{"id":213630,"date":"2009-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-02T16:39:09","modified_gmt":"2017-01-02T11:09:09","slug":"kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 362 of 2002()\n\n\n1. KAMALAKANTHAN, S\/O.KARUNAKARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUTTANAD RANGE.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :20\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                           P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.\n                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                           Crl.R.P.No.362 OF 2002\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009\n\n                                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.141\/1997 of Judicial<\/p>\n
First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary and appellant in Crl.Appeal<\/p>\n
No.266\/1998 of Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track), Alappuzha.<\/p>\n
He was convicted under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act and sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs. 25,000\/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three<\/p>\n
months which is confirmed in appeal. The accused has now come up in<\/p>\n
revision challenging his conviction and sentence.<\/p>\n
      2.    The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before<\/p>\n
the trial court was that on March 23, 1997 at about 6 p.m. he was found<\/p>\n
to be carrying 1 = litres of illicit arrack in a jerry can at Kumarankary<\/p>\n
and that thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a)<\/p>\n
and 58 of Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded<\/p>\n
not guilty to a charge under Section 55(a) and 58 of Abkari Act.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.362\/02               Page numbers<\/p>\n
PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked<\/p>\n
on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under Section 313 of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C by the trial court, the accused denied the entire incident and<\/p>\n
submitted that one Gopalakrishnan and his labourers were drinking<\/p>\n
liquor in his paddy field, that on seeing the excise party, they ran away<\/p>\n
leaving the jerry can containing the liquor and that he was falsely<\/p>\n
implicated in this case due to previous enmity. No defence evidence<\/p>\n
was adduced.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a)<\/p>\n
of Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as<\/p>\n
aforesaid. The trial court has found that though accused was charged<\/p>\n
under Section 55(a) and 58 of Abkari Act, as the offence is only<\/p>\n
possession of illicit arrack, he was convicted under Section 55(a) and<\/p>\n
not under Section 58.       Now the accused has come up in revision<\/p>\n
challenging his conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the<\/p>\n
learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.362\/02              Page numbers<\/p>\n
      6.     The following points arise for consideration :<\/p>\n
                      1)   Whether the conviction of the<\/p>\n
                revision petitioner under Section 55(a) of<\/p>\n
                Abkari Act rendered by the trial court which is<\/p>\n
                confirmed in appeal can be sustained ?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      2)   Whether the sentence imposed is<\/p>\n
                excessive or unduly harsh ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point No.1<\/p>\n
      7.     PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1<\/p>\n
were marked on the side of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the<\/p>\n
accused. PW1 was the then Excise Inspector of Kuttanad Range at the<\/p>\n
relevant time. PW2 was the then Preventive Officer. PW3 was the<\/p>\n
then Excise Inspector who detected the offence. PW2 and PW3 gave a<\/p>\n
consistent version regarding the seizure of contraband articles from the<\/p>\n
accused. No serious discrepancies or contradictions were pointed out<\/p>\n
in their evidence. Further it was not proved that they have any enmity<\/p>\n
towards the accused to foist a false case against him. Ext.P3 mahazar<\/p>\n
was prepared by PW3 . Therefore, in my view the trial court as well as<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.362\/02               Page numbers<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in believing the evidence<\/p>\n
of PWs 2 and 3 regarding the search and seizure of contraband articles<\/p>\n
from the accused. Ext.P2 the report of the Chemical Analyst shows<\/p>\n
that the sample was illicit arrack.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     The main argument advanced by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner was that there was considerable delay in producing<\/p>\n
the material objects before the court and that there is no evidence to<\/p>\n
show that the sample analysed by chemical analyst was the sample<\/p>\n
taken from the accused. I am unable to agree. Merely there is some<\/p>\n
delay in producing the material objects in court is not a ground to doubt<\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution. The sample was taken from the court and<\/p>\n
sent to chemical analyst. There was no evidence to show that material<\/p>\n
object was tampered with or the same was substituted. Mere delay in<\/p>\n
producing the material objects in court is not a ground to reject the<\/p>\n
report of the chemical analyst.\n<\/p>\n
      9.     Learned counsel for the revision petitioner arguing the<\/p>\n
revision submitted that no opportunity was given to accused to cross<\/p>\n
examine PW1, the investigating officer which caused much prejudice<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.362\/02                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
to the accused . There is no substance in the above contention. No<\/p>\n
steps were taken by the accused to recall PW1 for cross examination.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the above contention of accused.<\/p>\n
For all these reasons, I am inclined to hold that the trial court as well as<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in accepting the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced on the side of the prosecution and holding that the prosecution<\/p>\n
has succeeded in proving that accused was found in possession of 1 =<\/p>\n
litres of illicit arrack as alleged by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
       Point No.2<\/p>\n
       10.    The next question for consideration is whether the charge<\/p>\n
under Section 55(a) will lie against the accused. The accused was<\/p>\n
found to be in possession of 1 = litres of illicit arrack. A Single Bench<\/p>\n
of this court in Sachidanandan v. State of Kerala<\/a> ( 2006 KHC 1932)<\/p>\n
has held that Section 55(a) of Abkari Act applies only when a person<\/p>\n
is in possession of illicit liquor while importing, exporting or<\/p>\n
transporting it. When there is mere possession of illicit liquor, Section<\/p>\n
58 would be applicable.         Therefore the conviction of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner under Section 55(a) cannot be sustained and is hereby set<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.362\/02               Page numbers<\/p>\n
aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 58 of Abkari Act.<\/p>\n
      Point No.2<\/p>\n
      11.    As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence<\/p>\n
of rigorous      imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs. 25,000\/-. I have set aside the conviction under Section 55(a) and<\/p>\n
convicted the accused under Section 58 of Abkari Act. The incident<\/p>\n
occurred on March 23, 1996.            During that period, punishment<\/p>\n
prescribed under Section 58 of Abkari Act was fine which may extend<\/p>\n
to Rs. 15,000\/- or imprisonment which may extend to two years. As<\/p>\n
the incident is of the year 1997 and the quantity of illicit arrack found<\/p>\n
in possession of the accused is only 1 = litres, I feel that a sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs. 15,000\/- would<\/p>\n
meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction<\/p>\n
of the revision petitioner under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act is set aside<\/p>\n
and he is convicted under Section 58 of Abkari Act. Sentence is<\/p>\n
modified to the effect that he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till<\/p>\n
the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000\/-, in default, to<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.362\/02               Page numbers<\/p>\n
undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner<\/p>\n
shall surrender before the trial court on or before 15-12-2009 to receive<\/p>\n
the sentence. Two month’s time is granted for payment of fine. If any<\/p>\n
portion of the fine amount is deposited by the revision petitioner before<\/p>\n
the trial court, the same shall be adjusted towards the fine amount. His<\/p>\n
bail bonds are cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  P.Q.BARKATH ALI
\n                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
sv.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.362\/02    Page numbers\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 362 of 2002() 1. KAMALAKANTHAN, S\/O.KARUNAKARAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUTTANAD RANGE. … Respondent 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 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-213630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 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\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-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=\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-02T11:09:09+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-02T11:09:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1203,\"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\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-02T11:09:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 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":"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 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\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-02T11:09:09+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-02T11:09:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009"},"wordCount":1203,"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\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009","name":"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-02T11:09:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakanthan-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamalakanthan vs The Excise Inspector on 20 November, 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\/213630","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=213630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}