{"id":39926,"date":"2010-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-08T09:05:16","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T03:35:16","slug":"abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 3606 of 2009()\n\n\n1. ABDUL AZEEZ, S\/O.ADAM KUTTY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ASST.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :06\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n        ----------------------------------------------------------\n          Crl.M.C.NO.3606 & 3715 OF 2009\n        ---------------------------------------------------------\n\n                Dated        6th    January 2010\n\n                              O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
          Can cognizance of an offence under<\/p>\n
the   Protection               of         River            Banks    And<\/p>\n
Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 can<\/p>\n
be taken on a report filed under Section<\/p>\n
173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, even<\/p>\n
if the police officer who submitted the<\/p>\n
report is an authorised officer under that<\/p>\n
Act. This     is the question to be settled in<\/p>\n
those petitions.\n<\/p>\n
       2.         Petitioner in Crl.M.C.3606\/2009<\/p>\n
is the accused in C.C.141\/2008 on the file<\/p>\n
of  Judicial          First           Class          Magistrate-II,<\/p>\n
Palakkad             and                 petitioners                 in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.3715\/2009               are          the         accused     in<\/p>\n
C.C.1670\/2008 on the file of Judicial First<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta. Judicial<\/p>\n
First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad had taken<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence under Section 12<\/p>\n
read with Section          20 of  Kerala Protection<\/p>\n
of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of<\/p>\n
Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to         as<\/p>\n
‘the Act’) on Annexure-A final report filed<\/p>\n
by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mankara<\/p>\n
police station on the allegation that        on 1-<\/p>\n
2-2008 at 1.30 a.m, petitioner was illegally<\/p>\n
transporting river sand without any license<\/p>\n
or    permit       and   therefore, committed   the<\/p>\n
offences under Sections 12 and 20 of the Act.<\/p>\n
C.C.1670\/2008         was taken cognizance by the<\/p>\n
learned           Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta on<\/p>\n
Annexure-1         final   report  filed   by   Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector of police, Konni for the offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 20,21 and 23 of          the Act on<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
the allegation that on 17\/5\/2008 at 3.20 p.m<\/p>\n
petitioners in Crl.M.C.3715\/2009 were found<\/p>\n
transporting         river  sand  in   tipper  lorry<\/p>\n
No.KL.03K\/4893.        These   petitions  are  filed<\/p>\n
under      Section     482   of  Code  of   Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure to quash the proceedings contending<\/p>\n
that learned Magistrate could not have taken<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence, on a final report<\/p>\n
submitted by the police after investigation<\/p>\n
under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure in violation of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section        25    of  the   Act  and   therefore,<\/p>\n
cognizance          taken is bad. In       addition,<\/p>\n
petitioner         in Crl.M.C.3606\/09 also contended<\/p>\n
that Assistant Sub Inspector of police who<\/p>\n
filed     the      final  report,  which  was  taken<\/p>\n
cognizance         as   C.C.141\/2008,  is   not   an<\/p>\n
authorised officer as provided under the Act<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
and on that ground also        cognizance taken are<\/p>\n
to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
            3. Learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioners        and  learned Public   Prosecutor<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n
            4. Section 25 of the Act provides<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offences under the Act. The<\/p>\n
Section provides that no court shall take<\/p>\n
cognizance of an offence          punishable under<\/p>\n
the Act        except upon a complaint in   writing<\/p>\n
made by a         person authorised  in his behalf<\/p>\n
by the       Government or the District Collector<\/p>\n
or a Geologist of the department of mining<\/p>\n
and geology. Therefore, by virtue of Section<\/p>\n
25,    no     court   can  take cognizance  of   an<\/p>\n
offence except on a complaint in writing made<\/p>\n
by an authorised officer.\n<\/p>\n
            5. Though     learned   Single    Judge<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
(Ramkumar.J) in          Mohanan v. S.I of Police<\/a><\/p>\n
(2008 (1) KLT 560) held that even a report<\/p>\n
filed by an authorised officer can be treated<\/p>\n
as a complaint and therefore, cognizance of<\/p>\n
the offence under the Act could be taken on a<\/p>\n
report filed under Section 173(2) of Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure, Division bench of this<\/p>\n
court in         Moosakoya v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2008<\/p>\n
(1) KLT 538)          held that a plain reading of<\/p>\n
the provision will show that even though by<\/p>\n
Section 24 all offences under the Act are<\/p>\n
made      cognizable,     no   court     can   take<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence           except upon a<\/p>\n
written         complaint   made   by   a    person<\/p>\n
authorised in that behalf         by the Government<\/p>\n
or the District Collector or a         Geologist of<\/p>\n
the Department of Mining and Geology and a<\/p>\n
complaint         in  writing  by  the   authorised<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
officer        is   a   condition  for      taking<\/p>\n
cognizance as provided under Section 25. It<\/p>\n
was      held;\n<\/p>\n
               \"If a    police officer is\n\n         authorised      by the Government\n\n         he may also file    a complaint on\n\n<\/pre>\n
         the basis of which the court may<\/p>\n
         take cognizance. But the court<\/p>\n
         cannot take cognizance of any<\/p>\n
         offence     punishable under   the<\/p>\n
         Sand     Act on  a  police  report<\/p>\n
         filed under Section 173(2) of<\/p>\n
         the Cr.P.C after investigation<\/p>\n
         by police. ”\n<\/p>\n
            6. Apex court in     Jeewan Kumar Raut<\/p>\n
v.      Central Bureau of Investigation      (AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
2009 SC 2763) while considering an identical<\/p>\n
provision in the Transplantation of Human<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
Organ Act, 1994 had also            considered the<\/p>\n
Division Bench decision in Moosakoya’s case<\/p>\n
(supra)        and    approved.   Section   22   of<\/p>\n
Transplantation of Human Organs Act (TOHO<\/p>\n
Act)     provides     cognizance  of  the  offences<\/p>\n
under that Act. Under Sub Section 1 no        court<\/p>\n
shall take          cognizance of an offence under<\/p>\n
the Act except on a complaint        made by (a) an<\/p>\n
Appropriate         Authority  concerned   or   any<\/p>\n
officer authorised in this behalf by the<\/p>\n
Central Government or the State Government or<\/p>\n
as    the     case   may  be,  by  the  Appropriate<\/p>\n
Authority          or (b) a person who has given<\/p>\n
notice of not less than sixty days         in such<\/p>\n
manner        as    may   be  prescribed   to   the<\/p>\n
Appropriate         Authority  concerned,  of   the<\/p>\n
alleged       offence and of his intention to make<\/p>\n
a complaint to the court. Under Sub Section<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
2, no court other than that of Metropolitan<\/p>\n
Magistrate         or the  Judicial  Magistrate  of<\/p>\n
First     Class          shall  try    any  offence<\/p>\n
punishable under         the Act. Under Sub Section<\/p>\n
3, where a complaint has been made under<\/p>\n
clause (b) of sub section (1), the court may<\/p>\n
on     demand       by  such  person,   direct  the<\/p>\n
Appropriate         Authority  to   make  available<\/p>\n
copies      of     the relevant  records    in  its<\/p>\n
possession        to such person.\n<\/p>\n
            7. Their Lordships on analysing the<\/p>\n
provisions of TOHO Act, held that it is a<\/p>\n
special       Act    and  it  deals  with  subjects<\/p>\n
mentioned         therein and having  regard to the<\/p>\n
importance of the subject only, enactment of<\/p>\n
said regulatory         statute was imperative and<\/p>\n
the TOHO Act provides for appointment         of an<\/p>\n
appropriate         authority  to  deal   with  the<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
matters       specified  in   sub  section  (3)  of<\/p>\n
Section 13 thereof and by reason of the        said<\/p>\n
provision,          Appropriate    Authority    has<\/p>\n
specifically        been authorised to investigate<\/p>\n
any     complaint of the breach of any of the<\/p>\n
provisions of         the Transplantation of Human<\/p>\n
Organs        Act   and    Central      Bureau   of<\/p>\n
Investigation       was   constituted    under  the<\/p>\n
Delhi Special Police Establishment        Act, 1946<\/p>\n
is the authority specified under the Act to<\/p>\n
make investigation in connection with the<\/p>\n
complaint and only the authorised authorities<\/p>\n
could take investigation in connection with<\/p>\n
the complaint, it was held that by virtue of<\/p>\n
Section        22,   even   after  completing   the<\/p>\n
investigation cognizance cannot be taken on a<\/p>\n
final report filed under Section 173(2) of<\/p>\n
the Code but only on a complaint. It was then<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
held.\n<\/p>\n
                   \"19. Section 22 of    TOHO\n             prohibits          taking     of\n             cognizance     except    on    a\n             complaint      made    by     an\n<\/pre>\n
             appropriate authority or the
\n             person     who   had   made    a
\n             complaint    earlier to   it  as
\n             laid         down       therein.\n<\/p>\n
             Respondent, although, has all
\n             the powers of an investigating
\n             agency, it expressly has been
\n             statutorily    prohibited   from
\n             filing    a  police  report.  It
\n             could     file    a    complaint
\n             petition      only     as     an
\n             appropriate authority so as to
\n             comply with the requirements
\n             contained    in  Section  22  of
\n             TOHO,    filing    of  a  police
\n             report        by       necessary
\n             implication    is    necessarily
\n             forbidden, the question of its<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
             submitting a report in terms
\n             of sub section (2) of Section
\n             173 of the Code did not and
\n             could  not  arise.   In  other
\n             words,   if no police report
\n             could be filed, sub section
\n             (2) of Section 167 of the Code
\n             was not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
                     20.  It   is  a   well
\n             settled principle of law that
\n             if a special statute lays down
\n             procedures, the once laid down
\n             under  the   general  statures
\n             shall not   be followed. In a
\n             situation of this nature, the
\n             respondent  could   carry  out
\n             investigations in exercise of
\n             its      authorisation   under
\n             Section  13(3)(iv)   of  TOHO.\n<\/p>\n
             While  doing  so,  it    could
\n             exercise such powers which are
\n             otherwise vested in it. But,
\n             as it could not file a police
\n             report     but   a   complaint<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
             petition only; sub section (2)
\n             of    Section 167 of the Code
\n             may   not  be  applicable.  The
\n             provisions of the Code, thus
\n             for all intent and purport,
\n             would   apply only to an extent
\n             till conflict arises between
\n             the provisions of the Code and
\n             TOHO and as soon as the area
\n             of conflict reaches, TOHO hall
\n             prevail    over    the    Code.\n<\/p>\n
             Ordinarily, thus, although in
\n             terms    of   the   Code,   the
\n             respondent   upon completion of
\n             investigation      and     upon
\n             obtaining    remand   of    the
\n             accused from time to time, was
\n             required   to  file  a   police
\n             report, it was precluded from
\n             doing  so   by  reason  of  the
\n             provisions     contained     in
\n             Section 22 of TOHO.<\/p>\n
                     To put it differently,
\n             upon     completion   of    the<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
             investigation,  an   authorised
\n             officer  could  only   file   a
\n             complaint  and  not  a   police
\n             report, as a specific bar has
\n             been created by the parliament.
\n             In that view of the matter,
\n             the police report being not a
\n             complaint  and  vice-versa,  it
\n             was obligatory on the part of
\n             the respondent   to choose the
\n             said   method   invoking    the
\n             jurisdiction of the Magistrate
\n             concerned        for     taking
\n             cognizance of the offence only
\n             in the manner laid down therein
\n             and not by any other mode. The
\n             procedure laid down in TOHO,
\n             thus,    would    permit    the
\n             respondent to file a complaint
\n             and not a report which course
\n             of action could have been taken
\n             recourse to but for the special
\n             provisions contained in Section<\/p>\n
             22 of TOHO.”\n<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
            8. Division Bench decision of this<\/p>\n
court in Mosakoya’s case was considered by<\/p>\n
their Lordships in paragraph 23 and quoting<\/p>\n
paragraph 3 of the Division Bench decision<\/p>\n
wherein          Division  Bench  held  that  court<\/p>\n
cannot           take  cognizance   of  an  offence<\/p>\n
punishable under the Act, on a police report<\/p>\n
filed      under     Section  173(2)   of  Code  of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure after investigation with<\/p>\n
the police, their        Lordships held.<\/p>\n
          “23. We may notice that a Division
\n          bench of the High court of Kerala
\n          in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala<\/a>
\n          (2008 Crl.LJ 2388) held as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     “3.A   plaint  reading
\n                  of  the  above  provision
\n                  will   show   that  even
\n                  though by Section 24 all
\n                  offences  under  the Act<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
                  are  made  cognizable  no
\n                  court can take cognizance
\n                  of  the  offence   except
\n                  upon a written  complaint
\n                  made    by    a    person
\n                  authorised in this behalf
\n                  by the Government of the
\n                  District Collector or a
\n                  Geologist     of      the
\n                  Department of Mining and
\n                  Geology. A complaint in
\n                  writing by the authorised
\n                  officer etc, is the only
\n                  condition   for    taking
\n                  cognizance as provided in
\n                  Section 25. If a police
\n                  officer is authorised by
\n                  the  Government,  he  may
\n                  also file a complaint on
\n                  the basis of which the
\n                  Court    may         take
\n                  cognizance. But the Court
\n                  cannot take cognizance of
\n                  any  offence   punishable<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
                  under the said Act on a
\n                  police report filed under
\n                  Section  173(2)  of   the
\n                  Cr.P.C              after
\n                  investigation by police.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
          We with respect, agree with the<\/p>\n
          said observation.”<\/p>\n
            9.     In the light of the declaration<\/p>\n
of law by the Apex court in Jeewan Kumar’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) approving          the Division Bench<\/p>\n
decision of this court in Moosakoya’s case<\/p>\n
and     in    view    of  mandatory  provisions  of<\/p>\n
Section 25 of the Act, it can only be held<\/p>\n
that          Judicial    First   Class   Magistrate<\/p>\n
Magistrate         is   not   empowered    to  take<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence on a final report<\/p>\n
filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure and Magistrate can take<\/p>\n
cognizance only on a complaint in writing<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                            17<\/span><\/p>\n
made by the officer authorised         as provided<\/p>\n
under Section 25. Even if the Sub Inspector<\/p>\n
who filed the final report is an authorised<\/p>\n
officer under the Act, only if he files a<\/p>\n
complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance<\/p>\n
and not on a final report submitted under<\/p>\n
Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
As     the        learned Magistrate    has  taken<\/p>\n
cognizance in both cases on a final report<\/p>\n
submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure,       the cognizance taken can<\/p>\n
only be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
            10. There is force in the submission<\/p>\n
of the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner          in    Crl.M.C.3606\/2009   that<\/p>\n
Assistant Sub Inspector of police, though in<\/p>\n
the last portion of the report was shown<\/p>\n
himself as Sub Inspector, but as is clear<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                             18<\/span><\/p>\n
from the first page, he is only the Assistant<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector, is not an authorised officer<\/p>\n
under the Act. Therefore, he is not even<\/p>\n
competent to file a complaint. Therefore, on<\/p>\n
that ground also the cognizance taken in that<\/p>\n
case is bad.\n<\/p>\n
            Petitions are allowed.      C.C.141\/2008<\/p>\n
on     the      file    of  Judicial   First   Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate-II, Palakkad and C.C.1670\/2008 on<\/p>\n
the      file       of   Judicial   First      Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate-II,          Pathanamthitta are quashed.<\/p>\n
It is made clear that              quashing of the<\/p>\n
cognizance taken will not be a bar to the<\/p>\n
authorised         officer to   file  complaints  in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                          JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.\n<\/p>\n
Crmc 3606 & 3715\/09
\n                       19<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 3606 of 2009() 1. ABDUL AZEEZ, S\/O.ADAM KUTTY, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. ASST.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The […]<\/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-39926","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010 - 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\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-08T03:35:16+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=\"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\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-08T03:35:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2025,\"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\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-08T03:35:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010 - 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\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-08T03:35:16+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-08T03:35:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010"},"wordCount":2025,"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\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010","name":"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-08T03:35:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-azeez-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-6-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Azeez vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/39926","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=39926"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39926\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39926"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39926"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39926"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}