{"id":146346,"date":"2009-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-09T17:29:01","modified_gmt":"2015-04-09T11:59:01","slug":"pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 882 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. PAPPAYIL KUTTIAPPU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :11\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n                  ----------------------------------------------\n                     CRL.A. No.882 OF 2001\n                  ----------------------------------------------\n                     Dated, 11th February, 2009.\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Complainant is the appellant, as he is aggrieved by the order<\/p>\n
of acquittal under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. issued by the Court OF<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi in a prosecution for<\/p>\n
the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
      2. The case of the appellant\/complainant is that both the<\/p>\n
complainant as well as the accused are friends                  and the accused<\/p>\n
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,90,000\/- from the complainant to purchase<\/p>\n
some property and       promised to repay the amount                within one<\/p>\n
month. Since the amount was not repaid within the time assured,<\/p>\n
the complainant approached the accused demanding the amount<\/p>\n
and then the accused issued            a cheque dated 12.2.1998 for an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.1,90,000\/-.         When the cheque was presented for<\/p>\n
encashment on 18.2.98, the same was returned stating `funds<\/p>\n
insufficient’, and consequently, the complainant caused to send a<\/p>\n
demand notice to the accused and though the accused accepted<\/p>\n
the notice,    no amount was paid and therefore, the complainant<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                 -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
approached the court by filing a private complaint to prosecute the<\/p>\n
accused for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act. On the<\/p>\n
basis of the sworn statement of the complainant, C.C.No.836\/98<\/p>\n
was instituted in the court below and on appearance of the accused,<\/p>\n
particulars alleged in the complaint were read over and explained to<\/p>\n
him and he pleaded not guilty which resulted in the further trial<\/p>\n
during which the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to    P6 documents were marked.              The incriminating<\/p>\n
circumstances, which        emerged during the evidence of the<\/p>\n
complainant, when put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
he denied the same. The accused submitted written statement under<\/p>\n
section 313 Cr.P.C. The case put forward by the accused through<\/p>\n
such statement is to the effect that during the year 1992, he had<\/p>\n
borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000\/- from the complainant and at the<\/p>\n
time of borrowing the said loan, he had issued a blank signed cheque<\/p>\n
as security for the said loan. It is also stated that the loan amount,<\/p>\n
though discharged by giving the amount through one Thondikodu<\/p>\n
Cheriya Mohamed, there was a dispute regarding the interest and<\/p>\n
the cheque was not returned and because of        the said dispute, the<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                 -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant and accused were in inimical terms. Thus according to<\/p>\n
the accused, out of the said rivalry and animosity, the complainant<\/p>\n
preferred the present complaint by misusing the cheque which was<\/p>\n
given as a security connected with the transaction in 1992 between<\/p>\n
the accused and the complainant.      During the time of the defence<\/p>\n
evidence, the accused examined DWs 1 and 2 and also produced<\/p>\n
Exts.D1 and D2 documents. On the basis of the rival pleadings and<\/p>\n
the materials on record, the trial court formulated 4 issues for its<\/p>\n
consideration and finally found that the version of PW1 that the<\/p>\n
amount was given on 3.1.98 cannot be safely relied on. According<\/p>\n
to the court, since the execution of Ext.P1 cheque is admitted, it can<\/p>\n
only be held that Ext.P1 was given in some other transaction other<\/p>\n
than the transaction alleged by PW1. Therefore, the court found that<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is not supported by consideration as stated by PW1. On the<\/p>\n
basis of the above observation and finding, the court below further<\/p>\n
held that the accused has rebutted the presumption available to the<\/p>\n
complainant under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act. Thus it is<\/p>\n
concluded that it cannot be held that Ext.P1 was supported by<\/p>\n
consideration and that it was given in discharge of any debt or other<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                   -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
liability as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, the accused is<\/p>\n
found not guilty and he is acquitted. It is the above finding and order<\/p>\n
of acquittal challenged in this appeal .\n<\/p>\n
        3. I have heard Sri P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, the learned<\/p>\n
Counsel appearing for the appellant and         Sri P.Vijayabhanu, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing the 2nd respondent.<\/p>\n
        4.  When PW1 was examined, he had deposed in terms of<\/p>\n
his case regarding the transaction. Ext.P1 cheque, Ext.P2 memo,<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 memo, Ext.P4 lawyer notice, Ext.P5 series and Ext.P6 reply<\/p>\n
notice were marked through PW1. But when the complainant<\/p>\n
adduced evidence as PW1, he had deposed before the court that<\/p>\n
the loan amount was given to the accused on 3.1.98. It is further<\/p>\n
stated that     the accused had assured that the amount will be<\/p>\n
returned within one month and as he failed to repay the amount<\/p>\n
within the time stipulated, he approached the accused and then he<\/p>\n
issued the cheque for Rs.1,90,000\/- showing the date as 12.2.98.<\/p>\n
The above evidence is inadmissible. In the complaint, there is no<\/p>\n
pleadings that the loan amount was given on 3.1.98. In the demand<\/p>\n
notice also, the date of actual transaction was not shown.        So it<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                  -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
is impermissible to adduce evidence in support of the plea which is<\/p>\n
not taken.   During cross examination, PW1 stated :<\/p>\n
        \"              .\n              \".\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Thus according to PW1, the amount given to the accused was the<\/p>\n
amount raised out of the sale of his property. He had also stated<\/p>\n
that the property was sold to one Rehman. During the examination<\/p>\n
he had further deposed before the court that the cheque in question<\/p>\n
was obtained as security since the amount parted was a huge<\/p>\n
amount.     This is an entirely new case which is neither pleaded in<\/p>\n
the complaint nor stated in the demand notice.       So going by the<\/p>\n
deposition of PW1 regarding the transaction and the pleadings in the<\/p>\n
complaint and also the statement in the demand notice, it can be<\/p>\n
seen that at the time of trial, the complainant put forward an entirely<\/p>\n
different and new case.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The defence set up during the trial is to the effect that<\/p>\n
admitting the transaction that took place during the year 1992 with<\/p>\n
respect to Rs.50,000\/-. According to the accused, during the year<\/p>\n
1992 he obtained a loan of Rs.50,000\/- from the complainant and the<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                 -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
same was repaid by two instalments. That is the case raised by<\/p>\n
the defence from the very beginning itself. In Ext.P6 reply notice<\/p>\n
when the accused denied          the transaction claimed    by the<\/p>\n
complainant, it is specifically stated about the   loan transaction<\/p>\n
between the complainant and accused with respect to Rs.50,000\/-<\/p>\n
and according to Ext.P6 reply, the entire account was settled by<\/p>\n
18.7.97. It is also stated in Ext.P6 that towards the settlement of<\/p>\n
the said account, the accused paid Rs.40,000\/- on 27.3.94 and<\/p>\n
another Rs.10,000\/- on 8.5.96 and for raising the said amount , he<\/p>\n
had sold his     lorry bearing Regn.No.KL 11A 4796.      It is also<\/p>\n
submitted that since there was a dispute regarding interest with<\/p>\n
respect to the said transaction, the complainant and accused were<\/p>\n
at loggerheads. The trial court, after considering the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the complainant and also after considering the defence<\/p>\n
set up by the accused, came into the conclusion which indicated<\/p>\n
earlier.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   The learned counsel submitted that    the accused has<\/p>\n
admitted the transaction, execution of the cheque and issuance of<\/p>\n
the same and therefore, the presumption under section 139 is<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                 -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
available in favour of the complainant and the same was not<\/p>\n
rebutted by the defence by adducing        cogent   and satisfactory<\/p>\n
evidence Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the finding<\/p>\n
arrived on by the court below is absolutely unsustainable and liable<\/p>\n
to be set aside. It is also the case of the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
that the accused has admitted the issuance of the cheque as<\/p>\n
security. If that be so, the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act<\/p>\n
will be attracted if the cheque, even though, was given as security,<\/p>\n
the same is bounced for the reasons mentioned in section 138 of<\/p>\n
the N.I.Act.   It is also the case of the counsel that though the<\/p>\n
accused has taken a plea of discharge of the debt, the same is not<\/p>\n
substantiated by adducing evidence.       Hence,   according to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel, the trial court ought to have convicted the accused<\/p>\n
accepting the case of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
            7.   Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
respondent\/accused submitted that the date of payment of the<\/p>\n
amount involved in the transaction claimed by the complainant is not<\/p>\n
stated either in the notice or in the complaint and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
above     discrepancy is sufficient to reject the      claim of the<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                 -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant\/complainant. It is also pointed out that the deposition of<\/p>\n
PW1 is to the effect that the cheque in question was given as a<\/p>\n
security was not stated either in the complaint or in the notice and<\/p>\n
therefore it will amount to contradiction which will go against the root<\/p>\n
of the case of the complainant. It is also submitted that the inks of<\/p>\n
the signature and handwriting seen in the cheque in question are<\/p>\n
different and therefore the complainant       has miserably failed to<\/p>\n
prove the execution and issuance of the cheque.<\/p>\n
      8. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by<\/p>\n
both the counsels and also perused the records and materials. The<\/p>\n
Apex Court, in the decision reported in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v.<\/p>\n
Dattatraya Hegde<\/a> (2008 (1) KLT 425 (SC), has held that existence<\/p>\n
of a legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under<\/p>\n
section 139 of the N.I.Act and it does not raise a presumption in<\/p>\n
regard to existence of a debt also.      This court, in the decision<\/p>\n
reported in Johnson Scaria v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2006(4) KLT 290),<\/p>\n
has held that admission of signature in a cheque goes a long way<\/p>\n
to prove due execution. It is also held that possession of the cheque<\/p>\n
by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of the<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                  -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
cheque. The burden rests on the complainant to prove execution<\/p>\n
and issue. But under section 114 of the Evidence Act, appropriate<\/p>\n
inferences and presumptions can be drawn in each case on the<\/p>\n
question of execution and issue of the cheque depending on the<\/p>\n
evidence available and explanations offered. In view of the above<\/p>\n
two decisions, merely holding a cheque itself is not sufficient for the<\/p>\n
holder to claim the benefit of statutory presumption under section<\/p>\n
139 of the Act. It is for the holder to plea and prove that there was<\/p>\n
a debt or liability due to the    holder from the accused and the<\/p>\n
cheque in question was issued for the discharge of the said debt or<\/p>\n
liability . So the entire transaction has to be specifically pleaded<\/p>\n
and proved. In the present case, the case of the complainant in the<\/p>\n
compliant is to the effect that the     accused borrowed a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,90,000\/- and towards the discharge of said debt, the cheque<\/p>\n
was issued. But no date was mentioned either in the complaint<\/p>\n
or in Ext.P4 lawyer notice. It is true,    the signed cheque of the<\/p>\n
accused is in the hands of the complainant and according to the<\/p>\n
complainant, the said cheque was issued by the accused towards<\/p>\n
the discharge of the       above debt connected with the        above<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                 -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
transaction. But the case of the accused is that the cheque in<\/p>\n
question was issued by him to the complainant when he obtained<\/p>\n
a loan of Rs.50,000\/- from the complainant during the year 1992<\/p>\n
and the same was given as a security in the said transaction. It is<\/p>\n
also the case of the accused that that transaction was completely<\/p>\n
settled by paying back the entire amount and there was          some<\/p>\n
dispute with respect to the interest and because of that dispute, they<\/p>\n
were not in good terms. The learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
submitted    that  by issuing     the cheque and by admitting the<\/p>\n
signature, the accused has admitted the transaction, execution and<\/p>\n
issuance of the cheque etc.      That submission is not acceptable.<\/p>\n
When the complainant      approached      the court by claiming the<\/p>\n
transaction that took place     during the year 1998, the accused<\/p>\n
disputed the same and according to the accused, the transaction<\/p>\n
was during the year 1992. Therefore, when the complainant<\/p>\n
approached the court      by     filing the complaint   claiming the<\/p>\n
transaction, the court has to examine whether the complainant has<\/p>\n
succeeded in establishing the alleged transaction and the execution<\/p>\n
of the cheque in question. On such examination it can be seen that<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
due to the contradictory versions of PW1- the complainant, that too,<\/p>\n
an improvised version, does not seen place in the complaint itself,<\/p>\n
is quite unbelievable.   In the complaint, there is no case that the<\/p>\n
cheque in question was given as security. But when PW1 was<\/p>\n
examined he said that the cheque in question was given as security<\/p>\n
and the same was given at the time when he parted with the<\/p>\n
amount to the accused. But in the complaint as well as in the<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 demand notice, according to the complainant, the cheque in<\/p>\n
question was given by the accused       during the year 1998 and<\/p>\n
approached the accused pointing out the expiry of the time assured<\/p>\n
by the accused for the repayment of the amount. It is also relevant<\/p>\n
to note that PW1 deposed before the court that he got the amount<\/p>\n
by disposing of his property and the said amount was given to the<\/p>\n
accused on his demand.        But   by producing Ext.D1 document,<\/p>\n
which got marked through       DW1, the defenece       has adduced<\/p>\n
evidence to the effect that why the property was disposed of two<\/p>\n
years back to the date of the alleged transaction.     Therefore, the<\/p>\n
court    is of the opinion that    the explanation   offered by the<\/p>\n
complainant for the raising of the amount that,        it is the sale<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
proceeds of the property connected with the transaction that taken<\/p>\n
place two years back      and kept    in the house till the  accused<\/p>\n
demanded the loan amount, is quite unbelievable. So the above<\/p>\n
finding of the court below is absolutely correct and no interference<\/p>\n
is called for. Thus the above materials are in no way helpful for the<\/p>\n
complainant to establish that the accused had executed Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque and issued the same to the          complainant towards    the<\/p>\n
discharge of      the debt of Rs.1,90,000\/-      as claimed by the<\/p>\n
complainant.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   It is also relevant to note that    the   learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that as the accused has admitted that Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
was    issued as a security,the offecne is completed.     The above<\/p>\n
submission also not seems to be correct. It is true that the accused<\/p>\n
has admitted that the cheque in question was issued as security, but<\/p>\n
not for the transaction claimed by the complainant, but as a security<\/p>\n
for the loan availed by the accused during the year 1992. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the said plea also fails. Another point raised by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
is that the defence did not substantiate the plea of discharge of the<\/p>\n
loan. The fate of the above point is also similar to that of the<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                  -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
previous conclusion. The accused pleaded that the loan availed by<\/p>\n
him during 1992, viz. Rs.50,000\/- was paid back to the complainant<\/p>\n
by way of two instalments.        That he had specifically pleaded in<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 reply notice and also by examining DW2. The same was<\/p>\n
substantiated. So, the discharge of the loan, pleaded by the accused<\/p>\n
is not with respect to the transaction claimed by the complainant. In<\/p>\n
the above factual background and since the complainant has even<\/p>\n
prima facie failed to establish the the debt or liability and execution<\/p>\n
and issuance of the cheque, he is not entitled to get the statutory<\/p>\n
benefit under section 139 of the Act. So the complainant miserably<\/p>\n
failed to establish the case against the accused. Even though the<\/p>\n
complainant has not established a prima facie case and there is no<\/p>\n
burden on the accused to rebut the presumption, the defence by<\/p>\n
adducing evidence succeeded in establishing a probable case.         In<\/p>\n
Krishna Janardhan Bhat’s case(cited supra), the Apex Court has<\/p>\n
held that an accused for discharging the burden of proof placed<\/p>\n
upon him under a statute need not examine himself.            He may<\/p>\n
discharge his burden on the basis of the materials already brought<\/p>\n
on records.      In the very same decision,     it is further held that<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on<\/p>\n
the part of an accused is `preponderance of probabilities’. It is further<\/p>\n
held that inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn<\/p>\n
not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also<\/p>\n
by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. The Apex<\/p>\n
Court has also held in the decision in Narayana Menon v. State of<\/p>\n
Kerala (2006(3) KLT 404)(SC), the Apex Court has further held that<\/p>\n
the accused is only to discharge the initial onus of proof and he is<\/p>\n
note required to disprove the prosecution case.<\/p>\n
            10. The Apex Court while considering the presumption<\/p>\n
under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act discussed about the scope and<\/p>\n
ambit as per    its decision in M\/s. Kumar Exports v. M\/s.Sharma<\/p>\n
Carpets<\/a> (2009(1) Supreme 231). In the above decision the Apex<\/p>\n
Court has held that “the accused in a trial under section 138 of<\/p>\n
the Act has two options. He can either show that consideration<\/p>\n
and    debt did not        exist or that      under the particular<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                               -:15:-<\/span><\/p>\n
and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose<\/p>\n
that no consideration and debt existed”.   It is also held that “to<\/p>\n
disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record<\/p>\n
such fact and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the<\/p>\n
court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not<\/p>\n
exist or their non-existence was so probable”      The Apex court<\/p>\n
further observed: “Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove<\/p>\n
that the note in question was not supported by consideration or<\/p>\n
that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused also<\/p>\n
rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so<\/p>\n
relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on<\/p>\n
to the       complainant.   The accused may also rely upon<\/p>\n
presumptions of fact, for instance, those mentioned in Section<\/p>\n
114 of the Evidence Act to rebut the presumptions arising under<\/p>\n
Sections 118 and 139 of the Act. The accused has also an option<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                  -:16:-<\/span><\/p>\n
to prove the non-existence of consideration and debt or liability<\/p>\n
either by letting in evidence or in some clear and exceptional<\/p>\n
cases, from the case set out by the complainant, that is, the<\/p>\n
averments in the complaint, the case set out in the statutory<\/p>\n
notice and evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial”.<\/p>\n
In the light of the above settled legal position, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
the accused has        rebutted the presumption    which is otherwise<\/p>\n
available to the complainant under section 139 of the N.I.Act.<\/p>\n
      11. The appellant now seeks interference of this Court in an<\/p>\n
order of acquittal passed by the trial court. In Ghureylal v. State of<\/p>\n
U.P. (2008(4) KLT SN17(C.No.17)(SC), the Apex Court has laid<\/p>\n
down certain circumstances under which the appellate court can<\/p>\n
interfere with the order of acquittal.  In the same decision, the Apex<\/p>\n
Court has categorically stated that the appellate court can interfere<\/p>\n
only for very substantial and compelling         reasons.   The same<\/p>\n
proposition      is reiterated in the decision reported in       Batcu<\/p>\n
Venkateshwarlu and Ors v. Public Prosecutor H.C. of A.P.<\/a> (2009<\/p>\n
(1) Supreme 67) . In the said decision, it is held that in case of<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                                 -:17:-<\/span><\/p>\n
acquittal, there is a double presumptions in favour of the accused,<\/p>\n
unless there is a substantial and compelling reason for holding<\/p>\n
that the trial court was wrong, the appellate court shall not interfere<\/p>\n
with the order of acquittal. Going by the materials on record, and the<\/p>\n
impugned      judgment, I am    of the view that    no compelling or<\/p>\n
substantial reasons are made out to interfere with the order of<\/p>\n
acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly,<\/p>\n
the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
kvm\/-\n<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 882\/01
\n                 -:18:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                            V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                          CRL.A.NO.882 OF 2001<\/p>\n
                                      Judgment<\/p>\n
                                Dated:11.2.2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 882 of 2001() 1. PAPPAYIL KUTTIAPPU … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI For Respondent :SRI.P.N.RAVINDRAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated :11\/02\/2009 O R D E […]<\/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-146346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-09T11:59:01+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T11:59:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3377,\"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\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T11:59:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-09T11:59:01+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T11:59:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009"},"wordCount":3377,"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\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009","name":"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T11:59:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappayil-kuttiappu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pappayil Kuttiappu vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146346","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=146346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}