{"id":212679,"date":"2009-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009"},"modified":"2014-01-20T14:27:28","modified_gmt":"2014-01-20T08:57:28","slug":"rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 542 of 2002()\n\n\n1. RAJAPPAN, S\/O.KESAVAN,PALATHARA VEEDU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,KUTTANAD RANGE.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :03\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         Crl.R.P.No.542 of 2002\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Dated: 3rd April, 2009\n\n                                   ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The challenge in the revision is against the concurrent verdict of<\/p>\n
guilty rendered against the revision petitioner\/accused for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act (for short ‘the Act’). The<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate, after trial, negativing the plea of not guilty raised<\/p>\n
by the accused, found him guilty and he was thereupon convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to<\/p>\n
pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- with default term of simple imprisonment for<\/p>\n
three months. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
upheld the conviction and sentence without any modification.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved   by    the    conviction     and     sentence,      impeaching its<\/p>\n
correctness, the accused has preferred this revision.<\/p>\n
      2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the excise party<\/p>\n
headed by P.W.1 at about 1.30 P.M. on 6.1.1996 found the accused<\/p>\n
carrying a jerry can containing 15 liters of wash beside a public<\/p>\n
pathway, within the limits of Kuttanadu Excise Range. The sample<\/p>\n
was collected from the contraband and sealed at the spot and Ext.P1<\/p>\n
mahazar was prepared over the seizure of the contraband. Accused<\/p>\n
arrested was later enlarged on bail. P.W.5, the Excise Inspector,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.542\/02                – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Kuttanadu Range, after completing the investigation of the crime<\/p>\n
registered over the seizure laid the report before the court indicting<\/p>\n
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled.<\/p>\n
Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5, got marked Exts.P1 to P4 and<\/p>\n
identified M.O.1 to prove its case. When questioned under Section<\/p>\n
313 Cr.P.C., the accused reiterating his plea of innocence advanced a<\/p>\n
defence that a jaggery solution prepared and kept at his house for<\/p>\n
making sweets was collected in a jerry can by the excise party who<\/p>\n
conducted raid over his house at the instance of one Baby, employed<\/p>\n
in the excise department, who was on inimical terms with him.<\/p>\n
Setting up such a defence, the accused examined two witnesses as<\/p>\n
D.Ws.1 and 2. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the<\/p>\n
materials produced found the accused guilty of the offence charged<\/p>\n
and he was convicted and sentenced, which was confirmed by the<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge in appeal, as already indicated.<\/p>\n
      4. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and<\/p>\n
also the learned Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The conviction of the accused for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
55(g) of the Act is challenged by the counsel advancing an argument<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.542\/02                – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
that wash would not come within the definition of liquor. Though such<\/p>\n
a line of attack was canvassed in fairness to the counsel, it was not<\/p>\n
pursued probably in view of the judicial pronouncements rendered by<\/p>\n
this court time and again that wash containing small percentage of<\/p>\n
alcohol is liquor and it squarely comes under “matter” or “material”<\/p>\n
covered by Section 55(g) of the Act. But the main line of attack which<\/p>\n
was pursued by the learned counsel to assail the conviction of the<\/p>\n
accused was built on the premise that to sustain a charge under<\/p>\n
Section 55(g) of the Act, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to<\/p>\n
prove the possession of the matter or material, but, it should also<\/p>\n
establish that such possession was “for the purpose of manufacturing<\/p>\n
liquor other than toddy or any intoxicating drug”. So, in short, the<\/p>\n
argument presented by the counsel was that mere proof of<\/p>\n
possession of wash with the accused is incapable of bringing home<\/p>\n
the guilt under Section 55(g) of the Act, it should be established that<\/p>\n
he had kept such wash for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. I<\/p>\n
cannot agree with the submission made by the learned counsel. In<\/p>\n
Kittunny v. State of Kerala (1981 KLT (Sh.Notes) page 69(Case<\/p>\n
No.124), this court has held that keeping or    being in possession of<\/p>\n
wash for distillation will come under Section 55(g) of the Act. No<\/p>\n
burden is cast upon the prosecution once possession of the wash is<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.542\/02                – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
proved with the accused that he had kept such material with him for<\/p>\n
the purpose of manufacturing liquor to sustain a conviction under<\/p>\n
Section 55(g) of the Act against him. Once possession of the wash<\/p>\n
with the accused is established by the prosecution, it is for him to<\/p>\n
account for such possession that it was not for the purpose of<\/p>\n
manufacture of liquor, but for some other justifiable purpose.<\/p>\n
Presumption covered by Section 55 of the Act that it shall be<\/p>\n
presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused who was<\/p>\n
found with possession of the matter or material whatsoever for the<\/p>\n
manufacture of liquor shall be deemed to have committed the offence<\/p>\n
under the Act applies with full force. On the facts presented in the<\/p>\n
case, even by the defence version set up by the accused, he has<\/p>\n
practically conceded to the possession of the wash which was seized.<\/p>\n
His version that seizure was from his house and it was only a<\/p>\n
preparation of jaggery solution was found devoid of any merit by both<\/p>\n
the courts below. The learned Magistrate found the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.Ws.1 and 4, the excise officials, as regards the seizure of the wash<\/p>\n
from the possession of the accused at a public place credible and<\/p>\n
trustworthy.     The learned    Additional   Sessions   Judge,    after<\/p>\n
reappreciation of the evidence, approved the finding of the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate that the contraband was seized from the possession of the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.542\/02                – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
accused as alleged by the prosecution. The analysis report prepared<\/p>\n
over the sample exhibited as Ext.P4 disclosed that the sample<\/p>\n
contained 3.65 % ethyl alcohol by volume, substantiating the case of<\/p>\n
the prosecution that the contraband seized was wash. The evidence<\/p>\n
of P.Ws.1 and 4, the excise officials, who had sufficient experience in<\/p>\n
detecting and identifying ‘wash’ from other types of liquor also lend<\/p>\n
assurance to conclude that the contraband seized from the accused<\/p>\n
was wash falling within the material used for the purpose of<\/p>\n
manufacturing liquor. The concurrent verdict of guilty passed against<\/p>\n
the accused by the two courts below for the offence under Section 55<\/p>\n
(g) of the Act is seen fully supported by the legal evidence tendered<\/p>\n
in the case, and there is no merit in the revision challenging his<\/p>\n
conviction. Sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate and<\/p>\n
approved by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal is found to be not<\/p>\n
excessive, but adequate commensurating with the gravity of the<\/p>\n
offence proved against the accused. Sentence also, therefore, does<\/p>\n
not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
      The revision is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                           S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 542 of 2002() 1. RAJAPPAN, S\/O.KESAVAN,PALATHARA VEEDU, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,KUTTANAD RANGE. … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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-212679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009 - 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\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-20T08:57:28+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-20T08:57:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1103,\"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\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-20T08:57:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009 - 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\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-20T08:57:28+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-20T08:57:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009"},"wordCount":1103,"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\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009","name":"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-20T08:57:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajappan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajappan vs The Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/212679","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=212679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}