{"id":262102,"date":"2008-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-12T21:49:53","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T16:19:53","slug":"sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 212 of 2008()\n\n\n1. SRI.S.K.JHA COMMODORE COMMANDING\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HARBOUR\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :16\/01\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                                             \"CR\"\n\n                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                  = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                     Crl.M.C.No.212 of 2008\n                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n           Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008\n\n                             ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     The petitioner, who is the Commodore Commanding<\/p>\n
Officer, INS Venduruthy, Naval Base, Kochi and who was the<\/p>\n
applicant in CMP No.231\/2007 before the J.F.C.M-I, Ernakulam<\/p>\n
in a petition filed under Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C, challenges the order<\/p>\n
dated 14.1.08, dismissing the said petition which originated in<\/p>\n
the form of a letter dated 14.1.08 addressed to the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Three of the accused persons in Crime No.39\/2008 of<\/p>\n
Harbour Police Station are serving officers of the Indian Navy<\/p>\n
and it was in respect of those three officers that the above<\/p>\n
request was made before the learned Magistrate.<\/p>\n
     VERSION OF THE STATE POLICE<\/p>\n
     3. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.39\/2008 of<\/p>\n
Harbour Police Station can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n
     On 10.01.08, at about 11 p.m., 100 persons including the<\/p>\n
three Naval Officers formed themselves into an           unlawful<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
assembly in the compound of the Harbour Police Station and<\/p>\n
in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly<\/p>\n
they committed rioting armed with deadly weapons such as<\/p>\n
iron rod, granite stones etc. After entering the Police Station<\/p>\n
compound, they attempted to murder one Police Constable by<\/p>\n
beating him with an iron rod on his head.     They also caused<\/p>\n
grievous hurt to another Police Constable by pelting stones.<\/p>\n
The accused also dismantled and damaged the windows of the<\/p>\n
Station House, wireless set, police jeep etc. by pelting stones.<\/p>\n
The accused have thereby committed offences punishable<\/p>\n
under sections 143<\/a>, 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 452<\/a>, 307<\/a>, 326<\/a>, 427<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
149 IPC<\/a> and Section 3 of the Prevention of Destruction of<\/p>\n
Public Property Act.\n<\/p>\n
       DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE CRIME STAGE<\/p>\n
       4. Soon after the occurrence, the aforesaid crime was<\/p>\n
registered and the three Naval Officers who figure as A1 to<\/p>\n
A3 in the F.I.R. were arrested. There is no dispute that the<\/p>\n
accused officers on production before the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
have been remanded to judicial custody and investigation is<\/p>\n
still in progress.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
      5. On 14.1.08, the petitioner herein sent a letter to the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate making a request under Section 475<\/a><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. to    hand over the three       Naval Officers to the<\/p>\n
petitioner for being tried by a Court Martial.  The said letter<\/p>\n
was treated as a petition and numbered as CMP No.231\/2008<\/p>\n
which has been disposed of by the impugned order.<\/p>\n
      6.  I heard Senior Advocate Sri. K.Ramakumar, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate Sri.P.G.Thampi, the learned Director General of<\/p>\n
Prosecution appearing for the State.\n<\/p>\n
           STAND OF THE NAVAL CHIEF<\/p>\n
      7.   Assailing the impugned order, Sri.K.Ramakumar<\/p>\n
made the following submissions before me:<\/p>\n
      The request made by the petitioner before the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate was one under Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C read with Rule<\/p>\n
3 (a) of the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of<\/p>\n
Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
Rules”). Even though the final report under Section 173(2)<\/a><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C has not so far been filed before the learned Magistrate,<\/p>\n
it cannot be said that the accused officers do not stand<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
charged for the aforementioned offences. They had also been<\/p>\n
brought before the learned Magistrate pursuant to their<\/p>\n
arrest. Hence, the request under Section 475(1)<\/a> Cr.P.C was<\/p>\n
fully justified and by rejecting the said request, the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate illegally continues to retain the jurisdiction with<\/p>\n
him. The Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of<\/p>\n
Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 are Rules framed under Section<\/p>\n
475<\/a> (1) Cr.P.C<\/a>.. Rule 3(a) also contemplates a motion by the<\/p>\n
competent military, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard Authority<\/p>\n
before the Magistrate before whom the three members of the<\/p>\n
Armed Forces had been brought and charged with the<\/p>\n
aforementioned offences.       Hence the stage was set for<\/p>\n
invoking the said two provisions and requesting to hand over<\/p>\n
the accused officers to the petitioner for the purpose of being<\/p>\n
tried before a Court Martial. There is nothing in Section 475<\/a><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C or the aforementioned Rules framed thereunder<\/p>\n
justifying the rejection of the specific request as was made in<\/p>\n
this case.     The words     “and charged with an offence”<\/p>\n
occurring in Section 475(1)<\/a> Cr.P.C as well as in Rule 3 of the<\/p>\n
said Rules’ have to be understood in a wider sense. The word<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
‘charged’ does not mean charge sheeted. It is enough if there<\/p>\n
is a formal accusation      against them as was held    by the<\/p>\n
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision in Major<\/p>\n
Gopinathan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and<\/p>\n
Another<\/a> – AIR 1963 MP 249. The Rajasthan High Court<\/p>\n
also in the decision in     Mrari Lal v. K.C. Aneja<\/a> – 1982<\/p>\n
Crl.L.J 2082 had taken the view that the filing of a charge<\/p>\n
sheet is not a sine qua non for making a request under<\/p>\n
Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C read with Rule 3 (a)       of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
Rules. Going by the view taken by the learned Magistrate, it<\/p>\n
would appear as though he was determined to try the three<\/p>\n
Naval Officers by retaining the jurisdiction with him and<\/p>\n
refusing to part with the jurisdiction at any cost forgetting<\/p>\n
the fact that the jurisdiction to try such offenders, though<\/p>\n
concurrent with the Magistrate as well as the Court-Martial<\/p>\n
has to yield to the latter forum which has a preferential claim<\/p>\n
when a request is made by the Appropriate Authority under<\/p>\n
Section 475(1)<\/a> Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     STAND OF THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR<\/p>\n
     8.   Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner, Sri.P.G.Thampi, the learned Director General of<\/p>\n
Prosecutions made the following submissions before me:<\/p>\n
      In order to attract Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C, it should be<\/p>\n
possible to say that the accused is liable to be tried by the<\/p>\n
Court.    The words” shall be tried by a court to which this<\/p>\n
Code applies” in Section 475(1)<\/a> Cr.P.C. mean that there is a<\/p>\n
sure possibility of a trial before the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
without which the stage is not set for making a request<\/p>\n
under Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C.    Rule 3(a) of the Rules also does<\/p>\n
not contain any different intendment.         The expression<\/p>\n
‘charged’ in Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C and Rule 3 of the Rules has a<\/p>\n
definite legal connotation and it has to be understood in its<\/p>\n
proper legal sense. The wider interpretation given to the said<\/p>\n
expression by the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts<\/p>\n
may not be quite correct, having regard to the Scheme of the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
                JUDICIAL EVALUATION<\/p>\n
      9. After hearing both sides at length, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that the submission made by the learned Director General of<\/p>\n
Prosecution should receive acceptance at the hands of this<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
Court. The object of Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C and the Rules frames<\/p>\n
thereunder is to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction regarding the<\/p>\n
forums which may have to try an offender who belongs to the<\/p>\n
Armed Forces. Hence, when the stage has reached for trying<\/p>\n
such an offender, the Law gives primacy to the Armed Forces<\/p>\n
to make a choice regarding the forum which is to try an<\/p>\n
offender   serving under them.      The expression “charged”<\/p>\n
occurring in both Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C. as well as in Rule 3 of<\/p>\n
the Rules can only mean a stage after the filing of a “Police<\/p>\n
Report” under Section 173<\/a> (2) Cr.P.C<\/a>. or after the filing of a<\/p>\n
“complaint” under Section 190<\/a> read with Section 200<\/a> Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
before a Criminal Court. That stage cannot be said to have<\/p>\n
reached even if the Court takes cognizance of the offences<\/p>\n
either on such police report or on such complaint unless<\/p>\n
process is issued to the accused and he either appears before<\/p>\n
Court or is brought before Court. It is thereafter that the<\/p>\n
court frames a charge against the offender (if he is triable by<\/p>\n
that Court itself) or commits the case to the Court of Session<\/p>\n
under Section 209<\/a> Cr.P.C (if the offence is one exclusively<\/p>\n
triable by a Court of Session). It is well settled that the trial<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
in a warrant case, as also in a Sessions Case, like the case on<\/p>\n
hand, starts only with the framing of the charge by the Court.<\/p>\n
It is at that stage that there is a legislative interdict on the<\/p>\n
Magistrate against proceeding further by framing the charge<\/p>\n
or committing the case to the Court of Session for trial.<\/p>\n
Once the stage has reached for the          Magistrate either to<\/p>\n
frame the charge or to commit the case to the court of<\/p>\n
Session, his hands are fettered if there is a request from the<\/p>\n
Appropriate Authority under Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C. read with<\/p>\n
the Rules.     When once such a request is made at the<\/p>\n
appropriate stage, the Magistrate cannot continue to retain<\/p>\n
his jurisdiction over the offender, if he belongs to the Armed<\/p>\n
Forces. The wider interpretation to the expression “charged”<\/p>\n
as has been attempted in the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh<\/p>\n
and Rajasthan High Courts cannot be accepted. If a formal<\/p>\n
accusation as is canvased for, alone is sufficient to hold that<\/p>\n
the accused is “charged” with an offence, then even with the<\/p>\n
registration of the F.I.R. it could be said that there is a formal<\/p>\n
accusation against the accused            officers entitling the<\/p>\n
competent authority to make a request under Section 475<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
Cr.P.C<\/a>. Supposing in such a case, the State police, after<\/p>\n
investigation, were to file a refer report under Section 169<\/a><\/p>\n
read with Section 173(2)<\/a> Cr.P.C. then the whole exercise will<\/p>\n
be meaningless since even the Magistrate may not require the<\/p>\n
accused officers to be tried for the alleged offences.<\/p>\n
      10. The meaning and amplitude of the expression<\/p>\n
“charged” under Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C. will have to be<\/p>\n
understood and appreciated in the backdrop of the statutory<\/p>\n
scheme under the Criminal Procedure Code<\/a> itself. It is only<\/p>\n
when the Investigating Officer, after collecting the requisite<\/p>\n
materials during investigation, arrives at the subjective<\/p>\n
satisfaction that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable<\/p>\n
ground to forward the accused to the Magistrate empowered<\/p>\n
to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to<\/p>\n
try the accused or to commit him for trial as envisaged under<\/p>\n
Section 170<\/a> Cr.P.C., could it be said that the accused is<\/p>\n
brought before the Magistrate and charged with an offence.<\/p>\n
That stage has not reached in the case on hand which is still<\/p>\n
under investigation and the State Police has not filed the final<\/p>\n
report yet.   If an interpretation not     consistent with the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>, is attempted to be<\/p>\n
given to the expression “charged” under Section 475<\/a> Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
it may result in anomalous consequences.\n<\/p>\n
      11. In as much as the Officer of the State Police in<\/p>\n
charge of the investigation has not yet made up his mind<\/p>\n
either to forward the accused to the learned Magistrate for<\/p>\n
the purpose of trial, or to file a refer report under Section 169<\/a><\/p>\n
read with Section 173(2)<\/a> Cr.P.C. and release him for the<\/p>\n
reason that the evidence is deficient, the stage is not yet set<\/p>\n
for the competent authority to make a request under Section<\/p>\n
475<\/a> Cr.P.C. read with Rule 3 (a) of the Rules; nor can the<\/p>\n
Magistrate entertain such a request at this stage. In this<\/p>\n
view of the matter, the request made by the petitioner before<\/p>\n
the learned Magistrate on 14-01-2008 was really premature.<\/p>\n
I, therefore, uphold the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
      12. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by<\/p>\n
the Magistrate remanding the three Naval Officers to judicial<\/p>\n
custody, the remedy is elsewhere by seeking bail from the<\/p>\n
appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.<\/p>\n
      13. It is thus clarified that in case the three accused<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No. 212 of 2008
\n                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
officers are charge sheeted by the State Police by filing a<\/p>\n
Police Report under Section 173(2)<\/a> Cr.P.C., it shall be open to<\/p>\n
the petitioner to make a request under Section 475<\/a> (1) Cr.P.C<\/a>.<\/p>\n
read with Rule 3(a) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     Subject to the above clarification, this Crl.M.C is<\/p>\n
dismissed. I place on record the submission made by the<\/p>\n
Director General of Prosecution that the investigation of the<\/p>\n
case will be expedited and a final report shall be filed at the<\/p>\n
shortest possible time, having regard to the fact that three<\/p>\n
accused persons are officers of the Armed forces.<\/p>\n
                                     V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 212 of 2008() 1. SRI.S.K.JHA COMMODORE COMMANDING … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HARBOUR For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR […]<\/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-262102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri.S.K.Jha Commodore ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008 - 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\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T16:19:53+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T16:19:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2077,\"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\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T16:19:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008 - 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\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T16:19:53+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T16:19:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008"},"wordCount":2077,"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\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008","name":"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T16:19:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-k-jha-commodore-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-the-on-16-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri.S.K.Jha Commodore … vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 16 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/262102","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=262102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}