{"id":16168,"date":"2009-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-28T15:11:04","modified_gmt":"2015-06-28T09:41:04","slug":"siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 3614 of 2008()\n\n\n1. SIDDIQUE, S\/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :06\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               Crl.R.P. 3614 of 2008\n\n      Dated, this the 6th day of January,2009\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Revision petitioner is the accused in Crime<\/p>\n
No.90\/1997 on the file of Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate,   Nilambur.       Revision    is   filed<\/p>\n
challenging  the  order   passed   by   the  learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate on 25.8.2008 taking cognizance of the<\/p>\n
offence condoning the delay     invoking the power<\/p>\n
provided under section 473 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.  When the learned Magistrate had earlier<\/p>\n
taken  cognizance   of   the   offence,   petitioner<\/p>\n
challenged  that   order   before    this court   in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.57\/2004 contending that when cognizance of<\/p>\n
the offences under section 279,379 and 338 of IPC<\/p>\n
is barred on the submission of the charge sheet on<\/p>\n
24.6.2002, learned Magistrate should not have taken<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence.      This court as per<\/p>\n
judgment dated 31.7.2007 quashed the order passed<\/p>\n
CRRP 3614\/2008             2<\/span><\/p>\n
by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the<\/p>\n
offence and directed the Magistrate to hear both<\/p>\n
sides and consider whether the delay is liable to<\/p>\n
be condoned, holding that before taking cognizance<\/p>\n
after condoning the delay notice should have been<\/p>\n
issued to the accused.       The impugned order was<\/p>\n
passed subsequently.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Learned counsel appearing for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were<\/p>\n
heard.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Learned counsel submitted that subsequent<\/p>\n
to the disposal of Crl.M.C.57\/2004 a report was<\/p>\n
filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Edakkara<\/p>\n
explaining the delay and as per the report, the<\/p>\n
delay was caused as the discharge certificate of<\/p>\n
CW17 could not be obtained and that was not found<\/p>\n
to be a sufficient cause to condone the delay by<\/p>\n
the learned Magistrate and instead       reason that<\/p>\n
CW22 the doctor who treated CW13 is now working in<\/p>\n
Gulf is taken as the cause    for the delay which was<\/p>\n
also not accepted as sufficient and     the delay was<\/p>\n
condoned invoking the power under section 473 of<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure.    Learned counsel argued<\/p>\n
CRRP 3614\/2008             3<\/span><\/p>\n
that the learned Magistrate was not justified in<\/p>\n
condoning the delay when the delay was not properly<\/p>\n
explained by the prosecution.    Learned counsel also<\/p>\n
pointed out that learned Magistrate summoned all<\/p>\n
the injured witnesses and they appeared        before<\/p>\n
the court and submitted that they have no objection<\/p>\n
for dropping the case and in such circumstance<\/p>\n
after a lapse of 11 years in view of the provision<\/p>\n
provided under section 468 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure learned Magistrate should not have taken<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court in Vanka Radhamanohari<\/p>\n
v. Vanka Venkata Reddy<\/a>       (1993(3) SCC 4) and in<\/p>\n
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt (AIR<\/a> 2000 SC<\/p>\n
297) and argued that the criterion to be applied is<\/p>\n
not the one applicable to condone the delay under<\/p>\n
section 5 of the Limitation Act and instead the<\/p>\n
question is whether in the interest of justice the<\/p>\n
cognizance is to be taken after condoning the delay<\/p>\n
and    the    learned  Magistrate  has  applied   the<\/p>\n
provision in the proper perspective and there is no<\/p>\n
illegality in the order.\n<\/p>\n
CRRP 3614\/2008             4<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.    The legal position has been settled by the<\/p>\n
Apex Court in Vanka Radhamanohari’s case (supra).<\/p>\n
Following the earlier decision of the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Workmen, H.L. Ltd v. Hindustan Lever Ltd (AIR<\/a> 1984<\/p>\n
SC 1683) where it was held that Section 473 is in<\/p>\n
the nature of an overriding provision according to<\/p>\n
which any court may take cognizance of an offence<\/p>\n
after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it<\/p>\n
is satisfied that it is necessary so to do,    in the<\/p>\n
interest of justice Their Lordships held that as<\/p>\n
distinct from Section 5 of the Limitation Act where<\/p>\n
the onus is on the appellant or the applicant to<\/p>\n
satisfy the court that there was sufficient cause<\/p>\n
for condonation of delay. Section 473 enjoins a<\/p>\n
duty on the court to examine not only whether such<\/p>\n
delay has been explained but as to whether it is<\/p>\n
the requirement of justice to condone or ignore<\/p>\n
such delay.     It was held that while examining the<\/p>\n
question as to whether it is necessary to condone<\/p>\n
the delay, in the interest of justice,     court has<\/p>\n
to take note of the nature of the offence , the<\/p>\n
class to which the victim belongs including the<\/p>\n
background of the victim.        Apex Court in Tara<\/p>\n
CRRP 3614\/2008             5<\/span><\/p>\n
Dutt’s case (supra) laid down the principle as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
           “Obviously,   therefore    in<\/p>\n
           respect of the offences for<\/p>\n
           which a period of limitation<\/p>\n
           has been provided in S.468,<\/p>\n
           the power has been conferred<\/p>\n
           on    the    Court     taking<\/p>\n
           cognizance to extend the said<\/p>\n
           period of limitation where a<\/p>\n
           proper    and    satisfactory<\/p>\n
           explanation of the delay is<\/p>\n
           available and where the Court<\/p>\n
           taking cognizance finds that<\/p>\n
           it would be in the interest<\/p>\n
           of justice.  This discretion<\/p>\n
           conferred on the Court has to<\/p>\n
           be exercised judicially and<\/p>\n
           on      well       recognised<\/p>\n
           principles.    This  being  a<\/p>\n
           discretion conferred on the<\/p>\n
           court    taking    cognizance<\/p>\n
           wherever the court exercises<\/p>\n
CRRP 3614\/2008              6<\/span><\/p>\n
           this   discretion,  the  same<\/p>\n
           must be by a speaking order,<\/p>\n
           indicating  the  satisfaction<\/p>\n
           of the court that the delay<\/p>\n
           was satisfactorily explained<\/p>\n
           and condonation of the same<\/p>\n
           was   in   the  interest   of<\/p>\n
           justice.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore      the   paramount   consideration   while<\/p>\n
deciding      the question whether cognizance is to be<\/p>\n
taken after condoning the delay as provided under<\/p>\n
section 473, is the interest of justice as found by<\/p>\n
the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
     6. But     the facts of this case, as pointed out<\/p>\n
by   the    learned  counsel  appearing  for  revision<\/p>\n
petitioner      prove  that   the   incident  was   on<\/p>\n
22.3.1997.      The charge sheet was submitted before<\/p>\n
the   court     only  on  on  24.6.2002.    After  the<\/p>\n
direction of this court to reconsider the question<\/p>\n
in   Crl.M.C.57\/2004,      granting    opportunity  to<\/p>\n
explain the delay by filing a proper         petition,<\/p>\n
report filed by the Sub Inspector is to the effect<\/p>\n
that the delay was occasioned as the treatment<\/p>\n
CRRP 3614\/2008             7<\/span><\/p>\n
certificate    of  CW17  was  not  obtained.  Learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate found that the reasons submitted at the<\/p>\n
time of argument is not the failure to get the<\/p>\n
discharge certificate of CW17, but     certificate of<\/p>\n
CW22, the doctor who treated CW13, as the doctor is<\/p>\n
working in Gulf.      Learned Magistrate also found<\/p>\n
that it is not a sufficient cause.     But the delay<\/p>\n
was condoned in the interest of justice as the<\/p>\n
offence is relating to      negligent driving.    The<\/p>\n
records     of  the  learned  Magistrate  shows  that<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate     issued notices to the injured<\/p>\n
witnesses     who  appeared  before  the  court   and<\/p>\n
submitted that they have nothing to say in the<\/p>\n
matter.     The other eye witnesses, after service of<\/p>\n
notice, did not appear.    In such circumstance, even<\/p>\n
if the cognizance is taken and the ordeal of a<\/p>\n
trial is completed no effective purpose will be<\/p>\n
served as in the nature of the conduct of the<\/p>\n
witnesses they will not support the prosecution<\/p>\n
case.     In such circumstance, considering the fact<\/p>\n
that the incident occured more than a decade back,<\/p>\n
it cannot be said that interest of justice warrants<\/p>\n
taking cognizance after condoning the delay as<\/p>\n
CRRP 3614\/2008              8<\/span><\/p>\n
provided under section 473 of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure, as it would result in      unnecessary waste<\/p>\n
of valuable time of the court.      For that reason the<\/p>\n
order passed by the learned Magistrate is set<\/p>\n
aside.     Revision petitioner is discharged.<\/p>\n
     Criminal     Revision   Petition     is    disposed<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
Tpl\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3614 of 2008() 1. SIDDIQUE, S\/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR For Respondent : No Appearance The […]<\/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-16168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSiddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 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\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-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=\"2009-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-28T09:41:04+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T09:41:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1180,\"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\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T09:41:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 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":"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 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\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-28T09:41:04+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T09:41:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009"},"wordCount":1180,"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\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009","name":"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T09:41:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siddique-vs-the-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-6-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Siddique vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 6 January, 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\/16168","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=16168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16168\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}