{"id":256,"date":"2009-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-19T21:51:11","modified_gmt":"2015-10-19T16:21:11","slug":"c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 697 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. C. MUKUNDAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.M.PRASANTH\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :16\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                     P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.\n                ----------------------------------------\n                    Crl.R.P.No.697 of 2001\n                ----------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.257 of<\/p>\n
1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,<\/p>\n
Sulthanbathery.    The learned magistrate by judgment dated<\/p>\n
25\/2\/1995 found them guilty for offence under section 403 & 409<\/p>\n
r\/w.34 I.P.C.  Accordingly they were convicted for the said<\/p>\n
offences and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two<\/p>\n
years and a fine of Rs.2,000\/- each with usual default clause for<\/p>\n
offence under section 409 read with section 34 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
No separate sentence was awarded for offence under section<\/p>\n
403 r\/w.34 IP.C. Though the appellants were also prosecuted for<\/p>\n
offence under section 477(A) I.P.C, they were found not guilty<\/p>\n
and acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   Challenging the above conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.32\/95 was preferred before the Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Kalpetta. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated<\/p>\n
24\/5\/2001   dismissed     the    appeal.     Assailing   the legality,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.697 of 2001
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
as confirmed in appeal this revision petition was preferred.<\/p>\n
     3.    The appellants were the President and Secretary of<\/p>\n
Cheengeri    Colony    Girijan  Service    Co-operative   Society,<\/p>\n
Ambalavayal. As such they were authorized to operate two<\/p>\n
accounts maintained by the society, one at the District Co-<\/p>\n
operative bank, Wayanad and the other at Service Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank, Ambalavayal as per resolution No.13 of the society<\/p>\n
recorded in page 50 of Ext.P8. According to the prosecution, the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners were in custody of the pass book, cheque<\/p>\n
book, cash book, etc. Exts.P1 and P2 are the pass book and<\/p>\n
cheque book respectively in respect of the account maintained at<\/p>\n
the District Co-operative Bank, Vayanad. Exts.P4 and P5 are the<\/p>\n
pass book and cheque book respectively in respect of Account<\/p>\n
No.1235 maintained at Service Co-operative Bank, Ambalavayal.<\/p>\n
On 28\/10\/1985 the revision petitioners who are jointly operating<\/p>\n
the account drew Ext.P6 cheque from Ext.P2 cheque book<\/p>\n
and withdrew a sum of Rs.200\/- from the District Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank. On 29\/11\/1985 Ext.P7 cheque was drawn from Ext.P5<\/p>\n
cheque book and a sum of Rs.5,000\/- was drawn from the Service<\/p>\n
Co-operative Bank, Ambalavayal.       The above two amounts<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.697 of 2001
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
were not accounted in Ext.P3 cash book and thus committed<\/p>\n
breach of trust.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 11 were<\/p>\n
examined and Ext.P1 to P17 were marked. PW.1 is the auditor<\/p>\n
who audited the account and detected the defalcation. PW.2, the<\/p>\n
Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Society sent a copy of the<\/p>\n
inspection report along with report of misappropriation with a<\/p>\n
covering letter to the District Superintendent of Police, Wayanad<\/p>\n
who in turn forwarded the same to the C.I of Police,<\/p>\n
Sulthanbathery who forwarded the same to the S.I. of Police,<\/p>\n
Ambalavayal on the basis of which the S.I. registered a case as<\/p>\n
Crime No.82\/89 against the revision petitioner for offence under<\/p>\n
sections 403, 409, 477 (A) read with section 34 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
     5.   PW.1, who audited the accounts had deposed that she<\/p>\n
had audited the accounts of the society and that Ext.P9 is the<\/p>\n
audit report. She had further deposed that revision petitioners<\/p>\n
were the president and secretary of the above mentioned society.<\/p>\n
She had proved that Exts.P1 and P4 passbooks, Ext.P2 and P5<\/p>\n
cheque books, Ext.P6 & P7 cheques whereby the amount<\/p>\n
misappropriated were drawn and Ext.P8 minutes books. She had<\/p>\n
further deposed that in Ext.P3 cash book the amount so<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.697 of 2001
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
withdrawn were not entered. Since there is no entry in the cash<\/p>\n
book, it can be safely concluded that the amount withdrawn by<\/p>\n
Exts.P6 and P7 cheques were not accounted. There is also no<\/p>\n
material to show that the amounts so withdrawn were<\/p>\n
appropriated by the revision petitioners for any purpose of the<\/p>\n
society.  In defence they have no case that the amounts so<\/p>\n
withdrawn have been either spent for any of the purpose of the<\/p>\n
society or accounted any where. In the above circumstances,<\/p>\n
from Ext.P8 it is established beyond doubt that the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners as president and secretary were authorised to<\/p>\n
operate Exts.P1 and P4 accounts in the name of the society. On<\/p>\n
28\/10\/1985 and 29\/11\/1985 by Exts.P6 and P7 cheques, jointly<\/p>\n
drawn by the revision petitioners for Rs.200\/- and Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
respectively, were encashed. Those amounts were not accounted<\/p>\n
or appropriated for any of the purpose of the society. So, it can<\/p>\n
be legally presumed that the said amounts were appropriated by<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner for their own use.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   The revision petitioners being president and secretary<\/p>\n
of the co-operative society, they may not come within the<\/p>\n
category of persons (public servant, banker, merchant or agent,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.697 of 2001
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
etc) mentioned in 409 I.P.C.      The second revision petitioner<\/p>\n
being secretary of the society he may come within the category<\/p>\n
of persons mentioned in Section 408 I.P.C. But the first revision<\/p>\n
petitioner being the president he may not come within the<\/p>\n
purview of the sections 408 I.P.C. also. He would come within<\/p>\n
the purview of Section 406 I.P.C. Hence the finding of the courts<\/p>\n
below that the revision petitioners had committed offence<\/p>\n
u\/s.409 I.P.C. is not sustainable. But there are materials to find<\/p>\n
that the first revision petitioner had committed offence<\/p>\n
punishable under section 403 and 406 I.P.C. and the second<\/p>\n
revision petitioner had committed offence punishable under<\/p>\n
section 403 and 408 I.P.C.      The conviction under challenge<\/p>\n
requires such modification.\n<\/p>\n
      7.  According to the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners the revision petitioners belonging to most backward<\/p>\n
class were the president and secretary of a Cheengeri Colony<\/p>\n
Girijan Service Co-operative Society and the offence alleged was<\/p>\n
committed as early as 1985 and as on that date they were aged<\/p>\n
48 and 29 respectively and that the first revision petitioner, then<\/p>\n
a peon now retired from service and aged 72 years and the<\/p>\n
second revision petitioner, an agricultural labour now aged 53<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.697 of 2001
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
years and in the circumstances, the sentence awarded is harsh<\/p>\n
and excessive. Though delay in disposal may not be a ground to<\/p>\n
determine the sentence, I find some substance in the submission<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Having<\/p>\n
due regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, I find<\/p>\n
that as regards the sentence, a modification is necessitated and<\/p>\n
that a sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the court<\/p>\n
and a fine of Rs.3,000\/- each for offence under section 403 & 406<\/p>\n
as regards the first revision petitioner and under section 403 &<\/p>\n
408 as regards the second revision petitioner would meet the<\/p>\n
ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   In the above circumstances, the revision petition is<\/p>\n
allowed in part. The conviction under challenge is modified to<\/p>\n
one under section 403 & 406 as regards the first revision<\/p>\n
petitioner.   As regards the second revision petitioner, it is<\/p>\n
modified to one under section 403 & 408 I.P.C. Both of them are<\/p>\n
sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of court and a fine<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.3,000\/- each for each offence under section 403,<\/p>\n
406 & 408 I.P.C. respectively. [Total fine Rs.6,000\/- (Rupees Six<\/p>\n
thousand only) each].    In default of payment of fine amount, the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.697 of 2001
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a<\/p>\n
period of 3 months. The fine amount if any collected shall be<\/p>\n
paid to the society provided it is now functioning or else it shall<\/p>\n
be credited to the State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
Skj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 697 of 2001() 1. C. MUKUNDAN … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PRASANTH For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Dated :16\/09\/2009 O R D E R P.S.GOPINATHAN, 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-256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 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\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-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=\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-19T16:21:11+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=\"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\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T16:21:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1246,\"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\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009\",\"name\":\"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T16:21:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 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":"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 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\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-19T16:21:11+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T16:21:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009"},"wordCount":1246,"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\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009","name":"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T16:21:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mukundan-vs-state-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Mukundan vs State on 16 September, 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\/256","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=256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}