{"id":45667,"date":"2009-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-15T11:35:20","modified_gmt":"2018-03-15T06:05:20","slug":"ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 852 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. ALI HASSAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.M. VARGHESE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :06\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                   -------------------------------\n              CRL.APPEAL.NO.852 OF 2001 ()\n                 -----------------------------------\n           Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Complainant is the appellant. His complaint against the<\/p>\n
1st respondent, hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’ for the<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act, in short, the ‘N.I.Act’, after trial, ended in a<\/p>\n
judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused.<\/p>\n
Impeaching the correctness of that acquittal, the complainant<\/p>\n
has filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2. The case of the complainant is that towards discharge<\/p>\n
of a liability, the accused issued two cheques to him, one for<\/p>\n
Rs.45,000\/-     and   another      for   Rs.50,000\/-,  promising<\/p>\n
encashment on presentation of the instrument before the bank<\/p>\n
in due course.       The cheques presented, was however,<\/p>\n
dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account<\/p>\n
maintained by the accused. Statutory notice issued intimating<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
dishonour and demanding the sum covered by the cheques<\/p>\n
was responded with a reply notice raising untenable<\/p>\n
contentions. The amount under the cheques having been not<\/p>\n
paid, the complainant launched prosecution against the<\/p>\n
accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
N.I.Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3. The accused on appearance, pleaded not guilty when<\/p>\n
the particulars of the offence were made known. Complainant<\/p>\n
examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exts.P1 to P9 to<\/p>\n
prove his case. The accused, when questioned under Section<\/p>\n
313 of the Cr.P.C., maintaining his innocence advanced a<\/p>\n
defence that he had a transaction relating to the sale of<\/p>\n
property with the complainant.       His defence was that a<\/p>\n
property belonging to the wife of the complainant was agreed<\/p>\n
to be sold to his wife and another property belonging to him<\/p>\n
was agreed to be purchased by the complainant. Though the<\/p>\n
transaction relating to the sale of the property of the<\/p>\n
complainant’s wife to his wife materialised the transaction<\/p>\n
relating to the sale of his property to the complainant, could<\/p>\n
not be completed due to the default of the complainant. He<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
had     received an   advance    of  Rs.1,20,000\/-  from  the<\/p>\n
complainant on execution of the agreement of sale for his<\/p>\n
property, and towards security for the amount received, three<\/p>\n
cheques had been collected by the complainant.         Sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- out of the advance received was repaid and then<\/p>\n
one of the cheques was returned. The other two instruments<\/p>\n
were retained by the complainant, who after presenting them<\/p>\n
and on dishonour of the instruments, had foisted the present<\/p>\n
case, was the defence of the accused. Though such a defence<\/p>\n
was canvassed, no evidence was adduced to support thereof.<\/p>\n
       4.    The leaned Magistrate, after considering the<\/p>\n
materials produced was of the view that the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant was not acceptable for the reason that even by<\/p>\n
his evidence, as borne out by answers given by him in his<\/p>\n
cross examination, the liability, if any, the accused had was<\/p>\n
only with the wife of the complainant and he had no debt or<\/p>\n
liability to be discharged to the complainant.      Since the<\/p>\n
accused had no     debt or liability to be discharged to the<\/p>\n
complainant, the learned Magistrate was of the view that on<\/p>\n
the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 cheques, he had no competency to<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
launch prosecution against the accused even if those<\/p>\n
instruments on presentation had been dishonoured.            In<\/p>\n
forming such conclusion, the case of the complainant was<\/p>\n
repelled and the learned Magistrate passed the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment acquitting the accused of the offence imputed.<\/p>\n
       5. The main thrust of attack pressed into service by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the complainant assailing the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment of acquittal is that in order to prosecute the accused<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the cheque<\/p>\n
dishonoured need not be issued to discharge the debt or<\/p>\n
liability of the payee or the holder in due course of the<\/p>\n
instrument and it could be the debt or liability of any other<\/p>\n
person. The learned counsel relied on Alexander v. Joseph<\/p>\n
Chacko<\/a> (1993 (2) KLT 326) to contend that it is not<\/p>\n
necessary that a debt or liability should be due from the<\/p>\n
drawer. Complainant had tendered sufficient legal evidence<\/p>\n
to prove his case and there was no counter evidence from the<\/p>\n
accused to substantiate his defence is also canvased by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel to assail the conclusion formed by the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate that the complainant could not sustain prosecution<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
of the accused without proving that the instruments had been<\/p>\n
given to discharge liability or debt due to him from the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.   I have perused the records of the case giving<\/p>\n
consideration to the submissions made by the counsel. The<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate has found fault with the complainant, for<\/p>\n
not producing the sale deed executed in favour of his wife by<\/p>\n
the wife of the accused to substantiate his case that part of the<\/p>\n
sale price covered by that document remained to be<\/p>\n
discharged.    Another ground to disbelieve the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant was that the cheques had been issued for<\/p>\n
discharging a liability due to his wife under the sale of<\/p>\n
property to the wife of the accused, and, so much so, she alone<\/p>\n
was competent to proceed against the accused and not the<\/p>\n
complainant.     Perusing the evidence of the complainant<\/p>\n
examined as PW1, it is seen that when a suggestive question<\/p>\n
was put to him that he had paid Rs.1,20,000\/- as advance to<\/p>\n
purchase the property of the accused, his answer was that the<\/p>\n
sum paid was on a lesser side, that is, Rs.70,000\/- only. The<\/p>\n
suggestive questions put and the answers given had to be<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
appreciated in the backdrop of the defence canvassed by the<\/p>\n
accused that for collecting the advance, he had issued three<\/p>\n
cheques and one of them was returned later when a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- was repaid on the sale falling through and the<\/p>\n
remaining two cheques had been used for filing the complaint.<\/p>\n
The evidence of the complainant, PW1, it is seen, has a ring of<\/p>\n
truth and on the contrary, the defence canvassed by the<\/p>\n
accused which remained unsubstantiated by any material,<\/p>\n
whatsoever other than his self serving statement made at the<\/p>\n
time of his questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. indicate<\/p>\n
that the plea canvassed was bereft of any bona fide and was<\/p>\n
pressed into service to wriggle out of the penal consequences<\/p>\n
arising on dishonour of the cheques issued by him. Even the<\/p>\n
suggestive questions put by the accused would indicate that<\/p>\n
he had some liability to be discharged towards the<\/p>\n
complainant. The accused had no explanation nor even any<\/p>\n
case that the cheques had been issued in blank form with<\/p>\n
signature alone. Admittedly, he has no dispute regarding his<\/p>\n
signatures in the instruments, Exts.P1 and P2.      The reply<\/p>\n
notice sent by him has also not been tendered in evidence.<\/p>\n
He has not mounted the box to swear in support of his<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
defence. All these circumstances were ignored by the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate in appreciating the sworn testimony of the<\/p>\n
complainant who as already stated asserted that a lesser<\/p>\n
amount alone had been paid by him as advance though a<\/p>\n
suggestion was made that he had paid a much higher amount.<\/p>\n
The decision relied by the learned counsel for the complainant<\/p>\n
in Alexander v. Joseph Chacko<\/a> (1993 (2) KLT 326) refers<\/p>\n
to a different situation not similar to the facts involved in the<\/p>\n
present case. A cheque can be issued by the maker of the<\/p>\n
instrument to discharge the debt or liability of another and it<\/p>\n
need not be his debt or liability, was the view taken in that<\/p>\n
decision. In the present case, the factual aspects involved are<\/p>\n
somewhat different. The complainant in evidence stated that<\/p>\n
on the sale of the property of his wife to the wife of the<\/p>\n
accused, a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- was due, for which the<\/p>\n
accused had issued two cheques. The learned Magistrate was<\/p>\n
of the view that if at all anybody had any claim over that sum,<\/p>\n
it could be only the wife of the complainant, and not the<\/p>\n
complainant. On the facts presented in the case whether the<\/p>\n
case of the complainant is acceptable has to be looked into.<\/p>\n
Whether the cheque had been issued in relation to a<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
transaction, as presented by the complainant, can be treated<\/p>\n
as honest and bona fide, also merits consideration.       If the<\/p>\n
court is satisfied that the transaction alleged by him is honest<\/p>\n
and bona fide and if it is proved that the accused had issued<\/p>\n
the cheques to discharge a debt or liability, whether it be his<\/p>\n
own or of his wife or another, towards the complainant or his<\/p>\n
wife, he cannot escape from the penal consequences once the<\/p>\n
instruments were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in<\/p>\n
his account. The defence of the accused would indicate that<\/p>\n
he had not returned the entire advance collected from the<\/p>\n
complainant. His liability under the cheques dishonoured is<\/p>\n
borne out by his defence.       So, on careful scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
materials produced in the case, in reversal of the judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal passed in favour of the accused, I find him guilty of<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and convict him<\/p>\n
thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7. Now on the question of sentence, the incarceration of<\/p>\n
the accused for a term having regard to the nature of the<\/p>\n
offence involved is not necessary to meet the ends of justice.<\/p>\n
The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.852\/01                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.95,000\/-,<\/p>\n
the amount covered by the cheques, under Section 357(3) of<\/p>\n
the Cr.P.C. to the complainant within two months from the<\/p>\n
date of this judgment.        In default of payment of the<\/p>\n
compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment<\/p>\n
for two months. The accused shall appear and his sureties to<\/p>\n
produce him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,<\/p>\n
Irinjalakuda, on 1st July 2009, and the learned Magistrate shall<\/p>\n
execute the sentence as directed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
\n                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
prp<\/p>\n
                S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 ——————————————————–<\/p>\n
                    CRL.A.NO.852 OF 2001 (C)<\/p>\n
———————————————————<\/p>\n
                                   J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
———————————————————<\/p>\n
                                     6th April, 2009<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 852 of 2001() 1. ALI HASSAN … Petitioner Vs 1. K.M. VARGHESE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :06\/04\/2009 O R D E R […]<\/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-45667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAli Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 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\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-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=\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-15T06:05:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T06:05:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1690,\"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\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T06:05:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 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":"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 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\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-15T06:05:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T06:05:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009"},"wordCount":1690,"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\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009","name":"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T06:05:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ali-hassan-vs-k-m-varghese-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ali Hassan vs K.M. Varghese on 6 April, 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\/45667","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=45667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}