{"id":23267,"date":"2008-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-11T06:49:47","modified_gmt":"2018-10-11T01:19:47","slug":"balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 3874 of 2005()\n\n\n1. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 80 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MONCY MOL, AGED 32 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :15\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                           V.K.MOHANAN,J.\n\n             -----------------------------------------------------\n\n                     Crl.M.C.NO. 3874 OF 2005\n\n             -----------------------------------------------------\n\n        Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                The   above   Crl.M.C.is   preferred   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in S.C.No.191 of<\/p>\n
2005   on   the   file   of   the   Additional   Sessions   Court   (Fast<\/p>\n
Track   -I,   Kottayam)   with   a   prayer   to   quash   all   further<\/p>\n
proceedings in S.C.No.191 of 2005 pursuant to the filing<\/p>\n
of Annexure A7 Charge Sheet or Final Report.<\/p>\n
       2.       The allegation against the accused in the above<\/p>\n
case   is   that   on   10.8.2004   at   about   1.30   p.m.,   when   the<\/p>\n
Excise Inspector was on duty in his office, he received an<\/p>\n
information   that   the   arrack,   wash   and   utensils   for   the<\/p>\n
distillation   of   arrack   were   kept   in   the   house   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   by   the   first   accused   and   as   per   that<\/p>\n
information,   the   Excise   Inspector   went   to   the   spot   along<\/p>\n
with  his  party and when  he  reached  there,  a person  was<\/p>\n
seen standing in the house and on seeing the Excise Party,<\/p>\n
he   ran   away   and   he   could   not   be   intercepted.     It   is   also<\/p>\n
alleged  that on  further  inspection, the third accused was<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.3874 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                         :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
\nseen standing in front of the house and on questioning,<\/p>\n
she  told  that the   father   of her   husband  was    inside  the<\/p>\n
house and on search of the house, it was found that illicit<\/p>\n
arrack was kept in two bottles, each containing 750 ml.<\/p>\n
of arrack, a plastic jar containing 4.5 litres and steel jar<\/p>\n
containing 3 litres of arrack kept beneath a cot inside a<\/p>\n
room.     In   another   room,   a   plastic   jerry   can   having   a<\/p>\n
capacity   of   35   litres   was   found   containing   10   litres   of<\/p>\n
wash   and   also   found   some   utensils   and   apparatus   used<\/p>\n
for   distillation   of   arrack.     All   these   articles   were   taken<\/p>\n
into   custody   as   per   the   Mahazar   and   according   to   the<\/p>\n
Excise  Range   Inspector,  the  accused  1  to 3    committed<\/p>\n
the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   8(1),   (2),   55(a)<\/p>\n
and   (g)   of   the   Kerala   Abkari   Act.     According   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioners,   the   materials   detected   by   the   Excise   Party<\/p>\n
were not sufficient to attract any of the offences alleged<\/p>\n
by them.  The age of the first petitioner is stated to be 80<\/p>\n
years at the time of the alleged incident and the second<\/p>\n
petitioner   is   a   lady   and   they   are   not   capable   of<\/p>\n
committing any offence as alleged by the prosecution.  In<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.3874 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                         :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
\nthe above M.C., it is averred that the implication of the<\/p>\n
petitioners is illegal and it is a clear abuse of process of<\/p>\n
law.     According   to   them,   there   is   not   even   a   remote<\/p>\n
possibility   for   the   case   to   end   in   conviction   of   accused<\/p>\n
Nos.2 and 3.     Therefore, according to them, the entire<\/p>\n
proceedings are liable to be quashed.   It is also averred<\/p>\n
that  the  first  petitioner  is  in  a  bed-ridden  stage  and   he<\/p>\n
was aged about 80 years and he was laid up even at the<\/p>\n
time of search.  According to the petitioners, the second<\/p>\n
petitioner who is the third accused was implicated in the<\/p>\n
crime   only   because   she   was   standing     in   front   of   the<\/p>\n
house   when   the   Excise   party   was  coming   after   chasing<\/p>\n
the   first   accused.     Therefore,   it   is   averred   that   the<\/p>\n
second accused is also implicated without any reason.  It<\/p>\n
is   also   the   contention   of   the   petitioners   that   there   is<\/p>\n
nothing   in   the   case   records   to   raise   even   a   suspicion<\/p>\n
against   the   present   petitioners.     It   is   averred   in<\/p>\n
paragraph   3   of   the   Crl.M.C.   that   “possession,   that   too<\/p>\n
conscious exclusive  possession being the essential ingredient<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.3874 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                        :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
\nof the offences punishable under Sections 55(a),(g) ,8(1) and<\/p>\n
(2)   of   the   Kerala   Abkari   Act,   the   detecting   officer   has<\/p>\n
miserably failed to analyse the situation in the alleged place<\/p>\n
of   occurrence.”     According   to   the   petitioners,   since   the<\/p>\n
detecting officer is miserably failed to analyse and come<\/p>\n
into   conclusion   whether   the   petitioners   are   more<\/p>\n
conscious   and   exclusive   possession   of   the   contraband<\/p>\n
articles   and   therefore,   the   petitioners   were     implicated<\/p>\n
without any basis and materials.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.     I   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.<\/p>\n
      4.     The   learned   counsel   took   me   through   the<\/p>\n
various   records   produced     which   are   Annexures   A1   to<\/p>\n
A8.     It   is   submitted   that   the   allegations   and   averments<\/p>\n
contained in the report are not sufficient to constitute an<\/p>\n
offence   and   there   is   no   evidence   at   all   to   direct   the<\/p>\n
petitioners\/accused to undergo the ordeal of trial.     The<\/p>\n
arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are<\/p>\n
mainly   on   the   point   that   the   first   accused   is   connected<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.3874 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                       :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
\nwith the crime, who was not taken into custody from the<\/p>\n
house   at   the   time   of   detection,   and   hence,   the<\/p>\n
petitioners are implicated, who have no connection with<\/p>\n
the   said   crime.   According   to   the   counsel,   the   first<\/p>\n
accused   was   not   arrested   from   the   house   where   the<\/p>\n
contraband   articles   were   searched   and   seized.     Even<\/p>\n
according to the prosecution, the first accused ran away<\/p>\n
from the spot on seeing the Excise party and therefore,<\/p>\n
he could not be intercepted and arrested.    Therefore, in<\/p>\n
the   above   background,   if   that   is   the   case   of   the<\/p>\n
prosecution, the petitioners cannot be implicated in any<\/p>\n
manner.  It is pointed out that the first petitioner, who is<\/p>\n
the second accused, is a very old   and sick person.  It is<\/p>\n
also   submitted   that   the   second   petitioner   is   implicated<\/p>\n
only for the reason  that she stood in front of the house<\/p>\n
even at the time when the Excise party came back after<\/p>\n
chasing   the   first   accused   who   ran   away   from   the   spot.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the  counsel  submits that no prosecution  will<\/p>\n
lie   against   the   petitioners   and   therefore,   the<\/p>\n
proceedings pending before the court below will amount<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.3874 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                         :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
\nto clear abuse of process of the court.<\/p>\n
       5.     Per   contra,   the   learned   Public   Prosecutor<\/p>\n
submits that the prosecution, after conducting a detailed<\/p>\n
investigation,   filed   a   final   report   on   the   basis   of   which<\/p>\n
the court has taken cognizance.  The available materials<\/p>\n
are   sufficient   to   attract   the   penal   provisions   of   the<\/p>\n
Abkari   Act.     It   is   also   submitted   by   the   learned   Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor   that   all   the   contentions   raised   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   as   well   as   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   are   to   be   considered   only   at   the   time   of<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     I   have   perused   the   materials   available   on<\/p>\n
record   produced   by   the   petitioners   along   with   the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.     On   a   perusal   of   the   materials   and   records<\/p>\n
available,  it  cannot be said that the  allegations and the<\/p>\n
documents   would   not   be   sufficient   and   do   not   disclose<\/p>\n
the offence alleged against the petitioners.     Of course,<\/p>\n
the sufficiency of the allegations and the documents are<\/p>\n
to be scrutinised after adducing evidence and at the time<\/p>\n
of appreciation of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.M.C.No.3874 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                         :-7-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.     In   this   connection,   it   is   relevant   to   note   that<\/p>\n
the petitioners herein had already approached this Court<\/p>\n
on   a   previous   occasion   by   filing   Crl.M.C.No.3554   of<\/p>\n
2004   with   a   prayer   to   quash   the   proceedings   pending<\/p>\n
against   them,   on   the   basis   of   Annexure-A2   occurrence<\/p>\n
report.         But,   as   revealed   by   Annexure   A1   order,   this<\/p>\n
Court was not inclined to interfere with the matter and<\/p>\n
allow   the   prayer.           Though   several   and   similar<\/p>\n
contentions were taken, this Court disposed of the above<\/p>\n
mentioned Crl.M.C. without entering into any discussion<\/p>\n
on   the   matter   and   directed   the   Judicial   First   Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate   Court,   Vaikom   to   grant   exemption   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   from   their   personal   appearance   except   for<\/p>\n
the purpose of completion of the trial.<\/p>\n
      8.     As   observed   by   this   Court   in   Annexure   A1<\/p>\n
order, I am not entering into any discussion on the merit<\/p>\n
of the submissions. All the contentions advanced against<\/p>\n
the  petitioners  are  to be examined  only   on  the basis of<\/p>\n
the   evidence   to   be   adduced   at   the   time   of   trial.   Any<\/p>\n
observation or decision on the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.3874 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                       :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
\npetitioners   is   likely   to   adversely   affect   either   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   or   the   prosecution   and   therefore,   I   am   not<\/p>\n
proposed to enter into any finding.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Since   Annexure   A1   order   is   in   force,   the<\/p>\n
petitioners can avail of the benefit of the said order.   In<\/p>\n
the result, this Crl.M.C. fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                (V.K.MOHANAN)<\/p>\n
                                                             Judge<\/p>\n
Mbs\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 3874 of 2005() 1. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 80 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. MONCY MOL, AGED 32 YEARS, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR For Respondent […]<\/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-23267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008 - 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\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-11T01:19:47+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\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-11T01:19:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1352,\"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\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-11T01:19:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008 - 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\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-11T01:19:47+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\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-11T01:19:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008"},"wordCount":1352,"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\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008","name":"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-11T01:19:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/23267","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=23267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}