{"id":193650,"date":"2010-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-10T06:37:29","modified_gmt":"2017-12-10T01:07:29","slug":"e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1987 of 2003()\n\n\n\n1. E.K.MUHAMMED KUNHI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. P.EBRAHIM\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :10\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n         Dated this the       11th day of November, 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The appellant herein is the complainant in C.C. No. 429 of<\/p>\n
2000 on    the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,<\/p>\n
Hosdurg. The complaint was filed against the first respondent<\/p>\n
alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I.<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The case of the appellant is that in discharge of the<\/p>\n
amount due to him, the first respondent issued a cheque for<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-, bearing No.0062327               dt. 8.3.2000 of Nileshwar<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Market Road branch, Nileshwar.<\/p>\n
When the cheque was presented for collection, the same was<\/p>\n
returned due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the first<\/p>\n
respondent\/accused. A memo to that effect was issued to him on<\/p>\n
22.3.2000.   He sent a registered lawyer notice to the first<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent on 4.4.2000 calling upon him to pay the amount covered by<\/p>\n
the cheque, which was received by the accused on 5.4.2000. But the<\/p>\n
first respondent did not send any reply nor repaid the amount. Hence<\/p>\n
the complaint was filed and summons was issued to the accused.<\/p>\n
       3. The accused appeared before court and pleaded not guilty.<\/p>\n
Hence trial was proceeded against him. The appellant\/complainant was<\/p>\n
examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the<\/p>\n
complainant. Ext.P1 is the cheque dt. 8.3.2003. Ext.P2 is the memo<\/p>\n
dt. 22.3.2000 issued by the bank certifying the fact of dishonour.<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 is the copy of notice dt. 4.4.2000           and Ext.P4 is the<\/p>\n
acknowledgment card dt. 5.5.2000. The defence put up by the accused<\/p>\n
was that he had not issued the cheque and the signature in the cheque<\/p>\n
is not his. Eventhough the case was posted for defence evidence, he<\/p>\n
had not produced any exhibits or examined any witness.<\/p>\n
       4.  The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence,<\/p>\n
acquitted the accused on the ground that the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
complainant is not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed an<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Against that<\/p>\n
judgment of acquittal the complainant filed this appeal.<\/p>\n
       5.  Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
       6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court<\/p>\n
below ought not have acquitted the accused solely on the basis of an<\/p>\n
isolated statement by the appellant and ought to have appreciated the<\/p>\n
testimony    of   PW1 in its entirety.   The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant submitted that the court below ought to have found that the<\/p>\n
initial burden on the appellant was discharged by deposing that the<\/p>\n
cheque was signed by the accused in his presence.<\/p>\n
       7. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to<\/p>\n
the decision reported in Dinesh Harakchand Sankla v. Kurlon Ltd.<\/p>\n
(2006 (2) KLT 733 (Karnataka H.C.), in which it was held that:<\/p>\n
              “Even when the cheque is dishonoured by the reason<\/p>\n
        of “alteration in date and drawer’s signature differs”, the<\/p>\n
        Court has to presume by virtue of S.139 of the negotiable<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
       instruments Act that the cheques are received by the<\/p>\n
       holder for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or<\/p>\n
       liability. Of course, this is a rebuttable presumption. The<\/p>\n
       accused alone can show to the Court that the alteration in<\/p>\n
       signature and date were not made because of insufficiency<\/p>\n
       or paucity of funds.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8. The learned counsel for the first respondent supported the<\/p>\n
judgment of the court below and invited my attention to the decision of<\/p>\n
this Court reported in Bhaskaran Nair v. Mohanan<\/a> (2009 (2) KLT<\/p>\n
897), in which it was held that when the execution of the cheque is<\/p>\n
denied, the burden is on the complainant to prove that the instrument<\/p>\n
was duly executed by the maker.\n<\/p>\n
     9. In the trial court, the complainant was examined himself as<\/p>\n
PW1. He deposed that he had acquaintance with the accused and the<\/p>\n
accused borrowed Rs.50,000\/- from him on executing Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
and the accused told him to encash that cheque on 8.3.2000. PW1<\/p>\n
deposed that when he presented that cheque for encashment, it was<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the<\/p>\n
accused.     Ext.P2 is the dishonour memo issued by the bank<\/p>\n
dt.8.3.2000.   PW1 sent a lawyer notice to the accused demanding<\/p>\n
payment of the amount. Ext.P3 is the copy of the lawyer notice and<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 is the postal acknowledgment signed by the accused showing<\/p>\n
receipt of the lawyer notice. PW1 deposed that inspite of receipt of the<\/p>\n
lawyer notice, the accused did not pay any amount and that he has not<\/p>\n
even sent a reply.    In cross examination PW1 deposed that Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque was signed by the accused in his presence and that he believed<\/p>\n
that the signature in the cheque is that of the accused. That does not<\/p>\n
mean that the accused has not signed the cheque in his presence.<\/p>\n
      10.   When the accused      was questioned under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., he submitted that he has not issued Ext.P1 cheque and that he<\/p>\n
did not sign it. Ext.P2 dishonour memo shows that Ext.P1 cheque was<\/p>\n
dishonoured not due to the reason of ‘drawer’s signature differs’, but<\/p>\n
due to the reason that ‘funds insufficient.’ The lower court records<\/p>\n
would show that the accused filed an application before the Magistrate<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
Court to send Ext.P1 cheque for expert opinion, which was allowed by<\/p>\n
the learned Magistrate and the accused was directed to deposit the<\/p>\n
remuneration for the expert and that petition was subsequently<\/p>\n
dismissed as the accused failed to remit that amount. The complainant<\/p>\n
sent a lawyer notice and the same was received by the accused, but no<\/p>\n
reply was given by the accused. Therefore the accused miserably<\/p>\n
failed to avail the first and best opportunity to set forth his defence and<\/p>\n
to prevent the complainant from taking legal action if his defence is<\/p>\n
true.    When the complainant was examined as PW1, there was no<\/p>\n
serious challenge from the side of the accused about the genuineness<\/p>\n
of the signature of the accused in Ext.P1 cheque.<\/p>\n
      11. Therefore, I am of the view that the case of the complainant<\/p>\n
that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque on receiving consideration of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- can be accepted as true. The accused has not adduced<\/p>\n
any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.<\/p>\n
Act. Since the complainant had proved all the necessary ingredients of<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, I find that the accused<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.<\/p>\n
Act and the accused is convicted under that section. Therefore, I find<\/p>\n
that the learned Magistrate is not justified in acquitting the accused.<\/p>\n
      12.    The Apex Court in its recent decision reported in<\/p>\n
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H<\/a> (2010(2) KHC 428<\/p>\n
(SC)), held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory<\/p>\n
aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive<\/p>\n
aspect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am<\/p>\n
of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.60,000\/-<\/p>\n
would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
      13. In the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.429 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate -II, Hosdurg in acquitting the accused is set aside and<\/p>\n
the accused is convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he<\/p>\n
is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.60,000\/-         The said fine shall be<\/p>\n
paid to the appellant as compensation under Section 357(1) of<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1987 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. The accused is permitted either to deposit the fine amount<\/p>\n
before the court below or directly pay the compensation to the<\/p>\n
appellant within three months from today and produce a memo to<\/p>\n
that effect before the court below in case of direct payment. If the<\/p>\n
accused failed to deposit or pay the said amount within the<\/p>\n
aforesaid period, he shall suffer S.I. for a period of three months<\/p>\n
by way of default sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
\n                                            Judge
\ntm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1987 of 2003() 1. E.K.MUHAMMED KUNHI … Petitioner Vs 1. P.EBRAHIM … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS For Respondent :SMT.T.SUDHAMANI The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :10\/11\/2010 O R D E R M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, […]<\/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-193650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nE.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 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\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-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=\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-10T01:07:29+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\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T01:07:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1360,\"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\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010\",\"name\":\"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T01:07:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 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":"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 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\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-10T01:07:29+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\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T01:07:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010"},"wordCount":1360,"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\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010","name":"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T01:07:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-k-muhammed-kunhi-vs-p-ebrahim-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.K.Muhammed Kunhi vs P.Ebrahim on 10 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\/193650","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=193650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}