{"id":256825,"date":"2006-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006"},"modified":"2016-01-03T22:42:16","modified_gmt":"2016-01-03T17:12:16","slug":"yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 2834 of 2006()\n\n\n1. YOOSUF, S\/O.MOOSA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SUCY PETER, W\/O.LUCA PETER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\n\n Dated :17\/08\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                  R.BASANT, J\n                         ------------------------------------\n                          Crl.R.P.No.2834 of 2006\n                        -------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the  17th day of August, 2006\n\n                                      ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
       This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of<\/p>\n
guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the N.I Act.  The cheque is for an amount of Rs.72,000\/-.  The cheque<\/p>\n
when  presented   was  dishonoured  on   the   ground  of   insufficiency   of<\/p>\n
funds.   Notice of demand, though despatched by prepaid post in the<\/p>\n
correct address, was returned unserved.   The complainant examined<\/p>\n
herself as PW1.   Pws 2 & 3   bank officials were also examined.   He<\/p>\n
proved   Exts.P1   to   P12.     The   accused   did   not   adduce   any   defence<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
       2.      In the course of cross examination of PW1, no specific and<\/p>\n
definite defence was taken up by the petitioner though a suggestion<\/p>\n
was made that the cheque lost from the possession of the petitioner<\/p>\n
was received by the complainant.   This is the only suggestion raised<\/p>\n
in   the   cross   examination   of   PW1   to   explain   the   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
cheque   by the complainant.   In the course of 313 examination also<\/p>\n
except blank denials, no specific stand was taken by the accused, who<\/p>\n
only contended that the cheque was  issued not for the due discharge<\/p>\n
of any legally enforcible debt\/liability.\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.R.P.No.2834 of 2006                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
      3.     The   courts   below   in   these   circumstances   came   to   the<\/p>\n
concurrent   conclusion   that   the   complainant   has   succeeded   in<\/p>\n
establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
138<\/a> of the N.I. Act.  Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned<\/p>\n
concurrent judgments.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the<\/p>\n
petitioner   wants   to   mount   against   the   impugned   concurrent<\/p>\n
judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced a totally<\/p>\n
different contention.  In para.5 of the Memorandum of Revision, it is<\/p>\n
contended that  the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of<\/p>\n
any   legally   enforcible   debt\/liability.     But   transaction   between   the<\/p>\n
complainant and the accused is admitted.   It is contended that  the<\/p>\n
real  transaction   was   only   for   Rs.10,000\/-   and   that   the   cheque  was<\/p>\n
handed over as a blank signed cheque as security when the parties<\/p>\n
entered into the   earlier transaction.   That blank signed cheque has<\/p>\n
been misutilised by the complainant to stake an untenable claim, it is<\/p>\n
now urged in the memorandum of revision.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     The  contention   is  not   worthy  of  acceptance   at   all.   The<\/p>\n
contention presently raised is not at all raised in the course of cross<\/p>\n
examination of the complainant or in the course of 313 examination of<\/p>\n
the accused.   The petitioner had adduced no defence evidence also.<\/p>\n
The evidence of the complainant coupled with the admission of the<\/p>\n
signature   made   now   clearly   shows   that   the   evidence   of   PW1   can<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.2834 of 2006                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
safely   be   accepted.     Totally   incongruent   and   contradictory<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the petitioner is again one circumstance which<\/p>\n
will assure the courts of the acceptability of the oral evidence of PW1.<\/p>\n
As  admitted   now   in   the  Memorandum   of   Revision,  the   cheque  was<\/p>\n
handed over by the accused to the complainant with reference to a<\/p>\n
monetary   transaction.   This  considerably   takes away  importance   of<\/p>\n
the  statement made by PW1 that the name of the payee was written<\/p>\n
in the cheque by a person at her request.   In view of the statement<\/p>\n
now made that the cheque was handed over to the complainant by the<\/p>\n
petitioner,   the fact  that  the   name of the  payee  was written  by  the<\/p>\n
complainant or someone at her direction assumes no significance at<\/p>\n
all.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    The   evidence   of   the   complainant   as   PW1   unmistakably<\/p>\n
establishes   the   execution   and   handing   over   of   the   cheque.     The<\/p>\n
contradictory versions taken by the accused helps the court to accept<\/p>\n
the   evidence   of   PW1   without   any   hesitation.     Once   execution   and<\/p>\n
handing over of the cheque are established, the presumption under<\/p>\n
Section 139<\/a> of the N.I Act arises.  No attempt whatsoever was made<\/p>\n
to discharge the burden to rebut the presumption.  The courts below<\/p>\n
in   these   circumstances,   I   must   hold,   were   eminently   justified   in<\/p>\n
coming   to   the   conclusion   that   all   ingredients   of   the   offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 138<\/a> of the N.I Act have been established<\/p>\n
against the petitioner by the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.R.P.No.2834 of 2006                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
         7.    Notice   of   demand   was   returned   unserved.    Significantly<\/p>\n
there is not a whisper of a contention that the notice was not sent in<\/p>\n
the   correct   address.     It   was   returned   without   service.     The<\/p>\n
complainant must be held to have satisfied the requirement of Section<\/p>\n
138<\/a>   of   the   N.I   Act   having   “given   the   notice   of   demand”   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.  The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there<\/p>\n
was   an   application   to   send   the   cheque   to   the   handwriting   expert.<\/p>\n
That   petition   was   not   considered   favourably   by   the   court,   it   is<\/p>\n
submitted.     Signature   in   the   cheque   is   admitted.     The   cheque   is<\/p>\n
written   on   a   cheque   leaf   issued   to   the   petitioner   by   his   bank   to<\/p>\n
operate his account. Evidence of PW1 proves execution.   Admittedly<\/p>\n
the   name   of   the   payee   was   not   written   in   the   handwriting   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.  In these circumstances, I find no valid and tenable reason<\/p>\n
for   which   the   cheque   should   have   been   sent   to   the   expert.     That<\/p>\n
application to forward the cheque to the expert was rightly rejected<\/p>\n
by the courts below in the circumstances which are revealed in this<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
         8.    No other contentions are raised on merits.   The counsel<\/p>\n
then   prays  that   the   sentence   imposed  is  excessive.     The   petitioner<\/p>\n
now   faces   a   sentence   of   s.i   for   a   period   of   2   months.     There   is   a<\/p>\n
further direction  to pay an amount of Rs.72,000\/- and in default to<\/p>\n
undergo s.i for a period of 3 months.   I find merit in the   prayer for<\/p>\n
leniency.\n<\/p>\n
\nCrl.R.P.No.2834 of 2006                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
      9.      I   have       already   adverted   to   the   principles   governing<\/p>\n
imposition of  sentence in a prosecution under Section 138<\/a> of the N.I<\/p>\n
Act in the decision reported in Anilkumar v. Shammi [2002(3) KLT<\/p>\n
852].   I am satisfied that there are no compelling     reasons     which<\/p>\n
can   persuade   this  Court  to insist on imposition of any deterrent<\/p>\n
substantive sentence of imprisonment.       Leniency can be shown on<\/p>\n
the   question   of   sentence,   but   only   subject   to   the   requirement   of<\/p>\n
adequately   and   justly   compensating   the   victim,   who   has   been<\/p>\n
compelled to fight two rounds of legal battle by now and to wait from<\/p>\n
1997 for the  redressal of  his   genuine grievances.     The challenge<\/p>\n
raised can succeed only to the above extent.\n<\/p>\n
      10.     In the nature of the relief which I propose to grant, it is<\/p>\n
not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent.<\/p>\n
       11.    In the result:\n<\/p>\n
       a)     This Crl.R.P is allowed in part;\n\n       b)     The   impugned   verdict   of   guilty   and   conviction   of   the\n\n<\/pre>\n
petitioner under Section 138<\/a> of the N.I Act are upheld;<\/p>\n
       c)     But   the   sentence   imposed   is   modified   and   reduced.     In<\/p>\n
supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts<\/p>\n
below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court.<\/p>\n
He is further directed   under Section 357(3)<\/a> Cr.P.C to pay a further<\/p>\n
amount   of   Rs.80,000\/-   (Rupees   Eighty   Thousand   only)   as<\/p>\n
compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a period of 45 days.  If<\/p>\n
realised the entire amount shall be released to the complainant.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.2834 of 2006                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
         12.    The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
on   or   before   31.10.2006   to   serve   the   modified   sentence   hereby<\/p>\n
imposed.   The sentence  shall  not  be  executed  till  that  date.  If<\/p>\n
the<\/p>\n
petitioner does not so appear, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter<\/p>\n
proceed   to   take   necessary   steps   to   execute   the   modified   sentence<\/p>\n
hereby imposed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                     (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
rtr\/<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.2834 of 2006    7<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 2834 of 2006() 1. YOOSUF, S\/O.MOOSA, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED … Respondent 2. SUCY PETER, W\/O.LUCA PETER, For Petitioner :SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH For Respondent :PUBLIC […]<\/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-256825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006 - 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\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-03T17:12:16+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\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T17:12:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1223,\"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\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T17:12:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006 - 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\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-03T17:12:16+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\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T17:12:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006"},"wordCount":1223,"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\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006","name":"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T17:12:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yoosuf-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-17-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yoosuf vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/256825","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=256825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}