{"id":238097,"date":"2009-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-14T12:53:11","modified_gmt":"2017-10-14T07:23:11","slug":"michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 758 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. MICHAEL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :15\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.\n                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                             Crl.R.P.No. 758 OF 2001\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Dated this the 15th day of October , 2009\n\n                                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
       The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.200\/1992 of<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Nedumangadu and appellant in<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.280\/1995 of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He<\/p>\n
was convicted under Sections 324, 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and<\/p>\n
Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for six months under Section 324 of IPC , simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of IPC and rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for three months under Section 27 of Arms Act. The<\/p>\n
accused 3 and 4 were found not guilty and acquitted by the trial court.<\/p>\n
The lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner. The first accused has now comp up in revision<\/p>\n
challenging his conviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
       2.    The case of prosecution as shaped in evidence before the<\/p>\n
trial court is that the revision petitioner along with three others with the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.758\/0                Page numbers<\/p>\n
common intension of causing hurt to PW1, the injured, attacked him<\/p>\n
with a sword stick on January 26, 1992 at about 6.10 p.m. and inflicted<\/p>\n
injuries described in Ext.P6 wound certificate on him.<\/p>\n
       3.    The accused persons on appearance before the trial court<\/p>\n
pleaded not guilty to a charge under Sections 324, 341 of IPC and<\/p>\n
Section 27 of Arms Act. PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6<\/p>\n
and MO1 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
the accused denied the entire incident.      No defence evidence was<\/p>\n
adduced.\n<\/p>\n
       4.    The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the<\/p>\n
first accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 341<\/p>\n
read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and convicted<\/p>\n
him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid.        The   trial court<\/p>\n
acquitted accused 3 and 4 and refiled the case against accused No.2 as<\/p>\n
he was absconding.         The lower appellate court confirmed the<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence of the first accused\/revision petitioner. Now<\/p>\n
the first accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.758\/0               Page numbers<\/p>\n
      5.     The following points arise for consideration :<\/p>\n
                 1)    Whether the conviction of the revision<\/p>\n
           petitioner under Sections 324, 341 read with Section<\/p>\n
           34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act by the trial<\/p>\n
           court which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained ?<\/p>\n
                 2)    Whether    the    sentenced   imposed    is\n\n           excessive or unduly harsh ?\n\n<\/pre>\n
      6.     PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 and MO1<\/p>\n
was produced on the side of the prosecution before the trial court.<\/p>\n
PW3 is the defacto complainant and the injured. He testified in terms<\/p>\n
of the prosecution case. I have gone through the evidence of PW3. No<\/p>\n
serious discrepancies were brought out during cross examination to<\/p>\n
discredit his evidence.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the<\/p>\n
uncorroborated version of PW3 cannot be accepted as he has testified<\/p>\n
falsely due to political rivalry . I find no substance in the above<\/p>\n
submission made by the counsel for the revision petitioner. Merely<\/p>\n
because there was political rivalry between the accused persons and<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.758\/0                Page numbers<\/p>\n
PW3, his evidence cannot be brushed aside. The trial court as well as<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court has chosen to believe his evidence. I find no<\/p>\n
reason to come to a different conclusion.       Further his evidence is<\/p>\n
supported by medical evidence. PW 6, the doctor who examined him<\/p>\n
found corresponding injuries on the body of PW3. PWs 2 and 3, the<\/p>\n
independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support the<\/p>\n
prosecution.    PW4 is the attester to scene mahazer. PW5 is the S.I. of<\/p>\n
Police who conducted investigation and laid the charge before the trial<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
        8. As regards the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, it is<\/p>\n
brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
that a separate notification is necessary to show that the arms used for<\/p>\n
committing the offence come within the purview of prohibited arms as<\/p>\n
defined under section 2(1)(c) of the Arms Act and as provided under<\/p>\n
Rule 3, Schedule I of the Arms Rules. It is admitted by the learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor that no such notification was issued in this case. The<\/p>\n
above question was considered by the Apex Court in Subhash<\/p>\n
Ramkumar Bind @ Vakil and another V. State of Maharashtra (2003)1<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.758\/0               Page numbers<\/p>\n
SCC 506 and held that without the issuance of a notification, which<\/p>\n
stands as a requirement of the statute, question of conviction under<\/p>\n
Section 27(3) of the Arms Act would not arise. Therefore, no charge<\/p>\n
under section 27 of the Arms Act will lie against the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner\/1st accused. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed<\/p>\n
against him under Section 27 of the Arms Act has to be set aside.<\/p>\n
        9. As regards the sentence imposed by the trial court under<\/p>\n
Sections 324, 341 read with Section 34 IPC, the revision petitioner\/1st<\/p>\n
accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six<\/p>\n
months under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month<\/p>\n
under Section 341 IPC. The injuries sustained by PW3 are 5 cms. long<\/p>\n
incised muscle deep wound over the left supra spintous area over the<\/p>\n
scapula, 2 cms. long incised muscle deep wound on the anterior aspect<\/p>\n
of palm at the root of little finger on right side and 2 cms. diameter<\/p>\n
contusion on the right frontal area, as seen from Ext.P6, the wound<\/p>\n
certificate. It shows that PW3 sustained only very simple injuries.<\/p>\n
Taking into consideration all these facts and also the fact that the<\/p>\n
incident occurred on January 26, 1992, i.e., about 18 years ago, I feel<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.758\/0               Page numbers<\/p>\n
that a sentence of     fine of Rs.3,000\/- under section 324 IPC and<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- under section 341 IPC would meet the ends of justice.<\/p>\n
        10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The<\/p>\n
conviction of the revision petitioner\/1st accused under Sections 324 and<\/p>\n
341 rendered by the trial court, which was confirmed in appeal by the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court is upheld. The sentence imposed by the trial<\/p>\n
court, which is confirmed in appeal is set aside. The revision petitioner<\/p>\n
is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000\/-, in default to undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment of three months under section 324 IPC and to pay fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month<\/p>\n
under section 341 IPC. The conviction and sentence under Section 27<\/p>\n
of the Arms Act are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of<\/p>\n
the said charge. If the fine amount is realized, the same shall be paid to<\/p>\n
PW3 as compensation as provided under Section 357(1) of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure. Two months’ time is granted to the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner to pay the fine amount. His bail bonds are cancelled.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                        P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE\nsv\/mn\n\nCrl.R.P.No.758\/0    Page numbers\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 758 of 2001() 1. MICHAEL … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI Dated :15\/10\/2009 O R D E R P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. […]<\/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-238097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMichael vs State on 15 October, 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\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-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=\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-14T07:23:11+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\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-14T07:23:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1082,\"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\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-14T07:23:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Michael vs State on 15 October, 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":"Michael vs State on 15 October, 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\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-14T07:23:11+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\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-14T07:23:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009"},"wordCount":1082,"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\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009","name":"Michael vs State on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-14T07:23:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/michael-vs-state-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Michael vs State on 15 October, 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\/238097","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=238097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}