P5. When PW1 was examined, he had deposed before<\/p>\n
the court during the chief examination itself that on<\/p>\n
14.6.99 he was in the Devikulam Excise Range office<\/p>\n
working as “Assistant Excise Inspector”.      He had also<\/p>\n
deposed in terms of the prosecution case and through him<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 seizure mahazar was marked. Besides that, Ext.P2<\/p>\n
crime report, Ext.P3 property list, Ext.P4 forwarding note<\/p>\n
and Ext.P5 Chemical Analysis report were also got<\/p>\n
marked through him.        MO1 was also identified and<\/p>\n
marked through PW1. During cross examination, he had<\/p>\n
stated that no superior officer was with him and he was in<\/p>\n
charge of the range. Absolutely, there is no evidence as<\/p>\n
to who conducted the investigation and who prepared<\/p>\n
final report\/complaint and      filed it in the court on<\/p>\n
conclusion of the investigation.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    Sections 3(2) and 3(6) of the Act define the<\/p>\n
“Abkari Officer” and “Abkari Inspector” respectively.<\/p>\n
According to Section 3(2), “Abkari Officer” means the<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                              -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner of Excise or any officer or other person<\/p>\n
lawfully appointed or invested with powers under Sections<\/p>\n
4 or 5. “Abkari Inspector” means an officer appointed<\/p>\n
under section 4 clause (d). Section 4(d) says that the<\/p>\n
Government may, by notification in the Gazette, may<\/p>\n
appoint officers, to perform the acts and duties mentioned<\/p>\n
in Sections 40 to 53 inclusive of this Act. Section 70 of<\/p>\n
the Act specifically deals with conferring of powers and<\/p>\n
making of appointments, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
                   “70. The conferring of powers
\n         and making of       appointments :-       All
\n         notification and orders conferring powers,
\n         imposing duties and making appointments
\n         under this Act may respectively refer to
\n         the persons concerned specially by name
\n         or in virtue of their office or to classes of
\n         officials generally by their official titles,
\n         and all courts shall take judicial notice
\n         thereof”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. In this juncture, it is apposite to consider<\/p>\n
Section 50 which says     that report of Abkari Officer<\/p>\n
gives jurisdiction to a competent Magistrate. Sub-section<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                            -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
2 of Section 50 says:\n<\/p>\n
            ” (2). As soon as investigation into the
\n       offences under this Act is completed, the
\n       Abkari Officer shall forward a Magistrate,
\n       empowered to take cognizance of the
\n       offence on a police report, a report in
\n       accordance with sub-section (2) of section
\n       173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
\n       (Central Act 2 of 1974″. (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
From Section 50, it is crystal clear that the court can take<\/p>\n
cognizance only upon the report field by an “Abkari<\/p>\n
Officer” on completion of the investigation as per the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act.   In the present case, absolutely,<\/p>\n
there is no evidence as to who conducted the investigation<\/p>\n
and who filed the final report as contemplated under<\/p>\n
section 50 of the Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11. According to PW1, at the time of the detection<\/p>\n
of the offence, he was working as “Assistant Excise<\/p>\n
Inspector” in the Devikulam Excise Range Office. Though<\/p>\n
in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, it is stated that<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                             -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
PW1 was the Excise Range Inspector, Devikulam, but in<\/p>\n
the appendix to the same judgment, showing the witness<\/p>\n
schedule, PW1 is shown as one Mr.M.K.Janardhanan and<\/p>\n
in the bracket it is shown as (AEI). So there is no scope<\/p>\n
for any dispute that the officer, who detected the crime<\/p>\n
and seized contraband article and arrested the accused,<\/p>\n
was PW1 who was working as “Assistant Excise<\/p>\n
Inspector” of the Devikulam range at the relevant time.<\/p>\n
Item No.8     of the     notification, i.e.S.R.O 234\/67 is<\/p>\n
relevant, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “In exercise of the powers conferred
\n       by Section 4 of the Abkari Act, 1 of 1077
\n       and of all other powers hereunto enabling
\n       and   in   supersession     of the   previous
\n       notifications    on     the    subject,   the
\n       Government of Kerala hereby appoint the
\n       officers mentioned in column (1) of the
\n       Schedule to exercise the powers and
\n       perform the duties specified in that column
\n       with jurisdiction over the areas specified
\n       against each in column (2) of the said
\n       schedule, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                                        -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                Schedule<\/p>\n
             Officers and their powers                 Local jurisdiction<\/p>\n
                     and duties                               (2)<\/p>\n
                        (1)<\/span><\/p>\n
       xx    xx      xx       xx     xx         xx     xx        xx       xx<\/p>\n
8.   All officers of the Excise Department Within the areas for which they are
\n     not below the rank of Excise Inspectors – appointed”
\n     to perform the acts and duties mentioned
\n     in sections 40 to 53 inclusive of the Act.<\/p>\n
         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Further details in the notification show as to which of the<\/p>\n
category of the officers of the department will come under<\/p>\n
the definition of “Abkari Officers”. It is also relevant to<\/p>\n
note that in the said notification, officers appointed as<\/p>\n
“Excise Inspectors”, “Circle Inspectors”, “Preventive<\/p>\n
Officers”, and “Excise Guards” were given specific powers<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                           -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
and authorities. The “Assistant Excise Inspectors” were<\/p>\n
not given such powers. Public Prosecutor submitted that<\/p>\n
at the time of issuing SRO 234\/67, there was no post of<\/p>\n
“Assistant Excise Inspector” and that is why that category<\/p>\n
of officers is not mentioned in the said SRO and it is<\/p>\n
further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that<\/p>\n
subsequently, the post of “Assistant Excise Inspectors”<\/p>\n
was created during the year 1985 and with effect from<\/p>\n
12.10.1988, the “Assistant Excise Inspectors” were also<\/p>\n
authorised to perform the duties of Excise Inspectors. In<\/p>\n
support of the above submission, the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor, after making available to me a copy of G.O<\/p>\n
(MS)    142\/88,  Taxes   Department      dated   12.10.88,<\/p>\n
submitted that the duties and responsibilities of the<\/p>\n
“Assistant Excise Inspectors” in the Excise range is the<\/p>\n
“same” as those of the “Excise Inspectors”. It is also the<\/p>\n
submission of the Public Prosecutor that by virtue of the<\/p>\n
rank of “Assistant Excise Inspectors” above the rank of<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                                -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
“Preventive Officers”, it is only proper and reasonable to<\/p>\n
conclude that the “Assistant Excise Inspectors” have also<\/p>\n
powers as that         are enjoyed or conferred upon the<\/p>\n
“Preventive officers”.\n<\/p>\n
     12. I am unable to accept the above contention. In<\/p>\n
view of Sections 3(2) and 3(6), there must be officers<\/p>\n
termed as “Abkari Officers” and “Abkari Inspectors” and<\/p>\n
especially, in view of Section 4(d), officers shall be<\/p>\n
appointed to perform the acts and duties mentioned in<\/p>\n
sections 40 to 53 inclusive of the Abkari Act. Section 70<\/p>\n
specifically    says    that  “all    notification and  orders<\/p>\n
conferring      powers,     imposing     duties   and  making<\/p>\n
appointments under this Act may respectively refer to the<\/p>\n
persons concerned specially by name or in virtue of their<\/p>\n
office or to classes of officials generally by their official<\/p>\n
titles, and all courts shall take judicial notice thereof”.<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied). In the present case, no such notifications<\/p>\n
are produced and the materials which referred to above<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                             -:15:-<\/span><\/p>\n
do not show that the “Assistant Excise Inspectors” are<\/p>\n
conferred with powers that contemplated under sections<\/p>\n
40 to 53.\n<\/p>\n
     13. On a reading of Section 50, it is crystal cleat that<\/p>\n
the court can take cognizance only upon a valid report<\/p>\n
filed by “competent officer after investigation of the case<\/p>\n
as provided under Section 50 of the Act”. Section 40<\/p>\n
deals with procedure on arrest and seizure. Section 41<\/p>\n
deals with disposal of persons arrested. Going by various<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act, it can be seen that vide powers are<\/p>\n
given to “Abkari Officers” and “Abkari Inspectors”.<\/p>\n
Besides that, section 50 is more particular that,       only<\/p>\n
“report of Abkari Officer” gives jurisdiction to a<\/p>\n
competent Magistrate and only on such report, the<\/p>\n
Magistrate can take cognizance.      In the present case,<\/p>\n
PW1 who was working as an Assistant Excise Inspector<\/p>\n
was not given powers under the above          provisions to<\/p>\n
effect seizure and investigation.      He was      also not<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                                -:16:-<\/span><\/p>\n
competent due to absence of             conferment     of powers<\/p>\n
under section 50, to file “Report” or complaint. A trial<\/p>\n
conducted based upon a report of an incompetent officer<\/p>\n
will render as “non est.” A Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
the decision in Varkey v. State of Kerala<\/a> (1993 (1) KLT<\/p>\n
72), held:\n<\/p>\n
              “The consequence is that Excise Inspectors
\n        who filed the complaints in these cases had no
\n        authority to file such a complaint. The result is
\n        that the Sessions Court or the Special Court had
\n        no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same.
\n        They could not have framed charge against the
\n        accused. The charge framed by them was without
\n        jurisdiction. The trial which    followed the said
\n        charge must be treated as non est, because it was
\n        done without jurisdiction.    If the trial was one
\n        held without jurisdiction, it cannot end in either
\n        conviction or acquittal. The court below ought to
\n        have discharged the accused under S.227 of the
\n        Code of Criminal Procedure”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A Full Bench of this Court, as per its decision in Abdul<\/p>\n
Rehman v. State of Kerala<\/a> (1995(1) KLT 234(FB), has<\/p>\n
affirmed the decision of this Court            in Varkey’s case<\/p>\n
(1993(1) KLT 72) (cited         supra).    In   another Division<\/p>\n
Bench decision in          Prabhakaran v. Excise Circle<\/p>\n
CRA<\/a> 1879\/03
\n                                 -:17:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Inspector (1992 (2) KLT 860), it is held:<\/p>\n
              “Learned Public Prosecutor      informed  us,
\n        after   ascertaining   the     position   from the
\n        Government that no officer has been authorised
\n        by the State Government        as per the aforesaid
\n        clause(d). If so, the respondent has no authority
\n        to file a complaint for the offence under the NDPS
\n        Act. The corollary is that the Court of Sessions or
\n        Special     Court has no jurisdiction to take
\n        cognizance of the offence under the NDPS Act on
\n        such complaint. The charge framed against the
\n        petitioner is hence without jurisdiction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the present case, the above provisions, and other<\/p>\n
materials referred to above would show that PW1 who<\/p>\n
was working as “Assistant Excise Inspector” was not a<\/p>\n
competent and authorised officer as contemplated by the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Abkari Act, especially, Section 4 (d) and<\/p>\n
Section 70 of the Act and therefore, the seizure and arrest<\/p>\n
made by PW1 was without authorization and jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
     14. It is to be noted that only three witnesses were<\/p>\n
examined by the prosecution out of which PWs 2 and 3<\/p>\n
were independent witnesses and they turned hostile. PW1<\/p>\n
has not stated as to who conducted the investigation and<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                               -:18:-<\/span><\/p>\n
who filed the report. If that be so, in the absence of such<\/p>\n
details, the committal court has committed a grave<\/p>\n
mistake in taking cognizance.          Since the committal<\/p>\n
proceedings and taking cognizance itself were without<\/p>\n
jurisdiction, the trial court ought not have proceeded with<\/p>\n
such trial, especially, when PW1 has no power for seizure<\/p>\n
and arrest as contemplated by the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     15.    In the light of the above discussion and the<\/p>\n
materials considered and the provisions referred above,<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial court is illegal, improper and<\/p>\n
irregular.     The    trial  itself   rendered   as   non-est.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the conviction and sentence             imposed<\/p>\n
against the appellant\/accused is liable to be set aside<\/p>\n
and he is      entitled to get     discharged from the case<\/p>\n
registered against him.\n<\/p>\n
           In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside<\/p>\n
the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant<\/p>\n
vide judgment dated 16.10.2003 in SC No.71\/02 of the<\/p>\n
CRA 1879\/03
\n                             -:19:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adloc-I), Thodupuzha,<\/p>\n
and discharging the appellant\/accused in the above case.<\/p>\n
The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant\/accused is<\/p>\n
cancelled   and he is set at liberty.     The amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.12,500\/- deposited by the appellant towards the<\/p>\n
compliance of the condition imposed by this Court at the<\/p>\n
time of suspending the sentence is directed to be<\/p>\n
refunded to the appellant\/accused forthwith on his proper<\/p>\n
request.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        V.K.MOHANAN
\n                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
kvm\/-\n<\/p>\n
.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1879 of 2003() 1. SUBRAHMANIYAN, S\/O. GANAPATHY, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.PADAYATTEE YELDO For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated :24\/02\/2010 O R D […]<\/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-144995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-26T03:04:47+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T03:04:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2909,\"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\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T03:04:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-26T03:04:47+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T03:04:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":2909,"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\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010","name":"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T03:04:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subrahmaniyan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subrahmaniyan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144995","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=144995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144995\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}