{"id":20128,"date":"2008-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008"},"modified":"2014-07-20T18:25:29","modified_gmt":"2014-07-20T12:55:29","slug":"john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 381 of 2006()\n\n\n1. JOHN JOSEPH, S\/O.GEORGE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.A.HAMEED, KOLLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.DEVADANAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.V.SABU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :17\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n              CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006\n            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n       Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008.\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      This revision is preferred against the judgment of the<\/p>\n
4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.A.1141\/05.<\/p>\n
The said appeal arose out of the conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
passed in C.C.358\/99 of the Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam. The revision petitioner was convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months<\/p>\n
and to pay a fine of Rs.3,10,000\/- and in default to undergo<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment for one month. The matter when taken<\/p>\n
up in appeal, was dismissed by the appellate court. It is<\/p>\n
against that decision the present revision is preferred.<\/p>\n
      2.   Heard the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner as well as the respondent. It is the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,00,000\/- and towards discharge of the same, had<\/p>\n
issued a cheque drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd. which<\/p>\n
when    presented    for  encashment     returned    with the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006
\n                                -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
endorsement of insufficiency of funds. Therefore statutory<\/p>\n
notice was issued and on account of the non payment<\/p>\n
prosecution has been launched u\/s 138 of the N.I. Act.<\/p>\n
      3.   The case of the revision petitioner is that he was<\/p>\n
an employee under the complainant and there was some<\/p>\n
misunderstanding between the two and on the day when he<\/p>\n
went to the house of the complainant to deposit the chitty<\/p>\n
amount collected, he was restrained, manhandled and was<\/p>\n
forced to write a cheque and it is on the basis of that cheque<\/p>\n
action has been initiated.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   In the trial court PW1 and DWs.1 to 6 were<\/p>\n
examined. Exts.P1 to P9 and D1 and D1(a) were marked.<\/p>\n
Both the Courts concurrently found against the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner on facts.   The learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner has mainly argued on two points, one namely, the<\/p>\n
non receipt of notice and secondly lack of evidence regarding<\/p>\n
the transaction alleged in the complaint.<\/p>\n
      5.   Let me first consider about the notice. Ext.P6 is<\/p>\n
the copy of the notice issued on 9.7.98 by Advocate K.V.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006
\n                                -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sabu and it is addressed to Mr.John Joseph, son of George,<\/p>\n
Anjiparambil house, Vennala now residing at Cardinal<\/p>\n
Quarters, Thrikkakara, B.M.C.P.O.      Exts.P7 and P8 would<\/p>\n
reveal that it was entrusted to universal couriers for service<\/p>\n
and Ext.P7 indicates that the revision petitioner had received<\/p>\n
notice. It is argued by the learned counsel that there is no<\/p>\n
address shown in the courier document and there has not<\/p>\n
been any tender of notice and therefore has disputed its<\/p>\n
existence. It can be seen from the notice, in the complaint<\/p>\n
as well as in the revision petition the very same address is<\/p>\n
given and therefore there is always a presumption that it has<\/p>\n
been duly tendered unless concrete rebuttable evidence is<\/p>\n
adduced against that. It has also come out in evidence that<\/p>\n
courier service was utilized for the reason that there was<\/p>\n
some postal strike at that point of time. It is a well settled<\/p>\n
proposition under the law if a letter is addressed with proper<\/p>\n
address there is a presumption of service and the Apex Court<\/p>\n
has even held that in such cases it is the duty of the<\/p>\n
addressee who is leaving out of the place to furnish these<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006
\n                                 -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
details before the postal authorities for the purpose of<\/p>\n
serving notice in new address.      But as stated by me earlier<\/p>\n
there is no such change of address in this case and address<\/p>\n
is exactly the same in all the documents and therefore the<\/p>\n
contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
that notice has not been received cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
      6.   Now, let me consider about the factual matrix.<\/p>\n
Sitting in revisional jurisdiction the power to re-appreciate<\/p>\n
evidence is limited and unless there is manifest illegality or<\/p>\n
mis appreciation it may not be proper for a revisional Court<\/p>\n
to substitute its views on the concurrent finding on facts.<\/p>\n
But for the sake of satisfaction I had gone through the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 and the evidence of defence witnesses.<\/p>\n
PW1 is the power of attorney holder of the complainant. It is<\/p>\n
a settled proposition of law that the power of attorney holder<\/p>\n
is not competent to give evidence with respect to the matter<\/p>\n
unless he is personally aware of the transaction.      Here a<\/p>\n
reading of the evidence of PW1 would reveal that he had<\/p>\n
personal   knowledge     about     the  transaction  and   his<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006
\n                              -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
acquaintance with the complainant is even put in cross-<\/p>\n
examination in the form of a question that he along with the<\/p>\n
complainant had restrained the accused in this case. It is<\/p>\n
true that he is not able to give minutest details asked for<\/p>\n
with respect to the other transactions of the complainant.<\/p>\n
That is not possible at any rate and therefore I find the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 who has got personal knowledge has been<\/p>\n
properly analysed by the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Regarding the accused, namely the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner, only his wife had been examined and what she<\/p>\n
has deposed about the cheque according to herself is only<\/p>\n
hearsay. She does not have any personal knowledge. The<\/p>\n
other witnesses are examined just to establish that the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner was working as an employee of the<\/p>\n
complainant. The crux of the case is regarding the execution<\/p>\n
of the cheque. Suppose a person is wrongfully restrained<\/p>\n
and he is made to execute a cheque necessarily he would<\/p>\n
have approached appropriate authorities for redressal of the<\/p>\n
grievance. There is no other case for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006
\n                                -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
in this case. Secondly the case of the revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
that he had gone to the house of the complainant when he<\/p>\n
was restrained and forced to write a cheque. One cannot<\/p>\n
accept the story that this man will always carry a cheque-leaf<\/p>\n
with him so as to sign it and give it to the complainant. So<\/p>\n
the evidence tendered is not trustworthy. I am conscious of<\/p>\n
the fact that u\/s 315 Cr.P.C. the accused shall not be<\/p>\n
compelled to give evidence and one is not expected to pick<\/p>\n
holes on them. But at the same time it has been held in<\/p>\n
catena of decisions that when evidence is adduced by both<\/p>\n
sides it is the preponderance of probabilities that is to be<\/p>\n
looked into to arrive at the credibility of the evidence.<\/p>\n
      8.    So far as Ext.P1 cheque is concerned PW1 who<\/p>\n
has been associated with the complainant and who was<\/p>\n
present at the time of the transaction had given evidence<\/p>\n
regarding its execution and therefore execution of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
stands proved.        When it is proved then there is a<\/p>\n
presumption under the provisions of the N.I.Act which of<\/p>\n
course is rebuttable. But the rebuttable evidence is not<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006
\n                                 -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfactory so as to discharge the burden cast on the person<\/p>\n
who denies the same. Therefore on an analysis of the entire<\/p>\n
materials I have no hesitation to hold that there was a<\/p>\n
proper service of notice and that the complainant had<\/p>\n
satisfactorily established the case of execution of the cheque,<\/p>\n
presentation of the cheque for encashment, return of cheque<\/p>\n
for insufficiency of funds and compliance of other statutory<\/p>\n
requirements under the N.I.Act.       Therefore the conviction<\/p>\n
passed by both the Courts below has to be confirmed.<\/p>\n
      9.    Now on the question of sentence.           Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioner requests for leniency on<\/p>\n
the sentence. If there is a mind to pay the amount he need<\/p>\n
not be unnecessarily send to jail. Therefore I am inclined to<\/p>\n
show leniency in modifying the sentence by reducing it to<\/p>\n
one till the raising of the Court and alter the compensation<\/p>\n
u\/s 357(3) to one as fine with a direction to pay the amount<\/p>\n
to the defacto complainant.      In the result the revision is<\/p>\n
disposed of as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P. NO. 381 OF 2006
\n                                -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
      (1)    The conviction u\/s 138 of the N.I. Act is<\/p>\n
confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
      (2) The revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment till the raising of the Court and to pay a<\/p>\n
fine of Rs.3,00,000\/- which on realisation shall be paid to the<\/p>\n
defacto complainant. In the event of any default the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
one month. He is directed to appear before the trial court for<\/p>\n
receiving the sentence on 14.1.09 and also to pay the fine.<\/p>\n
In default of it, the trial court is directed to execute the<\/p>\n
sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
ul\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 381 of 2006() 1. JOHN JOSEPH, S\/O.GEORGE, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.A.HAMEED, KOLLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.J.DEVADANAM For Respondent :SRI.K.V.SABU The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN […]<\/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-20128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJohn Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008 - 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\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-20T12:55:29+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=\"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\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-20T12:55:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1451,\"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\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008\",\"name\":\"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-20T12:55:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008 - 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\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-20T12:55:29+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-20T12:55:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008"},"wordCount":1451,"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\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008","name":"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-20T12:55:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/john-joseph-vs-k-a-hameed-on-17-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"John Joseph vs K.A.Hameed on 17 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/20128","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=20128"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20128\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}