{"id":178478,"date":"2007-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007"},"modified":"2017-12-18T19:42:07","modified_gmt":"2017-12-18T14:12:07","slug":"m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 1297 of 2006()\n\n\n1. M.C.SAHADEVAN, S\/O.KESAVAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. E.P.SETHUMADHAVAN, S\/O.VELAYUDHAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :18\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                              V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n\n                  ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n\n                        Crl.R.P. No. 1297 OF 2006 B\n\n                  ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n\n                  Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007\n\n\n                                    O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
             In   this   revision   filed   under   section   397   read   with<\/p>\n
section   401   Cr.P.C.,   the   petitioner   who   was   the   accused   in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.140\/2003   on   the   file   of   JFCM-II,   Manjeri   for   an   offence<\/p>\n
punishable   under  section   138   of   the  Negotiable   Instruments   Act,<\/p>\n
1881, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed<\/p>\n
against   him   for   the   said   offence.     The   courts   below   have<\/p>\n
concurrently   found   the   appellant   guilty   of   the   offence   and   have<\/p>\n
sentenced  him to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a<\/p>\n
sum   of   Rs.2   lakhs   by   way   of   compensation   to   the   complainant<\/p>\n
under section 357 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.     I heard   the learned counsel for the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent\/complainant.<\/p>\n
      3.     The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of<\/p>\n
the revision:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The specific case of the complainant is that the sum of Rs.2<\/p>\n
lakhs  was borrowed by the revision petitioner\/accused in August,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1297\/2006<\/p>\n
                                       : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
2001 for securing appointment for his son to the post of a teacher<\/p>\n
in   a   private   management   school   and   that   the   accused   had<\/p>\n
executed an agreement undertaking to pay the amount within ten<\/p>\n
months.   His  further  case is that  the accused did not honour the<\/p>\n
said agreement and time was twice extended.  It is after the lapse<\/p>\n
of   one   year   that   the   complainant   would   allege   the   execution   of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque on 14.8.2002 by the accused for Rs.2 lakhs.   The<\/p>\n
stand of the revision petitioner has been one of total denial of any<\/p>\n
liability under the cheque in question.  If so, the non-production of<\/p>\n
the   alleged   written   agreement   is   fatal   to   the   case   of   the<\/p>\n
complainant.    The defence of the revision petitioner  was that  the<\/p>\n
complainant was a tailor in the tailoring shop run by the wife of the<\/p>\n
revision   petitioner   and   that   there   was   a   quarrel   between   the<\/p>\n
complainant   and   revision   petitioner’s   wife   resulting   in   the<\/p>\n
complainant leaving the firm and at that time he must have left the<\/p>\n
establishment   after   stealing   the   cheque   book   of   the   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner’s  wife and the present complaint was filed misusing the<\/p>\n
cheque leaf.   When the accused has disputed the act of drawing,<\/p>\n
executing and handing over the cheque, the burden was squarely<\/p>\n
on the complainant to prove these three ingredients for sustaining<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1297\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the   complaint.     The   accused   had   even   filed   an   application   for<\/p>\n
sending  the disputed signature  for comparison to the handwriting<\/p>\n
expert and that was rejected by the trial court.   The courts below<\/p>\n
were rest content by themselves comparing the disputed signature<\/p>\n
with the admitted signature of the accused by invoking section 73<\/p>\n
of the Evidence Act which should not be the sole basis for entering<\/p>\n
a conviction in view of State   Vs.   Pali   Ram  [AIR   1979   SC   14].<\/p>\n
When the agreement allegedly executed by the accused in favour<\/p>\n
of the complainant and have been the best evidence, withholding<\/p>\n
of the said agreement is fatal to the complainant’s case Krishnaji<\/p>\n
Vs.   Mohammed   Haji   Latheef  [AIR   1968   SC   1413].     The<\/p>\n
complainant   having  not  discharged  the  initial  burden   on him  was<\/p>\n
not   entitled   to   secure   the   conviction   in   the   light   of   the   decisions<\/p>\n
reported   in  Johnson   Scaria   Vs.   State   of   Kerala  [2006  (4)   KLT<\/p>\n
290], Lekha Vs. Manickan [2006 (4) KLT 800] and Kamalammal<\/p>\n
Vs.  Mohanan  [2006  (3)  KLT 972].     As   against   this,   the  accused<\/p>\n
had   examined   his   wife   as   DW1   and   another   employee   in   the<\/p>\n
tailoring shop as DW2 to substantiate the defence.  The conviction<\/p>\n
recorded by the courts below cannot, therefore, be sustained.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1297\/2006<\/p>\n
                                           : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
       4.      I   am   afraid   that   I   cannot   agree   with   the   above<\/p>\n
submissions.     Both   the   courts   have   concurrently   believed   PW1,<\/p>\n
the complainant, who has testified before court that Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
was duly executed by the accused and handed over to him.  If so,<\/p>\n
that   amounts   to   his   discharging   the   initial   burden   on   him.     The<\/p>\n
non-production   of   the   anterior   agreement   said   to   have   been<\/p>\n
executed   by   the   accused   in   favour   of   the   complainant   cannot   in<\/p>\n
any   way   militate   against   the   complainant’s   case   that   Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque   was   executed   in   consideration   of   the   accused   having<\/p>\n
borrowed Rs.2 lakhs.  In contradistinction, the case of the accused<\/p>\n
that the cheque in question was misused by the complainant who<\/p>\n
might have stolen the same from the tailoring shop of the wife of<\/p>\n
the   accused   was   disbelieved   by   both   the   courts   below.     It   is<\/p>\n
pertinent in this connection to know that in Ext.D1 reply notice, the<\/p>\n
specific case of the accused was that the cheque book of his wife<\/p>\n
was   seen   stolen   and   he   came   to   know   of   the   same   only   after<\/p>\n
receipt   of   the   statutory   notice   in   this   case.     But   at   the   stage   of<\/p>\n
evidence   DW1   would   have   it   that   what   was   stolen   was   only   a<\/p>\n
cheque   leaf.     She   also   confess   that   she   did   not   lodge   any<\/p>\n
complaint to the police regarding the loss  of the cheque  nor had<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1297\/2006<\/p>\n
                                       : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
she   countermanded   payment   by   addressing   the   drawee   bank.<\/p>\n
Under these  circumstances,   the  conviction   recorded  by the   court<\/p>\n
below  concurrently   does   not   suffer   from   any  irregularity,   illegality<\/p>\n
or   impropriety   so   as   to   warrant   interference   in   the   rarefied<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this court.  I, therefore, confirm the same.<\/p>\n
      5.      The   only   other   question   which   survives   for<\/p>\n
consideration   is   the   adequacy   or   otherwise   of   the   sentence<\/p>\n
imposed on the appellant.  It is admitted by both sides that during<\/p>\n
the pendency of this revision the revision petitioner has deposited<\/p>\n
a   sum   of   Rs.65,000\/-.     What   now   remains   towards   his   liability<\/p>\n
under Ext.P1 is a sum  of Rs.1,35,000\/-.  The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner prayed for leniency in the sentence in case<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner  discharges  his liability within three  months.<\/p>\n
The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   complainant\/respondent<\/p>\n
also reluctantly agreed that if the balance amount of Rs.1,35,000\/-<\/p>\n
is paid within three months from today, he has no objection in this<\/p>\n
court   showing   leniency   in   the   sentence   imposed   on   the   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner.   Accordingly, in the place of the sentence imposed on<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner by the court below the following sentence is<\/p>\n
imposed:-\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.R.P.1297\/2006<\/p>\n
                                        : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
       In   case   the   revision   petitioner   deposits   before   the   court<\/p>\n
below   the   balance   amount   of   Rs.1,35,000\/-   within   three   months<\/p>\n
from today, he shall be liable only to undergo imprisonment till the<\/p>\n
rising   of   the   court   which   shall   be   undergone   by   him   within   one<\/p>\n
month thereof.  If, on the other hand, the revision petitioner fails to<\/p>\n
deposit   the   said   amount   within   three   months   from   today,   the<\/p>\n
sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the court below will<\/p>\n
stand revived.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       This revision petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                                                     (V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
aks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 1297 of 2006() 1. M.C.SAHADEVAN, S\/O.KESAVAN NAIR, … Petitioner Vs 1. E.P.SETHUMADHAVAN, S\/O.VELAYUDHAN, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated […]<\/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-178478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-18T14:12:07+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\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T14:12:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1104,\"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\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007\",\"name\":\"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-18T14:12:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-18T14:12:07+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\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T14:12:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007"},"wordCount":1104,"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\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007","name":"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-18T14:12:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-sahadevan-vs-e-p-sethumadhavan-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C.Sahadevan vs E.P.Sethumadhavan on 18 June, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178478","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=178478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}