{"id":196820,"date":"2007-05-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007"},"modified":"2017-03-29T12:43:30","modified_gmt":"2017-03-29T07:13:30","slug":"p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 14813 of 1997(L)\n\n\n\n1. P.N.RAVINDRANATHAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. FCI,MADRAS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.R.RAVI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :23\/05\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n              THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.\n\n                      -------------------------------------------\n\n                          O.P.No.14813 OF 1997\n\n                     -------------------------------------------\n\n                 Dated this the 23rd  day of May, 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The   writ   petitioner,   then   a   First   Grade   Assistant   in   the<\/p>\n
service of the first respondent Food Corporation of India, had to<\/p>\n
perform  his  duties, which  included the briefing  of the  Standing<\/p>\n
Counsel for the FCI before this Court.   As part of his duties and<\/p>\n
responsibilities, he, according to him, attended the office of the<\/p>\n
Standing Counsel  of the FCI at Ernakulam on the 12th, 13th, 14th,<\/p>\n
19th  and   20th  of   March,   1994.     On   such   basis,   he   placed   his<\/p>\n
Travelling   Allowance   and   Dearness   Allowance   bills.     He   also<\/p>\n
drew the allowances.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The   employer   first   respondent,   through   its   supervisory<\/p>\n
officers, came to a tentative view that the claim for TA and other<\/p>\n
amounts   was   not   transparent.     They   termed   it   as   a   case   of<\/p>\n
cheating   the   employer.               This   resulted   in   disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings.     The   competent   authority   ordered   a   domestic<\/p>\n
inquiry.     The   disciplinary   proceedings   culminated   in   the<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
imposition of penalty of  barring of three increments.  Challenge<\/p>\n
to   that   within   the   realm   of   administrative   hierarchy   failed.\n<\/p>\n
Hence this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
3.      The  learned counsel for the petitioner, after having  taken<\/p>\n
me   through   different   aspects   of   the   case   on   facts,   merits   and<\/p>\n
evidence,   ultimately urged that Ext.P4 certificate issued by the<\/p>\n
Standing  Counsel   regarding   the  attendance   of  the  petitioner   in<\/p>\n
the   office   of   the   Standing   Counsel   ought   not   to   have   been<\/p>\n
brushed   aside   but   ought   to   have   been   relied   on   as   a   credible<\/p>\n
material.     He   further   urged   that   if   it   were   the   intention   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner to cheat and make unlawful gain, the modus operandi<\/p>\n
would have been different.  He also argued that the  information<\/p>\n
allegedly   obtained   by   the   employer   FCI   from   the   Southern<\/p>\n
Railways   was   not   proved   in   the   inquiry   and   the   generation   of<\/p>\n
that   communication    is   shadowed.     This  is   said   by  pointing   out<\/p>\n
that   the   communication   by   the   Southern   Railways   to   the   FCI<\/p>\n
does   not   appear   to   be   an   official   one,   but   was   apparently   a<\/p>\n
confidential   one   in  the  name  cover  of  a  superior   officer    in  the<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                   Page numbers<\/p>\n
FCI viz. Sri.Narayanan Moosath.   It is also pointed out that the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry<\/p>\n
officer as far as the  second charge is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner   vis-a-vis   the   submissions   on   behalf   of  the   FCI   by  the<\/p>\n
Standing   Counsel,   it   has   to   be   first   noticed   that   no   case   of<\/p>\n
personal   bias,   malice   or   malafides   is   alleged   as   against   the<\/p>\n
enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority as such.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Along   with   memo   of   charges   was   an   appendix,   which<\/p>\n
enlisted seven documents.   The case against the petitioner, in a<\/p>\n
nutshell, is that the Railway  tickets which he held out as used by<\/p>\n
him for travel from Palakkad to Ernakulam on 12th and 19th were<\/p>\n
tickets which were issued by the Railways only on 13th and 20th of<\/p>\n
March,   1994   respectively.     The   next   aspect   of   the   case   is   that<\/p>\n
though   he   presented   only   tickets   for   travel   by   First   Class,   he<\/p>\n
claimed TA  by Second  Class  A\/c tickets which  are   costlier  than<\/p>\n
First   Class   tickets.     Though   such   claim   and   drawal   of   TA   and<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
other allowances for the Second Class A\/c tickets were made, the<\/p>\n
materials did not include any evidence of the alleged conversion<\/p>\n
of the First Class tickets to Second Class A\/c tickets as claimed<\/p>\n
by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
6.        The   petitioner   was   put   to   notice   of   the   materials   being<\/p>\n
considered   in   the   inquiry.     He   was   admittedly   given   an<\/p>\n
opportunity to place his defence and meet the accusation.                      He<\/p>\n
also   examined   two   defence   witnesses   to   prove   his   case   that   he<\/p>\n
had   reached   Ernakulam   on   the   12th  and   19th  respectively.     He<\/p>\n
also pressed into service a certificate, which is produced before<\/p>\n
this Court as Ext.P4, issued by the then Standing Counsel of FCI<\/p>\n
certifying   that   the   petitioner   had   attended   the   office   of   the<\/p>\n
Standing Counsel on the 12th, 13th  and 14th of March, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
7.    However,     glaring   at   him   were   the   communications   given<\/p>\n
by   the   competent   officers   of   the   Southern   Railways,     which<\/p>\n
categorically   show   that   the   ticket   numbers   relied   on   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner to claim TA were actually issued only on the 13th  and<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                   Page numbers<\/p>\n
20th  of March, 1994 respectively and not on the 12th  and 19th  of<\/p>\n
March, 1994 as claimed by him.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Confining the contentions to be in the realm of appreciation<\/p>\n
of   evidence   and   reminding   myself   of   the   parameters   of   judicial<\/p>\n
review   in   such   matters,   I   may   notice   that   even   if   Ext.P4<\/p>\n
certificate   issued   by   the   Standing   Counsel   regarding   the<\/p>\n
attendance of the petitioner in the office of the Standing Counsel<\/p>\n
was   given   the   entire   credit,   the   impugned   decision   cannot   be<\/p>\n
treated   as  perverse.     While   I   would   assume   that   the   certificate<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 is beyond challenge, all that the said certificate evidences<\/p>\n
is   that   the   petitioner   had   attended   the   office   of   the   Standing<\/p>\n
Counsel on the 12th  and 14th  also, apart from the other days.   It<\/p>\n
need not necessarily mean that he did not travel from Palakkad<\/p>\n
to Ernakulam on the 13th  and 20th.   May be it is a case where a<\/p>\n
person  can go back from Ernakulam to Palakkad and return  on<\/p>\n
the next day having regard to the availability of train service and<\/p>\n
the distance to be covered.   Under such circumstances,   even if<\/p>\n
Ext.P4   certificate   is   to   be   considered   as  I   would,   that   does   not<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                     Page numbers<\/p>\n
necessarily turn round the findings of the enquiry officer and the<\/p>\n
disciplinary   authority   to   treat   those   decisions   as   palpably<\/p>\n
perverse   and   so   unreasonable   that   it   would   not   have   been<\/p>\n
arrived at by any reasonably advised prudent person.\n<\/p>\n
9.     Now,   reverting   to   the   credibility   of   the   communication   of<\/p>\n
the Southern Railways to the FCI regarding the date of issuance<\/p>\n
of   the   tickets,     while   it   is   the   contention   of   the   petitioner   that<\/p>\n
there was no oral evidence in support of the documents, the said<\/p>\n
documents were notified to the petitioner before inquiry.  It does<\/p>\n
not   appear   from   the   materials   on   record   that   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
sought   for   examination   of   any   witnesses   to   discredit   the<\/p>\n
communication   by   the   Southern   Railways   to   the   FCI.     No<\/p>\n
personal interest or prejudice is pleaded or proved either during<\/p>\n
inquiry or in this writ proceedings as against the officials of the<\/p>\n
Southern Railways, touching the matter.\n<\/p>\n
10.      I   may   also   notice   and   remind   myself   in   this   context,   the<\/p>\n
principles   relating   to    presumptions   that   would   emanate   out   of<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
commonsense, which essentially is the basis for an   adjudicator<\/p>\n
to   understand   the   common   course   of   human   conduct.       This<\/p>\n
essentially   is   the   jurisprudential   background   and   legislative<\/p>\n
wisdom in the crafting of section 114 of the Evidence Act, which<\/p>\n
would apply to judicial  proceedings.   The principles therein  are<\/p>\n
founded   on   common   sense   and   would   aid   in   domestic   enquiry<\/p>\n
and     other   proceedings,   which   may   not   be   judical   proceedings<\/p>\n
and also in quazi-judicial proceedings, even if the Evidence Act,<\/p>\n
as such, may not apply to such proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
11.      The   Southern   Railways,   while   it   issues   a   communication<\/p>\n
regarding   the   contents   or   date   of   issuance   of   a   ticket,   has<\/p>\n
obviously   to   depend   upon   its   official   records   and   actions<\/p>\n
reflected by the records, the regularity and propriety of which is<\/p>\n
also   a   matter   of   presumption   and   is   to   be   presumed   except   in<\/p>\n
exceptional   situations.     Such   a   presumption   is   attached   to   the<\/p>\n
communication   given   by   the   Southern   Railways   to   the   FCI.\n<\/p>\n
While   such   a   presumption,   which   again   is   a   matter   of<\/p>\n
commonsense, is a permissible  one, it  may be open  to one who<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
challenges   it,   to   dislodge   that     presumption   using   any   of   the<\/p>\n
modes   as   are   known,     on   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the<\/p>\n
case. But, no attempt was made by the petitioner in the enquiry<\/p>\n
proceedings   to   dislodge   the   presumption   during   the   course   of<\/p>\n
the   inquiry.     Therefore,   the   communication   by   the   Railways   to<\/p>\n
the   FCI   is   a   material   which   sufficiently   supports   the   finding<\/p>\n
arrived at by the enquiry officer.\n<\/p>\n
12.    Having regard to what is aforesaid,  while giving  complete<\/p>\n
credit to Ext.P4 certificate, the contentions of the writ petitioner<\/p>\n
as   against   the   findings   under   charge   No.1   are   only   to   be<\/p>\n
rejected.     I do so.   I find no  unreasonableness or perversity in<\/p>\n
the  findings  entered  by  the  enquiry  officer   and  the  disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority as regards charge No.1.\n<\/p>\n
13.    The   findings   under   charge   No.2               are   essentially<\/p>\n
complimentary   or   dependent   upon   the   allegations   and   findings<\/p>\n
under   charge   No.1   relating   to   the   presentation   of   the   journey<\/p>\n
tickets as if they were tickets regarding journey on the 12th  and<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
                                   Page numbers<\/p>\n
19th of March, 1994.  Therefore, the disciplinary authority cannot<\/p>\n
be found fault with for having disagreed with the  enquiry officer<\/p>\n
on that count.\n<\/p>\n
14.       I also do not find any procedural illegality or irregularity in<\/p>\n
the matter of the disciplinary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
         In   the   result,   the   writ   petition   fails.     The   same   is<\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN<\/p>\n
                                                          Judge<\/p>\n
kkb.\n<\/p>\n
OP.14813\/97<\/p>\n
               Page numbers<\/p>\n
               =======================<\/p>\n
               THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J<\/p>\n
                               O.P.NO.14813 OF 1997<\/p>\n
                                    JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                 23rd    MAY, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
               =======================<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 14813 of 1997(L) 1. P.N.RAVINDRANATHAN … Petitioner Vs 1. FCI,MADRAS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.R.RAVI For Respondent :SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Dated :23\/05\/2007 O R D E R THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. […]<\/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-196820","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 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\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-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=\"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-29T07:13:30+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\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T07:13:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1479,\"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\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007\",\"name\":\"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T07:13:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 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":"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 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\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-29T07:13:30+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\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T07:13:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007"},"wordCount":1479,"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\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007","name":"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T07:13:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-ravindranathan-vs-fci-on-23-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.N.Ravindranathan vs Fci on 23 May, 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\/196820","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=196820"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196820\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}