{"id":172868,"date":"2009-05-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-15T16:50:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-15T11:20:53","slug":"a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 714 of 2002()\n\n\n1. A.N. BAIJU S\/O. NARAYANAN ARISSERIL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. T.G.MOHANAN S\/O.GOPALAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.V.RESHMI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :22\/05\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             M.N.KRISHNAN, J\n                        =====================\n                         CRL.A. No.714 OF 2002\n                        =====================\n\n                  Dated this the 22nd day of May 2009\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal is preferred against the order of acquittal passed by the<\/p>\n
Judicial I Class Magistrate, Vaikom in C.C.No.290 of 1998. The accused<\/p>\n
was proceeded against under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
The brief facts of the case as revealed from the complaint are to the effect<\/p>\n
that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000\/- on 23.9.1997 and<\/p>\n
towards the discharge of liability he had issued a cheque written in his<\/p>\n
hand bearing the date 23.10.1997. When the cheque was presented for<\/p>\n
encashment, it was dishonoured and thereafter statutory notice was issued<\/p>\n
and the case was filed. The case of the accused as seen from 313 statement<\/p>\n
appears to be that he had no transaction with the complainant and that he<\/p>\n
had given the cheque to one Prasad of Kaduthuruthy and it was given as a<\/p>\n
security for the amount given by the said Prasad in favour of one Vijayan.<\/p>\n
      2. In the trial court, Pws 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.P1 to P7 were<\/p>\n
marked and the court below entered a finding to the effect that there has<\/p>\n
been no notice as contemplated under the statute and therefore dismissed<\/p>\n
Crl A 714\/2002                        -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the case. It is against that decision, an application for filing the appeal with<\/p>\n
special leave    was preferred which was allowed and subsequently           the<\/p>\n
appeal has been admitted.\n<\/p>\n
       3. The points that arise for determination in the appeal are: (1)<\/p>\n
Whether the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000\/- as alleged by the<\/p>\n
complainant and has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
the Negotiable Instruments Act and (2) Whether the notice which is marked<\/p>\n
as Ext.P4 is proper and sufficient.\n<\/p>\n
       4. Point No.1: This point deals with the transaction. It is the case of<\/p>\n
the complainant that on 23.9.1997 he had advanced a sum of Rs.75,000\/-<\/p>\n
and on that date, the accused had issued a post dated cheque dated<\/p>\n
23.10.1997 undertaking to discharge the liability. When the said cheque<\/p>\n
was prevented for encashment, it was returned with the endorsement<\/p>\n
‘insufficiency of funds’. Ext.P1 is the cheque dated 23.10.1997 and issued<\/p>\n
in favour of the complainant through Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank. Ext.P2 is the intimation given by the Branch Manager that the<\/p>\n
cheque has been returned unpaid for want of sufficiency of funds. Ext.P4 is<\/p>\n
the returned registered notice about which detailed discussions are<\/p>\n
necessary later.\n<\/p>\n
       5. PW1 had deposed before court that the accused had approached<\/p>\n
Crl A 714\/2002                       -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
him for advancement of the amount one week prior to the date of borrowal<\/p>\n
and that he had raised the funds by selling the timber from his property and<\/p>\n
had handed over the amount on 23.9.1997. He had been vehementally<\/p>\n
cross examined and nothing is brought out to discredit the evidence of the<\/p>\n
complainant. Though the accused has got a case that a signed blank cheque<\/p>\n
was given as security to one Prasad in a transaction relating to Vijayan,<\/p>\n
nothing is forthcoming in the form of documentary or oral evidence to<\/p>\n
substantiate the same. I am conscious of the fact that under Section 315 of<\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused cannot be compelled to let in<\/p>\n
any evidence. Now it is a well settled proposition that in 138 cases, the<\/p>\n
courts are entitled to weigh the preponderance of probabilities of evidence<\/p>\n
in order to find out the truth. Now the evidence of PW1              remains<\/p>\n
unshattered. He had given cogent reasons how he had raised the funds and<\/p>\n
how the amount is given and therefore I find that execution of Ext.P1 stands<\/p>\n
proved and when it is proved the presumption follows under Section 118<\/p>\n
that it is supported by consideration and the further presumption that it is<\/p>\n
issued towards the discharge of liability also is proved under Section 139 of<\/p>\n
the N.I.Act. So, the evidence of PW1 coupled with the presumption<\/p>\n
established the case of borrowal by the accused from the complainant.<\/p>\n
       6. The next question is regarding the compliance of statutory notice.<\/p>\n
Crl A 714\/2002                       -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
It is mandatory that the complainant has to give a notice in writing to the<\/p>\n
drawer of the cheque so as to enable him to discharge the liability within the<\/p>\n
statutory period as required under Section 138(b) of the NI Act. Now an<\/p>\n
important question that has been considered and found against the<\/p>\n
complainant is regarding the fact whether in fact there is a proper notice as<\/p>\n
contemplated under Section 138(b).\n<\/p>\n
      7. I had perused the original of Ext.P4 and it would show that it has<\/p>\n
been addressed to T.G.Mohanan, Thandathiparambu, Kuruvanthara,<\/p>\n
Manjoor. It is the same address that is shown in the complaint as well and<\/p>\n
the accused had received summons in that address. Ext.P4 would go to show<\/p>\n
that the postal authorities had given notice on 14.3.1998 and then had<\/p>\n
returned it to the sender as unclaimed. This matter is attempted to be<\/p>\n
proved by examining PW2, who was the postman at the relevant point of<\/p>\n
time. PW2 had deposed that he had visited the house on 14.3.1998 and at<\/p>\n
that time, the addressee was not available and therefore he had given<\/p>\n
intimation to the father of the accused and had come back. He also asserts<\/p>\n
that the accused is residing permanently in the address shown therein. It is<\/p>\n
true that the complainant has got a case that the accused was in the house at<\/p>\n
the time of bringing the summons and it was a deliberate act. It is true that<\/p>\n
he also filed a complaint before the higher authorities on that regard. But<\/p>\n
Crl A 714\/2002                       -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the fact remains that at least the father of the accused was present in the<\/p>\n
house and he was intimated about the factum of the registered notice and<\/p>\n
according to the postman since the accused did not go to the post office and<\/p>\n
received the notice in spite of intimation and notice, it was returned to the<\/p>\n
sender as unclaimed. I feel and find that the procedure adopted by the<\/p>\n
postal authorities is only just and proper. There is no case for the accused<\/p>\n
that he was not residing in that house. Now in a catena of decisions, the<\/p>\n
Apex Court has made it very clear that when a person gives an address at<\/p>\n
the time of transaction and later changes the residence, it is his duty to<\/p>\n
inform the person concerned or at least to the postal authorities regarding<\/p>\n
the change of address. In 138 cases, the courts have found that if technical<\/p>\n
approach is made, there is no difficulty for a person to defeat the claim by<\/p>\n
evading notice. So giving the intention and purport of Section 27 of the<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act, the courts have held that when the notice is properly<\/p>\n
addressed and that person has been intimated, it is sufficient and it amounts<\/p>\n
to valid notice in writing. So far as this case is concerned, PW2 had been<\/p>\n
examined and he had deposed before court that the father had been duly<\/p>\n
intimated about the notice but the refusal was on the part of the accused to<\/p>\n
go to the post office and collect the notice. Or, in other words, it is only a<\/p>\n
deliberate avoidance of the notice to escape from the liability which cannot<\/p>\n
Crl A 714\/2002                        -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
be entertained.    Here, there is also evidence tendered       by PW3 who<\/p>\n
according to him had come to the house of the accused in order to get his<\/p>\n
cycle repaired by the father of the accused and there was some conversation<\/p>\n
regarding notice in favour of the accused. So, the things are very clear and<\/p>\n
I find that the court below has been totally technical and has not understood<\/p>\n
the purport of a valid notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the<\/p>\n
Act. So, from these discussions, the following points are concluded, viz.,<\/p>\n
the execution of the cheque is proved and the issuance of notice is also<\/p>\n
proved. There has been a demand and the accused has not paid back the<\/p>\n
amount within the time stipulated under the statute and therefore all the<\/p>\n
necessary ingredients to constitute        offence under Section 138 stand<\/p>\n
established and therefore I set aside the judgment passed by the trial court<\/p>\n
and find that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
       8. Now comes to the question of sentence. By virtue of the<\/p>\n
amendment to the provisions of the NI Act even the Magistrate is competent<\/p>\n
to impose a fine equivalent to double the amount of the cheque issued.<\/p>\n
There is no point in sending the person to the jail. So, I confine my finding<\/p>\n
by holding that the accused can be convicted for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
138 of the NI Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, as the<\/p>\n
Crl A 714\/2002                        -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
transaction is of the year 1998 which on realisation shall be given to the<\/p>\n
complainant.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the trial court is<\/p>\n
set aside and the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the NI Act and he is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.1 lakh which on realisation shall be paid to the complainant. The accused<\/p>\n
shall pay the fine so ordered on or before 31.8.2009 failing which the trial<\/p>\n
court can execute the sentence as contemplated under Section 421 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
                                                 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
Cdp\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 714 of 2002() 1. A.N. BAIJU S\/O. NARAYANAN ARISSERIL, … Petitioner Vs 1. T.G.MOHANAN S\/O.GOPALAN, … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.RESHMI For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL 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-172868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 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\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-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=\"2009-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-15T11:20:53+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-15T11:20:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1574,\"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\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009\",\"name\":\"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-15T11:20:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 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":"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 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\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-15T11:20:53+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-15T11:20:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009"},"wordCount":1574,"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\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009","name":"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-15T11:20:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-baiju-vs-t-g-mohanan-on-22-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.N. Baiju vs T.G.Mohanan on 22 May, 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\/172868","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=172868"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172868\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}