{"id":153101,"date":"2007-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-19T17:03:06","modified_gmt":"2017-11-19T11:33:06","slug":"v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 167 of 2007()\n\n\n1. V.I.THOMAS, S\/O.ITTY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.C.THOMAS, BEDHANYA HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JAIJI ITTEN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :12\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                 R.BASANT, J\n\n                              ----------------------\n\n\n                          Crl.R.P.No.167 of 2007\n\n                        ----------------------------------------\n\n                Dated this the 12th day of January 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                   O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      This   revision   petition   is   directed   against   a   concurrent<\/p>\n
verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
       2.    The   cheque   is   for   an   amount   of   Rs.2,31,500\/-.     The<\/p>\n
signature in the cheque is admitted.               Notice   of   demand   though<\/p>\n
duly   received   and   acknowledged   did   not   evoke   any   response.\n<\/p>\n
The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to<\/p>\n
P8.      It   would appear   that  the  crux  of  the  contention   raised   by<\/p>\n
the   accused   is   that   there   has   been   discharge   of   an   amount   of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,90,000\/-   after   receipt   of   the   notice.     The   complainant<\/p>\n
admitted partial discharge but contended that only an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,40,000\/- has been paid.   But the crux of the issue before the<\/p>\n
court below was whether an amount of Rs.41,500\/-, as contended<\/p>\n
by   the   petitioner   or   an   amount   of   Rs.91,500\/-   as   contended   by<\/p>\n
the complainant was actually due.   The courts below considered<\/p>\n
the   materials   available   on   record   and     chose   to   accept   and   act<\/p>\n
upon the oral evidence of PW1.   They did not choose to rely on<\/p>\n
CRRP.No.167\/07                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
the oral evidence of DW1 about the discharge without voucher of<\/p>\n
the amount of Rs.1,90,000\/-.   The plea that there was discharge<\/p>\n
of   an   amount   of  Rs.1,40,000\/-   only   was   accepted   and   the   court<\/p>\n
directed   payment   of   the   balance   amount   of   Rs.91,500\/-.       The<\/p>\n
petitioner   claims   to   be   aggrieved   by   the   impugned   concurrent<\/p>\n
judgments.     The   appellate   court   had   indulgently   modified   the<\/p>\n
sentence into one of imprisonment till rising of court and to pay<\/p>\n
an   amount   of   Rs.91,500\/-   and   in   default   to   undergo   S.I   for   a<\/p>\n
period of one month.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Called   upon   to   explain   the   nature   of   the   challenge<\/p>\n
which   the   petitioner   wants   to   mount   against   the   impugned<\/p>\n
concurrent   judgments,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
first of all contends that the courts below have erred perversely<\/p>\n
in  coming   to  a   conclusion   that   only   an   amount  of   Rs.1,40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
has been paid.   In fact, an amount of Rs.1,90,000\/- was paid.  In<\/p>\n
the   nature   of   the   evidence   that   is   available,   I   find   absolutely<\/p>\n
nothing to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the<\/p>\n
courts below that only an amount of Rs.1,40,000\/- has been paid.\n<\/p>\n
The oral evidence of DW1 unsupported by any voucher for such<\/p>\n
alleged discharge was, according to me, rightly not accepted by<\/p>\n
CRRP.No.167\/07                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
the   courts   below.     At   any   rate,   sitting   as   the   third   court   –   of<\/p>\n
revision   exercising   supervisory   and   correctional   jurisdiction,   I<\/p>\n
find   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the   concurrent   conclusion   that<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW1 has to be preferred to that of DW1 on the<\/p>\n
question of the quantum of discharge.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     No   other   serious   contentions   appear   to   have   raised<\/p>\n
before the courts below, going by the impugned judgments.  The<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   points   out   that   statutory<\/p>\n
timetable has not been followed.  He further contends that there<\/p>\n
is inaccuracy in the description of the cheque in the body of the<\/p>\n
complaint and the appendix to the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     What is there to show that the statutory timetable has<\/p>\n
not   been  followed?     Why   was  that  contention  not   raised  before<\/p>\n
the   court   below?       The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that this is a question of law and therefore even if it is<\/p>\n
not   raised   before   the   courts   below,   it   can   be   urged   before   the<\/p>\n
court   of   revision.     The   learned   counsel   was   requested   to<\/p>\n
substantiate  the   said  contention.     The   only   submission   made  at<\/p>\n
the  Bar  and  in  the   memorandum  of revision  is  that  the copy  of<\/p>\n
the complaint furnished to the accused does not show the date of<\/p>\n
CRRP.No.167\/07                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
the complaint.   This is too inadequate a circumstance to accept<\/p>\n
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner   that the<\/p>\n
statutory timetable has not been followed.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     Similarly,   the   alleged   incongruity   (I   say   alleged<\/p>\n
because even the copy of the complaint has not been produced)<\/p>\n
in   the   number   and   date   of   the   cheque   in   the   body   of   the<\/p>\n
complaint and the appendix to the complaint, cannot, deliver any<\/p>\n
advantage   to   the   petitioner   at   this   belated   hour   when   the<\/p>\n
contention  that the  complaint is belated is not  seen  specifically<\/p>\n
raised before the court below and no attempt is made before this<\/p>\n
court to substantiate that contention not raised before the courts<\/p>\n
below.   No dispute  about the identity  of the  cheque  was raised<\/p>\n
before the courts below admittedly.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     In   these   circumstances,   I   find   absolutely   no   merit   in<\/p>\n
the challenge raised against the impugned verdict of guilty and<\/p>\n
conviction.       The   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge   has   shown<\/p>\n
maximum   leniency   possible   and   permissible.     In   the   given<\/p>\n
circumstances, I do not find any space for further indulgence or<\/p>\n
leniency.\n<\/p>\n
      9.     Finally,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner     prays<\/p>\n
CRRP.No.167\/07                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
that  a  reasonable  time  may  be   granted   to  the  petitioner  to pay<\/p>\n
the amount and avoid the default sentence.  I am satisfied that a<\/p>\n
reasonable further time can be granted to the petitioner and this<\/p>\n
request   can   be   accepted.       In   the   nature   of   the   relief   which   I<\/p>\n
propose to grant, it is not necessary to wait for issue and return<\/p>\n
of notice to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
       10.    In   the   result,   this   revision   petition   is   dismissed   but<\/p>\n
with   the   observation   that   the   sentence   shall   not   be   executed<\/p>\n
against   the   petitioner   till   15\/03\/2007.     The   petitioner   shall<\/p>\n
appear before  the  learned  Magistrate  on  that  date  to serve  the<\/p>\n
modified sentence hereby imposed.  If the petitioner does not so<\/p>\n
appear   before   the   learned   Magistrate,   the   learned   Magistrate<\/p>\n
shall thereafter proceed to execute the modified sentence hereby<\/p>\n
imposed.\n<\/p>\n
       Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
jsr<\/p>\n
CRRP.No.167\/07    6<\/span><\/p>\n
CRRP.No.167\/07    7<\/span><\/p>\n
         R.BASANT, J<\/p>\n
           C.R.R.P.No.\n<\/p>\n
              ORDER<\/p>\n
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 167 of 2007() 1. V.I.THOMAS, S\/O.ITTY, … Petitioner Vs 1. P.C.THOMAS, BEDHANYA HOUSE, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.JAIJI ITTEN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-153101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 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\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-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=\"2007-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-19T11:33:06+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T11:33:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":962,\"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\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007\",\"name\":\"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T11:33:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 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":"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 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\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-19T11:33:06+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T11:33:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007"},"wordCount":962,"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\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007","name":"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T11:33:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-i-thomas-vs-p-c-thomas-on-12-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.I.Thomas vs P.C.Thomas on 12 January, 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\/153101","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=153101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153101\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}