{"id":231831,"date":"2009-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-28T21:45:04","modified_gmt":"2018-08-28T16:15:04","slug":"m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1923 of 2003()\n\n\n1. M.MOHAMMED KURIKAL, S\/O. HYDRU KURIKAL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THARAKAN VEERAN S\/O.MOOASAN HAJI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :17\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n               Crl. Appeal NO. 1923       OF 2003\n               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n          Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009.\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Manjeri in Crl.A.276\/02. The said appeal was<\/p>\n
in turn preferred against the conviction and sentence passed<\/p>\n
by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Manjeri in S.T.68\/01.<\/p>\n
The trial Court convicted the accused to undergo imprisonment<\/p>\n
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.4000\/- and further<\/p>\n
directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
complainant. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge found that<\/p>\n
the notice is defective and therefore acquitted the accused on<\/p>\n
that ground. It is against that decision the present appeal is<\/p>\n
preferred<\/p>\n
     2.    The points that arise for determination are;<\/p>\n
     (1)   Whether the Sessions court was correct in holding<\/p>\n
that there was no proper notice?\n<\/p>\n
     (2)   Whether the judgment calls for any interference.<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 1923 OF 2003
\n                                -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     Points:\n<\/p>\n
     3.    It is the case of the complainant that the accused<\/p>\n
had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000\/- and had issued a cheque<\/p>\n
towards the discharge of the liability which when presented for<\/p>\n
encashment returned with the endorsement insufficiency of<\/p>\n
funds. Thereafter a statutory notice was issued which was not<\/p>\n
received by the accused which ended in prosecution. Now the<\/p>\n
specific contention of the accused is that he had not been<\/p>\n
served with the notice and therefore the prosecution cannot be<\/p>\n
launched.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. U\/s<\/p>\n
138 of the N.I. Act it is imperative that a notice in writing<\/p>\n
should be given to the accused. The said requirement is to<\/p>\n
give a chance to the accused to wipe off the liability and avoid<\/p>\n
a criminal prosecution. Instances are not very rare where the<\/p>\n
accused deliberately keeps away from the purview of the<\/p>\n
postal authorities so that notices are not served on them. This<\/p>\n
has been a subject matter for consideration for a quite long<\/p>\n
time by the courts.\n<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 1923 OF 2003
\n                               -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
      5.   I had perused the notice which had been returned<\/p>\n
back and it contains two endorsements. One, dated 16.1.01<\/p>\n
and the other date 17.1.01. In both the endorsements the<\/p>\n
endorsement is to the effect that ‘Absent, Intimated’.<\/p>\n
Ultimately it was returned to the sender as ‘unclaimed’. The<\/p>\n
practice of the postal authorities is to always attempt to<\/p>\n
personal service on the person and if he is not available give<\/p>\n
an intimation to his relatives or somebody so that he can<\/p>\n
come and collect it. PW3 and 4 are two witnesses. PW4 is the<\/p>\n
regular postman. He had given evidence to the effect that he<\/p>\n
had attempted to serve notice on 16.1.01 and as the accused<\/p>\n
was not present there intimation was given to one of his<\/p>\n
relatives namely Azeez. On 17.1.01 absent intimation is noted<\/p>\n
by one Moosath who admits that he had gone there but did<\/p>\n
not admit that he had made an endorsement of intimation.<\/p>\n
The notice is addressed to the proper address of the accused.<\/p>\n
It has been held that when notices are sent on appropriate<\/p>\n
address and attempt is made to serve them it may amount to<\/p>\n
proper notice in writing u\/s 138 of the N.I.Act. PW3 and 4 are<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 1923 OF 2003
\n                               -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
unanimous on one aspect that they had gone to the place of<\/p>\n
the accused to serve notice and it is evidenced by two<\/p>\n
endorsements on that notice. It is also the case of PW4 that<\/p>\n
he had intimated about the letter to Azeez who is the relative<\/p>\n
of the accused. It can be seen that three chances are taken to<\/p>\n
serve notice on the accused and then only it had been<\/p>\n
returned to the sender as not claimed. From the materials<\/p>\n
available the following things are clear.<\/p>\n
     1.    The letter is addressed to the proper address of the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The postal authorities had visited the house of the<\/p>\n
accused on two occasions and he was found to be not there.<\/p>\n
     3.    PW4 has intimated about the notice to one Azeez.<\/p>\n
So whatever could be done from the side of the postal<\/p>\n
authorities had been done and the real purported intention<\/p>\n
was to serve notice on the accused.       Now in the decision<\/p>\n
reported in Alavi Haji v. Muhammed<\/a> (2007 (3) KLT 77)<\/p>\n
the following principles have been very clearly laid down.<\/p>\n
(1)  “Where payee despatches notice by registered post with<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 1923 OF 2003
\n                               -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
correct address of drawer of cheque, principle incorporated in<\/p>\n
S.27 of General Clauses Act would be attracted. (2) This court<\/p>\n
also held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is<\/p>\n
returned with a postal endorsement- refused-or-not available<\/p>\n
in the house – or-house locked or- hop closed – or addressee<\/p>\n
not in station -, due service has to be presumed. It is<\/p>\n
therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available<\/p>\n
u\/s 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint<\/p>\n
under S.138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by<\/p>\n
the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the<\/p>\n
return of the notice unserved.” The Apex Court even held in<\/p>\n
that decision that a person who does not pay the amount<\/p>\n
within 15 days from the receipt of summons from the court<\/p>\n
along with a complaint, cannot obviously contend that there<\/p>\n
was no proper service of notice as required under S.138, by<\/p>\n
ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under S.27 of<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act. So in the light of this authoritative<\/p>\n
pronouncement of the Apex Court it can be very safely held<\/p>\n
that there had been a proper notice in writing as contemplated<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 1923 OF 2003
\n                                  -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
u\/s 138 of the N.I. Act. When it is so it has to be held that the<\/p>\n
judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge has to be<\/p>\n
set aside and I do so. On materials regarding the borrowal,<\/p>\n
discharge towards liability, issuance of cheque etc., they are<\/p>\n
all proved by cogent evidence. So the learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
erred in reversing the judgment of the learned Magistrate.<\/p>\n
Therefore I set aside that judgment and held that the accused<\/p>\n
is guilty u\/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
       6.    Now, let me consider about the sentence. There is<\/p>\n
no point in sending a person to jail if really he can wipe off the<\/p>\n
liability. It will be sufficient if a punishment of imprisonment<\/p>\n
till the raising of the Court is granted with a further direction<\/p>\n
to pay the cheque amount as compensation, i.e. Rs.50,000\/-.<\/p>\n
In the result the Crl.A .is allowed and disposed of as follows<\/p>\n
      (1) The accused is found guilty u\/s 138 of the N.I. Act<\/p>\n
        and convicted thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the<\/p>\n
        raising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000\/- and<\/p>\n
        in   default   of   which     he  shall undergo    simple<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 1923 OF 2003
\n                            -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
      imprisonment for a period of two months. When the<\/p>\n
      compensation is paid and let that amount be disbursed<\/p>\n
      to the complainant on proper application. The accused<\/p>\n
      shall appear before the trial Court to receive the<\/p>\n
      sentence and payment of compensation on 15.9.2009.<\/p>\n
                              M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nul\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1923 of 2003() 1. M.MOHAMMED KURIKAL, S\/O. HYDRU KURIKAL, … Petitioner Vs 1. THARAKAN VEERAN S\/O.MOOASAN HAJI, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS […]<\/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-231831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-28T16:15:04+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-28T16:15:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1192,\"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\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009\",\"name\":\"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-28T16:15:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-28T16:15:04+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-28T16:15:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009"},"wordCount":1192,"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\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009","name":"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-28T16:15:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mohammed-kurikal-vs-tharakan-veeran-on-17-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Mohammed Kurikal vs Tharakan Veeran on 17 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231831","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=231831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}