{"id":251587,"date":"2007-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-08-07T11:14:26","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T05:44:26","slug":"a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 1003 of 2000()\n\n\n\n1. A.E.DAMODARAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SPECIAL GRADE EXECUTIVE OFFICER\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :17\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                       V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n                -------------------------------------\n                      CRL.R.P.1003\/2000\n                -------------------------------------\n                  Dated the 17th October, 2007.\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioners herein are the accused in S.T.Case No.371 of<\/p>\n
1991 on the file of the Judicial     Magistrate of the First Class,<\/p>\n
Sulthanbathery for the offence punishable under section 74 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala   Panchayats Act, 1960 read with Rule 26 of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963. By the judgment<\/p>\n
dated 30th May 1994, the trial court found that all the<\/p>\n
petitioners\/accused are guilty and accordingly,         they were<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.45,000\/-(Rs.15,000\/-<\/p>\n
each) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.<\/p>\n
It is also ordered that the fine amount shall be paid       to the<\/p>\n
Panchayat. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the<\/p>\n
petitioners herein preferred Crl. Appeal No.37\/1994 before the<\/p>\n
Sessions Court, Wayanad. By judgment dated 31st August 2000,<\/p>\n
the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal confirming and sustaining<\/p>\n
the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court.        The<\/p>\n
above judgment is challenged in this Crl. Revision Petition.<\/p>\n
      2. The allegation against the accused is that they wilfully<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000               -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
omitted to pay the building tax due to the complainant viz., the<\/p>\n
Sulthanbathery Grama Panchayat for the buildings           bearing<\/p>\n
Nos.3\/714, 3\/715, 3\/716 and 3\/714 A to 3\/716 L from 1987-88 to<\/p>\n
1991-92 and thereby committed the offence punishable         under<\/p>\n
section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 read with Rule 26<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation       and Appeal) Rules, 1963<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to for short as “Rules” only).  On the said<\/p>\n
allegation, PW1 preferred the complaint which was taken on file as<\/p>\n
S.T.No.371\/91. During the course of trial, the accused appeared<\/p>\n
and they were given the prosecution records. The substances of<\/p>\n
the prosecution case had been read over and explained to the<\/p>\n
accused,    to which they     pleaded not guilty which resulted in<\/p>\n
further trial of the case during which PWs 1 to 3 were examined;<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P3(b) were marked on the side of the prosecution. On<\/p>\n
the side of the defence, except Ext.D1, there is no other evidence<\/p>\n
either documentary or oral. The trial court framed two issues for<\/p>\n
consideration as to (1) whether the accused have wilfully omitted<\/p>\n
to pay building tax Rs.38834\/- due to the Panchayat as alleged by<\/p>\n
the prosecution; and (2) what should be the proper sentence on<\/p>\n
conviction.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   After an elaborate consideration of the evidence and<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000               -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
materials on record, the trial court came into the finding that the<\/p>\n
accused have committed the offence charged against them and<\/p>\n
accordingly they were convicted        for  the above offence and<\/p>\n
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.45,000\/-(Rs.15,000\/- each), and in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3<\/p>\n
months. It is also ordered separately that the fine amount, if<\/p>\n
realised, shall be paid to the Panchayat. In appeal, the Sessions<\/p>\n
Court, after evaluating the evidence on record,      came into the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the petitioners\/accused have committed the<\/p>\n
offence charged against them.      Thus the appellate court by its<\/p>\n
judgment, sustained the conviction and affirmed the sentence.<\/p>\n
Pressing   the various legal and factual grounds, the petitioners<\/p>\n
assailed the concurrent findings of the courts below in this<\/p>\n
Crl.Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   I have heard the counsel appearing for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondent.<\/p>\n
      5.   The challenge against the conviction and sentence are<\/p>\n
mainly on two grounds. According to the revision petitioners and<\/p>\n
their counsel, in the light of the decision reported in Pankajbhai<\/p>\n
N.Patel v. State of Gujarat<\/a> (2001 (1) KLT 517) (SC), the trial<\/p>\n
court has no jurisdiction to impose fine exceeding Rs.5000\/-<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000               -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
and especially in the light of     the pecuniary jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
Magistrate as per section 29<\/a> of the Cr.P.C., the sentences ordered<\/p>\n
by the trial court and  confirmed by the lower appellate court is<\/p>\n
not sustainable. On behalf of the petitioners, the other contention<\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel is that that no proper notice<\/p>\n
was served on all the accused and the distraint warrant was not<\/p>\n
executed by the person authorized as per warrant and therefore,<\/p>\n
the entire proceedings are vitiated and hence no offence will lie<\/p>\n
against them.      On the other hand, counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
pointed out that Ext.P1 notice has already been served on the Ist<\/p>\n
accused and in Ext.P1 itself, it is recited that notice was being<\/p>\n
served on the Ist accused and also for others. Since all the<\/p>\n
accused were jointly assessed and Ext.P1 notice was served on<\/p>\n
the Ist accused for himself and also for others, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that service of Ext.P1 is sufficient and therefore the contention of<\/p>\n
the counsel for the petitioners in this regard is not helpful to<\/p>\n
assail the procedure of the Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
            6. Another contention raised by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners that Ext. P3 is the distraint warrant in which the<\/p>\n
officer authorized to execute the warrant is one P.Vilasini who is a<\/p>\n
Lower Division Clerk, as the name appears from Ext.P3, the said<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000             -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
officer is a lady.   The above contention was raised even in the<\/p>\n
trial court, which was correctly answered by the trial court which<\/p>\n
can be seen in page No.4 of the trial court judgment. As per the<\/p>\n
evidence     and materials on records, it can be seen that though<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 was entrusted with PW-3, PW-3 had      filed a submission<\/p>\n
before the Executive Officer on 1.3.1991 and as per the order of<\/p>\n
the Executive    Officer, the same was entrusted with PW-2     for<\/p>\n
service though it authorised PW-3.     Going by Ext.P3 document<\/p>\n
it can be seen that it is a printed form and the name of the<\/p>\n
person authorized to execute the same has been incorporated in<\/p>\n
writing in the printed form. There is no mandatory provision<\/p>\n
contained in the Rules namely Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and<\/p>\n
Appeal) Rules, 1963 which says that the distraint warrant should<\/p>\n
be executed by the person to whom it is authorised for execution.<\/p>\n
The service of distraint warrant is only a procedure and nothing<\/p>\n
brought out to show that due to the service of Ext.P3 distraint<\/p>\n
warrant     by a person other than the authorised person,     any<\/p>\n
prejudice is caused to the accused.      In the absence of    any<\/p>\n
prejudice caused to the accused, I find that there is no force in<\/p>\n
the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this<\/p>\n
regard.\n<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000                -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
       7. In the light of the above discussion, I find no reason to<\/p>\n
interfere with the finding arrived at by the trial court as well as by<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court and therefore, the conviction entered<\/p>\n
into by the courts below is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Regarding the sentence, I find some force in the<\/p>\n
submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.         In view of<\/p>\n
section 29(2)<\/a> of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate court has no jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
impose fine exceeding an amount of Rs.5000\/-. The Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the decision reported in        Pankajbhai. N.Patel’s case<\/p>\n
(cited supra) it is held that the Judicial First Class Magistrate<\/p>\n
after conviction cannot impose a       fine exceeding Rs.5000\/- . In<\/p>\n
paragraph 8 of the above decision it is held:\n<\/p>\n
\n
               “Thus, the non-obstante limb provided in<\/p>\n
        S.142 of the N.I.Act is not intended to expand the<\/p>\n
        powers of a Magistrate of first class beyond what<\/p>\n
        is fixed in Chapter III of the Code. S.29, which<\/p>\n
        falls within Chapter III of the Code, contains a<\/p>\n
        limit for a Magistrate of first class in the matter of<\/p>\n
        imposing a sentence as noticed above i.e., if the<\/p>\n
        sentence is imprisonment it shall not exceed 3<\/p>\n
        years and if the sentence is fine (even if it is part<\/p>\n
        of the sentence) it shall not exceed Rs.5000\/-“.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000              -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
      9.  In the present case, a similar provision as that of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act<\/a>, 1881 is contained in Rule 26 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963.          Rule 26<\/p>\n
says:\n<\/p>\n
              ” Magistrate to recover tax, warrant fee<\/p>\n
       etc.-(1) Every person who if prosecuted under<\/p>\n
       the second proviso to S.74 of the Act shall be liable<\/p>\n
       on proof to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that<\/p>\n
       he wilfully omitted to pay the amount due by him<\/p>\n
       or that he wilfully prevented distraint or a sufficient<\/p>\n
       distraint, to pay a fine not exceeding twice the<\/p>\n
       amount which may be due by him on account of–<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (a)   the tax and the warrant fee, if any, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (b)    if distraint   has taken place, the<\/p>\n
      distraint fee and the expenses incidental to the<\/p>\n
      detention and sale if any,         of the property<\/p>\n
      distrained”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                 (emphasize supplied)<\/p>\n
Though the Rule enables the Magistrate court to impose fine not<\/p>\n
exceeding twice the amount which may due from the accused on<\/p>\n
the grounds mentioned therein, as per the limitation contained in<\/p>\n
section 29(2)<\/a> of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot       impose a fine<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000               -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
exceeding Rs.5000\/- on an accused. By no stretch of imagination<\/p>\n
it can be held that     by incorporating Rule 26(1) of the Rules,<\/p>\n
through subordinate legislation, rule making authority who has<\/p>\n
absolutely no jurisdiction, had intention to enlarge the pecuniary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of a Magistrate of First Class, from the limit fixed by<\/p>\n
old S.32 of Cr.P.C<\/a>., 1898 which is corresponding to S.29(2) of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C<\/a>. 1973, a Central Act<\/a>, enacted by the Parliament.<\/p>\n
      10.    In the present case as revealed by the judgment , a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.15,000\/- has been imposed as fine upon one accused<\/p>\n
and the total amount thus comes to Rs.45,000\/-. Probably, the<\/p>\n
above amount was         fixed with a view to compensate        the<\/p>\n
complainant to whom a total sum of Rs.38,834\/- is due from the<\/p>\n
accused. In the light of section 29(2)<\/a> of Cr.P.C. and the decision<\/p>\n
reported in Pankajbhai N.Patel’s case (cited supra), the order<\/p>\n
of the trial court sentencing the accused to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- which is an amount exceeding the              pecuniary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction fixed by section 29<\/a> (2) of Cr.P.C<\/a>. is not sustainable<\/p>\n
and therefore,    the sentence imposed by the      trial court  and<\/p>\n
confirmed by the lower appellate court is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
      11. In our democratic system, the Grama Panchayats are<\/p>\n
the local unit of self Government and for its effective functioning,<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000               -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the main revenue is by way of certain item of taxes which are<\/p>\n
authorised to collect by the Grama Panchayats. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
default on the tax payers in paying the tax will ultimately affect<\/p>\n
the very functioning of the local self Government and it was in this<\/p>\n
background, Section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 and<\/p>\n
Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchyats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963<\/p>\n
enacted with a view to prosecute the defaulters in paying the tax<\/p>\n
and also to realise    the tax and       any other  due connected<\/p>\n
therewith and to pay the same to the Panchayat concerned. At<\/p>\n
this juncture, it is relevant to note sub-rule 2 of Rule 26 which<\/p>\n
says:\n<\/p>\n
\n
       (2) whenever any person         is convicted of an<\/p>\n
       offence under sub-rule (1), the Magistrate shall, in<\/p>\n
       addition to any fine which may be imposed,<\/p>\n
       recover summarily and pay over to the Panchayat<\/p>\n
       the amounts, if any, due under the heads<\/p>\n
       specified in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1);<\/p>\n
       and may, in his discretion also recover summarily<\/p>\n
       and pay to the Panchayat such amount, if any, as<\/p>\n
       he may fix as the costs of the prosecution”.\n<\/p>\n
On a combined reading of sub-rules 1 and 2 of Rule 26 it can be<\/p>\n
seen that the intention of the rule making authority is to enable<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000             -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
the Grama Panchayat to realise the tax due from the defaulted<\/p>\n
tax payers by invoking the penal provision and to compensate the<\/p>\n
Panchayat in this regard.  But in view of Section 29<\/a> of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
and especially in the light of the decision referred above, the<\/p>\n
pecuniary jurisdiction  of   Magistrate is   confined     to only<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/- and therefore, the trial court cannot be in a position to<\/p>\n
materialise the object behind the provisions of the above rules.<\/p>\n
In this context, it is relevant to note that the total tax arrears<\/p>\n
was Rs.38,834\/- as on 1992. Now we are in 2007. So far no<\/p>\n
amount was paid by the petitioners\/accused. Of course, counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioners   raised a contention that    an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.4000\/-   has already been paid and      that was not adjusted<\/p>\n
towards the total amount demanded. But from Ext.P1, it is clear<\/p>\n
that the amount demanded        therein was after deducting    the<\/p>\n
deposit amount. Now, even if any amount is liable to be taken<\/p>\n
into account and adjusted, the same can be done at the time of<\/p>\n
final settlement of accounts as observed by the trial court in its<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      12. In the present case, it is relevant to note that as<\/p>\n
per the       above rules, on finding of guilt of the accused<\/p>\n
and on conviction, the Magistrate can sentence the accused<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000           -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
only by     awarding a fine     since the Magistrate   is not<\/p>\n
authorised to award sentence of imprisonment. But by virtue<\/p>\n
of the above limitation, even if the arrears are more than<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/-, the Magistrate can impose a fine only up to<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/-. In short, even the permissible amount cannot be<\/p>\n
fixed as fine.    But, at the same time, the trial court has<\/p>\n
miserably failed to invoke sub rule 2 of Rule 26 of the above<\/p>\n
Rules and to pass      an order for realising the actual due<\/p>\n
amount as well as the prosecution expense and other<\/p>\n
amounts which are just and         proper to compensate the<\/p>\n
complainant Panchayat. In the light of the above bar on the<\/p>\n
pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the above order of<\/p>\n
sentence imposing fine to the tune of Rs.15,000\/- each on<\/p>\n
the accused has to be held as illegal. But at the very same<\/p>\n
time, after having found the accused guilty, they shall not<\/p>\n
go   unpunished but, of course,        subject  to the above<\/p>\n
pecuniary limitation.   But, still even    in such event, the<\/p>\n
panchayat will not be benefited      or compensated   and the<\/p>\n
tax arrears due to the panchayat cannot be realised unless<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000             -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
an order passed by the court below by invoking Rule 26(2) of<\/p>\n
the Rules. Thus, if the trial court, after evaluating the entire<\/p>\n
factual situation involved in the matter, invokes Rule 26(2)<\/p>\n
and fixes an appropriate amount, the same will be sufficient<\/p>\n
to advance the intention behind the Rule and give effect for<\/p>\n
the same. Besides invoking        Rule 26(2) of the Rules, the<\/p>\n
Magistrate can also invoke Section 357<\/a> of Cr.P.C. as held in<\/p>\n
Pankajbhai N. Patel’s case (cited supra).         But all these<\/p>\n
can be done only after giving opportunity of being heard to<\/p>\n
the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     13.     In the    light of the      above discussion and<\/p>\n
observation, this Crl.R.P. is allowed in part setting aside the<\/p>\n
sentence awarded but sustaining the conviction. The matter<\/p>\n
is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration on the<\/p>\n
question of sentence , i.e., imposing fine under Rule 26(1)<\/p>\n
of the    Rules and also awarding       appropriate amount as<\/p>\n
contemplated by Rule 26(2) of the Rules and awarding<\/p>\n
compensation, if any, under section 357<\/a> of Cr.P.C. after<\/p>\n
hearing the accused as well as the complainant on those<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000            -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
aspects. The petitioners\/accused      are   directed to appear<\/p>\n
before the trial court on 26-11-2007 and it is needless to say<\/p>\n
that   if the   accused are not appearing      as directed, the<\/p>\n
Magistrate can take steps against the sureties to ensure the<\/p>\n
presence of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     14.    In the result,   this Crl.R.P. is allowed in   part<\/p>\n
sustaining the conviction    and remanded       the same    for<\/p>\n
passing fresh     orders on   the question of     sentence and<\/p>\n
awarding compensation in the light of the above observation<\/p>\n
and direction.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                        V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
kvm\/-\n<\/p>\n
CRL.R.P.NO.1003\/2000    -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                              Crl.R.P.No.1003 of 2000<\/p>\n
                                                 Order<\/p>\n
                                    Dated:17-10-2007<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 1003 of 2000() 1. A.E.DAMODARAN … Petitioner Vs 1. SPECIAL GRADE EXECUTIVE OFFICER … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated :17\/10\/2007 […]<\/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-251587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 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\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-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=\"2007-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T05:44:26+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T05:44:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2665,\"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\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007\",\"name\":\"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T05:44:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 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":"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 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\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-07T05:44:26+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T05:44:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007"},"wordCount":2665,"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\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007","name":"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T05:44:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-e-damodaran-vs-special-grade-executive-officer-on-17-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.E.Damodaran vs Special Grade Executive Officer on 17 October, 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\/251587","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=251587"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251587\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}