{"id":26813,"date":"2008-06-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-28T11:35:13","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T06:05:13","slug":"shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 3310 of 2005()\n\n\n1. SHINY CLEETUS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SC FOR COCHIN CORPORATION\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :20\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n           ---------------------------------------------\n                Crl.M.C.No.3310 of 2005\n           ---------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
          The second accused, who is a lady, in<\/p>\n
S.T.No.7186 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner in<\/p>\n
this Crl.M.C. which preferred under Section 482 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash<\/p>\n
S.T.No.7186 of 2002 and all proceedings thereon.<\/p>\n
     2.  The petitioner along with three other accused<\/p>\n
were called upon to face the charge punishable under<\/p>\n
Sections 2(i)(a)(m), 7(i), 16(1)(a)(i) and         A.11.01.11 in<\/p>\n
Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and<\/p>\n
Rules. Along with this M.C., the petitioner has produced<\/p>\n
Annexure A1 complaint filed by the second respondent<\/p>\n
before the court below. As per the averments contained in<\/p>\n
the complaint, on 2.9.2002, at about 1.15 p.m., the<\/p>\n
complainant    visited    the    business      place    by  name<\/p>\n
M\/s.Richies Bakery and Fast Food, Shop No.27, GCDA<\/p>\n
Shopping    Complex,       Panampally        Nagar,     Kochi-36.<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
According to the complainant, the first accused is the<\/p>\n
Manager of the above said business place and the<\/p>\n
second accused is the licensee. In the cause title, the<\/p>\n
first accused is described as the vendor and the<\/p>\n
petitioner who is the second accused is shown as<\/p>\n
licensee. It is also averred that the second and first<\/p>\n
accused, being licensee and manager, are in charge and<\/p>\n
responsible for the day to day business of the shop. The<\/p>\n
inspection was conducted in the presence of the first<\/p>\n
accused. The complainant, after disclosing his identity<\/p>\n
as Food Inspector of the Corporation of Cochin, served<\/p>\n
Form VI notice to the first accused and purchased two<\/p>\n
packets of pasteurized skimmed milk curd weighing<\/p>\n
1000 ml. (500 ml. in each packet). It is also stated that<\/p>\n
there is an inscription on each packet (a product of<\/p>\n
P.D.D.P.Central Society, Kalady).   It is the case that<\/p>\n
towards the cost of the pasteurized skimmed milk curd<\/p>\n
so purchased, the complainant paid Rs.16\/- for which the<\/p>\n
accused had issued a cash voucher dated 2.9.2002 duly<\/p>\n
signed by him. In para 3 of the complaint, it is stated<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                            :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
that after the purchase of the sample, sampling<\/p>\n
procedure was done in the presence of witnesses and<\/p>\n
the first accused as per the P.F.A.Act and Rules. The<\/p>\n
covers of the sample packets were opened and the food<\/p>\n
item therein were poured in a clean and dry steel vessel<\/p>\n
and mixed it well homogeneously with a clean and dry<\/p>\n
spoon. After that, the sample was taken into three clean<\/p>\n
and dry glass bottles and 28 drops of formalin was<\/p>\n
added as a preservative to avoid decomposition and<\/p>\n
mixed it well homogeneously. A mahazar was prepared<\/p>\n
then and there and the first accused and the<\/p>\n
complainant signed in the mahazar.       In the mahazar, it<\/p>\n
is stated that signatures of the first accused over each of<\/p>\n
the three sample packets and the paper slip covering the<\/p>\n
same were obtained. There were three bottles tied with<\/p>\n
hard twain and they were taken into custody after<\/p>\n
properly sealing the same. Samples were safely sent to<\/p>\n
Public Analyst separately by local delivery and obtained<\/p>\n
proper acknowledgment from the Public Analyst. It is<\/p>\n
the further case of the complainant that the Public<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
Analyst, after examining and analysis of the samples by<\/p>\n
his Report No.42 dated 10.10.2002, reported that the<\/p>\n
sample is adulterated. The Public Analyst opined that<\/p>\n
the sample does not conform to the standard fixed for<\/p>\n
pasteurized skimmed milk curd fixed under the<\/p>\n
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules.<\/p>\n
Therefore, according to the complainant, the accused<\/p>\n
had committed the above offences.       It is the above<\/p>\n
complaint challenged in these proceedings.<\/p>\n
      3.   I have heard the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner and Mr. M.K.Chandramohan Das, Standing<\/p>\n
Counsel for Corporation of Kochi.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits<\/p>\n
that no complaint will lie against the petitioner who is<\/p>\n
the licensee. The learned counsel invited my attention<\/p>\n
to various provisions under Sections 2(i)(a)(m), 7(i),<\/p>\n
16(1)(a)(i) and A.11.01.11 in Appendix B. As per the<\/p>\n
schedule in Kerala, the minimum percentage of milk fat<\/p>\n
and milk solids not fat from the pasteurized buffalo milk<\/p>\n
will be 5.0 and 9.0 respectively.     According to the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                            :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
counsel, in view of A.11.02.04 in Appendix B, where dahi<\/p>\n
or curd is sold or offered for sale without any indication<\/p>\n
of class of milk, the standards prescribed for dahi<\/p>\n
prepared from buffalo milk shall apply.      The chemical<\/p>\n
analysis report relied on by the complainant is produced<\/p>\n
along with this M.C. which is marked as Annexure-A4.<\/p>\n
In Annexure A4, the Public Analyst observed that the<\/p>\n
milk fat is at the rate of 0.8%, milk solids not fat- 9.1%.<\/p>\n
On the basis of the above finding, the Public Analyst<\/p>\n
opined that the sample does not conform to the<\/p>\n
standards prescribed for curd prepared from skimmed<\/p>\n
milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,<\/p>\n
1955 and is therefore adulterated. Counsel submits that<\/p>\n
on a perusal of the percentage fixed as per the schedule,<\/p>\n
it can be seen that the variation is very minor and the<\/p>\n
reason for such variation is because of the low fat<\/p>\n
content in the milk used for manufacturing the curd and<\/p>\n
therefore it cannot be treated as adulterated. Counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner further submits that there is no<\/p>\n
allegation that the petitioner added something to the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                              :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
curd to make it an adulterated one and there is no case<\/p>\n
at all that it was not stored properly.             Therefore,<\/p>\n
according to the counsel for the petitioner, no offence<\/p>\n
will lie against the petitioner\/second accused.<\/p>\n
      5.   Another point advanced by counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to get the<\/p>\n
benefit of Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food<\/p>\n
Adulteration Act, 1954. Section 19 of the Act deals with<\/p>\n
defences which may or may not be allowed in<\/p>\n
prosecutions under the Act. Sub-section(2) of Section<\/p>\n
19 says as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
           “19. Defences which may or may not
\n           be allowed in prosecutions under this
\n           Act.—\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (1) xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
\n           (2)   A vendor shall not be deemed to
\n           have committed an offence pertaining to
\n           the   sale   of   any   adulterated   or
\n           misbranded article of food if he proves–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (a) that he purchased the article
\n              of food—<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (i) in a case where a licence
\n                 is prescribed for the sale
\n                 thereof, from a duly licensed
\n                 manufacturer,     distributor
\n                 or dealer,<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                             :-7-:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (ii) in any other case, from
\n                any            manufacturer,
\n                distributor or dealer with a
\n                written   warranty   in  the
\n                prescribed form; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (b) that the article of food while
\n             in his possession was properly
\n             stored and that he sold it in the
\n             same state as he purchased it.]”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the strength of the above provision, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner\/second<\/p>\n
accused also come within the meaning of vendor since<\/p>\n
she purchased the article in question from the<\/p>\n
manufacturer and it is the above article sold without any<\/p>\n
change of condition as distributed by the manufacturer.<\/p>\n
Therefore, according to the counsel, even if the<\/p>\n
petitioner is directed to undergo the ordeal of trial,<\/p>\n
there will be no successful prosecution against the<\/p>\n
petitioner and if the proceedings against the petitioner<\/p>\n
are allowed to continue, that will amount to abuse of<\/p>\n
process of the court.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent submitted that whatever contentions the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                             :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
petitioner got against the prosecution, the same can be<\/p>\n
raised before the trial court and, therefore, in a petition<\/p>\n
filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., those contentions are<\/p>\n
not liable to be considered. According to the counsel for<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent, the allegation against the petitioner<\/p>\n
is that she had sold adulterated curd and it is a fact to<\/p>\n
be disproved before the trial court           based upon<\/p>\n
evidence to be      adduced during trial.    It is further<\/p>\n
submitted that in order to get protection under section<\/p>\n
19(2) of the Act, it is for the petitioner to establish<\/p>\n
before the court below that she had sold food article in<\/p>\n
the same state supplied by the dealer, manufacturer or<\/p>\n
distributor. In the light of the submission made by the<\/p>\n
counsel for the 2nd respondent, I am forced to examine<\/p>\n
Annexure A1 complaint again. The averments contained<\/p>\n
in Annexure A1 compliant shows that the allegation<\/p>\n
against the petitioner\/2nd accused      as well as other<\/p>\n
accused that they have sold adulterated food item and<\/p>\n
thereby committed offence punishable under sections 2<\/p>\n
(i)(a)(m),7(i),16(1)(a)(i) and A.11.01.11 in Appendix B of<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                            :-9-:\n<\/p>\n
the Act and Rules. The overt act alleged against the<\/p>\n
petitioner is contained in paragraph 7 of the complaint<\/p>\n
in which the allegation against the petitioners is that in<\/p>\n
her reply letter, she admitted that she herself is the<\/p>\n
proprietor and licensee of M\/s.Richies Bakery and Fast<\/p>\n
Food. It is also stated in the same paragraph that the<\/p>\n
complainant received        another letter from the 4th<\/p>\n
accused society    as reply to the letter issued by the<\/p>\n
complainant and in the above letter they admitted that<\/p>\n
the 3rd accused is the nominee of the 4th accused and it<\/p>\n
is further stated that he is responsible to the conduct of<\/p>\n
the business.    Nowhere in the complaint stated that<\/p>\n
the petitioner herein had adulterated the food article in<\/p>\n
question and     sold the same.     In this respect, the<\/p>\n
averments contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint<\/p>\n
assume importance and the same is extracted herein for<\/p>\n
convenience.\n<\/p>\n
              “On 2-9-02 at about 1.15 p.m. the
\n        complainant    visited the business place by
\n        name Richies Bakery and Fast Food, G.C.D.A
\n        shopping complex, Shop No.27, Panampally<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-10-:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Nagar, Kochi-36.    The first accused is the
\n        Manager of above said business place and the
\n        second accused is the licensee.     The said
\n        accused     persons being as licensee and
\n        Manager is in charge and responsible for the
\n        day-to-day business.     The inspection was
\n        conducted in the presence       of the first
\n        accused. During the time of inspection various
\n        food articles were exposed there for sale to
\n        the public. The complainant after disclosing
\n        his identity as Food Inspector of Corporation
\n        of Kochi served Form VI notice to the first
\n        accused     and purchased two packets of
\n        pasteurized skimmed milk curd weighing 100
\n        ml (500 ml in each packets).     There is an
\n        inscription on each packet that “a product of
\n        PDDP    Central  Society,  Kalady”.    It   is
\n        submitted    that   towards   the   cost   of
\n        pasteurized   skimmed milk curd so purchased
\n        the Food Inspector had paid Rs.16\/- and for
\n        which the accused had issued a cash voucher
\n        dated 2-9-2002 duly signed by him”.(emphasis
\n        supplied).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So, from the above       averments    and the averments<\/p>\n
contained in the remaining part of the complaint, it can<\/p>\n
be seen that no specific overt act is alleged against the<\/p>\n
petitioner to the effect that she had adulterated or at<\/p>\n
her instance the food in question was adulterated. It is<\/p>\n
also discernible from the averments contained in the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-11-:\n<\/p>\n
complaint that the food in question was supplied by<\/p>\n
accused Nos.3 and 4 who are the manufacturers of the<\/p>\n
same.    If that be so,   it can safely  be come into a<\/p>\n
conclusion that the petitioner herein had sold the food<\/p>\n
article in question, through the first accused vendor,<\/p>\n
which supplied by the manufacturers namely, accused<\/p>\n
Nos. 3 and 4 and       the petitioner is only a   vendor.<\/p>\n
Hence, in the absence of any positive allegation, that<\/p>\n
the petitioner had adulterated the food in question or<\/p>\n
the food which was purchased by the complainant, is<\/p>\n
other than what supplied by the manufacturers namely,<\/p>\n
Accused Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner is certainly entitled<\/p>\n
to get protection under section 19(2) of the Act which<\/p>\n
mentioned earlier. Therefore, there is no meaning in<\/p>\n
relegating the petitioner, who is coming within the<\/p>\n
meaning of “vendor” entitled to get protection under<\/p>\n
section 19(2) of the Act, to face the trial and     if the<\/p>\n
trial is allowed to continue against the petitioner, it will<\/p>\n
amount to abuse of the process of the court.<\/p>\n
      7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-12-:\n<\/p>\n
the report of the Public Analyst is not correct and the<\/p>\n
variation regarding the quality, which may be varied<\/p>\n
due to     various   factors including climate and     the<\/p>\n
quality of milk used for manufacturing      of curd and,<\/p>\n
therefore, no offence will lie against the petitioner. It is<\/p>\n
also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that<\/p>\n
there is no allegation against the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
article of food, while in her possession,        was   not<\/p>\n
properly stored and she had not sold it in the same state<\/p>\n
as she purchased it. The above two contentions can be<\/p>\n
settled only on the basis of evidence to be adduced in<\/p>\n
the court during trial of the case and therefore, I am not<\/p>\n
prepared to enter into any finding regarding         those<\/p>\n
aspects, especially, in the light of the fact that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to get protection under section 19<\/p>\n
(2) of the Act. Therefore, those questions are left open.<\/p>\n
      8. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed holding<\/p>\n
that the petitioner is entitled to get protection under<\/p>\n
section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration<\/p>\n
Act, 1954 and      there is no scope for a meaningful<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-13-:\n<\/p>\n
prosecution against the petitioner and,          if the<\/p>\n
proceedings against the petitioner is allowed to<\/p>\n
continue, the same will amount to abuse of the process<\/p>\n
of the court.       Accordingly,  all proceedings in<\/p>\n
S.T.No.7186\/2002 on the file of the Addl.Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate court, Ernakulam      pending against the<\/p>\n
petitioner alone is quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed to<\/p>\n
that extent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   V.K.Mohanan,
\n                                       Judge<\/p>\n
Mbs\/kvm<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-14-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                         ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                  Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                          ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                     J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C. NO.3310 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-15-:\n<\/p>\n
                               DATED: -2-2008<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3310 of 2005() 1. SHINY CLEETUS, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN For Respondent :SC FOR COCHIN CORPORATION The Hon’ble […]<\/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-26813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 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\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-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=\"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-28T06:05:13+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T06:05:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2339,\"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\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T06:05:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 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":"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 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\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-28T06:05:13+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T06:05:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008"},"wordCount":2339,"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\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008","name":"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T06:05:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-cleetus-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiny Cleetus vs The State Of Kerala on 20 June, 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\/26813","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=26813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}