{"id":186231,"date":"2009-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-19T17:58:41","modified_gmt":"2017-09-19T12:28:41","slug":"m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 378 of 2002()\n\n\n1. M.S.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 49 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.K.SHEKARAN, S\/O.KUNJUMON,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.BOSE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :01\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         Crl.R.P.No.378 of 2002\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Dated: 1st April, 2009\n\n                                   ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Challenge in the revision is against the concurrent verdict of<\/p>\n
guilty rendered against the revision petitioner\/accused for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the<\/p>\n
N.I.Act’). The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the<\/p>\n
complainant, filed a complaint to prosecute the accused for the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Negativing the plea of not<\/p>\n
guilty raised by the accused, the learned Magistrate, after trial, found<\/p>\n
him guilty and convicted and, sentenced him to undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.51,000\/- with<\/p>\n
default term of simple imprisonment for three months more. Out of<\/p>\n
the fine amount, if realised, Rs.50,000\/- was directed to be paid as<\/p>\n
compensation to the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge in<\/p>\n
revision confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence retaining<\/p>\n
the substantive     term of simple imprisonment for three months<\/p>\n
directing the accused to pay compensation of Rs.50,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this revision<\/p>\n
questioning its legality, propriety and correctness.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.378\/02                   – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
      2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the accused<\/p>\n
towards discharge of a loan issued Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- promising its encashment on presentation in due course.<\/p>\n
The cheque when presented was dishonoured due to insufficiency of<\/p>\n
funds in the account of the accused. Statutory notice issued<\/p>\n
intimating dishonour and demanding the sum covered by the cheque<\/p>\n
was acknowledged, but not responded with reply or payment. The<\/p>\n
complainant thereupon launched prosecution against the accused<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The accused, on appearance, pleaded not guilty when the<\/p>\n
particulars of the offence were made known. Complainant examined<\/p>\n
two witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exts.P1 to P7 to prove<\/p>\n
the case. The accused questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
maintained his innocence. He examined one witness as D.W.1.<\/p>\n
      4.    I   heard  the   learned    counsel  for   the   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner\/accused and also the learned counsel for the complainant.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the accused assailing the conviction contended<\/p>\n
that the complainant had not let in any evidence to prove that Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque had been issued in discharge of a debt or liability due from<\/p>\n
the accused. The evidence of D.W.1 who witnessed the transaction<\/p>\n
over the cheque, as admitted by the complainant, it is submitted,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.378\/02                     – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
runs contrary to the evidence of the complainant that the cheque was<\/p>\n
received in the month of September, 1996. D.W.1 in his evidence has<\/p>\n
stated that the transaction took place in January, 1996 and two<\/p>\n
months later the cheque was issued to the complainant at the house<\/p>\n
of the accused. Since the version of the complainant over the<\/p>\n
transaction is found not established and further disproved by the<\/p>\n
evidence of D.W.1, it is the submission of the counsel that better<\/p>\n
evidence on the transaction leading to the issue of Ext.P1 cheque was<\/p>\n
required to sustain the prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted<\/p>\n
that there is no merit in the challenges raised against the conviction<\/p>\n
of the accused, which, according to the counsel, is fully supported by<\/p>\n
the legal evidence. It is further submitted that D.W.1, the witness<\/p>\n
examined by the accused also supported the version of the<\/p>\n
complainant that the cheque had been handed over by the accused<\/p>\n
towards discharge of a liability arising out of a loan transaction.<\/p>\n
      5. I have perused the records of the case giving consideration<\/p>\n
to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides. First of all, it<\/p>\n
has to be pointed out revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in character<\/p>\n
and intended to avoid failure of justice. Concurrent finding entered by<\/p>\n
the two inferior courts is not liable to be interfered with in revision<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.378\/02                     – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
unless it is shown such finding is so perverse and not supported by<\/p>\n
the materials tendered in the case. Even if a different view on the<\/p>\n
materials produced is permissible, the revisional court cannot<\/p>\n
supplement its view as different from the view taken by the inferior<\/p>\n
courts. The learned Magistrate who had the opportunity to watch the<\/p>\n
demeanour and deportment of the complainant examined as P.W.2,<\/p>\n
found his testimony reliable, trustworthy and credible. Perusing the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.2, I find no reason to take a different view. Further<\/p>\n
more, it is seen, during his cross examination, the accused had no<\/p>\n
definite defence to impeach his assertion that the cheque had been<\/p>\n
issued in discharge of liability arising out of a loan advanced to him.<\/p>\n
This has to be viewed in the backdrop that despite receiving statutory<\/p>\n
notice intimating dishonour of the cheque, no reply was given. Other<\/p>\n
than contending that the accused had not received any loan from the<\/p>\n
complainant, the defence projected was that he had handed over<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque as security to a chitty company. He had no information<\/p>\n
how     the complainant had collected the cheque from the chitty<\/p>\n
company or any explanation how the cheque landed in the hands of<\/p>\n
the complainant. While giving evidence P.W.2 stated that the<\/p>\n
transaction was witnessed by one Sankaranarayanan. Though the<\/p>\n
accused had not advanced any specific defence other than putting<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.378\/02                     – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
forth some      suggestive questions    to the complainant, during his<\/p>\n
cross examination, not even when he was questioned under Section<\/p>\n
313 when his attention was invited to the incriminating circumstances<\/p>\n
appearing in the prosecution evidence, he proceeded to examine the<\/p>\n
person named by the complainant, who was stated as present when<\/p>\n
the transaction between them took place. The witness examined by<\/p>\n
the accused as D.W.1, it is seen, supported the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant. Of course, there is some discrepancy in his evidence as<\/p>\n
regards the date when the cheque was handed over, which in the<\/p>\n
given facts of the case, has got only innocuous value. On the<\/p>\n
materials produced in the case, the conviction founded against the<\/p>\n
accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is not liable<\/p>\n
to be interfered with as it is found fully supported by legal evidence.<\/p>\n
Conviction of the accused is only to be upheld and I do so. Now,<\/p>\n
considering the sentence imposed against the accused, it is true that<\/p>\n
normally incarceration    of an offender found guilty of the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the N.I.Act for a term in prison is not warranted<\/p>\n
to meet the ends of justice. Accused is stated to be an Executive<\/p>\n
Officer in Panchayat Department. Having regard to the post held by<\/p>\n
him as a public servant which command respect in the society, it<\/p>\n
cannot be stated that the courts below have erred in awarding a<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.378\/02                   – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
deterrent punishment directing him to undergo substantive term of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three months. Learned counsel for the accused,<\/p>\n
however, made a fervent plea for avoiding the prison term on the<\/p>\n
ground that he had already retired from service. Having regard to the<\/p>\n
facts involved and the submissions made, sentence imposed against<\/p>\n
the accused is modified directing him to undergo imprisonment till the<\/p>\n
rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.55,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within two months<\/p>\n
from the date of this order. In default of payment of compensation<\/p>\n
within the stipulated time as directed, the accused shall undergo<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment for two months. The accused shall appear and<\/p>\n
his sureties shall produce him before the Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Kunnamkulam on 1st June, 2009 and the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate shall execute the sentence as directed. Revision is<\/p>\n
disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                          S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 378 of 2002() 1. M.S.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 49 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.K.SHEKARAN, S\/O.KUNJUMON, … Respondent 2. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE For Respondent :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :01\/04\/2009 O R […]<\/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-186231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 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\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-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=\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-19T12:28:41+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=\"7 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-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T12:28:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1322,\"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-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009\",\"name\":\"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T12:28:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 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\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-19T12:28:41+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T12:28:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009"},"wordCount":1322,"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-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009","name":"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T12:28:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-subramanian-vs-k-k-shekaran-on-1-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.S.Subramanian vs K.K.Shekaran on 1 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/186231","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=186231"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186231\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}