{"id":215331,"date":"2009-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-13T18:50:51","modified_gmt":"2017-12-13T13:20:51","slug":"roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1184 of 2002()\n\n\n1. ROY, S\/O. VELATHIPARAMBIL OUSEPH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :09\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.\n                   -------------------------------------------\n                      Crl.A.No.1184 OF 2002\n                   -------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
1.Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 55(i) and 58<\/p>\n
  of the Abkari Act, the appellant stands sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
  rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
  Rupees    One     Lakh,       in    default,        to    undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
  imprisonment for six months, under each of the aforesaid two<\/p>\n
  counts. Concurrence in sufferance is also ordered.<\/p>\n
2.The allegation is that, apprehended by PW1 Excise Preventive<\/p>\n
  Officer, from behind a tea shop of Kolamkanny Ouseph at<\/p>\n
  about 5.30 p.m. on 20.10.1998, the accused was found to be in<\/p>\n
  possession of a plastic bag with 4 bottles of 750 ml each,<\/p>\n
  containing illicit arrack, for sale. Hence, he was charged of<\/p>\n
  having committed offences under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the<\/p>\n
  Abkari Act. On committal, the Court of Session framed charge<\/p>\n
  of commission of offences under Sections 55(i) and 58 of the<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
   Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence was<\/p>\n
   one of total denial.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.PW1, the detecting officer, was examined. PW4, the Excise<\/p>\n
   Guard and PW5 the Excise Inspector, to the extent they do,<\/p>\n
   corroborates the version of PW1.       Chemical analysis report<\/p>\n
   and other exhibits corroborates the version of PW1 regarding<\/p>\n
   the search, seizure, sampling and the result of the chemical<\/p>\n
   analysis. PWs.2 and 3, independent witnesses, cited to prove<\/p>\n
   the seizure mahazar, turned hostile.           Assimilating the<\/p>\n
   evidence, the Court of Session concluded that the prosecution<\/p>\n
   succeeded in proving that the accused committed the offences<\/p>\n
   punishable under Sections 55(i) and 58 of the Abkari Act.<\/p>\n
   Accordingly, he was held guilty, convicted and sentenced.<\/p>\n
4.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction<\/p>\n
   under Section 55(i) could not have been made at all in as much<\/p>\n
   as, according to him, there is no legal evidence on record, on<\/p>\n
   the basis of which, it could be inferred that the seized material<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                            Page numbers<\/p>\n
   was sold or stored for sale. The plea is that there is neither<\/p>\n
   any corroborating oral evidence or seizure of any other<\/p>\n
   material which may justify the conclusion as to the possibility<\/p>\n
   of the storage of the material for sale.     So much so, it is<\/p>\n
   contended that though storing for sale, by itself, may be<\/p>\n
   sufficient to attract Section 55(i), there is no shred of legal<\/p>\n
   evidence on which the conviction could sustain on that count.<\/p>\n
   It was also argued that the scene mahazar contains an<\/p>\n
   interpolation apparently attempting to show that it was got<\/p>\n
   signed by the accused also.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. In so far as the conviction under Section 58 is concerned, it<\/p>\n
   was argued on behalf of the accused that there was no<\/p>\n
   corroborating material in support of the version of PW1,<\/p>\n
   particularly when PWs.2 and 3 had turned hostile. It is further<\/p>\n
   argued that even if the conviction under Section 58 were to<\/p>\n
   stand, the sentence imposed is highly excessive and deserves<\/p>\n
   to be trimmed down particularly when the accused is, as stated<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
   by him before the learned Sessions Judge, one who has a<\/p>\n
   family consisting of a wife and others to maintain.<\/p>\n
6.Learned Public Prosecutor argued that to sustain the<\/p>\n
   conviction under Section 55(i), it is unnecessary to establish<\/p>\n
   that the accused was involved in selling liquor and that, in so<\/p>\n
   far as the allegation that he had stored the liquor for sale is<\/p>\n
   concerned, the evidence of PW1 that while patrolling, he got<\/p>\n
   information about the accused being involved in such<\/p>\n
   transactions in the scene of occurrence in question, is<\/p>\n
   sufficient material to conclude that the offence under Section<\/p>\n
   55(i) has also been committed. It is further argued that error,<\/p>\n
   if any, on the face of the scene mahazar was explained by PW1<\/p>\n
   and the said officer has also spoken about the seizure. He<\/p>\n
   further argued that the quantity recovered, viz., 4 bottles of<\/p>\n
   750 ml each and the recovery of a jerry can from a nearby<\/p>\n
   bush as shown by the accused, are sufficient corroborative<\/p>\n
   materials to sustain the conviction under Section 55(i). It was<\/p>\n
   also argued that there was no ground to interfere with the<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
   conviction under Section 58 and the sentence imposed on<\/p>\n
   both counts cannot be treated as excessive having regard to<\/p>\n
   the fact that the offence is in relation to a banned substance<\/p>\n
   and also because it results in an activity which is essentially<\/p>\n
   anti-social and having impact on health of the consumers.<\/p>\n
7.PW1, the detecting officer, spoke in terms of the allegations<\/p>\n
   levelled against the accused. The information regarding the<\/p>\n
   activity of sale of illicit liquor from the scene of occurrence as<\/p>\n
   available to PW1 during patrol duty was also spoken to by<\/p>\n
   him.    Though not specifically cross examined on the issue<\/p>\n
   regarding the source of that information, the evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
   was that he remained in the jeep and two other officers had<\/p>\n
   earlier confirmed the activity attributed to the accused. The<\/p>\n
   scene of occurrence is stated to be behind a tea shop. The<\/p>\n
   owner of the tea shop is not a witness. The witnesses cited to<\/p>\n
   prove the drawing up of the mahazar turned hostile, though<\/p>\n
   they admitted their signatures in the mahazar.         This means<\/p>\n
   that their evidence could be used only to the extent of proving<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
   the mahazar. The time of search, seizure and arrest is 5.30<\/p>\n
   p.m. It has to be reasonably assumed that there could have<\/p>\n
   been other independent persons available in the locality. The<\/p>\n
   mahazar also does not disclose the presence of any other<\/p>\n
   person. On the whole, the evidence on record is insufficient to<\/p>\n
   hold that the charge under Section 55(i) that illicit liquor was<\/p>\n
   possessed for sale is established beyond doubt.<\/p>\n
8.On to the conviction under Section 58, it needs to be noted<\/p>\n
   that the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 corroborated by the<\/p>\n
   documentary evidence on record categorically proved the<\/p>\n
   search, seizure and arrest and the nature of the material<\/p>\n
   seized. The chemical analysis report is beyond challenge. No<\/p>\n
   personal animosity or any other vitiating element is suggested<\/p>\n
   as against PW.1, 4 and 5. The accused person does not put<\/p>\n
   any particular defence in his statement under Section 313<\/p>\n
   Cr.PC, except a total denial. With the materials on record, the<\/p>\n
   court below was wholly justified in concluding that the accused<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                            Page numbers<\/p>\n
   had committed the offences punishable under Section 58 of<\/p>\n
   the Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.Having seen that the accused is not proved to be guilty under<\/p>\n
   Section 55(i), the conviction to that extent needs to be set<\/p>\n
   aside. The conviction under Section 58 stands.<\/p>\n
10.On the question of sentence, the accused was 31 years old at<\/p>\n
   the time of occurrence. His occupation, as recorded by the<\/p>\n
   court below, shows that he was a coolie.      Then he had to<\/p>\n
   maintain his wife and child. With the passage of time, the<\/p>\n
   learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would have<\/p>\n
   reformed himself, if at all there could be any attribute of any<\/p>\n
   tendency to commit such wrong. But, the mere passage of<\/p>\n
   time, with case pending before the courts, is no ground by<\/p>\n
   itself to reduce sentence. That, in fact, should not have a<\/p>\n
   marked impact on the sentencing policy of courts. Taking into<\/p>\n
   consideration the age of the accused at the time of occurrence,<\/p>\n
   the social strata from which he comes and the quantity of illicit<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
   arrack recovered from him and also the finding that it has not<\/p>\n
   been proved that he possessed the material for sale, I deem it<\/p>\n
   justifiable to sustain the fine of Rupees One lakh imposed<\/p>\n
   under Section 58, but modify the sentence of imprisonment<\/p>\n
   imposed under that Section to be to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
   imprisonment for nine months.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.In the result, in modification of the order of conviction and<\/p>\n
   sentence imposed by the court below, it is ordered that:<\/p>\n
          (i) The conviction under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act is<\/p>\n
      set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge on that<\/p>\n
      count.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) The conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act is<\/p>\n
      confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (iii) The sentence imposed by the court below is vacated<\/p>\n
      and the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
      imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of<\/p>\n
Cr.A.No.1184\/02<\/p>\n
                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
      Rs.1,00,000\/-. Any amount already deposited in terms of<\/p>\n
      the interim orders will be given due credit to.<\/p>\n
         The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps for<\/p>\n
execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. The<\/p>\n
appellant shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before<\/p>\n
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakuda on 20.11.2009<\/p>\n
to suffer the sentence, with proof of having satisfied the payment<\/p>\n
of fine, if paid. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate shall take<\/p>\n
necessary action against the appellant and his sureties under<\/p>\n
Section 446 Cr.PC., if he does not appear as directed above.<\/p>\n
                                                 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                           THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
\n                                                 Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kkb.19\/9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1184 of 2002() 1. ROY, S\/O. VELATHIPARAMBIL OUSEPH, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN […]<\/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-215331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRoy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 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\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-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=\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-13T13:20:51+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\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-13T13:20:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1464,\"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\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-13T13:20:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 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":"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 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\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-13T13:20:51+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\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-13T13:20:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009"},"wordCount":1464,"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\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009","name":"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-13T13:20:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Roy vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 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\/215331","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=215331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}