{"id":227777,"date":"2006-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006"},"modified":"2018-12-08T23:45:37","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T18:15:37","slug":"rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 1359 of 2006()\n\n\n1. RAJESH, S\/O.KRISHNAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :VINITHA PRASANNAN(STATE BRIEF)\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :11\/12\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                 V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                             —————————\n<\/p>\n
                             CRL.A.NO.1359 OF 2006<\/p>\n
                             —————————\n<\/p>\n
                           Dt.    DECEMEBR 11, 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                        JU\n                                         DGMENT\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       In   this   appeal   preferred   from   the   Central   Prison,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram,   the   appellant   who   was   the   2nd   accused   in<\/p>\n
S.C.No.1169\/2005 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court (for trial of<\/p>\n
Abkari   Act   cases),   Neyyattinkara,   challenges   the   conviction   entered<\/p>\n
and   the   sentence   passed   against   the   appellant   for   an   offence<\/p>\n
punishable under sec.58 of the Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.  The case of the prosecution is that on 8.2.2004 at about 3.30<\/p>\n
p.m. on the public road leading to the Parayil temple at a spot situated<\/p>\n
about   600   metres   to   the   south   of   Pamamcodu     junction   within   the<\/p>\n
limits   of   the   Nemom   Police   Station,   the   two   accused   persons   were<\/p>\n
found in possession of 4 litres of illicit arrack in a 5 litre jerry can and a<\/p>\n
glass   tumbler   and   the   sale   proceeds   obtained   from   the   retail  sale   of<\/p>\n
illicit arrack. The accused have thereby  committed offences punishable<\/p>\n
under secs.55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     On   the   accused   pleading   not   guilty   to   the   charge   framed<\/p>\n
against them by the court below for offences punishable under secs.55<\/p>\n
CRL.A.1359\/06                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
(a)   and   55(i)   of   the   Abkari   Act,   the   prosecution   was   permitted   to<\/p>\n
adduce   evidence   in   support   of   its   case.     The   prosecution   altogether<\/p>\n
examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and got marked 7 documents as<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P7 and 2 material objects as M.Os.1 and 2.<\/p>\n
       4.  After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were<\/p>\n
questioned   under   sec.313(1)(b)   Cr.P.C.   with   regard   to   the<\/p>\n
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for<\/p>\n
the   prosecution.     They   denied   those   circumstances   and   maintained<\/p>\n
their innocence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.  The court below did not consider it a fit case for recording an<\/p>\n
order of acquittal under sec.232 Cr.P.C.  The accused were, therefore,<\/p>\n
called   upon   to   enter   on   their   defence   and   to   adduce   any   evidence<\/p>\n
which they might have  in support thereof.    They  did not  adduce any<\/p>\n
defence evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.  The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after trial, as per judgment<\/p>\n
dt. 12.5.2006 found both the accused guilty of an offence punishable<\/p>\n
under sec.58 of the Abkari Act and sentenced them each to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.1   lakh   and,   on   default   to   pay   the   fine,   to   suffer   rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment   for   three   months.   It   is   the   said   judgment   which   is<\/p>\n
assailed in this appeal by the 2nd accused.\n<\/p>\n
\nCRL.A.1359\/06                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
          7.  I heard Adv. Smt.Vinitha Prasannan, the learned counsel who<\/p>\n
defended the appellant on State Brief, and Adv. Sri K.S.Sivakumar, the<\/p>\n
learned Public Prosecutor who defended the State.<\/p>\n
          8.  The only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is<\/p>\n
as to whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against<\/p>\n
the appellant are sustainable or not?\n<\/p>\n
\nTHE POINT<\/p>\n
          9.  PWs.1 and 2 are the independent witnesses to the search and<\/p>\n
seizure   and   the   attestors   to   Ext.P1   mahazar.     Both   of   them   turned<\/p>\n
hostile   to   the   prosecution.       PW.3   is   the   police   constable   who<\/p>\n
accompanied   the   detecting   officer.     PW.4   was   the   Sub   Inspector   of<\/p>\n
Nemom Police Station who allegedly detected the offence.   PW.5 was<\/p>\n
the   Sub   Inspector   who   succeeded   PW.4.     Ext.P7   remand   report<\/p>\n
pertaining to the 1st accused was marked through him.  PW.6 was the<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector who verified the investigation and laid the charge before<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          10.    After  an anxious  re-appraisal of the oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence   and   after   hearing   both   sides,   I   am   of   the   view   that   the<\/p>\n
prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant<\/p>\n
beyond   reasonable   doubt.     Ext.P1   is   the   contemporaneous   mahazar<\/p>\n
said to have been prepared by PW.4 from the scene of detection itself.<\/p>\n
CRL.A.1359\/06                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
Going by the recitals in Ext.P1 it was the 2nd accused who was holding<\/p>\n
the   jerry   can   containing   the   contraband   liquor   in   one   hand   and   the<\/p>\n
glass   tumbler   in   the   other   and   when   PW.4   and   his   police   party<\/p>\n
approached   the   2nd  accused   and   questioned   him,   the   2nd  accused<\/p>\n
revealed his name as Rajesh and also revealed the name of the other<\/p>\n
person   who   had   made   good   his   escape   seeing   the   police   party   as<\/p>\n
Manoharan   (1st  accused).     Ext.P1   further   states   that   the   2nd  accused<\/p>\n
gave   a   statement   to   PW.4   to   the   effect   that   since   he   did   not   have<\/p>\n
palms on both hands, he was vending arrack with the help of the 1st<\/p>\n
accused who had taken to his heels.  If the 2nd accused was incapable<\/p>\n
of vending arrack or even holding arrack on account of the reason that<\/p>\n
he did not have both his palms, it is inconceivable as to how the police<\/p>\n
party headed by PW.4 saw the 2nd accused holding the jerry can having<\/p>\n
a   capacity   of   5   litres   in   one   hand   and   a   glass   tumbler   in   the   other<\/p>\n
hand.   The position was made further worse by PW.4 who was giving<\/p>\n
evidence after two years of detention.   PW.4 would depose that when<\/p>\n
his   police   party   reached   the   spot,   the   1st  accused   was   pouring   the<\/p>\n
contents of the can into a glass tumbler and seeing the police party the<\/p>\n
1st  accused   took   to   his   heels   leaving   the   can   and   the   glass   tumbler<\/p>\n
there itself in the vicinity of the 2nd  accused who was standing there.<\/p>\n
This  is  a version  which is  diametrically opposite   to what  is recited  in<\/p>\n
CRL.A.1359\/06                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P1   contemporaneous mahazar.   If the 2nd  accused was incapable<\/p>\n
of carrying the can or the glass tumbler for want of a palm in both his<\/p>\n
hands,   it   cannot   be   held   that   the   2nd  accused   was   holding   the   can<\/p>\n
containing the contraband liquor in one hand or the glass in the other.<\/p>\n
Thus   the   alleged   possession   of   the   contraband   liquor   by   the   2nd<\/p>\n
accused itself is in doubt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       11.    Even assuming that the 2nd  accused could be said to have<\/p>\n
been found in possession of the contraband liquor, the prosecution has<\/p>\n
another   unsurmountable   hurdle   in  bringing   home   the   guilt  of   the   2nd<\/p>\n
accused.   In Ext.P1 mahazar  it is  stated that PW.4 took a sample  of<\/p>\n
the contraband liquor from the jerry can from the spot itself.   Ext.P1<\/p>\n
does   not   mention   the   quantity   of   the   sample   or   the   capacity   of   the<\/p>\n
bottle in which the sample was taken.  But when it came to the stage<\/p>\n
of   evidence,   PW.4   deposed   that   he   took   180   ml.   as   sample   of   the<\/p>\n
contraband   liquor   in   a   bottle   of   375   ml.   capacity   and   produced   the<\/p>\n
same in court.   The recitals in Ext.P1 would go to show that both the<\/p>\n
jerry can containing the contraband liquor and the sample bottle were<\/p>\n
sealed.     But   what   is   discernible   from   Ext.P5   property   list   is   that   the<\/p>\n
four items of properties which were produced before court on 9.2.2004<\/p>\n
and received as T60\/04 were the following:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       1.    A white jerry can having a capacity of 5 litres and containing<\/p>\n
CRL.A.1359\/06                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
          about 4 litres of illicit arrack.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.   A glass tumbler having a volume of 150 ml.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3.   A Reliance mobile phone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       4.   A currency note of Rs.50\/- denomination bearing the number<\/p>\n
              8EK72760.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ext.P5 property list shows that the sample allegedly drawn by PW.4 in<\/p>\n
a separate bottle and which was allegedly sealed from the spot itself<\/p>\n
did not reach the court.  Even the 5 litre jerry can which was produced<\/p>\n
in court is not shown as sealed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12.     The   prosecution   relies   on   Ext.P6   certificate   of   chemical<\/p>\n
analysis   dt.   25.5.2005   to   contend   that   the   sample   taken   from   the<\/p>\n
contraband   liquor   allegedly   carried   by   the   two   accused     persons<\/p>\n
contained 22.74%  by volume of ethyl alcohol.   It is not shown as to<\/p>\n
which was the sample sent from the committal court to the chemical<\/p>\n
examiner’s   laboratory   and   who   took   the   sample   and   on   what   date.<\/p>\n
Ext.P6   certificate   of   analysis   refers   to   a   letter   dt.   31.5.2004   of   the<\/p>\n
J.F.C.M.-I,   Neyyattinkara.     There   is   no   document   recording   the<\/p>\n
proceedings   of   the   committal   magistrate   to   indicate   whether   any<\/p>\n
sample was drawn from the can allegedly containing contraband liquor<\/p>\n
produced as item No.1 in the property list.  Hence, even if the said can<\/p>\n
which   was   not   received   in   court   in   a   sealed   condition   could   be<\/p>\n
CRL.A.1359\/06                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
presumed   to   be   the   can   allegedly   seized   from   the   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
appellant, there is nothing to show that a sample was drawn from the<\/p>\n
said   can   by   any   member   of   the   court   staff   attached   to   the   J.F.C.M.<\/p>\n
Court-I, Neyyattinkara.  The thondy section clerk who is ordinarily the<\/p>\n
custodian   of  all   properties   produced   in   a   court   was   neither  cited   nor<\/p>\n
examined   to   prove   the   drawing   of   sample   and   the   despatch   of   the<\/p>\n
same   to   the   chemical   examiner’s   laboratory   in   a   tamper-proof<\/p>\n
condition.       It   is   well   settled   that     when   properties   change   several<\/p>\n
hands before  finally reaching the hands of the chemical examiner, the<\/p>\n
prosecution   has   a   duty   to   establish   that   it   was   the   same   property<\/p>\n
which was allegedly seized from the accused which eventually found its<\/p>\n
way into the hands of the chemical examiner and that too in a tamper-<\/p>\n
proof condition (vide State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram<\/a> – AIR 1980 SC<\/p>\n
1314   and   Valsala   v.   State   of   Kerala<\/a>   –   1993   (2)   KLT   550).      In   the<\/p>\n
absence   of   this   link   evidence,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   prosecution<\/p>\n
has   succeeded   in   establishing   that   the   appellant   was   found   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   contraband   liquor.     The   conviction   entered   and   the<\/p>\n
sentence passed against the appellant overlooking these vital aspects<\/p>\n
of   the   matter   cannot,   therefore,   be   sustained   and   are   accordingly<\/p>\n
dislodged.     The appellant is found not guilty of the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under sec.58 of the Abkari Act and is acquitted thereunder.  He is set<\/p>\n
CRL.A.1359\/06                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
at   liberty.    He   shall   be   released   from  the   prison  forthwith   unless  his<\/p>\n
continued   detention   is   found   necessary   in   connection   with   any   other<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          In the result, this appeal is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
mt\/-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
CRL.A.1359\/06    9\n\n\n\n\n\n                               V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n                        ---------------------------\n\n                       CRL.A.NO.1359 OF 2006\n\n                        ---------------------------\n\n                      Dt.    DECEMEBR 11, 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 1359 of 2006() 1. RAJESH, S\/O.KRISHNAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent For Petitioner :VINITHA PRASANNAN(STATE BRIEF) For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :11\/12\/2006 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-227777","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006 - 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\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T18:15:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T18:15:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1616,\"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\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T18:15:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006 - 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\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T18:15:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T18:15:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006"},"wordCount":1616,"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\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006","name":"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T18:15:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/227777","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=227777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227777\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}