{"id":229803,"date":"1999-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999"},"modified":"2018-10-16T02:23:09","modified_gmt":"2018-10-15T20:53:09","slug":"t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999","title":{"rendered":"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: D P Mohapatra.<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T.Thomas, D.P.Mohapatra<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nT.  HAMZA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/08\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas, D.P.Mohapatra,\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
D.  P.\tMOHAPATRA.  J.\n<\/p>\n
      This  appeal filed by the accused in Sessions case No.
\n100\/90\tof  the\t Court of Sessions  Kozhikode  Division,  is
\ndirected  against  the Judgment and order of conviction\t and
\nsentence  u\/s  21  of the Narcotic  Drugs  and\tPsychotropic
\nSubstances  Act,  1985\t(for  short ‘ the  NDPS\t Act’),\t and
\nsentence  of 10 years R.I.  and a fine of Ra.  I lakh, which
\nwas  confirmed.In  ‘appeal by the High Court of Kerala\twith
\nslight modification regarding the default sentence which was
\nreduced from 2 years to I year R.I.\n<\/p>\n
      The charge against the appellant was that on 18.7.1990
\nat  6.05 P.M.  he was found in possession of 1750  milligram
\nof  brown sugar at AKG Memorial over-bridge at Francis\tRoad
\nin.   Nagaram, in viola- tion of the provisions of the\tNDPS
\nAct  and  thereby committed an offence punishable u\/s 21  of
\nthe NDPS Act.\n<\/p>\n
      The  case\t of the prosecution, shortly stated is\tthat
\nthe  sub-inspector  of\tpolice, Chemmangad  Police  Station,
\nhaving\treceived  information that the accused\twas  selling
\nbrown  sugar  went along with two constables PW2 and CV2  to
\nthe  scene  of occur rence.  On searching the  accused\tnine
\nsmall  poly- thene bags containing brown sugar were found in
\nhis  possession.   The articles were seized.   The  articles
\nwere  found on weighing as 1750 milligram.  After completing
\nthe  procedural paraphernalia a sample was sent for chemical
\nanalysis.   The sample which was sent for chemical  analysis
\nwas found to be diacetyl morphine (Heroin) commonly known as
\nbrown sugar.\n<\/p>\n
      The  prosecution\tmainly relied on the  evidence.\t  of
\nShri T.Raman PW I, the police officer, who<\/p>\n
      effected\tthe searched and seizure and other witnesses
\nto  establish  the  charge of illegal  possession  of  brown
\nsugar.\t The Courts below on appreciation of the evidence on
\nrecord accepted the prosecution case and passed the order of
\nconviction and sen- tence as noted earlier.\n<\/p>\n
      The  main\t thrust\t of the arguments  of  Shri  Somnath
\nMukherjee,  learned sounsel for the appel- lant was that the
\nCourts\tbelow  erred in placing reliance on the recovery  of
\nthe  brown  sugar  from the appellant  since  the  mandatory
\nrequirements  prescribed u\/s 50 of the NDPS Act had not been
\nfollowed  by  the  police officer before making\t the  search
\nwhich led to the seizure of the articles.\n<\/p>\n
      The contention of Shri K.M.K.Nair, learned counsel for
\nthe  respondent\t on  the  other\t hand  was  that  there\t was
\nsubstantial  compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of
\nthe NDPS Act, inasmuch as the police officer (PWI) had asked
\nthe  accused  whether he would like to be produced before  a
\nMagistrate  or a Gazetted Officer to which he replied in the
\nnegative.\n<\/p>\n
      The  question that falls for determination is  whether
\non the facts and in the circumstances of<\/p>\n
      the  case as revealed from the evidence on record\t the
\nsearch\tof  the person of the accused and the recov- ery  of
\nthe  packets  of  brown\t sugar from  his  posses-  sion\t was
\nvitiated  on account of non-compliance with the requirements
\nof  section 50 of the NDPS Act.\t From the discussions in the
\nimpugned  judgments it appears that the contention did\tn.ot
\nfind favour with the courts.\n<\/p>\n
      Sub-section(1)  of  Section 50 which is  the  relevant
\nprovision in this regard reads thus ;\n<\/p>\n
      “50  Conditions under which search of person shall  be
\nconducted  –  (1)  When any officer  duly  authorised  under
\nsection\t 42  is\t about,\t to  search  any  person  under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tsection\t 41, section 42 or  section  43,  he
\nshall,\tif such person so requires, take such person without
\nunnecessary delay t,o the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of
\nthe  departments  mentioned in section 42 or to the  nearest
\nMagistrate.”\n<\/p>\n
      On  a  bare reading of the provision it is clear\tthat
\nthe statute provides a reasonable safe-\n<\/p>\n
      guard  bo the accused before a search of his person is
\nmade  by an officer authorised under section 42 to make\t it.
\nThe  provision\tis  also  intended  to\tavoid  criticism  of
\narbitrary   and\t high  handed\taction\tagainst\t  authorised
\nofficers.   The\t Legislature  in its  wisdom  considered  it
\nnecessary  to  provide\tsuch a statutory safeguard  to\tlend
\ncredibility  to\t the  procedure keeping in view\t the  severe
\npunishment  prescribed\tin the statute.\t  Various  questions
\nrelating  to  interprets.tion  of   section  50,  obligatory
\ncharacter  of the provisions therein and the consequence  of
\nnon-compliance\twith the require- ments have been considered
\nby  a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of  State
\nof  Punjab  Vs.\t  Baldev  Singh JT 1999 (4) SC\t595.   On  a
\ndetailed  discussion  of the various contentions raised\t and
\nthe previous decisions of the Court in the matter this Court
\nheld as follows;\n<\/p>\n
      ”\t To  be\t searched before a Gazetted Offi- cer  or  a
\nMagistrate,  if\t the  suspect so requires, is  an  extremely
\nvaluable  right\t which\tthe  legislature has  given  to\t the
\nconcerned  person  having regard to the\t grave\tconsequences
\nthat may entail the possession of illicit articles under the
\nNDPS Act.  It appears to have been incor- porated in the Act
\nkeeping\t in  view  the\tseverity  of  the  punishment.\t The
\nrationale  behind the provision is even otherwise  manifest.
\nThe  search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate  would
\nimpart much more authenticity and credit-worthiness<\/p>\n
      to the search and seizure proceeding.  It would .3,180
\nverily\tstrengthen the prosecu- tion case.  There is,  thus,
\nno  Justifica-\ttion for the empowered officer, who goes  to
\nsearch\tthe  person, on prior informa- tion, to\t effect\t the
\nsearch,\t of  not  in- forming the concerned  person  of\t the
\nexistence of his right to have his search conducted before a
\nGazetted  Officer  or a Magistrate, so as to enable  him  to
\navail  of  that right.\tIt is, however, not neces-  sary  to
\ngive  the information to the person to be searched about his
\nright in writing.  It is sufficient if such infor- mation is
\ncommunicated  to the concerned person orally arid as far  as
\npossible in the presence of some independent and respectable
\npersons\t witnesaing the arrest and search.  The\t prosecution
\nmust,  howev- er, at the trial, establish that the empowered
\nofficer\t had  conveyed\tthe infor- mation to  the  concerned
\nperson of his right of being searched in the presence of the
\nMagistrate  or\ta.   Gazetted Officer, at the  time  of\t the
\nintended  search.  Courts have to be satisfied at the  trial
\nof  the\t case  about due compliance  with  the\trequirements
\nprovided  in Section 50.  No presumption under Section 54 of
\nthe  Act  can  be  raised against  an  accused,\t unless\t the
\nprosecution establishes it to the satisfaction of the court,
\nthat  the  requirements\t of Section 50\twere  duly  complied
\nwith.”\n<\/p>\n
      In  para 55 of the judgment the conclu- sions  arrived
\nat by the Court have been summed up thus :\n<\/p>\n
      “On  the\tbasis  of the reasoning\t and  .dis-  cussion
\nabove, the following conclusions arise:\n<\/p>\n
      1.   That\t when  an  empowered   officer\tor  a\tduly
\nauthorised  officer acting on prior information is about  to
\nsearch a person, it is imperative for him<\/p>\n
      to  inform  the  concerned person of his\tright  under
\nSub-section(l)\tof Section 50 of being taken to the  nearest
\nGazetted  Officer  or the nearest Magistrate for making\t the
\nsearch\u00bb\t However, such information may not necessarily be in
\nwriting;\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  That failure to inform the concerned person about
\nthe  existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted
\nOfficer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused.\n<\/p>\n
      (3)  That\t a search made, by an empowered officer,  on
\nprior information, without informing the person of his right
\nthat,  if  he  s:)  requires, he ahall\tbe  taken  before  a
\nGazetted  Officer or a Magistrate for search and in case  he
\nso  opts,  failure to conduct his search before\t a  Gazetted
\nOfficer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would
\nrender\tthe  recovery  of the illicit  article\tsuspect\t and
\nvitiate\t the  trial  but would render the  recovery  of\t the
\nillicit\t article  auspect  ar)d vitiate the  conviction\t and
\nsentence  of  an  accused,  where the  conviction  has\tbeen
\n‘recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit
\narticle,  recovered  from  his\tperson\t\u00ab  during  a  search
\nconducted  in  violation of the provisions of Section 50  of
\nthe Act;\n<\/p>\n
      (4)  That there is indeed need to protect society from
\ncriminals.   The  societal intent in safety will  suffer  if
\npersons\t who commit crimes are let off because the  evidence
\nagainst\t them is to be treated as if it does not exist.\t The
\nanswer,\t therefore,  is that the investigating\tagency\tmust
\nfollow\t the   procedure  as   envisaged  by   the   statute
\nscrupulously, and the failure to do so must be viewed by the
\nhigher\tauthorities  seriously inviting action\tagainst\t the
\nconcerned official so that the laxity on the part of the<\/p>\n
      investigating authority is curbed.  lit every case the
\nend  result  is important but the means to achieve  it\tmust
\nremain\tabove  board.  The remedy cannot be worse  than\t the
\ndisease itself.\t The legitimacy of judicial process may come
\nunder  cloud  if  the  court  is seen  to  condone  acts  of
\nlawlessness  conducted\tby the investigating  agency  during
\nsearch\toperations  and may also undermine respect  for\t law
\nand.  may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the
\nadministration\tof  justice.  That cannot be permitted.\t  An
\naccused is entitled to a fair trial.  A conviction resulting
\nfrom  an unfair trial is contrary bo our concept of Justice.
\nThe  use  of evidence collected in breach of the  safeguards
\nprovided  by Section 50 at the trial, would render the trial
\nunfair.\n<\/p>\n
      (5)  That\t whether or not the safeguards\tprovided  in
\nSection\t 50  have  been\t duly  observed\t would\thave  to  be
\ndetermined  by the Court on the basis of evidence led at the
\ntrial.\t Finding on that issue, one way or the other,  would
\nbe  relevant  for  recording  an   order  of  conviction  or
\nacquittal.  Without giving an opportunity to the prosecution
\nto  establish, at the trial, that the provisions of  Section
\n50,  and  particularly the safeguards provided therein\twere
\nduly  complied\twith,  it would not be permissible  to\tcut-
\nshort a criminal trial:\n<\/p>\n
      (6)  That\t in the context in which the protection\t has
\nbeen  incorporated  in\tSection 50 for the  benefit  of\t the
\nperson\tintended  to  be  searched, we do  not\texpress\t any
\nopinion\t whether the provisions of Section 50 are  mandatory
\nor directory, but, hold that failure to inform the concerned
\nperson\tof  his\t right as emanating from  Sub-section(l)  of
\nSection 50, may render the recovery of the<\/p>\n
      contraband  suspect and the conviction and sentence of
\nan accused bad and unsustainable in law;\n<\/p>\n
      (7)  That an illicit article seized from the person of
\nan  accused  during  search conducted in  violation  of\t the
\nsafeguards  provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot be used
\nas  evidence  of  proof\t of   unlawful\tpossession  of\t the
\ncontraband   on\t the  accused\tthough\tany  other  material
\nrecovered  during  that\t search may be relied  upon  by\t the
\nprosecution,  in  other\t proceedings,  against\tan  accused,
\nnotwithstanding\t the  recovery\tof that material  during  an
\nillegal search;\n<\/p>\n
      (8) A presumption under Section 54 of the Act can only
\nbe  raise  after  the prosecution has established  that\t the
\naccused was found to be in posses- sion of the contraband in
\na search conducted in accordance with the mandate of Section\n<\/p>\n
50.   An  illegal search cannot entitle the  prosecution  to
\ncaise a presumption under Section 54 of the Act;\n<\/p>\n
      (9)  That the judgment in Pooran Mal’s case cannot  be
\nunderstood  to have laid down that an illicit article seized
\nduring a search of a person, on prior information, conducted
\nin violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, can
\nby  itself be used as evidence of unlawful possession of the
\nillicit\t article on the person from whom the contraband\t has
\nbeen seized during the illegal search;\n<\/p>\n
      (10)   That  the\tjudgment  in  All  Mustaffa’s\tcase
\ncorrectly  interprets  and  distinguishes  the\tjadgment  in
\nPooran\tMal’s  case  and the broad observa-  tions  made  in
\nPirthi\tChand’o case and Jasbir Singh’s case are not in tune
\nwith  the  correct exposition of law as laid down in  Pooran
\nMal’s case.”\n<\/p>\n
      Testing  the  case  in hand on the touchstone  of\t the
\nprinciples  laid  down\tin the aforementioned  decision\t the
\nconclusion  is\tinevitable that the requirements of  section
\n50(1)  of  the NDPS Act were not complied before making\t the
\nsearch\tof  the person of the accused.\tThe trial  court  in
\npara 10 of its judgment while discussing the evidence of PWI
\nobserved  that the witnessadmitted that before searching the
\naccused\t he did not ask him whether he should be searched in
\npresence  of a Gazetted Officer.  The Court further observed
\nthat the witness was not aware whether the inquiry about the
\nGazetted  Officer  should  be  made before  the\t search\t was
\neffected.\n<\/p>\n
      In  paragraph  12\t of the judgment  referring  to\t the
\nevidence of PW 2 the Police Constable who accompanied PWI to
\nthe  place  of search, the Court observed that\tthe  witness
\nadmitted  that\tbefore the search was made, no question\t was
\nput to the accused whether he should be searched in presence
\nof  a  Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.  In paragraph 6  of
\nthe  judgment  the Court observed that on seeing the  police
\nparty\tthe  accused  had  attempted   to  escape  but\t was
\napprehended;  it was then that the accused was<\/p>\n
      questioned  by PW1 and he answered that he was  having
\nbrown  sugar;\tthe accused had taken out the bags  and\t the
\nsame  were  handed  over  to PW1 and it was  then  that\t the
\naccused\t was asked as to whether the presence of a  Gazetted
\nOfficer was required to which he answered in the negative,<\/p>\n
      The High Court placing reliance on the decision of the
\nState  of  Punjab Vs.  Balbir Singh JT 1994(2) SC  108\theld
\nthat  the  search  and\tseizure in the\tcase  has  not\tbeen
\nadversely effected by non- compliance with the provisions of
\nsection 50(1) of the NDPS Act.\n<\/p>\n
      The  position  i^ clear and it was also not  seriously
\ndisputed  before  us  that there was no\t compliance  of\t the
\nprovisions of section 50(1) of the Act before the search and
\nseizure in the case were effected.  Therefore the search and
\nseizure\t thus  effected\t cannot\t be   relied  upon  by\t the
\nprosecution.   The  learned  counsel for  the  State  fairly
\naccepted  the  position\t and in our view  rightly  that\t the
\nprosecution  caae  of illegal possession of  the  contraband
\narticle is based entirely on the search of the person of the
\naccused leading to recovery of the article and there is no<\/p>\n
      other  evidence in support of the charge.\t It follows.
\ntherefore, that the judgment and order of conviction against
\nthe  appellant by the Sessions Court which was confirmed  by
\nthe High Court is clearly unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly,  the\t appeal\t ie allowed.   The  impugned
\njudgment  of  the  High Court confirming the  judginent\t and
\norder  of  conviction of the hesa 10113 Court is set  aside.
\nThe  appellant is acquitted.  He shall be released forthwith
\nunless his detention is required in any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999 Author: D P Mohapatra. Bench: K.T.Thomas, D.P.Mohapatra PETITIONER: T. HAMZA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/08\/1999 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, D.P.Mohapatra, JUDGMENT: D. P. MOHAPATRA. J. This appeal filed by the accused in Sessions case No. 100\/90 of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nT. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999 - 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-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-15T20:53:09+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=\"12 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-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T20:53:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2437,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999\",\"name\":\"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T20:53:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999\"}]},{\"@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. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999 - 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-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-15T20:53:09+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999","datePublished":"1999-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T20:53:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999"},"wordCount":2437,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999","name":"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T20:53:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hamza-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. Hamza vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 1999"}]},{"@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\/229803","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=229803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}