{"id":157536,"date":"2008-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-23T11:34:06","modified_gmt":"2016-05-23T06:04:06","slug":"k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 927 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. K.M.HASSAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. HANISABI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :20\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                                             \"C.R.\"\n                      THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n           = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                     CRL.R.P. No.927 of 2001\n           = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = =\n            Dated this the 20th      day of October, 2008\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                              ————–\n<\/p>\n
      The question raised in this revision is             whether the<\/p>\n
restriction contained in Section 199 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure (for short, “the Code”) on the right of a person to<\/p>\n
prefer a complaint     is applicable to the        person who came<\/p>\n
forward to continue the proceedings on the death of the original<\/p>\n
complainant.     Learned counsel for the          revision petitioners<\/p>\n
contended that the person willing to continue the proceedings<\/p>\n
after the death of the original complainant should himself be a<\/p>\n
‘person aggrieved’ while according to the         learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent, the ban        under Section 199 of the Code            is<\/p>\n
applicable only in the matter of taking cognisance.<\/p>\n
      2.    Though the general rule is that any person whether<\/p>\n
himself aggrieved or not by the offending act could make a<\/p>\n
complaint with a view to take action under the Code, Chapter<\/p>\n
XIV of the Code imposes conditions in the matter of ‘taking<\/p>\n
cognizance’ of certain     offences.        Section 199 of the Code<\/p>\n
which relates to prosecution for defamation           states that “no<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                                 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter<\/p>\n
XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint<\/p>\n
made by some person aggrieved by the offence”. The proviso states<\/p>\n
that where such person is disabled from preferring a complaint for the<\/p>\n
reasons sated in the proviso, some other person may, with the leave of<\/p>\n
the court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.          In this case,<\/p>\n
complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code (for short, “the Penal Code”) was preferred by the person<\/p>\n
allegedly defamed. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence<\/p>\n
and initiated proceedings against     revision petitioners.   While the<\/p>\n
case was pending, complainant died.         Respondent came forward<\/p>\n
willing to continue the proceedings and filed Crl.M.P. No.988 of 2001 to<\/p>\n
implead herself      in the compliant.  Despite objection raised      by<\/p>\n
revision petitioners,   learned magistrate as per the impugned order<\/p>\n
allowed the prayer.       According to learned    counsel for   revision<\/p>\n
petitioners,    respondent is not a “person aggrieved” by the<\/p>\n
imputations and as such the order of       impleadment is bad in law.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that the alleged defamatory statement<\/p>\n
concerned the performance of the deceased complainant as a paid<\/p>\n
Secretary of a Mahal committee and as such respondent who is his<\/p>\n
niece cannot be termed as a person aggrieved and entitled to continue<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                                 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the proceedings after the death of the complainant. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Mathew v.<\/p>\n
Balan (1984 KLT 893) and Nazeem Bavakunju v. State &<\/p>\n
others (1987 (2) KLT 755). Counsel for respondent in support of his<\/p>\n
contention that the restriction contained in Sec.199 of the Code is<\/p>\n
only   in the matter of taking cognizance, placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in C.M. Stephen v. John Manjooran<\/a><\/p>\n
(1970 KLT 545).\n<\/p>\n
      3.    Section 199 of the Code uses the words “some person<\/p>\n
aggrieved”.    So far as the words “some person aggrieved” are<\/p>\n
concerned, there cannot be inflexible rule that those words limit the<\/p>\n
right to make a complaint for the offence of defamation to the person<\/p>\n
actually defamed. The words in Sec.199(1) of the Code cannot be<\/p>\n
understood as having the narrow meaning that none other than the<\/p>\n
person    defamed could prefer a complaint.      Whether a person is<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the imputations depends on the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of each case. For instance, if an imputation of immorality is attributed<\/p>\n
to a girl, the reputation of her father would also be at stake and<\/p>\n
hence, the father of the girl concerned can also be said to be a<\/p>\n
“person aggrieved”.      The object of incorporating the words “some<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                                   -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
person aggrieved” is only to limit the right to file complaint for the<\/p>\n
offence of defamation to the person who suffered the injury.<\/p>\n
       4.    The   question for consideration and decision is whether<\/p>\n
such restriction is applicable to a person who comes forward willing to<\/p>\n
continue the proceedings on the death of the complainant at whose<\/p>\n
instance cognizance of the offence has been taken. The Chief Court of<\/p>\n
Punjab and Lahore in Ishar Das v. Emperor (1908 (7) Crl. L.J.<\/p>\n
290, held that the maxim “actio personalis moritur cum persona<\/p>\n
(i.e. a personal right of action dies with the person) is applicable in the<\/p>\n
matter of prosecution for defamation since that is essentially a<\/p>\n
personal action and institution of the proceedings depended on the<\/p>\n
temperament of the person defamed.             Dissenting from that view<\/p>\n
Mosely, J., in U. Tin Maung v. The King (AIR 1941 Rangoon<\/p>\n
202) held that the words “some person aggrieved” occurring in<\/p>\n
Sec.198 of the Code (as it then stood) only limited the court’s power<\/p>\n
of initial cognizance. Once the court has seizin of the case, there is<\/p>\n
nothing to prevent the court from proceeding with it. A learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge of    Madhya Pradesh High Court followed that view in Nathu<\/p>\n
Jeorakhan v. Sheopal Kuppa (AIR 1963 MP 47).                    The Apex<\/p>\n
Court considered the issue         though in relation to the offences<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                                  -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 493 and 496 of the Penal Code in Ashwin<\/p>\n
v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1967 SC 983) and held that the<\/p>\n
bar under Sect.198 of the Code is removed         when the aggrieved<\/p>\n
person files a complaint, and that his presence throughout trial is not<\/p>\n
necessary. Though the court cannot substitute a new complainant in<\/p>\n
the place of a deceased complainant, it has the power to authorise the<\/p>\n
conduct of the prosecution by any person. A learned Single Judge of<\/p>\n
the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Hakim v. State (1973 Crl.L.J.<\/p>\n
492) took the view that a proper and fit person could be permitted to<\/p>\n
continue the proceedings on the death of complainant in a prosecution<\/p>\n
for the offence of defamation.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    The words “take cognizance” is not defined in the Code.<\/p>\n
The word ‘cognizance’ is used in the Code to indicate the point when<\/p>\n
the court takes judicial notice of an offence. “Taking cognizance” is a<\/p>\n
judicial act taken with a view to prosecute the offender and it is the<\/p>\n
primary stage for commencement of the inquiry or trial. The court<\/p>\n
applies its mind to the facts set out in the compliant and decides<\/p>\n
whether it is necessary to proceed further in the matter against the<\/p>\n
offender. When the court takes cognizance, it assumes jurisdiction<\/p>\n
over the case.     “Taking cognizance” is   different from initiation of<\/p>\n
proceedings though taking cognizance is a condition precedent to the<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                                  -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
initiation of the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
       6.    Section 256 of the Code deals with non-appearance or<\/p>\n
death of the complainant. Non-appearance of the complainant may be<\/p>\n
due to his death. Section 256 does not require that whenever the<\/p>\n
complainant is absent, complaint should be dismissed. It gives wide<\/p>\n
discretionary power for the magistrate to adjourn the case to another<\/p>\n
day. Section 302 of the Code confers power on the magistrate to<\/p>\n
permit    conduct of the prosecution by any person subject to the<\/p>\n
exceptions provided therein.     The power of the magistrate is not<\/p>\n
restricted by the condition imposed on the right of a person to make a<\/p>\n
complaint for the offence of defamation as stated in Sect.199(1) of the<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
       7.    In this case, cognizance was taken of the offence against<\/p>\n
the revision petitioners on the complaint made by the person against<\/p>\n
whom imputations were made. During the pendency of that case the<\/p>\n
complainant died and the respondent who is the niece of the deceased<\/p>\n
complainant came forward       expressing willingness to continue the<\/p>\n
proceedings which       learned magistrate vide the impugned order,<\/p>\n
allowed.    There is no indication in Sec.199 or any other provision of<\/p>\n
the Code restricting the power of the magistrate to allow a person to<\/p>\n
continue the proceedings on the death of the person aggrieved at<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                                 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
whose instance cognizance of the offence was taken. On the other<\/p>\n
hand, proviso to Sec.199(1) of the Code provides       that when the<\/p>\n
person aggrieved is unable to make a compliant in the circumstances<\/p>\n
stated therein, any other person whether aggrieved or not by the<\/p>\n
imputations may        make a complaint on behalf of      the person<\/p>\n
aggrieved, the only condition being that he must obtain leave of the<\/p>\n
court.  There is no reason to think that the framers of the Code<\/p>\n
intended to prescribe more restrictions on a person who is willing to<\/p>\n
continue the proceedings on the death of the person aggrieved and at<\/p>\n
whose instance cognizance of the offence had already been taken.<\/p>\n
The position may be different if the person aggrieved and who<\/p>\n
preferred the complaint died even before cognizance was taken. The<\/p>\n
contention that the person who       comes    forward to continue the<\/p>\n
proceedings must also be a person aggrieved as in the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant at whose instance cognizance has been taken, cannot<\/p>\n
therefore be sustained. In C.M. Stephen v. John Manjooran<\/a> referred<\/p>\n
supra, Bhaskaran, J., (as His Lordship then was) held that it is<\/p>\n
permissible to substitute a fit and proper person in the place of the<\/p>\n
deceased complainant to maintain the prosecution if the complainant<\/p>\n
died pending the complaint.      I respectfully agree with that view.<\/p>\n
The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for revision petitioners<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                                  -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
do not apply to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     That apart, on the facts of this case the respondent who<\/p>\n
came forward expressing willingness to prosecute the case is the<\/p>\n
niece of the deceased complainant. One of the imputations said to be<\/p>\n
made against the deceased complainant is that he, as paid Secretary<\/p>\n
of the Mahal Committee received money on behalf of the Mahal<\/p>\n
Committee but neither issued receipts nor accounted the same (and<\/p>\n
thereby misappropriated it). That imputation concerning the integrity<\/p>\n
and character of the deceased complainant is sufficient to cause<\/p>\n
anguish to his relatives, respondent being one among them.<\/p>\n
Respondent therefore      is also    a person aggrieved and thus a<\/p>\n
competent person to continue the proceedings.<\/p>\n
     9.     The maxim, “actio personalis moritur cum persona” does<\/p>\n
not apply to criminal proceedings for the offence of defamation.<\/p>\n
     Revision Petition is dismissed<\/p>\n
     Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4396 of 2001 shall stand<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n
CRL. R.P. No.927 of 2001
\n                            -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   ===================
\n                                    CRL.R.P. NO.927 OF 2001
\n                                   ===================<\/p>\n
                                        O R D E R<\/p>\n
                                     20TH OCTOBER, 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 927 of 2001() 1. K.M.HASSAN … Petitioner Vs 1. HANISABI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :20\/10\/2008 O R D E R “C.R.” THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. […]<\/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-157536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-23T06:04:06+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-23T06:04:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1723,\"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\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008\",\"name\":\"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-23T06:04:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-23T06:04:06+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-23T06:04:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008"},"wordCount":1723,"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\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008","name":"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-23T06:04:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-hassan-vs-hanisabi-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.M.Hassan vs Hanisabi on 20 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157536","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=157536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}