{"id":218694,"date":"2011-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-12T09:27:18","modified_gmt":"2015-08-12T03:57:18","slug":"t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 123 of 2002(A)\n\n\n1. T.M.GOPALAN S\/O.CHAPPA KURUP,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERAL,REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :21\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n           ---------------------------------------------\n               Crl.A.NO.123 OF 2002\n           ---------------------------------------------\n            Dated 21st          January, 2011\n\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
         Appellant              was        Village       Officer,<\/p>\n
Muppainad village during 1985. He was the<\/p>\n
first accused in C.C.2\/1996 on the file of<\/p>\n
Special Judge, Vigilance, Kozhikode. Second<\/p>\n
accused  was     the        hearing            clerk     of  Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Kalpetta from February, 1982 to<\/p>\n
May  1982.    Appellant               was        convicted    and<\/p>\n
sentenced for the offences under Section 5<\/p>\n
(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention<\/p>\n
of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 420<\/p>\n
and 167 of Indian Penal Code. Appeal is<\/p>\n
filed  challenging               the         conviction       and<\/p>\n
sentence.\n<\/p>\n
       2. Prosecution case in short was<\/p>\n
that while working as Village Officer, he<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
conspired with the second accused to obtain<\/p>\n
bogus      purchase  certificates  in  respect   of<\/p>\n
vested      forest  land   and  pursuant   to   the<\/p>\n
conspiracy got filed O.A.Nos.7\/1982 and 9\/1982<\/p>\n
respectively in favour of PWs.12 and 13 and<\/p>\n
O.A.Nos.8\/1982     and   11\/1982  respectively  in<\/p>\n
favour of        Pws.17 and 16 and issued false<\/p>\n
reports to the effect that they are cultivating<\/p>\n
tenants, though        it is part of the vested<\/p>\n
forest and     cannot be legally assigned to them.<\/p>\n
Appellant having succeeded in getting purchase<\/p>\n
certificates     in  favour  of  Pws.12,  13,  his<\/p>\n
relatives got power of attorney executed by<\/p>\n
them      in his  favour  and  with  the  dishonest<\/p>\n
intention, applied for       agricultural loans in<\/p>\n
the name of Pws.12 and 13 from Kainatty branch<\/p>\n
of State Bank of India and obtained Rs.4,000\/-<\/p>\n
on      13\/10\/1982,   Rs.2,600\/-   on    30\/9\/1983,<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.2,500\/-      on   3\/2\/1984   through   account<\/p>\n
No.12\/347 in the name of PW13 and Rs.10,180\/-<\/p>\n
on    13\/10\/1982,   Rs.5,300\/- on  30\/9\/1983  and<\/p>\n
Rs.4,205\/- on 3\/2\/1984 in Account No.12\/346 in<\/p>\n
the name of PW12 by making use of the bogus<\/p>\n
purchase     certificates.  It  is  alleged   that<\/p>\n
appellant obtained the loans in the name of<\/p>\n
Pws.12 and 13 respectively for Rs.27,000\/- and<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- respectively in the names of PW12<\/p>\n
and PW13 on the strength of power of attorney<\/p>\n
executed     by Pws.12 and 13 in his favour and<\/p>\n
misappropriated     the amount,    by withdrawing<\/p>\n
the     amount from  the  loan  allowed  in  their<\/p>\n
favour.     It is  alleged that similarly, second<\/p>\n
accused on the basis of the power of attorney<\/p>\n
executed by Pws.16 and 17, availed a loan of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,180\/-     on   12\/10\/1982,   Rs.5,300\/-   on<\/p>\n
30\/8\/1983     and Rs.1,000\/- on 21\/7\/1984 through<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
account    No.12\/343  in  the  name of  PW17  and<\/p>\n
Rs.4,000\/-    on  30\/10\/1982  and  Rs.2,600\/-  on<\/p>\n
17\/11\/1982 through    account No.12 maintained in<\/p>\n
the name of PW16 in State Bank of India in<\/p>\n
account     No.12\/345  and  appellant     thereby<\/p>\n
cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.28,785\/-<\/p>\n
and second accused cheated      Rs.23,080\/-. When<\/p>\n
the loans were not repaid, revenue recovery<\/p>\n
proceedings     were   initiated.  When   revenue<\/p>\n
recovery proceedings were initiated,    appellant<\/p>\n
as     Village  Officer  prepared  plans  of  the<\/p>\n
properties    with   false  details  and  thereby<\/p>\n
committed the offences.\n<\/p>\n
          3. Learned     Special    Judge    took<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offences under Section 5(1)<\/p>\n
(d) read with Section 5(2)      of Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act and Sections 420, 167 and 120 B<\/p>\n
of Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
not guilty. Prosecution examined 27 witnesses<\/p>\n
and marked       53 exhibits. After closing the<\/p>\n
evidence       of  the  prosecution,  accused  were<\/p>\n
questioned     under   Section  313  of   Code  of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure. They were called upon       to<\/p>\n
adduce evidence.      Appellant then examined DW1<\/p>\n
and     marked  Exts.D1  and  D2.  Learned  Special<\/p>\n
Judge      on  the  evidence  found   that  entire<\/p>\n
property in survey number 1226 of         Muppainad<\/p>\n
village is a vested      forest and the properties<\/p>\n
assigned     in  O.A.7\/1982,  8\/1982,  9\/1982  and<\/p>\n
11\/1982 in favour of Pws.12,13, 16 and 17 are<\/p>\n
part of the vested forest and suppressing that<\/p>\n
fact appellant      submitted false reports before<\/p>\n
the      Land  Tribunal  and  got  the   properties<\/p>\n
assigned in favour of Pws.12, 13, 16 and 17 and<\/p>\n
appellant got executed power of attorneys in<\/p>\n
his      favour  by   Pws.12  and  13   and   filed<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
applications       for  agricultural  loan  before<\/p>\n
Kainatty branch of State Bank of India and<\/p>\n
availed     loans  by  mortgaging  the  properties<\/p>\n
obtained under the purchase certificates and<\/p>\n
misappropriated      the   amount   and    thereby<\/p>\n
committed all the offences charged. Appellant<\/p>\n
was      convicted  and  sentenced   to   rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment     for  three  years  and  fine   of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-         and   in    default   rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment     for  one year,  for  the  offence<\/p>\n
under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Appellant<\/p>\n
was also convicted and sentenced to rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for     two years and  one year each<\/p>\n
for the offences     under Sections 420 and 167 of<\/p>\n
Indian      Penal   Code.  All   the   substantive<\/p>\n
sentences were directed to run concurrently.<\/p>\n
The second accused was acquitted finding that<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
there is no evidence to prove the conspiracy<\/p>\n
alleged against him or the offences alleged<\/p>\n
against the second accused. First accused filed<\/p>\n
the      appeal challenging his   conviction  and<\/p>\n
sentence.\n<\/p>\n
           4.  Learned  counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant and learned Public Prosecutor      were<\/p>\n
heard.\n<\/p>\n
           5.  Argument of the  learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the      appellant is that learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge proceeded on the        basis that<\/p>\n
properties obtained     by Pws.12, 13, 16 and 17<\/p>\n
as per the orders of the Land Tribunal in<\/p>\n
O.A.7\/1982,      O.A.8\/1982,    O.A.9\/1982    and<\/p>\n
O.A.11\/1982 are vested forest, though there is<\/p>\n
no evidence in support of the said findings. It<\/p>\n
was argued that along with the statement filed<\/p>\n
when questioned under Section 313 of Code of<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
Criminal     Procedure,  appellant  produced     a<\/p>\n
letter, copy of which was produced again in the<\/p>\n
appeal along with Crl.M.A.455\/2011 whereunder,<\/p>\n
the      Secretary,  Land  Board   addressed   the<\/p>\n
District Collector, Wayanad to report whether<\/p>\n
an extent of      741 acres in survey No.1226 of<\/p>\n
Muppainad village was a vested forest, as it<\/p>\n
was      reported     by  the   Deputy   Collector<\/p>\n
(General), Wayanand by letter     dated 19\/12\/1988<\/p>\n
that out of 3980.73      acres in survey No.1226,<\/p>\n
only an extent of 741 acres is vested forest.<\/p>\n
It is argued that as Ext.P21 plan         was not<\/p>\n
proved      and was not relied on by the learned<\/p>\n
Specail Judge,     there is no legal evidence to<\/p>\n
prove that the properties claimed by Pws.12,<\/p>\n
13, 16 and 17 are portions of vested forest and<\/p>\n
therefore,      the  prosecution   case   is   not<\/p>\n
sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
          6.   Learned counsel   also argued that<\/p>\n
evidence     of  the  officials  of  the   Forest<\/p>\n
department are insufficient to prove that it<\/p>\n
was     the properties involved  in  O.As.7\/1982,<\/p>\n
8\/1982, 9\/1982 and 11\/1982 are part of vested<\/p>\n
forest and instead, the evidence show that the<\/p>\n
properties do not fall within the vested forest<\/p>\n
and in such circumstances, the conviction is<\/p>\n
not sustainable.    Learned  counsel also  argued<\/p>\n
that      material  evidence was suppressed from<\/p>\n
the Court and evidence of PW9 shows that he was<\/p>\n
asked     to  enquire  and  report  whether   the<\/p>\n
purchase certificates were obtained from the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal, after obtaining      NOC from the<\/p>\n
Forest department and      before the properties<\/p>\n
were assigned by the Land Tribunal whether    the<\/p>\n
properties were in their possession    and though<\/p>\n
it was deposed that the report    shall be filed<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
within      fifteen days,  no   such  report  was<\/p>\n
submitted. It was argued that the report was<\/p>\n
not produced because if the report was produced<\/p>\n
it would disprove the     prosecution case and it<\/p>\n
would have established that only 741 acres of<\/p>\n
land in survey No.1226 of Muppainad village is<\/p>\n
vested forest and the properties obtained by<\/p>\n
Pws.12,13, 16 and 17 are not part of vested<\/p>\n
forest.      Learned  counsel    also argued that<\/p>\n
when on almost identical set of facts, second<\/p>\n
accused was acquitted, on the same evidence,<\/p>\n
conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel finally argued that on a proper<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence, it is to be found<\/p>\n
that      appellant did not   commit any  of  the<\/p>\n
offences.\n<\/p>\n
           7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted<\/p>\n
that      evidence  conclusively  establish  that<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
property got assigned from the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
by Pws.12,13, 16 and 17 are part of vested<\/p>\n
forest.    It  was  argued that   property  was<\/p>\n
identified in the presence of the appellant<\/p>\n
with reference to the records  and  it is clear<\/p>\n
that the properties were part of vested forest<\/p>\n
and in such circumstances, the conviction is<\/p>\n
perfectly    legal. Learned  Public  Prosecutor<\/p>\n
also pointed out that evidence establish that<\/p>\n
bogus proceedings were initiated    before the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal and purchase certificates were<\/p>\n
obtained    in the name of Pws.12 and 13 his<\/p>\n
relatives and appellant got power of attorney<\/p>\n
executed in his favour by Pws.12 and 13 and<\/p>\n
thereafter availed    agricultural  loans from<\/p>\n
State Bank of India in the name of Pws.12 and<\/p>\n
13 and for getting the loans from the bank<\/p>\n
appellant forged plans and submitted them and<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
produced the bogus certificates. It was pointed<\/p>\n
out that subsequently when the loan was not<\/p>\n
repaid for realisation of the amount,      revenue<\/p>\n
recovery proceedings were initiated and in that<\/p>\n
proceedings      also  appellant  submitted  false<\/p>\n
reports. It was argued that on the evidence<\/p>\n
conviction for the offence under Section 5(2)<\/p>\n
read      with Section  5(1)(d) of  Prevention  of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act is perfectly legal.         Learned<\/p>\n
Public      Prosecutor    also  pointed  out  that<\/p>\n
evidence      establish that  with  the  dishonest<\/p>\n
intention     to  cheat,  after getting  power  of<\/p>\n
attorneys      executed  in his favour, appellant<\/p>\n
approached       State Bank of India and availed<\/p>\n
loans for agricultural     purpose and did not pay<\/p>\n
the     same     and  to avail  that  loans  bogus<\/p>\n
purchase certificates were produced and in such<\/p>\n
circumstances, offence under Sections 420 and<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
167 of Indian Penal Code were       committed and<\/p>\n
there is no       reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
conviction or the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
          8. Following     points    arise    for\n\nconsideration.\n\n<\/pre>\n
          1) Whether the properties covered by<\/p>\n
O.A.7\/1982,    8\/1982,  9\/1982  and  11\/1982  are<\/p>\n
parts of    the vested forest?\n<\/p>\n
          2) Whether  appellant  submitted  false<\/p>\n
reports to the Land Tribunal to obtain purchase<\/p>\n
certificates in the name of PWs.12, 13, 16 and<\/p>\n
17?\n<\/p>\n
          3) Whether   the  appellant,  with the<\/p>\n
dishonest    intention  applied for  agricultural<\/p>\n
loans from Kainatty Branch of State Bank of<\/p>\n
India in the name of Pws.12 and 13 on the<\/p>\n
strength of their power of attorney and by<\/p>\n
inducement made the bank        part with money,<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
which     was  received  by  the  appellant   and<\/p>\n
misappropriated it and thereby committed the<\/p>\n
offences as alleged?\n<\/p>\n
          4) Whether the sentences    awarded is<\/p>\n
reasonable?\n<\/p>\n
          9. The points:\n<\/p>\n
          Fact that appellant was Village officer<\/p>\n
of     Muppainad  village  during  1984  is   not<\/p>\n
disputed. Second accused was the hearing   clerk<\/p>\n
of     Land  Tribunal,  Kalpetta.  One   Savithri<\/p>\n
claiming to be landlady filed four applications<\/p>\n
under Section 72BB of Kerala Land Reforms Act<\/p>\n
for payment of compensation due to her alleging<\/p>\n
that PWs.12, 13, 16 and 17 are the cultivating<\/p>\n
tenants in respect of the property in survey<\/p>\n
No.1226 having an extent of five acres each.<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal initiated O.A.7\/1982 and 9\/1982<\/p>\n
in respect of the property allegedly in the<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of Pws.12, 13 and O.A.8\/1982 and<\/p>\n
11\/1982 in respect of the properties allegedly<\/p>\n
in the possession of Pws.17, and 16. Exts.P16<\/p>\n
and P18 are      the files relating to O.A.7\/1982<\/p>\n
and      9\/1982  maintained   by  Land   Tribunal.<\/p>\n
Exts.P17 and P19 are the files of O.A.8\/1982<\/p>\n
and 11\/1982      maintained by the Land Tribunal.<\/p>\n
Reports     were   called   for  by  the   Special<\/p>\n
Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, from the appellant as<\/p>\n
he was the concerned     Village Officer. Exts.P16<\/p>\n
(a)       and   P18(a)     are   the    respective<\/p>\n
communications     sent   by   Tahsildar  to   the<\/p>\n
appellant in respect of O.A.7\/1982 and 9\/1982<\/p>\n
calling for the reports. Exts.P16(b) and P18(b)<\/p>\n
are the reports respectively submitted by the<\/p>\n
appellant to the Tahsildar as sought     for under<\/p>\n
Ext.P16(a)     and  P18(a)   to the   effect  that<\/p>\n
properties     were  in  their  possession  before<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
1964. Based on the reports, Tahsidar as per<\/p>\n
separate orders dated 18\/3\/1982, assigned the<\/p>\n
jenm right     in respect   of 5 acres   each in<\/p>\n
survey No.1226 part of Muppainad       village in<\/p>\n
favour of Pws.12 and 13. Similarly      based on<\/p>\n
Ext.P17(a)     and P19(a) requisitions, appellant<\/p>\n
as the Village Officer submitted Exts.P17(b),<\/p>\n
P19(b)     reports  to   the  Land  Tribunal   in<\/p>\n
O.A.8\/1982     and O.A.11\/1982 and based on those<\/p>\n
reports Tahsildar passed separate orders dated<\/p>\n
18\/3\/1982 assigning    jenm right in respect of 5<\/p>\n
acres of land     in survey No.1226.   Ext.P16 to<\/p>\n
Ext.P19 files reveal that the applications were<\/p>\n
filed in     C form by the landlady   in February<\/p>\n
1982. The respective communications calling for<\/p>\n
the     reports of  the  appellant  was  sent  by<\/p>\n
Tahsildar     on  10\/3\/1982.  Appellant  as   the<\/p>\n
Village officer furnished the positive reports,<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
in all the cases on 16\/3\/1982. Immediately     on<\/p>\n
18\/3\/1982 all the O.As were allowed and jenm<\/p>\n
rights were assigned to Pws.12,13, 16 and 17.<\/p>\n
In the reports appellant has certified that<\/p>\n
Pws.12, 13, 16 and 17 have     been in possession<\/p>\n
of the property earlier to 1964 and they have<\/p>\n
been cultivating      Thiruva grass earlier and<\/p>\n
later cardamom    is being cultivated. Pws.12 and<\/p>\n
13 are direct brothers. Wife of the appellant<\/p>\n
is the niece    of Pws.12 and 13. It is in their<\/p>\n
favour,     Exts.P16(b) and P18(b) reports were<\/p>\n
submitted by the appellant.       Learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor argued that on the evidence it is<\/p>\n
proved that the reports are falsely filed     and<\/p>\n
Pws.12 and 13 were     never cultivating tenants.<\/p>\n
Argument of the learned     counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the appellant is that the said findings of the<\/p>\n
trial     court  is   based  on   the   erroneous<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          18<\/span><\/p>\n
assumption of the learned Special Judge that<\/p>\n
entire      extent  in  survey No.1226   is  vested<\/p>\n
forest land. It is argued that the said finding<\/p>\n
was based on Ext.P22 notification and Ext.P22<\/p>\n
notification     will  not  establish  that  entire<\/p>\n
extent in survey No.1226 is a vested forest.<\/p>\n
Learned      counsel  also pointed out that   along<\/p>\n
with      the  statement  filed by   the  appellant<\/p>\n
before     the   Special Judge,  as   part of   the<\/p>\n
questioning      under  Section  313  of  Code   of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, appellant had produced a<\/p>\n
copy      of the letter addressed by the Secretary<\/p>\n
of Land Board to District Collector, Wayanad<\/p>\n
and the said letter reveals that out of 3980.73<\/p>\n
acres      comprised in survey No.1226 of Muppainad<\/p>\n
village, only an extent         of 741    acres is<\/p>\n
vested      forest  and  there are   250  occupants<\/p>\n
in      that   land. A report    was   called   for<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          19<\/span><\/p>\n
from the District Collector to consider whether<\/p>\n
the said 741 acres alone is vested forest. A<\/p>\n
copy      of that  document  was  produced  in  the<\/p>\n
appeal and I.A.455\/2011 is filed to receive it<\/p>\n
as     additional   evidence.  Being   a  document<\/p>\n
produced before the trial court along with the<\/p>\n
written statement filed as part of his     answers<\/p>\n
to the questions put to him under Section 313<\/p>\n
of Code of Criminal Procedure the document is<\/p>\n
not     to  be  received  as  additional  evidence.<\/p>\n
I.A.455\/2011 is therefore, dismissed.        It is<\/p>\n
also      argued that   though  Ext.P21  plan   was<\/p>\n
produced and PW22 was examined,       the surveyor<\/p>\n
who prepared the plan was not examined and<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge       did not accept Ext.P21<\/p>\n
did not rely on that plan and there is no<\/p>\n
evidence to prove that the whole extent in<\/p>\n
survey No.1226 is vested forest. Argument is<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          20<\/span><\/p>\n
that if that be so and only 741 acres in survey<\/p>\n
No.1226 is      vested forest, unless prosecution<\/p>\n
establishes      that  the  property   covered  by<\/p>\n
Exts.P16 to P19      O.As are portions of the said<\/p>\n
vested      forest, finding of the learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge      that  report filed by the appellant is<\/p>\n
false, cannot be accepted.       Learned   counsel<\/p>\n
also      argued  that  evidence  of   the  Forest<\/p>\n
officials, when examined establish that near to<\/p>\n
the disputed properties there are other persons<\/p>\n
in possession of similar properties and in such<\/p>\n
circumstances,     it  cannot be  found  that  the<\/p>\n
reports are false.\n<\/p>\n
           10. True, Ext.P22 notification will not<\/p>\n
establish     that  the  whole  extent  in  survey<\/p>\n
No.1226 as found by the learned Special Judge<\/p>\n
was vested forest. Ext.P22        notification was<\/p>\n
issued     by   custodian  of  vested  forest,  in<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         21<\/span><\/p>\n
exercise of the powers      under Kerala Private<\/p>\n
Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 and<\/p>\n
published     in   the Gazette   dated  25\/1\/1977<\/p>\n
showing     the location    of  vested forest  in<\/p>\n
Kozhikode district. Wayanad was at that time<\/p>\n
part of Kozhikode district as Wayanad district<\/p>\n
was formed carving out parts from the districts<\/p>\n
of Kozhikode and Kannur only later. Ext.P22<\/p>\n
shows that vested forest in Muppainad village<\/p>\n
are      the  following viz.(1)   Survey  No.1169<\/p>\n
portion– Malayalam     Plantation   185   acres,<\/p>\n
(2)Survey No.1186, 1187, 1208, 1215 and 1226<\/p>\n
together         portion-Nilambur      Kovilakom.<\/p>\n
Approximate extent 2200 hectres. Boundaries of<\/p>\n
this item are      shown as south Calicut Taluk,<\/p>\n
east survey no.1214 and Ernad Taluk and     west<\/p>\n
survey No.1187 portion and Calicut taluk and<\/p>\n
north     survey numbers  1185,  1186 part,  1180<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          22<\/span><\/p>\n
part, 1219 part, 1208 part, 1225 part, 1213<\/p>\n
part and 1214 part. Learned Special Judge found<\/p>\n
that      Rule  2A  of  Kerala  Private     Forests<\/p>\n
(Vesting      and Assignment) Rules, 1974 specifies<\/p>\n
how demarcation of private forests are to be<\/p>\n
effected and notification is to be published in<\/p>\n
the       Village   office    also   and    Ext.P22<\/p>\n
notification     was  issued  in  exercise  of  the<\/p>\n
powers      under  Kerala   Private Forest (Vesting<\/p>\n
and      Assignment)  Act,   1971   and  it   shows<\/p>\n
S.No.1226 is a vested forest. It was held that<\/p>\n
therefore,      the whole extent in survey N0.1226<\/p>\n
of Muppainad     village   is vested forest. Letter<\/p>\n
dated 15\/7\/1989 by the      Secretary of Land Board<\/p>\n
to the District Collector establish that total<\/p>\n
extent     in  survey    no.1226    of    Muppainad<\/p>\n
village is 3980.73 acres. Together with that<\/p>\n
extent, the total extent in survey nos.1186,<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         23<\/span><\/p>\n
1187, 1208, 1215 and 1226 admittedly exceeds<\/p>\n
much more than 2200     hectres,   which alone is<\/p>\n
shown     as   the  vested   forest  in   Ext.P22<\/p>\n
notification. If that be so, only portion of<\/p>\n
those items are the notified vested forests.<\/p>\n
Therefore, finding of the learned Special Judge<\/p>\n
that the whole extent in survey no.1226 of<\/p>\n
Muppainad village is     vested forest cannot be<\/p>\n
correct. But that does not mean that Ext.P16<\/p>\n
(b), 17(b),P18(b) and P19(b) reports submitted<\/p>\n
by the appellant in favour of Pws.12,17, 13 and<\/p>\n
16 are not false reports.\n<\/p>\n
          11. Exts.P23 and P24 are the respective<\/p>\n
files     maintained  by  State  Bank   of  India<\/p>\n
Kainatty branch    in respect of the agricultural<\/p>\n
loans granted in the name of Pws.12 and 13.<\/p>\n
PW19 was the Manager of that branch when the<\/p>\n
loan was sanctioned. Ext.P23 establishes that<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         24<\/span><\/p>\n
though a loan of Rs.27,000\/- was sanctioned in<\/p>\n
the name of PW12, even the loan application was<\/p>\n
filed     by the   appellant,  as  the  power of<\/p>\n
attorney holder of PW12 and not by PW12.     That<\/p>\n
application is dated 2\/7\/1982. Ext.P23(a) is<\/p>\n
the     power of  attorney  executed  by PW12  in<\/p>\n
favour of the appellant. It was executed only<\/p>\n
on 6\/10\/1982. It is thus clear that application<\/p>\n
for the loan as the power of attorney holder of<\/p>\n
PW12 was submitted by the appellant even before<\/p>\n
the     power of  attorney  was  executed in  his<\/p>\n
favour by PW12. Ext.P23(a) shows that the power<\/p>\n
of attorney      was executed by PW12 empowering<\/p>\n
appellant,       who   allegedly   has   been in<\/p>\n
possession of the property obtained by him as<\/p>\n
per      the order  in  O.A.7\/1982  and  purchase<\/p>\n
certificate 123\/1982 to be in possession of the<\/p>\n
property and also to avail    any loan from State<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          25<\/span><\/p>\n
Bank of India, Kainatty branch     and empowering<\/p>\n
the appellant deal with the same. Similarly,<\/p>\n
Ext.P24      file relating to the loan sanctioned<\/p>\n
in the name of PW13 shows that the application<\/p>\n
for     loan  in  the  name  of  PW.13  was  also<\/p>\n
submitted before the     bank by the appellant as<\/p>\n
his power of attorney on 2\/7\/1982. As is the<\/p>\n
case with the power of attorney executed by<\/p>\n
PW12, Ext.P24(a) power of attorney was executed<\/p>\n
by PW13     only much later  on 6\/10\/1982.  It is<\/p>\n
thus clear that when appellant approached the<\/p>\n
bank and submitted application for agricultural<\/p>\n
loan in the name of PW13, he was not having<\/p>\n
any power of attorney, which was executed in<\/p>\n
his favour only subsequently. The fact that<\/p>\n
appellant submitted those applications for loan<\/p>\n
as power of attorney holder of Pws.12 and 13<\/p>\n
and      loan  of   Rs.27,000\/-  and  Rs.20,000\/-<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                        26<\/span><\/p>\n
respectively in favour of Pws.12 and 13 were<\/p>\n
sanctioned and part of the loans so sanctioned<\/p>\n
were received by the appellant and utilized by<\/p>\n
him personally, are not only not disputed but<\/p>\n
admitted when he was questioned under Section<\/p>\n
313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. True, case<\/p>\n
of the appellant is that he utilized the money<\/p>\n
for agricultural operation in the properties,<\/p>\n
though he claims that    the cultivation so made<\/p>\n
were damaged. Evidence of Pws.12 and 13 prove<\/p>\n
that they were    unaware of the loan    or the<\/p>\n
liability due to climatic variations. It is<\/p>\n
also admitted by the appellant that for non<\/p>\n
payment    of the  loan  amount, bank  initiated<\/p>\n
proceedings    against   Pws.12  and   13,   for<\/p>\n
realisation of the loan    granted in  favour of<\/p>\n
PW12 and PW13. Ext.P38 is the file relating to<\/p>\n
realisation of loan granted in the name of<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          27<\/span><\/p>\n
PW13.     Exts.P37  and  38  files  establish  that<\/p>\n
revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for<\/p>\n
realisation     of  the  amounts  respectively  due<\/p>\n
from      PW12 and PW13. Ext.P37 file shows that<\/p>\n
including interest revenue recovery proceedings<\/p>\n
were initiated for realisation of Rs.26,048.70<\/p>\n
due     from  PW12.  The  file  shows  that  demand<\/p>\n
notice under Section 7 was issued by Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
which is seen served by the     endorsement of the<\/p>\n
appellant     as  Village  officer,  on  10\/3\/1986.<\/p>\n
Ext.P37(g) is the report of the appellant. The<\/p>\n
report is to the effect that notice was      served<\/p>\n
on PW12. He is     not a resident  of that village<\/p>\n
and he is     not having any movable property and<\/p>\n
he is in possession of 5 acres           in survey<\/p>\n
No.1226     and  though  it  was  cultivated  with<\/p>\n
cardamom and coffee, there is no income from<\/p>\n
the property.     Report also   reveals that along<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          28<\/span><\/p>\n
with      the  report  Ext.P37(a)  sketch  of  the<\/p>\n
property     and  Ext.P37(b)  Adangal extract  are<\/p>\n
enclosed. Ext.P37(a) sketch        shows that the<\/p>\n
property was identified     by the appellant as a<\/p>\n
property which lies to     north of river, west of<\/p>\n
the property of PW17 (against him also revenue<\/p>\n
recovery      proceedings  were   initiated  under<\/p>\n
Ext.P39 file),     to the south of  D.stone and to<\/p>\n
the east of the property of PW13 (against whom<\/p>\n
also       revenue   recovery    proceedings   are<\/p>\n
initiated).      The  file  also   discloses  that<\/p>\n
subsequently Ext.P37(f) plan was prepared by<\/p>\n
PW22       Village Assistant, whereunder the said<\/p>\n
property is identified. As per that sketch, the<\/p>\n
property       of PW12 lies to the north of the<\/p>\n
property of Bhaskaran, west of the property of<\/p>\n
PW16, to the south thodu and to the east of the<\/p>\n
property of PW12. Evidence of PW22 establishes<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          29<\/span><\/p>\n
that      when  Ext.P37(f)   plan   was  prepared,<\/p>\n
appellant     was  present  and  the property  was<\/p>\n
identified by him and the plan was prepared as<\/p>\n
per     that  identification.  When appellant  was<\/p>\n
questioned on this evidence under Section 313<\/p>\n
of Code of Criminal Procedure he did not deny<\/p>\n
those     facts.  It  is   thus  clear  that when<\/p>\n
Ext.P37(a) sketch was prepared and submitted by<\/p>\n
the appellant to the Tahsildar stating that<\/p>\n
said property is in the possession of PW12,<\/p>\n
property      so   identified   by  him   entirely<\/p>\n
different      from   the   property   which  was<\/p>\n
subsequently identified and shown in Ext.P37(f)<\/p>\n
plan as pointed out by the appellant.<\/p>\n
           12. So also Ext.P38 file shows that on<\/p>\n
getting      a  certificate   from   the  District<\/p>\n
Collector based on the requisition submitted by<\/p>\n
the Manager of      Kainatty branch of State Bank<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          30<\/span><\/p>\n
of India      for realisation of Rs.11,900\/- from<\/p>\n
PW13 demand notice was issued under Section 7<\/p>\n
of Revenue Recovery Act and sent it to the<\/p>\n
appellant for service. Ext.P38(f) is the report<\/p>\n
submitted by the appellant. The report is dated<\/p>\n
10\/3\/1986. Report shows that notice was served<\/p>\n
on PW13 on 4\/3\/1986. Appellant reported that<\/p>\n
PW13 is not a resident of that village and he<\/p>\n
is not having any movable        property in that<\/p>\n
village and he is in possession of 5 acres of<\/p>\n
land and though it was cultivated with      grass,<\/p>\n
the     cultivation  was  damaged  and  at  present<\/p>\n
there is no income      and the property could be<\/p>\n
attached and for that purpose Ext.P38(b) sketch<\/p>\n
and Ext.P38(a) Adangal      extract are enclosed.<\/p>\n
Ext.P38(b)     sketch  prepared  by  the  appellant<\/p>\n
shows that      property of PW13 is marked as     a<\/p>\n
property which lies to the north of river to<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                       31<\/span><\/p>\n
the west of the property   of PW12 to the south<\/p>\n
of D stone and to the east of river. Ext.P38(c)<\/p>\n
is     the mahazar prepared  by  the  appellant<\/p>\n
showing the boundaries of the property as shown<\/p>\n
in the plan. When the property was directed  to<\/p>\n
be attached, it is seen that attachment notice<\/p>\n
was not served on PW13 and instead a report was<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant stating that as PW13 is<\/p>\n
not a resident in that property      order   of<\/p>\n
attachment could not be served on him and there<\/p>\n
is no building in the property and hence notice<\/p>\n
was affixed on the tree and the present address<\/p>\n
of PW13 is not known. Ext.P38 plan was prepared<\/p>\n
by PW22, as is the case with Ext.P37(f)   plan.<\/p>\n
As per that plan the property lies to       the<\/p>\n
north of the property of Bhaskaran to the west<\/p>\n
of the property of PW12, to the south of Thodu<\/p>\n
and to the east of road. It is to be born in<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         32<\/span><\/p>\n
mind that even according to the appellant, it<\/p>\n
is    admitted   even in  his  written  statement,<\/p>\n
Pws.12 and 13      were not residing in Wayanad,<\/p>\n
their     properties were  in  possession  of  the<\/p>\n
appellant. As stated earlier power of attornies<\/p>\n
were executed by Pws.12 and 13 in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant     enabling him to be in possession of<\/p>\n
the property     and to obtain loan from the bank.<\/p>\n
It is the case of the      appellant himself that<\/p>\n
he availed loans and cultivated the properties.<\/p>\n
The property sought      to be    proceeded under<\/p>\n
revenue recovery proceedings in Ext.P37 file<\/p>\n
relates to the property covered by O.A.7\/1982<\/p>\n
and property sought to be       proceeded against<\/p>\n
under Ext.P38 file, relates to the property<\/p>\n
covered by O.A.9\/1982. When it is     the specific<\/p>\n
case of the appellant that        he has been in<\/p>\n
possession of the properties and cultivating<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         33<\/span><\/p>\n
the same on behalf of PWs.12 and 13, he cannot<\/p>\n
be     allowed to contend that he was not   aware<\/p>\n
of the identity of the         properties or its<\/p>\n
boundaries. If that be so and Pws.12 and 13<\/p>\n
were cultivating tenants     and after obtaining<\/p>\n
jenm right from      the Land Tribunal  on behalf<\/p>\n
of the appellant, appellant was cultivating the<\/p>\n
properties after obtaining loans by mortgaging<\/p>\n
the properties in favour of the bank, appellant<\/p>\n
should necessarily know the identity    and other<\/p>\n
details of the properties covered by O.A.7\/1982<\/p>\n
and      O.A.9\/1982. It  is  more   so  when  the<\/p>\n
properties were assigned by the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
in favour of Pws.12 and 13    based on his report<\/p>\n
that      they have  been in  possession  of the<\/p>\n
properties       even before  1964.  As   rightly<\/p>\n
found by the learned Special Judge       PW12 was<\/p>\n
employed as Head Master and was working        in<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                        34<\/span><\/p>\n
Mahe.\n<\/p>\n
          13. Ext.P16 file and copy of purchase<\/p>\n
certificate show that property     assigned in<\/p>\n
favour of PW.12 is 5 acres of land which lies<\/p>\n
to east of property of PW13 and to the west of<\/p>\n
property of Thankappan and to the south and<\/p>\n
north of remaining properties    in that survey<\/p>\n
number. If in fact the property claimed by PW12<\/p>\n
was lying to the south of a thodu or to the<\/p>\n
west of the property of PW16 or to north of the<\/p>\n
property of Bhaskaran as found at the time of<\/p>\n
preparing Ext.P37(f) plan, appellant would not<\/p>\n
have shown the property claimed by PW12 in the<\/p>\n
O.A as one which lies to the north of the river<\/p>\n
and east of the property of PW17 or to the<\/p>\n
south     of D.stone.   Even  the  property  as<\/p>\n
identified in Ext.P38(f) is not identical to<\/p>\n
the property shown in the purchase certificate.<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                        35<\/span><\/p>\n
Similarly, purchase certificate in Ext.P18 file<\/p>\n
shows that property   assigned in favour of PW13<\/p>\n
based on the report submitted   by the appellant<\/p>\n
is 5 acres in survey no.1226 part,    which lies<\/p>\n
to the     east of the property of PW16, to the<\/p>\n
west of the property of PW1 and to north and<\/p>\n
south of remaining properties in that survey<\/p>\n
number. If this is the property which has been<\/p>\n
in     the alleged  possession of  PW13,   which<\/p>\n
continued to be in possession of the appellant<\/p>\n
as his power of attorney holder, he would not<\/p>\n
have shown that property in Ext.P38(b) sketch<\/p>\n
as the property    which lies to the   north of<\/p>\n
the river, to the west of property of PW12, to<\/p>\n
the south of D stone and to the east of river.<\/p>\n
If appellant was aware of the property   covered<\/p>\n
by O.A.9\/1982, he would      not have shown to<\/p>\n
PW.22 the property as demarcated in Ext.P38(e)<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         36<\/span><\/p>\n
plan which lies to east of road, south of thodu<\/p>\n
and north of the property of Bhaskaran. When<\/p>\n
these materials are appreciated in the proper<\/p>\n
perspective,    it   is  absolutely   clear  that<\/p>\n
appellant has no idea of the identity of the<\/p>\n
properties covered by O.A.7\/1982 or O.A.9\/1982.<\/p>\n
If that be so, no other material is necessary<\/p>\n
to uphold the finding of the learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge that the respective reports submitted by<\/p>\n
the appellant in O.A.7\/1982 and O.A.9\/1982 are<\/p>\n
false     to the knowledge of the appellant. When<\/p>\n
all      the surrounding   circumstance  is  also<\/p>\n
appreciated, it is clear that the said O.A<\/p>\n
proceedings    were  initiated  and  reports were<\/p>\n
submitted at the instance    of the appellant, so<\/p>\n
that he      can claim those    properties on the<\/p>\n
strength of the power of attornies executed by<\/p>\n
Pws.12 and 13, his relatives      and dishonestly<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         37<\/span><\/p>\n
induced     the bank to grant loan based on the<\/p>\n
certificates and thereby cheated the bank also.<\/p>\n
That was exactly what happened in this case.<\/p>\n
Immediately after getting purchase certificates<\/p>\n
issued in favour of Pws.12 and 13, even before<\/p>\n
getting     any  power  of  attorney  executed  by<\/p>\n
Pws.12 or 13, appellant approached the bank by<\/p>\n
filing applications for loan in their names<\/p>\n
claiming that he      is their power of attorney<\/p>\n
holder     and induced the bank to believe that<\/p>\n
Pws.12     and  13  are   in  possession  of   the<\/p>\n
properties and grant loans, admittedly availed<\/p>\n
by the     appellant himself  and utilized by him.<\/p>\n
In such circumstances, I have absolutely no<\/p>\n
hesitation to hold that appellant has      misused<\/p>\n
his     position  as  Village  Officer  to  submit<\/p>\n
false     reports so  that  purchase  certificates<\/p>\n
could be obtained      in the name   of his close<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         38<\/span><\/p>\n
relatives. He thereby     obtained undue pecuniary<\/p>\n
advantage for himself. Evidence also establish<\/p>\n
that      appellant dishonestly induced State Bank<\/p>\n
of India, Kainatty     branch to grant loan based<\/p>\n
on the purchase certificates so obtained        by<\/p>\n
the     appellant in the name of Pws.12 and 13 and<\/p>\n
made the bank part with the money sanctioned<\/p>\n
under agricultural loans and did       not   repay<\/p>\n
the same.\n<\/p>\n
           14. In such circumstances,  finding of<\/p>\n
the      learned  Special  Judge  that   appellant<\/p>\n
committed the offences under Section 5(1)(d)<\/p>\n
read      with  Section  5(2)  of  Prevention   of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 420 and 167<\/p>\n
of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal and<\/p>\n
correct. Fact that second accused was acquitted<\/p>\n
and conspiracy was found     against him, does not<\/p>\n
affect the conviction of the appellant. Even<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          39<\/span><\/p>\n
in the absence of conspiracy to prove that the<\/p>\n
loan obtained by the second accused based on<\/p>\n
the purchase certificate issued,     in O.A.8\/1982<\/p>\n
and 11\/1982 in favour of Pws.16 and 17, it is<\/p>\n
clear that the reports       in respect of Pws.16<\/p>\n
and     17  in  O.A.8\/1982  and  11\/1982  are  also<\/p>\n
falsely submitted by the appellant, as is clear<\/p>\n
from the properties shown       in the sketches in<\/p>\n
Ext.P39 and Ext.P40 files and the subsequent<\/p>\n
plan prepared by PW22 in the presence of the<\/p>\n
appellant which are contradictory to each other<\/p>\n
and do not tally with the property claimed in<\/p>\n
O.A.8\/1982 and 11\/1982. In such circumstances,<\/p>\n
the fact that second accused was acquitted does<\/p>\n
not make any difference in the conviction of<\/p>\n
the       appellant,  as    evidence   conclusively<\/p>\n
establish the ingredients of the offences under<\/p>\n
Section     5(1)(d)  read  with  Section  5(2)  of<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                           40<\/span><\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections<\/p>\n
420 and 167 of Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
           15. Then the question is regarding the<\/p>\n
sentence. Learned Special Judge sentenced the<\/p>\n
appellant to      rigorous   imprisonment for three<\/p>\n
years and a fine of Rs.50,000\/-      and in default<\/p>\n
rigorous       imprisonment for one year   for the<\/p>\n
offence        under   Section  5(1)(d)  read  with<\/p>\n
Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act<\/p>\n
and rigorous       imprisonment for two years and<\/p>\n
one year        respectively for the offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 420 and 167 of Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
Substantive       sentences were directed to run<\/p>\n
concurrently.       Learned  counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the       appellant submitted that considering the<\/p>\n
age      of  the   appellant  and  the   fact that<\/p>\n
appellant was dismissed from service, sentence<\/p>\n
may be reduced.\n<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                         41<\/span><\/p>\n
          16. Considering  the   gravity  of   the<\/p>\n
offence     and  position  of  the   appellant  as<\/p>\n
Village      Officer,   the   custodian   of   the<\/p>\n
properties     of  the  government,  the  offences<\/p>\n
cannot       be   lightly    viewed.    In    such<\/p>\n
circumstances, the substantive sentence awarded<\/p>\n
by      learned  Special   Judge for the offences<\/p>\n
under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 does        not<\/p>\n
warrant any interference.      So also    fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-      awarded  for  the  offence  under<\/p>\n
Section     5(1)(d)  read  with  Section  5(2)  of<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act. But the default<\/p>\n
sentence is reduced to simple     imprisonment for<\/p>\n
six months.     As the learned Special Judge   has<\/p>\n
directed that substantive sentences shall run<\/p>\n
concurrently, no interference is warranted      on<\/p>\n
the sentences awarded for the offence under<\/p>\n
Cra 123\/02
\n                          42<\/span><\/p>\n
Sections 420 and 167 of Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
          In   the  result,  appeal  is  dismissed<\/p>\n
confirming     the  conviction  and  sentence.  But<\/p>\n
the     default  sentence  for  the  offence  under<\/p>\n
Section     5(1)(d)  read  with  Section  5(2)  of<\/p>\n
Prevention     of  Corruption  Act  is  reduced  to<\/p>\n
simple     imprisonment for six months,    instead<\/p>\n
of      rigorous   imprisonment   for   one   year.<\/p>\n
Substantive sentences shall run concurrently.<\/p>\n
Special     Judge,   Kozhikode   is   directed   to<\/p>\n
execute the sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 123 of 2002(A) 1. T.M.GOPALAN S\/O.CHAPPA KURUP, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERAL,REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :21\/01\/2011 O […]<\/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-218694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011 - 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\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-12T03:57:18+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-12T03:57:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5399,\"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\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011\",\"name\":\"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-12T03:57:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011 - 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\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-12T03:57:18+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-12T03:57:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011"},"wordCount":5399,"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\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011","name":"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-12T03:57:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-gopalan-vs-state-of-keral-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.M.Gopalan vs State Of Keral on 21 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/218694","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=218694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218694\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}