{"id":236292,"date":"2007-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007"},"modified":"2016-01-26T21:40:59","modified_gmt":"2016-01-26T16:10:59","slug":"hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Hilari Machato vs State – Represented By The on 16 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Hilari Machato vs State – Represented By The on 16 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 1395 of 2003()\n\n\n1. HILARI MACHATO, S\/O. JOSEPH MACHATO,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. CHANDRASSEKHARAN, S\/O. SUBHA\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN\n\n Dated :16\/08\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                   K. Thankappan, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                            Crl. A. No. 1395            of 2003\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    Dated this the 16th day of August, 2007\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
         Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.231\/2000 on the file of the Court<\/p>\n
of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I) Kasaragod are the appellants. They<\/p>\n
faced trial for an offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act<\/p>\n
on the allegation that they were found in possession of 344 bottles of Indian<\/p>\n
Made Foreign Liquor namely, Ninety Coconut Fenny each containing 180<\/p>\n
ml. capacity. To     prove the allegation, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to<\/p>\n
3 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked.                     After closing the evidence, the<\/p>\n
appellants were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C.. They denied the<\/p>\n
allegation and stated that they had not involved in the commission of the<\/p>\n
offence as alleged by the prosecution. On the side of the defence, DW1 and<\/p>\n
DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. Relying on the<\/p>\n
evidence adduced on both sides, the trial court found both the appellants<\/p>\n
were guilty of the offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari<\/p>\n
Act and they were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for four years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000\/- and<\/p>\n
in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six<\/p>\n
months. The judgment of the trial court is challenged in this appeal.<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1395\/03                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
        2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and       learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor and perused the materials placed on records.<\/p>\n
        3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial court has<\/p>\n
committed serious error in accepting the evidence of PWs.3 and 1 to find<\/p>\n
the appellants guilty under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. It is also<\/p>\n
contended that even if the evidence of PWs.3 and 1 is accepted, the finding<\/p>\n
of the trial court that the appellants had committed an offence punishable<\/p>\n
under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is not sustainable in the light of the<\/p>\n
pirnciples laid down in two decisions reported in Surendran V.State of<\/p>\n
Kerala (2004(1) KLT 404 , Sudhepan @ Aniyan V. State of Kerala<\/a> (2005(2)<\/p>\n
KLT (Cri) 631) . It is further contended that the evidence of PW3 and 1 is<\/p>\n
not sufficient to hold that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the<\/p>\n
charge against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
        4. To prove the prosecution case against the appellants, the<\/p>\n
prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.3 and 1 who were the Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police and Head Constable of Kumbla Police Station<\/p>\n
respectively. PW2 was the only independent witness to support the evidence<\/p>\n
of PWs.1 and 3. But, this witness had not given any evidence in support of<\/p>\n
the seizure of the contraband article from the appellants. PW3 stated that on<\/p>\n
14-8-1999 he received information that the appellants were keeping in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1395\/03                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at the house of the 1st appellant.<\/p>\n
He also stated that he along with PW1 and others went to the house of the<\/p>\n
1st appellant and when they reached near house No.7\/536 the appellants<\/p>\n
were found standing in the court yard and on search, the contraband articles<\/p>\n
were found hidden in four plastic sacks and two hard board boxes with<\/p>\n
cudgon leaves used for the covering the same. On examination, 344 bottles<\/p>\n
of Ninety Coconut Fenny each of 180 ml. capacity were found. This witness<\/p>\n
further stated that on preparing Ext.P1 mahazar, the contraband articles<\/p>\n
were seized.    The appellants were arrested and registered a crime against<\/p>\n
them. This witness further stated that on 15-8-1999 the appellants and the<\/p>\n
contraband articles were produced before the court. Further evidence of this<\/p>\n
witness would show that the samples were got analyzed and as per Ext.P5<\/p>\n
chemical analysis report, the sample contained ethyle alcohol and on<\/p>\n
completing the investigation, final charge has been laid before the court.<\/p>\n
PW1 who accompanied PW3 at the time of detection of the offence had<\/p>\n
given evidence in tune with that of PW3.\n<\/p>\n
        5. Question to be considered in this appeal is whether the judgment<\/p>\n
of the trial court is sustainable or not?\n<\/p>\n
        6. With regard to the argument that the finding of the court below<\/p>\n
that the appellants had committed an offence punishable under section 55(a)<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1395\/03                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Abkari Act is not sustainable, as per the principles laid down by this<\/p>\n
Court in Surendran’s case (Supra), the case should fall within the ambit of<\/p>\n
section 55(a) only when a person was found to be in possession of liquor in<\/p>\n
the course of import, export, transport or transit of the goods. The<\/p>\n
prosecution case is that the appellants were found in possession of the<\/p>\n
contraband article. In Sudhepan’s case (Supra) this Court held that under<\/p>\n
section 55(a) of the Abkari Act the prosecution must allege and prove that<\/p>\n
possession of the contraband liquor was incidental or in connection with<\/p>\n
export, import, transport or transit of liquor. The prosecution in this case<\/p>\n
has not proved that the possession of the contraband article was incidental<\/p>\n
or in connection with export, import, transport or transit of liquor. If that be<\/p>\n
so, the finding of the trial court that the appellants had committed an<\/p>\n
offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is not sustainable.<\/p>\n
        7. It has come out in evidence that DW1 was one of the witnesses<\/p>\n
who admitted the signature contained in seizure mahazar as well as arrest<\/p>\n
memo as that of his. He was not examined in this case. There is no<\/p>\n
explanation offered   by the prosecution for non-examination of DW1.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the house from which the contraband article had<\/p>\n
been seized belongs to the 1st appellant as alleged by the prosecution. In this<\/p>\n
context, the evidence of PW3 would create doubts regarding the seizure<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1395\/03                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
itself. It may be noted that the definite case of prosecution is that the house<\/p>\n
in front of which the contraband article was found was having No.VII\/531,<\/p>\n
but in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar the ward number was wrongly written as III.<\/p>\n
At the same time in Ext.P3 F.I.R. ward number was shown as I. However,<\/p>\n
the prosecution had not proved that the house belongs to the 1st appellant.<\/p>\n
At the same time the evidence of DW2 would show that house 3\/531<\/p>\n
belongs to one Lakshmi and there is no evidence either by PW3 or PW1 that<\/p>\n
the 1st appellant was the resident or the owner of the house. In this context,<\/p>\n
it has to be noted that independent witnesses were also available at the place<\/p>\n
of occurrence, but no independent witness has been examined to prove the<\/p>\n
seizure. As per the evidence of PW3, the entire contraband and the samples<\/p>\n
were produced before the court on 15-8-1999, but there is no explanation<\/p>\n
for the delay in producing the article before the court. As per the principles<\/p>\n
laid down by this Court in the above two decisions, it is the duty of the<\/p>\n
prosecution to produce the contraband article before the court within a<\/p>\n
reasonable time.     Considering the over all appreciation of the entire<\/p>\n
evidence adduced by the prosecution and in the light of the case set up by<\/p>\n
the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the<\/p>\n
finding of the trial court is perverse. Hence, the impugned judgment is set<\/p>\n
aside and the appellants are acquitted. Bail bonds executed by the appellants<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1395\/03                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
shall stand cancelled. It is made clear that if any amount has been deposited<\/p>\n
by the appellants as fine, it shall be returned to the appellants as per law.<\/p>\n
        The appeal is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            K. Thankappan,
\n                                                            Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1395\/03    7\n\n\n\n\n                      K. Thankappan,J.\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Crl.A. No. 251\/2007\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n\n\n\n                            Judgment\n                            16-7-2007\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Hilari Machato vs State – Represented By The on 16 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 1395 of 2003() 1. HILARI MACHATO, S\/O. JOSEPH MACHATO, … Petitioner 2. CHANDRASSEKHARAN, S\/O. SUBHA Vs 1. STATE – REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN 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-236292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHilari Machato vs State - Represented By The on 16 August, 2007 - 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\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hilari Machato vs State - Represented By The on 16 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-26T16:10:59+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\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hilari Machato vs State – Represented By The on 16 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T16:10:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1258,\"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\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Hilari Machato vs State - Represented By The on 16 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T16:10:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hilari Machato vs State – Represented By The on 16 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Hilari Machato vs State - Represented By The on 16 August, 2007 - 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\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hilari Machato vs State - Represented By The on 16 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-26T16:10:59+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\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hilari Machato vs State – Represented By The on 16 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T16:10:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007"},"wordCount":1258,"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\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007","name":"Hilari Machato vs State - Represented By The on 16 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T16:10:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hilari-machato-vs-state-represented-by-the-on-16-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hilari Machato vs State – Represented By The on 16 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/236292","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=236292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}