{"id":44526,"date":"2009-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-10T15:05:21","modified_gmt":"2015-07-10T09:35:21","slug":"sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 372 of 2008(S)\n\n\n1. SADASIVAN, S\/O. ARJUNAN ACHARI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISRICT\n\n3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,\n\n4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :15\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                  A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                        W.P.(Criminal) No.372 of 2008 S\n                            --------------------------------------\n                   Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Basheer, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Is the order of detention of Shri M.S.Prakash Kumar, S\/o.Sadasivan,<\/p>\n
Melekizhakkathil Veedu, T.B.Junction, Kozhencherry Village, Pathanamthitta<\/p>\n
issued by the Authorised Officer under Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti-Social<\/p>\n
Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’) legally valid and<\/p>\n
sustainable?.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.    The above question has come up for consideration before us in the<\/p>\n
following facts and circumstances:              Petitioner’s son Prakash Kumar was<\/p>\n
arrested and detained in Central Prison , Thiruvananthapuram on August 20,<\/p>\n
2008 pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated April 30, 2008 issued by the Authorised<\/p>\n
Officer\/District Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Ext.P1 reveals that the Authorised<\/p>\n
Officer after having considered the information received from the Station House<\/p>\n
Officer of Aranmula Police Station vide FIR No.320\/2007 dated 21.6.2007<\/p>\n
through the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta, was satisfied that Shri<\/p>\n
M.S.Prakash Kumar was “a nuisance and danger to the public”, that he had been<\/p>\n
carrying dangerous weapons to intimidate the public and also that if he was<\/p>\n
allowed to go free he was likely to involve in more crimes which would endanger<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
the life and properties of the public.       The Authorised Officer further took the<\/p>\n
view that if Shri Prakash Kumar was allowed “to remain at large he would indulge<\/p>\n
in antisocial activities which would directly or indirectly cause harm, danger or<\/p>\n
alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or residents of the area<\/p>\n
or result in grave or widespread danger to life\/public health in that area.”<\/p>\n
        3.     It is not in dispute that the grounds of detention, a copy of which is<\/p>\n
on record as Ext.P2, was served on the detenu. The Authorised Officer has<\/p>\n
referred to seven crimes registered against the detenu between 2002 and 2007<\/p>\n
by Aranmula Police and Koipuram Police in Ext.P1. We will refer to the details of<\/p>\n
the above crimes a little later.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        4.     It is contended by the petitioner that order of detention is ex pace<\/p>\n
illegal and vitiated as non-application of mind is writ large on the face of the said<\/p>\n
order. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that Crime No.182 of 2002, Crime<\/p>\n
No.222 of 2002 and Crime No.386 of 2003 all of which were registered by<\/p>\n
Aranmula Police against the detenu, were no longer pending, as those cases<\/p>\n
were disposed of by the jurisdictional Magistrate in 2004-05. The above three<\/p>\n
crimes are shown as serial numbers 1 to 3 in Ext.P2.                Significantly the<\/p>\n
Authorised Officer has stated in the grounds of detention that all the above three<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
cases are pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I,<\/p>\n
Pathanamthitta. He has also referred to certain numbers of Calender Cases in<\/p>\n
respect of those crimes in Ext.P2. The contention of the petitioner is that the<\/p>\n
Calender Case arising out of Crime No.182 of 2002 was disposed of on June<\/p>\n
17, 2004 whereas the case in relation to Crime No.222 of 2002 was disposed of<\/p>\n
on March 30, 2005. Similarly the case arising out of Crime No.386 of 2003 had<\/p>\n
been disposed of by the court on May 10, 2005. While conceding that serial<\/p>\n
numbers 4 to 7 are pending against the detenu, it is contended by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel that Exts.P1 and P2 will clearly indicate that there was total absence of<\/p>\n
application of mind.    He contends that the sponsoring authority and the<\/p>\n
Authorised Officer could not have pleaded ignorance about the status of those<\/p>\n
three cases.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.      In response to   the above contention, it is contended by Shri<\/p>\n
Ravindranath, learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that even<\/p>\n
assuming that the Authorised Officer had failed to indicate in Ext.P2 that the<\/p>\n
above three cases had been disposed of already, the fact that four other crimes<\/p>\n
are still pending against the detenu is good enough to sustain the order of<\/p>\n
detention. He further contends that an order of detention issued under Section 3<\/p>\n
(2) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because one or more of the facts<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
cited among the grounds are vague or non-existent for any reason whatsoever.<\/p>\n
Learned Additional Director General further contends that the order of detention<\/p>\n
shall be deemed to have been made by the Government or Authorised Officer<\/p>\n
after having been satisfied about the need for issuing such an order, having<\/p>\n
regard to the remaining facts and circumstances. He lays heavy emphasis on<\/p>\n
the subjective satisfaction that has to be arrived at by the Authorised Officer<\/p>\n
keepig in view “the need of detention with reference to the remaining facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.      It is true that the above contention raised by Shri Ravindranath is<\/p>\n
supported by the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act. But it has to be<\/p>\n
remembered that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is of<\/p>\n
paramount importance. The power vested with either the Government or the<\/p>\n
Authorised Officer to detain a citizen in preventive custody can be used only with<\/p>\n
utmost care and caution and that too only adhering to the strict parameters laid<\/p>\n
down under the statute.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7.      We need not refer the various provisions contained in the Act at<\/p>\n
this juncture to elaborate the settled position. We may only refer to the decision<\/p>\n
of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v.<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
Police Commissioner [(1989) 2SCC 370] in this context. In the above case an<\/p>\n
order of detention passed under Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Gujarat Prevention<\/p>\n
of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 was challenged on the ground that the<\/p>\n
detention of the detenu was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner<\/p>\n
prejudicial to public order in the area of Ahmedabad City. While referring to<\/p>\n
Section 6 of the above Act which is in pari materia to Section 7(4) of the Act,<\/p>\n
the Apex Court noticed that the detaining authority had failed to refer to the<\/p>\n
acquittal of the detenu in two cases which were taken as grounds of detention of<\/p>\n
the detenu in that case. After referring to a number of earlier decisions their<\/p>\n
Lordships observed thus –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            “From the above decisions it emerges<\/p>\n
                     that the requisite subjective satisfaction, the<\/p>\n
                     formation of which is a condition precedent to<\/p>\n
                     passing of a detention order will get vitiated if<\/p>\n
                     material or vital facts which would have<\/p>\n
                     bearing on the issue and weighed the<\/p>\n
                     satisfaction of the detaining authority one way<\/p>\n
                     or the other and influenced his mind are<\/p>\n
                     either  withheld    or   suppressed     by   the<\/p>\n
                     sponsoring authority or ignored and not<\/p>\n
                     considered by the detaining authority before<\/p>\n
                     issuing the detention order. It is clear to our<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
                     mind that in the case on hand, at the time<\/p>\n
                     when the detaining authority passed the<\/p>\n
                     detention order this vital fact namely, the<\/p>\n
                     acquittals of the detenu in case numbers<\/p>\n
                     mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 have not<\/p>\n
                     been brought to his notice and on the other<\/p>\n
                     hand they were withheld and the detaining<\/p>\n
                     authority was given to understand that the<\/p>\n
                     trial of those cases were pending.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It may at once be noticed that in the case on hand the factual position is almost<\/p>\n
identical.  As mentioned earlier in three of the cases referred to in Ext.P2,<\/p>\n
grounds of detention,       the admitted position is  that the detenu had been<\/p>\n
acquitted way back in the year 2004-05. But still, in Ext.P2 the Authorised<\/p>\n
Officer stated that those three cases were pending trial before the jurisdictional<\/p>\n
Magistrate. Learned Additional Director General tried to salvage the situation<\/p>\n
by saying that even ignoring those three cases, there were sufficient materials<\/p>\n
on record, namely, pendency of four other cases, that        would be sufficient<\/p>\n
enough to arrive at a subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority to order<\/p>\n
detention.   In this context learned Additional Director General also relies on<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
the severability of the grounds of cases pending against the detenu. But we are<\/p>\n
afraid, the above contention is totally unsustainable particularly in view of the<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court cited supra.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.    The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the Authorised<\/p>\n
Officer had primarily relied on the report of a Station House Officer rather than<\/p>\n
that of the Superintendent of Police as mandated under Section 3(1) of the Act.<\/p>\n
The opening words of Ext.P1 justifies the above contention. But it is contended<\/p>\n
by Shri Ravindranath that the Authorised Officer had perused and considered<\/p>\n
the preliminary report dated January 11,2008 forwarded by the Superintendent<\/p>\n
of Police, Pathanamthitta as is revealed from Ext.P2, grounds of detention. But<\/p>\n
there is no clue as to whether the Authorised Officer had relied on this report<\/p>\n
while passing Ext.P1 because what is referred to in Ext.P1 order of detention is<\/p>\n
only the so-called “credible information” received from the Station House Officer<\/p>\n
of Aranmula Police Station in FIR No.320\/2007 dated June 21,2007. In that view<\/p>\n
of the matter we are not persuaded to accept the contention raised by the<\/p>\n
learned Additional Director General that the Authorised Officer had issued<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 based on the so-called “preliminary report” of the Superintendent of<\/p>\n
Police. In our view the order of detention is vitiated since the Authorised Officer<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
could not have, going by the provisions contained in Section 3(1) of the Act,<\/p>\n
relied on the information received from a Station House Officer albeit ,     such<\/p>\n
information was routed through the Superintendent of Police concerned.<\/p>\n
       9.        Third contention raised by the petitioner is that there was<\/p>\n
unexplained delay in executing the order of detention. As mentioned earlier,<\/p>\n
Ext.P1, order of detention was issued on April 30,2008. But, admittedly the said<\/p>\n
order was executed by arresting the detenu only on August 20, 2008. In this<\/p>\n
context learned counsel has invited our attention to the decision of their<\/p>\n
Lordships of the Supreme Court           in K.P.M.Basheer v. State of Karnataka<\/p>\n
[(1992) 2 SCC 295]. In the above decision, the order of preventive detention<\/p>\n
issued under the COFEPOSA Act was executed after a lapse of five months.<\/p>\n
After considering the explanation offered for the so-called delay by the detaining<\/p>\n
authority, the Apex Court held thus –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                     “……………the order of detention cannot be<\/p>\n
                    sustained since the ‘live and proximate link’<\/p>\n
                    between the grounds of detention and the<\/p>\n
                    purpose of detention is snapped on account of<\/p>\n
                    the undue and unreasonable delay in securing<\/p>\n
                    the        appellant\/detenu      and     detaining<\/p>\n
                    him. …………..”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
 It is seen from the above decision that the order of detention of the detenu in<\/p>\n
that case was set aside on that sole ground.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The last contention raised by the petitioner is that there is violation<\/p>\n
of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. It is contended by Shri Rajagopalan<\/p>\n
Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Authorised Officer ought to have<\/p>\n
reported about the issuance of the detention order forthwith to the Government<\/p>\n
as well as the Director General of Police, Kerala together with a copy of the<\/p>\n
order and supporting records which, in his opinion,         have a bearing on the<\/p>\n
matter. A perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act clearly indicates that<\/p>\n
there is considerable force in the above contention.<\/p>\n
        11.   It is revealed from the counter affidavit of respondent No.1 that the<\/p>\n
Government had received the report of issuance of the detention order only after<\/p>\n
it had been executed. Therefore, we are satisfied that Ext.P1 order cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and also for the<\/p>\n
forgoing reasons, we are satisfied that Ext.P1 order is illegal and unsustainable<\/p>\n
and is therefore, liable to be quashed. We do so. The detenu shall be released<\/p>\n
from custody forthwith if his further detention is not necessary in connection with<\/p>\n
WP(Crl)No.372\/2008<\/p>\n
                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
any other case. We make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the<\/p>\n
competent authority to pass appropriate orders under the Act in accordance with<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  A.K.BASHEER,
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                               THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(Crl.).No. 372 of 2008(S) 1. SADASIVAN, S\/O. ARJUNAN ACHARI … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED … Respondent 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISRICT 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, […]<\/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-44526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - 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\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-10T09:35:21+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T09:35:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1957,\"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\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T09:35:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - 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\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-10T09:35:21+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T09:35:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"},"wordCount":1957,"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\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009","name":"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T09:35:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadasivan-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sadasivan vs The State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/44526","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=44526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}