{"id":201352,"date":"2008-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-20T18:53:07","modified_gmt":"2016-05-20T13:23:07","slug":"sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 865 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. SAJEEV\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. JAYAKUMAR.P.K.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :29\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n           ---------------------------------------------\n                Crl.A.No. 865 of 2001 - C\n           ---------------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
           This appeal arises at the instance of the<\/p>\n
complainant against the judgment dated 28.3.2001 in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.369 of 1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate<\/p>\n
Court-II, Cherthala by which the court below acquitted the<\/p>\n
first respondent\/accused under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
      2.   On the allegation that the complainant had<\/p>\n
advanced a sum of Rs.74,000\/- to the accused and towards<\/p>\n
the said liability, the accused had issued the cheque in<\/p>\n
question for an amount of Rs.74,000\/- and when the<\/p>\n
complainant presented the same for encashment, it was<\/p>\n
dishonoured for want of insufficient fund in the account<\/p>\n
maintained by the accused. Consequently, it is claimed<\/p>\n
that he had caused to send a notice to the accused, but he<\/p>\n
did not care to issue any reply and hence, he preferred the<\/p>\n
complaint for prosecuting the accused under Section 138<\/p>\n
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court below took<\/p>\n
cognizance upon the above complaint and instituted<\/p>\n
C.C.No.369 of 1998 and when the accused appeared, the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                            :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
particulars were read over to him to which he pleaded<\/p>\n
not guilty which resulted in further trial during which<\/p>\n
the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and<\/p>\n
produced Exts.P1 to P7 as documentary evidence from<\/p>\n
his side.    From the side of the defence, though no<\/p>\n
documentary       evidence  was    adduced,    DW1    was<\/p>\n
examined. The trial court, based upon the contentions<\/p>\n
advanced by the parties and materials, framed two<\/p>\n
issues for its consideration.    Finally, the court below<\/p>\n
found that there is no bona fide in the complaint and the<\/p>\n
complainant has failed to establish that the accused<\/p>\n
issued Ext.P1 cheque towards the discharge of legal<\/p>\n
debt, which is due towards the complainant and thus,<\/p>\n
the accused is found not guilty and accordingly, he is<\/p>\n
acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. It is the above<\/p>\n
order of acquittal which is challenged in this appeal.<\/p>\n
      3.   I have heard Mr.T.H.Abdul Azeez, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the appellant and also Mr.J.Om<\/p>\n
Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the first<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                           :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Learned counsel for the appellant submits<\/p>\n
that the finding arrived on by the court below is wrong<\/p>\n
and when the accused admitted the issuance of cheque,<\/p>\n
the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act is in<\/p>\n
favour of the complainant and he need not further<\/p>\n
establish the liability due from the accused to the<\/p>\n
complainant. On the strength of the decision reported in<\/p>\n
General Auto Sales v. Vijayalakshmi<\/a> [2005(1) KLT<\/p>\n
478], counsel submits that the bounced cheque given by<\/p>\n
guarantor comes within the fold of Section 138. So,<\/p>\n
according to counsel for the appellant, as and when the<\/p>\n
cheque in question was admittedly issued by the<\/p>\n
accused, the presumption will be in favour of the<\/p>\n
holder\/complainant and therefore, the finding of the<\/p>\n
court below is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Per contra, counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
submits that the consistent defence taken by the<\/p>\n
accused is to the effect that he had received only an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.10,000\/- from the complainant and there is<\/p>\n
no financial liability more than the amount so admitted<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                          :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
and therefore, no cheque for an amount of Rs.74,000\/-<\/p>\n
was issued to the complainant as claimed by him and<\/p>\n
therefore, in the absence of any legally recoverable debt<\/p>\n
due to the complainant, no liability under Section 138<\/p>\n
can be fixed against the accused, counsel for the first<\/p>\n
respondent submits.      Thus, counsel for the first<\/p>\n
respondent, supporting the judgment of the court below,<\/p>\n
submits that no interference of this Court is warranted<\/p>\n
in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   I have carefully considered the contentions<\/p>\n
advanced by learned counsel and also perused the<\/p>\n
materials available. As pointed out earlier, the case of<\/p>\n
the complainant is that on demand from the side of the<\/p>\n
accused, he had advanced a sum of Rs.74,000\/- and<\/p>\n
towards the discharge of the said debt, the first<\/p>\n
respondent\/accused issued the cheque in question.<\/p>\n
During his examination as a witness, the complainant<\/p>\n
gave oral evidence regarding the source of money which<\/p>\n
he gave to the accused.     He had also admitted that<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                           :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
altogether there were four cases and also claimed that<\/p>\n
certain persons witnessed the transaction. But, during<\/p>\n
trial, apart from his deposition, no other materials are<\/p>\n
brought to the notice of the court to substantiate the<\/p>\n
alleged transaction between the complainant and the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The court below had held that the accused<\/p>\n
had succeeded in discharging his burden to rebut the<\/p>\n
presumption in favour of the complainant under Section<\/p>\n
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. One of the<\/p>\n
grounds noticed by the court below for the above<\/p>\n
conclusion is that the complainant failed to mention the<\/p>\n
actual date of transaction in the complaint.           In<\/p>\n
paragraph 12 of the judgment, the court below shows<\/p>\n
that the accused had made an attempt to establish the<\/p>\n
defence story during his 313 statement and it is further<\/p>\n
stated that the accused has proved his case for rebutting<\/p>\n
the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. But,<\/p>\n
there is no elaborate discussion on this aspect.<\/p>\n
      8.   In Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of<\/a> 2001<\/p>\n
                           :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
Hegde [2008(1) KLT 425 (SC)], the Apex Court had<\/p>\n
held that Section 139 of the Act merely raises a<\/p>\n
presumption with regard to the second aspect of the<\/p>\n
matter and existence of legally recoverable debt is not a<\/p>\n
matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Act. It<\/p>\n
was further held that it merely raised a presumption in<\/p>\n
favour of a holder of the cheque and the same had been<\/p>\n
issued for discharge of any debt or other liability. But, it<\/p>\n
was observed therein that the courts below proceeded<\/p>\n
on the basis that Section 139 raises a presumption with<\/p>\n
regard to the existence of a debt also.<\/p>\n
      9.   In the very same decision, the Apex Court had<\/p>\n
held that an accused, for discharging burden of proof,<\/p>\n
placed upon him under a statute need not examine<\/p>\n
himself and he may discharge his burden on the basis of<\/p>\n
materials already brought on records. It was also held<\/p>\n
that where chances of false implication cannot be ruled<\/p>\n
out, background fact and conduct of parties together<\/p>\n
with their legal requirements are required to be taken<\/p>\n
into account. In the particular facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                             :-7-:\n<\/p>\n
involved in the case, it can be seen that the accused has<\/p>\n
also admitted transaction between himself and the<\/p>\n
complainant, but his dispute is with respect to the<\/p>\n
limitation of his financial liability. According to him, he<\/p>\n
had borrowed only Rs.10,000\/- whereas according to the<\/p>\n
complainant, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.74,000\/-.<\/p>\n
Regarding this aspect, there is no concrete evidence.<\/p>\n
The complainant though had averred in the complaint<\/p>\n
that he had advanced a sum of Rs.74,000\/- to the first<\/p>\n
respondent\/accused, there are no details regarding the<\/p>\n
transaction and supporting evidence.          Though the<\/p>\n
complainant had stated that the transaction was<\/p>\n
witnessed by certain other persons, they were not<\/p>\n
examined.        It is also stated by him during the<\/p>\n
examination that the cheque in question was duly filled<\/p>\n
by the accused and he had put his signature before the<\/p>\n
complainant. The above claim is not seen substantiated<\/p>\n
by sufficient evidences. Though the trial court in the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment had stated that the accused had<\/p>\n
rebutted the presumption under Section 139, there is no<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                           :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
discussion on this aspect. Of course, as pointed out in<\/p>\n
the decision of the Apex Court cited supra, the accused<\/p>\n
need not himself examine in the box for the discharge of<\/p>\n
his burden to rebut the presumption, but there must be<\/p>\n
some material to substantiate his claim. He admits that<\/p>\n
he had received only Rs.10,000\/-, for which also there is<\/p>\n
no other material.       Therefore, mere suggestion,<\/p>\n
especially in the particular facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
involved in the case, is not sufficient to make out a<\/p>\n
probable case. Hence, it cannot be held that the defence<\/p>\n
has succeeded in probabilising a defence case. So,<\/p>\n
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
involved in the case, I am of the opinion that the court<\/p>\n
can come into a fresh decision based upon the materials<\/p>\n
to be adduced before it, in case the matter is sent back<\/p>\n
to the same court for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
      10. In the light of the above discussion and the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances involved in the case and in view<\/p>\n
of the decision of the Apex Court mentioned above, it<\/p>\n
will be just and proper to remit the matter for fresh<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                            :-9-:\n<\/p>\n
consideration of the court below, with opportunity to the<\/p>\n
parties to adduce fresh evidence, if so, they are advised.<\/p>\n
Thus, for enabling the court to take a fresh decision, the<\/p>\n
impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted<\/p>\n
back for fresh consideration and the parties are at<\/p>\n
liberty to adduce evidence. The parties are directed to<\/p>\n
appear before the court below on 31.10.2008 on which<\/p>\n
date the court is directed to take up the complaint on file<\/p>\n
and to proceed in accordance with law and dispose of<\/p>\n
the same, as expeditiously as possible.<\/p>\n
           This Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                                      V.K.Mohanan,
\n                                          Judge<\/p>\n
MBS\/<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                        :-10-:\n<\/p>\n
                                 V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                        ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                 Crl.A.NO.865 OF 2001\n<\/p>\n
                         ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                    J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                                DATED: 29-9-2008<\/p>\n
Crl.A.NO.865 of 2001<\/p>\n
                        :-11-:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 865 of 2001() 1. SAJEEV … Petitioner Vs 1. JAYAKUMAR.P.K. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ For Respondent :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated :29\/09\/2008 O R D E R V.K.MOHANAN, J. ——————————————— Crl.A.No. […]<\/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-201352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 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\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-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=\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-20T13:23:07+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\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T13:23:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1588,\"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\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T13:23:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 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":"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 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\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-20T13:23:07+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\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T13:23:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008"},"wordCount":1588,"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\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008","name":"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T13:23:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajeev-vs-jayakumar-p-k-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sajeev vs Jayakumar.P.K on 29 September, 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\/201352","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=201352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201352\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}