{"id":194297,"date":"2010-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-25T01:02:55","modified_gmt":"2014-05-24T19:32:55","slug":"joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 22028 of 2006(V)\n\n\n1. JOSEPH ABRAHAM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :25\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                      ==================\n\n                      W.P.(C).No. 22028 of 2006\n\n                      ==================\n\n                 Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner owns 133.55 acres of land. Out of the same, 50<\/p>\n
acres are cardamom estate and 67 acres are coffee estate. The<\/p>\n
balance is comprised by roads, buildings, nursery, staff quarters, coolie<\/p>\n
lines, streams, wind belt, fire belt, orange plantations etc. Proceedings<\/p>\n
were initiated in respect of 16 acres of land under the Kerala Private<\/p>\n
Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act. The matter was taken to the Forest<\/p>\n
Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the entire 16 acres are not vested with<\/p>\n
the State. The State filed an appeal, in which, it was held that the 8<\/p>\n
acres are private forest vested with the Government and balance 8<\/p>\n
acres are liable to be exempted. The petitioner is now aggrieved by<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 notification issued by the Government under Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Preservation of Trees Act notifying 39.25 hectares of the said land as<\/p>\n
coming within the purview of Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of<\/p>\n
Trees Act, 1986. The petitioner’s contention is that a notification under<\/p>\n
Section 5 can only be in respect of tree growth in private forests or in<\/p>\n
the Cardamom Hills Reserve or any other areas cultivated with<\/p>\n
cardamom. In view of the fact that 50 acres are cultivated with<\/p>\n
cardamom and 8 acres are private forest exempted under the Private<\/p>\n
Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, only 58 acres can be notified as<\/p>\n
w.p.c.22028\/06                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
coming within the purview of Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of<\/p>\n
Trees Act 1986, is the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner relies<\/p>\n
on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the Managing Trustee,<\/p>\n
Arya Vaidya Sala v. State of Kerala & Others<\/a> [2006 (2) KLJ 438] for<\/p>\n
the proposition that only in respect of a property comprised in a<\/p>\n
private forest or Cardamom Hills Reserve or area cultivated with<\/p>\n
cardamom a notification under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Preservation<\/p>\n
of Trees Act, can be issued.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     The 2nd respondent has filed a statement justifying Ext.P6.<\/p>\n
The primary contention is that for coming within the purview of Section<\/p>\n
5, it need not necessarily be actually cultivated with cardamom as<\/p>\n
such. According to the learned Government Pleader, if any where in<\/p>\n
the area covered by the notification, cardamom is cultivated, the entire<\/p>\n
area can be notified under Section 5 of the Act. He also tries to<\/p>\n
persuade this Court to accept that in the area covered by the<\/p>\n
notification, cardamom is found scattered.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      4.     Since a decision in this case has to essentially depend upon<\/p>\n
the invocation of Section 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act,<\/p>\n
1986, I shall extract that section here.\n<\/p>\n
             “5.   Prohibition of cutting of tree in notified areas. – (1)
\n      notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force,
\n      or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other
\n      authority, or in any agreement or other arrangement, the Government<\/p>\n
w.p.c.22028\/06                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
      may, with a view to preserving the tree growth in private forests or in the
\n      Cardamom Hills Reserve or in any other areas cultivated with cardamom,
\n      by notification in the Gazette, direct that no tree standing in any such
\n      area specified in the notification shall be cut, uprooted, burnt or
\n      otherwise destroyed except on the ground that –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (a)    the tree constitutes a danger to life or property; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (b)    the tree is dead, diseased or windfallen;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not be
\n      deemed to prevent the pruning of any tree as required by ordinary
\n      agricultural or horticultural practices.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (2)    No person shall, without the previous permission in writing
\n      of the authorised officer, cut, uproot, burn or otherwise destroy or cause
\n      to be cut, uprooted, burnt or otherwise destroyed any tree in any area
\n      specified in the notification under sub-section (1) on any of the grounds
\n      specified therein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section, the term “tree”
\n      shall include any species of tree.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Explanation II.- For the purposes of sub-section (1), the
\n      expression “private forest” means any land which immediately before the
\n      10th day of May, 1971, was a private forest as defined in the Kerala
\n      Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, for a land coming within the purview of Section 5, the land<\/p>\n
should be a private forest or Cardamom Hills Reserve or area<\/p>\n
cultivated with cardamom. The contention of the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader that the entire area need not necessarily be fully cultivated<\/p>\n
with cardamom, but if anywhere in the vicinity cardamom is cultivated<\/p>\n
that would come within the purview of Section 5, does not appeal to<\/p>\n
me at all. If that interpretation is adopted, then Section 5 has to be<\/p>\n
struck down as vague, because the vicinity of cardamom cultivation<\/p>\n
extend to acres and acres and it would lead to arbitrary interpretation<\/p>\n
as well. The learned Government Pleader relies on the decision of a<\/p>\n
w.p.c.22028\/06                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajasekharan Nair v. Asst.<\/p>\n
Settlement Officer [1998 (2) KLT 721]. He particularly relies on<\/p>\n
paragraph 4 of the judgment, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
             ‘4. It may be true as contended by the petitioner that the land in
\n      question from where the petitioner seeks permission to cut and remove
\n      the trees on payment of seigniorage rate is not cultivated with
\n      Cardamom. To attract S. 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act the
\n      land concerned need not be cultivated with Cardamom. On the other
\n      hand, the prohibition contained in S. 5 is applicable “in the Cardamom hill
\n      reserve or in any other area cultivated with Cardamom”. If the area is
\n      cultivated with Cardamom, and within the area if there is certain islands
\n      of properties cultivated with other crops, it cannot be said that such
\n      islands of land with other cultivation is out of purview of the prohibition
\n      contained in S. 5. In other words, the word area “employed’ in S. 5 to
\n      prohibit cutting of trees, is not the land cultivated with Cardamom, but
\n      area where cardamom is cultivated. The petitioner does not have a case
\n      that the land in question is not within an area where there is cardamom
\n      cultivation. In the other hand, it is admitted before me that the
\n      petitioner’s predecessor in interest got assigned the property in terms of
\n      the Cardamom Registry Rules. Therefore, the property is within the
\n      Cardamom cultivated area. So, the prohibition contained in S. 5 of the
\n      Kerala Preservation of Trees Act applies even if the property in question is
\n      not presently cultivated with Cardamom. So long as that property is
\n      within the area where Cardamom is cultivated, it cannot escape the
\n      rigours contained in S. 5 of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act
\n      Therefore, Ext. P7 does not proceed on the wrong premises as contended
\n      by the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I am of opinion that actually this decision supports the case of the<\/p>\n
petitioner. This decision holds that if an area is cultivated with<\/p>\n
cardamom and within the area if there are certain islands of properties<\/p>\n
cultivated with other crops, it cannot be said that such islands of land<\/p>\n
with other cultivation are out of purview of the prohibition contained<\/p>\n
in Section 5. That means if the area sought to be notified should be<\/p>\n
principally cultivated cardamom even if inside that area there are some<\/p>\n
property occupied by some other cultivation that area is not excluded<\/p>\n
w.p.c.22028\/06                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
from the purview of that notification. That essentially means that the<\/p>\n
area notified as a whole should be principally cultivated with<\/p>\n
cardamom. If the interpretation put by the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader is to be accepted, then if out of the 100 acres one acre is<\/p>\n
cultivated with cardamom then the entire 100 acres can be notified<\/p>\n
under Section 5, which cannot be the object of Section 5. In fact the<\/p>\n
decision in   Arya Vaidya Sala’s case (supra) cited by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner squarely covers the issue. Therefore, I have<\/p>\n
no doubt in my mind that only those areas actually cultivated with<\/p>\n
cardamom can be notified under Section 5.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     Lastly, the learned Government Pleader, relying paragraph<\/p>\n
7 of his statement tries to contend that the entire area is scattered<\/p>\n
with cardamom cultivation. The statement reads:\n<\/p>\n
      “The petitioner himself admits that 50 acres of the area is principally
\n      planted with cardamom. On field inspection, cardamom is found scattered
\n      everywhere in the area. ….”<\/p>\n
This averment is as vague as vague can be. That can be interpreted to<\/p>\n
mean only the 50 acres cultivated with cardamom and not some other<\/p>\n
area. The respondents have not chosen to come out with a categoric<\/p>\n
statement that the entire area notified in Ext.P6 is scattered with<\/p>\n
cardamom cultivation. As such, I am not inclined to accept the<\/p>\n
averment in the statement as one constituting a contention that the<\/p>\n
entire area notified is scattered with cardamom cultivation.<\/p>\n
w.p.c.22028\/06                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
      In view of my above findings, I am satisfied that only 58 acres of<\/p>\n
the petitioner’s property can be notified under Section 5. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 notification to that extent concerning the petitioner’s property is<\/p>\n
quashed. It would be open to the respondent State to notify the said<\/p>\n
58 acres under Section 5 by a separate notification.<\/p>\n
      The writ petition is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
sdk+                                             S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE\n\n          \/\/\/True copy\/\/\/\n\n\n\n\n                               P.A. to Judge\n\n<\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 22028 of 2006(V) 1. JOSEPH ABRAHAM, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF For Petitioner :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-194297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJoseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 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\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-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=\"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-24T19:32:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-24T19:32:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1507,\"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\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-24T19:32:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 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":"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 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\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-24T19:32:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-24T19:32:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010"},"wordCount":1507,"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\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010","name":"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-24T19:32:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joseph-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-25-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joseph Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 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\/194297","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=194297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}