{"id":174064,"date":"2010-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-08T04:03:17","modified_gmt":"2014-10-07T22:33:17","slug":"a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 4467 of 2010()\n\n\n1. A.K.LINISH, S\/O.VIJAYAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n3. C.D.BOBY, S\/O.DEVASSIA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.SHAJITH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :22\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n       ---------------------------------------------------------------\n       CRL.M.C.NO.4060,4467, & 4058 OF 2010\n       ----------------------------------------------------------------\n                 Dated 22nd          November, 2010\n\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
             Petitioner is the first accused in<\/p>\n
C.C.92\/2010         and          the          sole           accused     in<\/p>\n
C.C.93\/2010 on the file of Judicial First<\/p>\n
Class Magistrate’s Court-VI, Kozhikode. These<\/p>\n
petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C.4058\/2010 is<\/p>\n
filed to quash Annexure-A9 charge framed by<\/p>\n
the    learned            Magistrate                in       C.C.92\/2010.<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.4060\/2010 is filed to quash Annexure-<\/p>\n
A9 charge in C.C.93\/2010. Crl.M.C.4467\/2010<\/p>\n
is filed to quash Annexure-A4                           report and the<\/p>\n
order  passed          by           the       learned            Magistrate<\/p>\n
thereon.     The case had                  a checkered history.<\/p>\n
Annexure-A1 final report was submitted by<\/p>\n
Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaba Police<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010   2<\/p>\n
Station,     Kozhikode    on   29\/4\/2002  in   crime<\/p>\n
No.310\/2001 registered for the offence         under<\/p>\n
Section 408, 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with<\/p>\n
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against four<\/p>\n
accused.     Along   with   the  final  report,  two<\/p>\n
charges were submitted, one as against first<\/p>\n
accused alone and the second as against all the<\/p>\n
four accused. Allegation as against the first<\/p>\n
accused     alone    was  that   he  misappropriated<\/p>\n
Rs.30,000\/- out Rs.80,000\/- and Rs.50,000\/- out<\/p>\n
of Rs.1,00,000\/- which were entrusted to him in<\/p>\n
his capacity as the Accountant-cum-Manager of<\/p>\n
Chemmannur Jwellers, Kozhikode, to be deposited<\/p>\n
in account No.835 in Mavoor Road branch of<\/p>\n
Syndicate     Bank.    Allegation is  that   out  of<\/p>\n
Rs.80,000\/-       entrusted    on   8\/9\/2001,   only<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-      was   remitted,  but  the   receipt<\/p>\n
obtained by the bank was altered to make it<\/p>\n
appear that Rs.80,000\/- was deposited. It is<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010  3<\/p>\n
also    alleged      that  on   14\/9\/2001   out  of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/-       entrusted, only Rs.50,000\/- was<\/p>\n
deposited but entry was altered in the counter<\/p>\n
foil receipt to appear that Rs.1,00,000\/-       was<\/p>\n
deposited. The allegation is that first accused<\/p>\n
thereby       misappropriated     Rs.80,000\/-    and<\/p>\n
committed the offences under Sections 408 and<\/p>\n
468 of Indian Penal Code. In the second charge,<\/p>\n
it is alleged that       the four accused committed<\/p>\n
the offences under Sections 408 419, 420, 468<\/p>\n
and 471 read       Section 34 of Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
alleging     that   the  first  accused,  with  the<\/p>\n
intention     to   cheat  Chemmannur  Jwellers,  got<\/p>\n
printed     duplicate     receipts   of   Chemmannur<\/p>\n
Jwellery      gold     purchase   scheme   and    in<\/p>\n
furtherance of their common intention with the<\/p>\n
other    accused    and  with  the  aid  of  second<\/p>\n
accused, procured        details of the members of<\/p>\n
the scheme, forged receipts in the name with<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010  4<\/p>\n
the aid of accused 2 to 4 and by producing<\/p>\n
those receipts, induced the jwellers to pay<\/p>\n
money     and    misappropriated  the   money   and<\/p>\n
committed     the   offences.   Learned  Magistrate<\/p>\n
took     cognizance      of  the  offences       in<\/p>\n
C.C.75\/2002. The charge was framed in Malayalam<\/p>\n
against all the accused together. Accused 2 to<\/p>\n
4 challenged that order before this court in<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1872\/2007. By Annexure-A3 order dated<\/p>\n
20\/6\/2007, this court quashed the charge and<\/p>\n
directed the Magistrate      to frame charge afresh<\/p>\n
or to discharge the accused, after      hearing the<\/p>\n
prosecutor and the accused.      Learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
thereafter framed Annexure-A4 charge in English<\/p>\n
on 19\/11\/2007. That charge was framed in two<\/p>\n
separate parts. First part        relates to first<\/p>\n
accused     alone and the second part relates to<\/p>\n
all the accused. First part was named as first<\/p>\n
charge    and    second   part as  second   charge.<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010   5<\/p>\n
Accused 2 to 4 challenged that charge          again<\/p>\n
before this court by filing Crl.M.C.248\/2008.<\/p>\n
By Annexure-A5 order this court quashed that<\/p>\n
charge finding that learned Magistrate should<\/p>\n
have assigned two separate C.C. numbers for<\/p>\n
each charge and should not have framed          two<\/p>\n
separate     charges    in  one  case.  The  learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate was directed to assign           separate<\/p>\n
C.C.numbers       for each of the charge sheets<\/p>\n
submitted namely, as against the first accused<\/p>\n
in one case and as against accused 1 to 4 in<\/p>\n
the other case. Special Prosecutor        thereafter<\/p>\n
submitted       Annexure-A6     charge    separately<\/p>\n
against first accused in       one case and  against<\/p>\n
accused 1 to 4 in other case. Learned Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate         took cognizance of the<\/p>\n
offences     against     first  accused   alone   as<\/p>\n
C.C.75\/2002,      which   was  the  original number<\/p>\n
assigned and as against accused 1 to 4, in<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010   6<\/p>\n
C.C.129\/2009. When cognizance was taken,      first<\/p>\n
accused filed Crl.M.C.2457\/2010 to quash the<\/p>\n
charge      in   both    the cases.  By  Annexure-A7<\/p>\n
order,       Crl.M.C.2457\/2010      was     disposed<\/p>\n
permitting first accused      to seek discharge, in<\/p>\n
absentia,        under   Section  239  of  Code  of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure. That order was passed on<\/p>\n
2\/7\/2010. Chief Judicial Magistrate thereafter<\/p>\n
transferred the case to Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate’s      Court-VI,   Kozhikode.    Learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate took the case on file against      first<\/p>\n
accused as C.C.93\/2010 and against accused 1 to<\/p>\n
4    as     C.C.92\/2010.     First  accused   filed<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.3576\/2010 challenging the        cognizance<\/p>\n
taken in C.C.92\/2010 contending that        separate<\/p>\n
copies of the document         relied   on   by the<\/p>\n
prosecution were not        supplied. First accused<\/p>\n
also filed Crl.M.C.3577\/2010 raising the same<\/p>\n
allegations     in   C.c.93\/2010.  Accused  2  to  4<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010  7<\/p>\n
filed         Crl.M.C.3561\/2010    raising  similar<\/p>\n
contentions. By Annexure-A8 common order dated<\/p>\n
20\/08\/2010,     petitions   were  dismissed holding<\/p>\n
that the case already stands scheduled       and if<\/p>\n
accused did not get copies, they are entitled<\/p>\n
to bring      it to the notice of the Magistrate<\/p>\n
who will give necessary directions.         Learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate      framed    Annexure-A9   charge   in<\/p>\n
C.C.93\/2010       and    Annexure-A10   charge   in<\/p>\n
C.C.92\/2010. Though in C.C.93\/2010 prosecution<\/p>\n
case is      with respect to misappropriation of<\/p>\n
parts of the amount misappropriated by the sole<\/p>\n
accused on 8\/9\/2001 and 14\/9\/2001, in Annexure-<\/p>\n
A9    charge framed by the      learned Magistrate,<\/p>\n
charge    thirdly     to  sixthly   relate  to  the<\/p>\n
prosecution           case   in   C.C.92\/2010.   In<\/p>\n
C.C.92\/2010, same charges were incorporated in<\/p>\n
Annexure-A10 charge. Special Prosecutor finding<\/p>\n
that charge thirdly to sixthly in C.C.93\/2010<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010   8<\/p>\n
should not have been framed by the          learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate,       filed    Annexure-A4  report   in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.4467\/2010 to delete those charges and<\/p>\n
to frame     specific charge for the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to<\/p>\n
the petitioner, it was objected before      learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate but by a non speaking order, learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate          allowed      that     petition.<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.4467\/2010 is filed to quash        the said<\/p>\n
report    and    the   order  passed  by    learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate Crl.M.C.4060\/2010 and 4058\/2010 were<\/p>\n
filed to quash Annexure-A9 and A10 charges.<\/p>\n
           2. Learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner,      learned    Public  Prosecutor  and<\/p>\n
learned    counsel appearing for third respondent<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n
          3. Though learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
petitioners argued that entire Annexures-A9 and<\/p>\n
10      charges    are   erroneous  and     learned<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010   9<\/p>\n
Magistrate     could    not  have  split  up     and<\/p>\n
numbered      two separate cases and in one case<\/p>\n
and should not have allowed Annexure-A4 report<\/p>\n
without a speaking order, on going through the<\/p>\n
orders passed by this court earlier and the<\/p>\n
records, I find no illegality in numbering two<\/p>\n
cases or     proceeding as against    first accused<\/p>\n
in C.C.93\/2010 and as against accused 1 to 4 in<\/p>\n
C.C.92\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
          4. Though one crime was        registered,<\/p>\n
it is not the law that more than one charge<\/p>\n
cannot    be    submitted   in  that  crime.   After<\/p>\n
investigation, it was found that first accused<\/p>\n
committed     certain    offences    separately  and<\/p>\n
first    accused    along  with  the  other  accused<\/p>\n
committed other offences        which are not inter<\/p>\n
connected and are distinct and separate. Case<\/p>\n
in C.C.93\/2010 is that on 8\/9\/2001 petitioner<\/p>\n
was entrusted with RS.80,000\/-       and instead of<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010  10<\/p>\n
depositing     Rs.80,000\/-,   he  deposited     only<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-.     It    is also  the   case  that on<\/p>\n
14\/9\/2001     petitioner    was   entrusted     with<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/-        and    he     deposited    only<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-.      It   is the   case  that  receipts<\/p>\n
obtained     on   8\/9\/2001     and   14\/9\/2001  were<\/p>\n
altered     by    entering   Rs.80,000\/-instead   of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-      on    8\/9\/2001  and   Rs.1,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
instead of Rs.50,000\/- on 14\/9\/2001 and first<\/p>\n
accused misappropriated Rs.8,000\/- and thereby<\/p>\n
committed the offences. There is no allegation<\/p>\n
as against accused 2 to 4 with respect       to that<\/p>\n
aspect.      It     is   in    such   circumstances,<\/p>\n
investigating      officer   submitted  a   separate<\/p>\n
charge    though     without  taking  note   of  it,<\/p>\n
learned      Magistrate    has    taken   cognizance<\/p>\n
against all in one case. This court finding<\/p>\n
the said defect by Annexure-A5 order directed<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate to assign       two separate C.C<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010   11<\/p>\n
numbers      in respect of the charges. It is<\/p>\n
pursuant     to    that   direction,   first   charge<\/p>\n
against all the accused was taken on file as<\/p>\n
C.C.129\/2009      and    as   against  sole   accused<\/p>\n
C.C.75\/2002.      The   cases  were   transferred  to<\/p>\n
Judicial     First    Class   Magistrate’s  Court-VI,<\/p>\n
Kozhikode by Chief Judicial Magistrate where<\/p>\n
the cases were originally pending. They are now<\/p>\n
numbered      as    C.C.92\/2010    and   C.C.93\/2010.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with<\/p>\n
the order of the        learned Magistrate assigning<\/p>\n
two separate numbers.\n<\/p>\n
          5. Though      in C.C.93\/2010   prosecution<\/p>\n
case    is   limited     to    misappropriation   and<\/p>\n
forgery     with     regard    to   Rs.80,000\/-   and<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/- entrusted to the petitioner on<\/p>\n
8\/9\/2001 and 14\/9\/2001, in Annexure-A9 charge<\/p>\n
learned    Magistrate     has  wrongly  included  the<\/p>\n
charge which should have been         framed only in<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010   12<\/p>\n
C.C.92\/2010.      It   is   in  such  circumstances,<\/p>\n
Special Prosecutor subsequently filed         report<\/p>\n
for   deleting     those   charges. On  hearing  the<\/p>\n
learned     counsel appearing for the     petitioner<\/p>\n
and    Public    Prosecutor,    it  is   clear  that<\/p>\n
charges    thirdly     to  sixthly  in  Annexure-A9,<\/p>\n
charge framed in C.C.93\/2010 do not arise        at<\/p>\n
all.    Hence,    exercising   the  inherent  powers<\/p>\n
under     Section     482   of   Code  of   Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure,      charge    thirdly   to  sixthly   in<\/p>\n
Annexure-A9 charge in C.C.93\/2010 is quashed.<\/p>\n
There is no illegality in Annexure-A10 charge<\/p>\n
framed in C.C.92\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
          6. The Only other grievance is against<\/p>\n
Annexure-A4     report       and  the  order  passed<\/p>\n
therein. Annexure-A4 in Crl.M.C.4467\/2010 shows<\/p>\n
that    when   Annexure-A4    report  was  filed  by<\/p>\n
Special      Prosecutor,        learned   Magistrate<\/p>\n
recording        that    both  sides  were    heard,<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010  13<\/p>\n
allowed    the    application  without  a  speaking<\/p>\n
order. As it is not a speaking order, order<\/p>\n
dated 1\/11\/2010 in the report submitted      by the<\/p>\n
Special Prosecutor in C.C.93\/2010 on 1\/11\/2010<\/p>\n
is   quashed.    In   view  of the  order  quashing<\/p>\n
charges thirdly to sixthly in C.C.93\/2001, it<\/p>\n
may not necessary for the learned Magistrate to<\/p>\n
consider the said prayer in Annexure-A4. But as<\/p>\n
Special Prosecutor       has a case that charge for<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 420 and 471 of Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code also should be framed and it was<\/p>\n
omitted     to    be   framed,  learned  Magistrate<\/p>\n
necessarily has to consider Annexure-A4 afresh<\/p>\n
after, hearing both the Special Prosecutor and<\/p>\n
the accused.       learned Magistrate has to pass<\/p>\n
appropriate order thereafter in accordance with<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
          Petitions are allowed in part. Charges<\/p>\n
thirdly to sixthly in C.C.93\/2010 on the file<\/p>\n
Crmc,4467,4060 &4058\/2010  14<\/p>\n
of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-VI,<\/p>\n
Kozhikode     is   quashed.  Order passed  by  the<\/p>\n
Magistrate on       Annexure-A4 report is quashed.<\/p>\n
Magistrate is directed to dispose Annexure-A4<\/p>\n
report afresh.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nuj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 4467 of 2010() 1. A.K.LINISH, S\/O.VIJAYAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY 3. C.D.BOBY, S\/O.DEVASSIA, For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN For Respondent :SRI.T.SHAJITH […]<\/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-174064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010 - 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-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-07T22:33:17+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\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-07T22:33:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1714,\"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-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010\",\"name\":\"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-07T22:33:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010 - 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-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-07T22:33:17+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\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-07T22:33:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010"},"wordCount":1714,"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-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010","name":"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-07T22:33:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-linish-vs-the-sub-inspector-of-police-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.K.Linish vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/174064","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=174064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174064\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}