{"id":40116,"date":"2010-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-16T04:51:02","modified_gmt":"2018-02-15T23:21:02","slug":"thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1554 of 2003()\n\n\n\n1. THANKACHAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. JOSE JOSEPH\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.BIJU GEORGE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :21\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n           Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 721 of<\/p>\n
1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala.<\/p>\n
The first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which<\/p>\n
was filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Briefly the case of the complainant is as follows. The<\/p>\n
first respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000\/-                    from the<\/p>\n
appellant and in discharge of the said amount he issued a cheque<\/p>\n
for Rs.75,000\/- dt.11.11.1998 drawn on the Meenachil Taluk<\/p>\n
Co-operative Employees Society Ltd., Pala branch. The first<\/p>\n
respondent made him believe that he was having sufficient<\/p>\n
amount in his account to honour the cheque.                     The appellant<\/p>\n
presented the cheque for incashment, but it was dishonoured<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The<\/p>\n
complainant sent      a registered lawyer notice to the accused    on<\/p>\n
20.1.1999 intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding back<\/p>\n
the amount.    Even after receipt of the notice, the accused did not<\/p>\n
repay any amount. Hence the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
      3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the complainant, PW1<\/p>\n
was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. On the defence side,<\/p>\n
DW1was examined and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked.            The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate, on considering the evidence, found that the accused has<\/p>\n
substantially rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.<\/p>\n
Act and he was found not guilty and acquitted under Section 255(1)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. Against that judgment of acquittal the complainant filed this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     5. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
raised the following contentions. The court below ought to have held<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
that the accused had conceded that Ext.P1 cheque was drawn on the<\/p>\n
cheque leaf issued to him by the bank. The court below ought to have<\/p>\n
held that the accused had admitted his signature in Ext.P1 and the<\/p>\n
complainant has no case that all the other entries in Ext.P1 cheque were<\/p>\n
made by the accused. PW1 had stated that the accused handed over<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque after filling up the same and the signature was put in<\/p>\n
his presence. The defence set up by the accused is totally contradictory<\/p>\n
in nature and the story put forward by him is totally improbable.<\/p>\n
      6. The court below failed to note that the civil case in respect of<\/p>\n
the cheque was ended in dismissal and the learned Munsiff has entered<\/p>\n
a finding that there was no adequate consideration.         The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.D1 judgment is reversed in<\/p>\n
appeal filed by the complainant as A.S. 85 of 2001 before the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Pala and that E.P. is pending in execution of the decree.    The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the first respondent supported the judgment of the<\/p>\n
court below.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
      7. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
his case is that the complainant is having a finance company and the<\/p>\n
complainant requested the accused to give a loan of Rs.10,000\/- for the<\/p>\n
purpose of doing repair works to the autorikshaw of the complainant<\/p>\n
and when the accused told him that he has no money with him, the<\/p>\n
complainant asked      the accused for a blank cheque and as the<\/p>\n
complainant is the uncle of the accused he gave a blank signed cheque<\/p>\n
and that blank cheque was misused by the complainant for filing the<\/p>\n
complaint.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The accused was examined as DW1. To substantiate his case<\/p>\n
DW1 deposed that the complainant asked for a loan of Rs.18,000\/- for<\/p>\n
repairing the autorikshaw belonging to the complainant and when the<\/p>\n
accused told him that he has no money, the complainant asked the<\/p>\n
accused to give a blank cheque for availing a loan from some finance<\/p>\n
company and that by misusing that cheque the complainant filed this<\/p>\n
complaint. DW1 deposed that after the dishonour of the cheque, the<\/p>\n
complainant sent him two lawyer notices as Ext.D3 dt.20.1.1999 and<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.D4 dt.18.1.1999 and that the present complaint is based on notice<\/p>\n
dt.20.1.1999.\n<\/p>\n
      9. In cross examination DW1 submits that his actual name is<\/p>\n
Jose Joseph and the first notice is sent in the name Joseph Jose. Since<\/p>\n
the first notice was issued in the wrong name, the complaint filed on<\/p>\n
the basis of the second notice issued in the correct name is legally<\/p>\n
valid. The accused has not issued any reply to the notice issued by the<\/p>\n
complainant.    At one stretch the accused stated that the complainant is<\/p>\n
a money lender and at another stretch he said that the complainant is<\/p>\n
not in a position to arrange Rs.18,000\/- for repairing the autorikshaw<\/p>\n
driven by him.     The story put forward by the accused that the<\/p>\n
complainant asked him a sum of Rs.18,000\/- and further insisted for<\/p>\n
blank cheque to avail loan from some finance company is totally<\/p>\n
contradictory and highly improbable and therefore it is unreliable.<\/p>\n
      10.   The complainant was examined as PW1. He deposed that<\/p>\n
the accused is his nephew and on 11.11.1998 the accused borrowed<\/p>\n
Rs.75,000\/- from him and when he demanded back that amount the<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
accused issued Ext.P1 chque dt.11.11.1998 for that amount. When<\/p>\n
Ext.P1   was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to<\/p>\n
insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. PW1 sent a<\/p>\n
lawyer notice to the accused intimating the dishonour of the cheque<\/p>\n
and demanding back the amount. Ext.P2 is the dishonour memo.<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 is the copy of the lawyer notice, Ext.P4 is the postal receipt and<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 is the postal acknowledgment.         In cross examination PW1<\/p>\n
deposed that the accused brought Ext.P1 filled up cheque       and    the<\/p>\n
accused signed that cheque in his presence.         On appreciating the<\/p>\n
testimony of PW1 in the light of the defence case, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
the accused executed Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant.<\/p>\n
Since execution of Ext.P1 cheque is proved, the presumption under<\/p>\n
Sections 118 and 139 of the Act would apply and it is for the accused<\/p>\n
to rebut that presumption. But the evidence adduced from the side of<\/p>\n
the accused is not sufficient to rebut that presumption.<\/p>\n
      11.   Since the complainant has proved all the essential elements<\/p>\n
of the offence    under Section 138 of the N.I. Act,        the learned<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
Magistrate is not justified in acquitting the accused. As the accused<\/p>\n
committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act he is convicted<\/p>\n
for that offence.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v.<\/p>\n
Sayed Babalal H<\/a> (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a<\/p>\n
case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy<\/p>\n
should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.75,000\/- would meet<\/p>\n
the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal in C.C.No. 721 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First<\/p>\n
Class Magistrate, Pala is set aside and the accused is found guilty<\/p>\n
and    convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he is<\/p>\n
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.75,000\/- The said fine shall be paid<\/p>\n
to the appellant as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 1554 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
The accused is permitted either to deposit the fine amount before<\/p>\n
the court below or directly pay the compensation to the appellant<\/p>\n
within three months from today and produce a memo to that effect<\/p>\n
before the court below in case of direct payment. If the accused<\/p>\n
fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period,<\/p>\n
he shall suffer S.I. for a period of three months by way of default<\/p>\n
sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
\n                                           Judge
\ntm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1554 of 2003() 1. THANKACHAN … Petitioner Vs 1. JOSE JOSEPH … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.BIJU GEORGE The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :21\/12\/2010 O R D E R M.L. […]<\/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-40116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 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\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-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=\"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-15T23:21:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-15T23:21:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1341,\"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\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-15T23:21:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 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\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-15T23:21:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-15T23:21:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010"},"wordCount":1341,"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\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010","name":"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-15T23:21:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankachan-vs-jose-joseph-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thankachan vs Jose Joseph on 21 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/40116","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=40116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}