{"id":218342,"date":"2009-06-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-10T18:09:59","modified_gmt":"2017-05-10T12:39:59","slug":"ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 960 of 2002()\n\n\n1. AJAYAN S\/O. VELAYUDHAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PRABHAKARAN, S\/O. VELAYUDHAN,\n3. MANOHARAN S\/O. KEEZHARA KANDUNNI,\n4. SUBRAMANIAN, S\/O. VELAYUDHAN,\n5. DHANANJAYAN, S\/O. ARAVINDHAKSHAN,\n6. LOHIDAKSHAN S\/O. SUBRAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :02\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                       ---------------------------\n                    CRL.A.NO.960 OF 2002\n                       ------------------------------\n               Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     This appeal is preferred against the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track<\/p>\n
Court-I,) Thissur in S.C.No.341\/2000. Altogether there are 7<\/p>\n
accused, out of which the 7th accused is absconding. The court<\/p>\n
below found all the six guilty under Section 55 (a) of the<\/p>\n
Abkari Act and thereafter convicted and sentenced them to<\/p>\n
undergo R.I for a period of two years and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.One lakh each. It is against that decision accused Nos.1<\/p>\n
to 6 have come up in appeal. The points that arise               for<\/p>\n
determination are (1) whether the court below was justified in<\/p>\n
holding    that there is sufficient        evidence and materials to<\/p>\n
convict the accused under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. (2)<\/p>\n
whether the conviction and sentence requires interference.<\/p>\n
     2. Points 1 and 2:\n<\/p>\n
      The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal<\/p>\n
are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     3. On 9.7.1998 while on patrol duty, the police got the<\/p>\n
                                 2<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n
information    of selling of illicit arrack and   therefore they<\/p>\n
proceeded and at about 9.30 p.m near a fallen cashew tree in<\/p>\n
the vacant plot of Karappan they found accused Nos.1 to 5 in<\/p>\n
furtherance of their common intention         to sell arrack by<\/p>\n
possessing 10 liters of each in 5 jerry can and accused 6 and<\/p>\n
7 possessed a      empty sack and      2 liters of jerry can and<\/p>\n
thereby committed the offences punishable under the Act. The<\/p>\n
prosecution, according to the learned counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
had miserably failed to prove the property list, seizure and<\/p>\n
further that seizure is quite illegal and a conviction cannot<\/p>\n
be based on the basis of such. It is also mentioned about the<\/p>\n
fact that one cannot say whether the bottles sent were is from<\/p>\n
the liquid collected from the accused. The material document<\/p>\n
is Ext.P1. In Ext.P1, we find that the police had proceeded to<\/p>\n
the spot and had caught hold of accused Nos.1 to 5. But, no<\/p>\n
where in Ext.P1 there is recital to the effect that the samples<\/p>\n
taken were sealed and signed in the presence of the accused<\/p>\n
and witnesses.   The seizure is at about 9.30 p.m on 9.7.1998.<\/p>\n
The property list   would show that it was produced before the<\/p>\n
court on 10.7.1998. The property list is seen prepared on<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n
10.7.1998 and there are 4 items of material objects produced<\/p>\n
before the court.     The second item relates    to the alleged<\/p>\n
sealed bottles taken and according to the property list, 10<\/p>\n
bottles i.e., two from each can were taken as sample. Others<\/p>\n
are   larger containers of 10 liters, a torn gunny bag and a<\/p>\n
black cannas. Learned Magistrate has ordered to verify and<\/p>\n
receive it on 10.7.1998 and        submission is given to the<\/p>\n
Magistrate that except samples, all items may be entrusted to<\/p>\n
the S.I. of Police    for safe custody  and  the property was<\/p>\n
received by the Junior Superintendent on 14.7.1998. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for    the accused    had   brought to my notice    the<\/p>\n
following for kind consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     4. According to the prosecution, 10 bottles of arrack had<\/p>\n
been sampled and sealed.      But, according to the prosecution,<\/p>\n
5 had been sent      for  chemical analysis. The remaining    5<\/p>\n
bottles,   as per the endorsement    in the search list,   have<\/p>\n
necessarily to be in the custody of the court. No explanation is<\/p>\n
forthcoming where these bottles are. There is a case for the<\/p>\n
accused that the samples alleged to have taken is not properly<\/p>\n
sealed or signed by any person. But, I find from the chemical<\/p>\n
                               4<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n
analysis report that the 5 bottles received there were sealed<\/p>\n
and it was tagged. When a contention is raised, there must<\/p>\n
be some explanation        tendered with respect to the five<\/p>\n
bottles which is supposed to be in the court. Suppose those<\/p>\n
bottles had been produced, the contention of the accused that<\/p>\n
none of the bottles had been properly sealed would have gone<\/p>\n
to insignificance.   If there were proper seals and that the<\/p>\n
bottles were available certainly an attempt should have been<\/p>\n
made to produce them. Another important point is that it is<\/p>\n
the definite case of the prosecution that two bottles of sample<\/p>\n
were taken from each of the containers from each of the 5<\/p>\n
accused. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to prove<\/p>\n
that the 5 bottles sent were the samples taken from the 5<\/p>\n
containers. There are absolutely no materials to show that it is<\/p>\n
so. Therefore, one cannot say which were the samples that<\/p>\n
were sent for chemical analysis and of which accused those<\/p>\n
sample dealings and therefore it had created a considerable<\/p>\n
amount of confusion which entitles under law that the benefit<\/p>\n
should   go in favour of the accused.      PW1 when examined<\/p>\n
had deposed before the court about the sampling but when<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n
he was questioned he is not able to say why it had not been<\/p>\n
stated so in Ext.P1.   It has also come out from his evidence<\/p>\n
that the material object entrusted back to the police for safe<\/p>\n
custody to be produced did not contain the seal but only a<\/p>\n
part of the label   was seen in MO1(a). So,    it also creates<\/p>\n
suspicion in the mind of the court.     Forwarding note is    a<\/p>\n
material document which would show what       materials are to<\/p>\n
be sent for chemical examination and it would have the<\/p>\n
description.    But strangely, even though   there are lot of<\/p>\n
confusions created, that document is not attempted to be<\/p>\n
marked at all. So, there is confusion created. When cross<\/p>\n
examined, he would      say that there is no reason     in not<\/p>\n
recording that labels had been affixed. Sealing of the cans is<\/p>\n
also equally absent in the scene mahazer and according to<\/p>\n
Pw1, there is no    reason for the same. Now, this Court in the<\/p>\n
decision reported in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2007 (1)<\/p>\n
KLT 720) had dealt with the way in which the sampling, sealing<\/p>\n
etc has to be done. It was a case where there was no evidence<\/p>\n
to show that sample was taken from the container which was<\/p>\n
seized by the authorities The court officials  were   also not<\/p>\n
                                6<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n
examined and therefore, the court held that it is not a proper<\/p>\n
seizure and sealing and therefore granted the benefit of doubt<\/p>\n
to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     5. Learned trial judge had not considered these matters<\/p>\n
very seriously. But it is stated that    it did not cause any<\/p>\n
prejudice to the accused and further      the chemical analysis<\/p>\n
report shows the presence of alcohol. But the material point<\/p>\n
which the prosecution has to establish is to the effect that the<\/p>\n
liquid which was seized from them was properly seized and it<\/p>\n
was part of that liquid that had been sent for chemical analysis<\/p>\n
report.  As discussed by me earlier in this case, 5 samples<\/p>\n
alleged to be taken are missing, only 5 bottles alone were<\/p>\n
sent for chemical analysis report. Even the forwarding note is<\/p>\n
not marked before the court.     So all these things create     a<\/p>\n
doubt in the mind of the court regarding the actual seizure,<\/p>\n
sealing and sending for chemical analysis.    When it is so, it is<\/p>\n
inevitable that the benefit of doubt has to go the accused.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I am constrained to apply the said theory and<\/p>\n
grant the     benefit of doubt   to the accused in this case.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately,    all is not well with the prosecution story.<\/p>\n
                               7<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n
Therefore, conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is<\/p>\n
set aside and the benefit of doubt is given to the accused and<\/p>\n
accused Nos.1 to 6, who are the appellants before this Court,<\/p>\n
are found not guilty of the offence under Section 55 (a) of the<\/p>\n
Abkari Act and they are acquitted and set at liberty.<\/p>\n
                               M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
cl<\/p>\n
                     8<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n
                     9<\/span>
\nCRL.A.NO.960\/2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 960 of 2002() 1. AJAYAN S\/O. VELAYUDHAN, … Petitioner 2. PRABHAKARAN, S\/O. VELAYUDHAN, 3. MANOHARAN S\/O. KEEZHARA KANDUNNI, 4. SUBRAMANIAN, S\/O. VELAYUDHAN, 5. DHANANJAYAN, S\/O. ARAVINDHAKSHAN, 6. LOHIDAKSHAN S\/O. SUBRAN, Vs 1. STATE OF […]<\/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-218342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAjayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 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\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-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=\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-10T12:39:59+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\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T12:39:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1288,\"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\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T12:39:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 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":"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 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\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-10T12:39:59+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\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T12:39:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"},"wordCount":1288,"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\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","name":"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T12:39:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajayan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 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\/218342","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=218342"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218342\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}