{"id":226763,"date":"2009-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-25T00:20:10","modified_gmt":"2017-02-24T18:50:10","slug":"the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 23645 of 2003(M)\n\n\n1. THE PRESIDENT,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. N.MAHEENDRAN, NELLERI HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :05\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n                 -----------------------------------------------\n                        WP(C) NO. 23645 OF 2003\n                         -----------------------------------\n                Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009\n\n\n                               J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent Industrial Tribunal<\/p>\n
Kozhikode in I.D. No. 1\/2002 has been subjected to challenge from the<\/p>\n
side of the management, contending that interference with the order of<\/p>\n
dismissal invoking the power under Section 11 A of the ID Act is not correct<\/p>\n
or proper.\n<\/p>\n
       2.    The first respondent worker was an employee of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
He was working as a sales man-cum-attender, having independent charge<\/p>\n
of a store, where various consumer items were being stored by the<\/p>\n
petitioner Society. On 25.03.1997, the Secretary of the Society made a<\/p>\n
surprise inspection of the store, when serious irregularities were noted;<\/p>\n
particularly with regard to the collection of higher sales price in respect of<\/p>\n
various items, than the prescribed amount and also mishandling of the<\/p>\n
daily cash, leading to tarnishing the image of the Society as well. Since<\/p>\n
there was no satisfactory explanation from the part of the employee, Ext.P1<\/p>\n
charge sheet was issued placing him under suspension, pending enquiry.<\/p>\n
On conclusion of the domestic enquiry, Ext.P3 enquiry report was<\/p>\n
WPC NO.23645\/2003                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted by the enquiry officer, which was considered by the management in<\/p>\n
the light of the relevant records and after appreciating the entire facts and<\/p>\n
figures it was held that the misconduct levelled against the delinquent<\/p>\n
employee was proved and accordingly, he was dismissed from the service of<\/p>\n
the Society, which led to reference of the industrial dispute to the second<\/p>\n
respondent for adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     In response to the claim statement preferred from the part of the<\/p>\n
worker, the petitioner management filed Ext.P4 written statement, seeking to<\/p>\n
sustain the course pursued by them. Validity of the domestic enquiry was<\/p>\n
considered as a preliminary issue. After evaluating the materials on record,<\/p>\n
the Tribunal arrived at a finding that, the domestic enquiry was conducted<\/p>\n
adhering to the principles of natural justice and that the finding was very<\/p>\n
much legal and proper. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the<\/p>\n
proportionality of the punishment imposed, as discussed in paragraph 7<\/p>\n
onwards of Ext.P5. It has been observed by the Tribunal that, the first charge<\/p>\n
narrated in Ext.P1 charge sheet stands proved, as correctly held by the<\/p>\n
enquiry officer, in so far as the factum of excess collection of the sale price<\/p>\n
from the members stands vindicated; whereas the second limb regarding the<\/p>\n
alleged diversion\/shortage of stock proportionate to the quantum of excess<\/p>\n
collection was not at all proved. In other words, the allegation regarding the<\/p>\n
mis appropriation of the sale proceeds is stated as not proved and<\/p>\n
WPC NO.23645\/2003                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
accordingly, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that no loss was caused to the<\/p>\n
Society, particularly when the excess price collected was also stated as<\/p>\n
remitted to the Society.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     In paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed<\/p>\n
that the second charge regarding the non remittance of the daily cash on the<\/p>\n
very next day, involving ‘temporary mis appropriation’ is only of two to three<\/p>\n
days in each case and hence that, it could not be taken as warranting<\/p>\n
dismissal. It was after considering the above aspects; particularly as to the<\/p>\n
‘no loss’ caused to the Society and also that the alleged temporary mis<\/p>\n
appropriation was only in view of the delay of 2 to 3 days in remitting the<\/p>\n
amounts; that the punishment of dismissal awarded by the management was<\/p>\n
intercepted, invoking the power under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the worker was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages,<\/p>\n
holding that forfeiture of 50% back wages will constitute suitable punishment;<\/p>\n
which forms the subject matter of challenge before this Court.<\/p>\n
      5.     Learned counsel for the petitioner\/Management submits that, the<\/p>\n
charges proved are of serious consequences and that the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
extended misplaced sympathy by substituting the punishment of dismissal<\/p>\n
with reinstatement denying only 50% back wages; which actually is a boon to<\/p>\n
the worker, resulting in total miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the worker submits that, in view of the settled position of law, denial of 50%<\/p>\n
WPC NO.23645\/2003                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
back wages is to be regarded as proper punishment, which is sought to be<\/p>\n
controverted from the part of the petitioner\/Management, stating that the<\/p>\n
previous instances of misconduct in respect of the very same employee have<\/p>\n
not been properly weighed by the Tribunal, particularly when a lesser<\/p>\n
punishment was imposed, taking a lenient view since the worker had pleaded<\/p>\n
guilty seeking for the indulgence as evident from Ext.P2. But as rightly<\/p>\n
observed by the Tribunal, this aspect, as dealt with under charge No. 3, was<\/p>\n
not separately considered by the enquiry officer and no separate finding was<\/p>\n
arrived at on this point. However, the fact remains that, the said aspect,<\/p>\n
though does not constitute a separate charge, was a fact brought out by the<\/p>\n
records in the course of the proceedings and was liable to be looked into by<\/p>\n
the Tribunal while fixing the quantum of punishment invoking the power under<\/p>\n
Section 11 A of the ID Act.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Yet another important aspect to be noted is that, the Tribunal<\/p>\n
made interference under section 11 A of the ID Act observing that the ‘excess<\/p>\n
collection’ has already been remitted to the Society and hence no ‘actual loss’<\/p>\n
was caused to the Society. But it has to be borne in mind that, the second<\/p>\n
limb of the charge (as to the mis appropriation of the proportionate stock) was<\/p>\n
held as not proved, for the reason that no prior stock verification was<\/p>\n
conducted by the Society. In other words, the worker has been given some<\/p>\n
‘benefit of doubt’ and that is all. The collection of ‘excess charge’ in respect<\/p>\n
WPC NO.23645\/2003                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
of the sale commodity stands proved and as it stands so, when there is<\/p>\n
excess collection, there will either be proportionate diversion of the stock or<\/p>\n
there is an unlawful enrichment to the Society. To put it more clear, the<\/p>\n
persons who purchased various articles from the Society have suffered a<\/p>\n
loss, in having parted with more amount than that was actually payable. This<\/p>\n
vital aspect, as to the loss caused to the members or the consumers who<\/p>\n
purchased the articles from the store and ‘the loss of good will’ and reputation<\/p>\n
to the Society, which forms part of the first charge has not been properly<\/p>\n
considered by the Tribunal while interfering with the punishment.<\/p>\n
       7.    Yet another aspect is that, even in cases of reinstatement,<\/p>\n
awarding of back wages is not automatic, in view of the law declared by the<\/p>\n
Apex Court on the point as reported in Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar [2002<\/p>\n
(8) SCC 400]. It also cannot be a matter of dispute any further, in view of the<\/p>\n
dictum in M\/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of<\/p>\n
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & others [AIR 1979 SC 75] and subsequent<\/p>\n
verdicts on the point, holding that the burden to plead and prove that the<\/p>\n
worker was not having any alternative employment and income is cast upon<\/p>\n
the worker himself. There is absolutely no discussion of evidence in this<\/p>\n
regard, any where in paragraph 8 or 9 or elsewhere in Ext.P5 so as to sustain<\/p>\n
granting of 50% back wages to the first respondent\/worker.<\/p>\n
       8.    In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the exercise of<\/p>\n
WPC NO.23645\/2003                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
power by the second respondent Tribunal under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act<\/p>\n
substituting the punishment imposed by the Management is not correct or<\/p>\n
proper and that the same has to be reconsidered taking note of the<\/p>\n
observations made above. Accordingly Ext.P5 is set aside to the said extent<\/p>\n
and the matter is remanded; which shall be reconsidered and finalised as to<\/p>\n
the proportionality of the punishment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate<\/p>\n
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both<\/p>\n
the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10.12.2009.<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
dnc<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 23645 of 2003(M) 1. THE PRESIDENT, … Petitioner Vs 1. N.MAHEENDRAN, NELLERI HOUSE, … Respondent 2. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN For Respondent :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON Dated :05\/10\/2009 O R D […]<\/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-226763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 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\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-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=\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-24T18:50:10+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\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-24T18:50:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1326,\"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\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009\",\"name\":\"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-24T18:50:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 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":"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 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\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-24T18:50:10+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\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-24T18:50:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009"},"wordCount":1326,"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\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009","name":"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-24T18:50:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-president-vs-n-maheendran-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The President vs N.Maheendran on 5 October, 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\/226763","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=226763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}