{"id":45995,"date":"2009-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-07T06:05:43","modified_gmt":"2016-07-07T00:35:43","slug":"t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 26 of 2002()\n\n\n1. T.M.ALIYAR RAVUTHAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M.P.MOIDEEN, MOOLAKKAL PUTHIYAPURAYIL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :24\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                  -------------------------------\n            CRL.APPEAL.NO.26 OF 2002 (A)\n                -----------------------------------\n        Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     The appeal is filed by the complainant, whose complaint<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in short,<\/p>\n
the ‘N.I.Act’, against the respondent, after trial, ended in a<\/p>\n
judgment of acquittal. Questioning the legality, propriety and<\/p>\n
correctness of that acquittal, he has preferred this appeal.<\/p>\n
     2. The case of the complainant is that, towards a debt<\/p>\n
arising from a loan transaction, the accused issued Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque for a sum of Rs.80,000\/-, promising its encashment on<\/p>\n
presentation in due course.        The cheque presented was,<\/p>\n
however, dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the<\/p>\n
account of the accused. Statutory notice issued intimating<\/p>\n
dishonour and demanding the sum covered by the instrument,<\/p>\n
was returned unclaimed. Complainant, thereupon, launched<\/p>\n
the prosecution against the accused under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
N.I.Act.    The accused pleaded not guilty.       Complainant<\/p>\n
examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exts.P1 to P5 to<\/p>\n
prove his case. The accused, during the cross examination of<\/p>\n
the complainant, set up a defence that the cheque had been<\/p>\n
issued as a security in respect of a transaction relating to the<\/p>\n
issue of a visa for the son-in-law of the complainant; through<\/p>\n
his travel agency. After obtaining the visa, the son-in-law of<\/p>\n
the complainant did not make use of it.        Money paid for<\/p>\n
obtaining the visa was demanded back from the accused,<\/p>\n
which gave rise to a police complaint and also a dharna at his<\/p>\n
residence.   Pursuant to intervention of the police, he had<\/p>\n
issued the cheque as security and, later, substantial amount<\/p>\n
agreed to be paid under the transaction relating to the visa,<\/p>\n
was also paid to the complainant.     When questioned under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the plea of defence as stated above<\/p>\n
was reiterated and in support of that case, he examined two<\/p>\n
witnesses as DWs.1 and 2 and got exhibited D1. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate, after appreciating the materials tendered in the<\/p>\n
case, came to the view that the complainant had not proved<\/p>\n
his case that there was a loan transaction with the accused as<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
alleged in his complaint, and, the accused had rebutted the<\/p>\n
presumption arising under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. On the<\/p>\n
materials tendered in the case, the learned Magistrate was of<\/p>\n
the view that in order to sustain the prosecution against the<\/p>\n
accused, the complainant was bound to prove the loan<\/p>\n
transaction leading to the issue of Ext.P1 cheque alleged in his<\/p>\n
complaint. Concluding that the complainant did not establish<\/p>\n
his case with convincing evidence, and the defence case was<\/p>\n
probable the accused was acquitted.          The legality and<\/p>\n
correctness of that decision is impeached in the appeal.<\/p>\n
      3.   I heard the counsel of both sides.    The materials<\/p>\n
produced and circumstances presented in the case indicating<\/p>\n
that the cheque had been issued by the accused in discharge<\/p>\n
of a debt\/liability to the complainant, which is even admitted<\/p>\n
by the defence, according to the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
complainant, was lost sight by the court below and that had<\/p>\n
resulted in forming a wrong conclusion resulting in<\/p>\n
manifestation of injustice.   Version of the complainant as to<\/p>\n
the circumstance that Ext.P1 cheque was handed over by the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
accused, in the absence of rebuttal evidence sufficient enough<\/p>\n
to discard the statutory presumption, should have received<\/p>\n
acceptance, submits the counsel. Inviting my attention to the<\/p>\n
suggestive questions put to the complainant, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the complainant submitted that according to the<\/p>\n
accused, what ever part payment made to the complainant had<\/p>\n
been made only after collecting documents\/receipts; but, not<\/p>\n
even a single document evidencing any payment was<\/p>\n
produced. An admission made by the complainant that he had<\/p>\n
received Rs.15,000\/- at the station, which according to him,<\/p>\n
was in connection with a different transaction, was given<\/p>\n
unmerited consideration by the learned Magistrate, to hold<\/p>\n
that whatever statutory presumption available in his favour<\/p>\n
had been rebutted, submits the counsel. There is no concrete<\/p>\n
evidence to show that the sum of Rs.15,000\/-, which is<\/p>\n
admitted as collected, had been received by the complainant<\/p>\n
after the execution and handing over of Ext.P1 cheque. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the complainant relied on Kumar<\/p>\n
Exports v. Sharma Carpets<\/a> ((2009) 2 SCC 513)                to<\/p>\n
contend that the learned Magistrate went wrong in insisting<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
proof of the transaction relating to Ext.P1 cheque, when<\/p>\n
special rules of evidence relating to presumptions are<\/p>\n
applicable to the case.         On the proved facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances involved in the present case, it is submitted<\/p>\n
that the acquittal passed in favour of the accused based on<\/p>\n
misappreciation of the evidence, deserves to be interfered<\/p>\n
with and a conviction has to be founded against him for the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the accused supported the judgment of acquittal<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Magistrate contending that the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances as established by the materials produced in<\/p>\n
the case would unerringly show that the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant that he had a loan transaction with the accused<\/p>\n
leading to the issue of Ext.P1 cheque was thorougly<\/p>\n
unbelievable. The defence case pleaded by the accused to<\/p>\n
some extent is practically conceded by the complainant when<\/p>\n
he was subjected to cross examination, submits the counsel.<\/p>\n
The complainant, examined as PW1, had initially contended<\/p>\n
that he had no transaction with the accused other than the<\/p>\n
one covered by Ext.P1 cheque, but, later in the heat of cross<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
examination admitting that he had received Rs.15,000\/- from<\/p>\n
the accused, he gave an explanation that it was in respect of a<\/p>\n
different transaction. The complainant had no consistent case<\/p>\n
as borne out by the contradiction so brought out in his<\/p>\n
evidence, is the submission of the counsel. The complainant<\/p>\n
had earlier filed a civil case on the cheque, but it was<\/p>\n
dismissed for non payment of court fee. That dismissal has<\/p>\n
become final is also banked upon by the counsel as a pertinent<\/p>\n
circumstance discrediting the case of the complainant.<\/p>\n
Complainant, in his evidence as PW1, had admitted of<\/p>\n
receiving a sum of Rs.15,000\/- from the accused, and which,<\/p>\n
according to the counsel, amounted to a part payment of the<\/p>\n
sum covered by the cheque. Relying on Joseph Sartho v.<\/p>\n
Gopinathan Nair (2008 (4) KLT 509), the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the accused submitted that when part payment of sum<\/p>\n
covered by the cheque had been received, a prosecution, on<\/p>\n
the basis of the cheque dishonoured cannot be entertained,<\/p>\n
and on that solitary ground itself the complaint must fail.<\/p>\n
Savings bank account of the complainant, at the relevant time,<\/p>\n
did not show a balance of Rs.80,000\/-, as evidenced by the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
extract of that account brought in as Ext.D1 in evidence is also<\/p>\n
relied upon by the counsel to contend that the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant that he had advanced Rs.80,000\/- to the accused<\/p>\n
cannot be believed for a moment. The learned Magistrate, on<\/p>\n
the basis of the materials produced by both sides in the case,<\/p>\n
has rightly and correctly held that the statutory presumption<\/p>\n
under Section 139 of the N.I.Act had been rebutted; and, in<\/p>\n
the absence of cogent proof regarding the loan transaction<\/p>\n
alleged by the complainant, which is lacking in the case, his<\/p>\n
complaint must fail, submits the counsel. In order to rebut the<\/p>\n
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act, the accused<\/p>\n
need not examine himself, submits the counsel relying on<\/p>\n
Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde<\/a> (2008<\/p>\n
(1) KHC 410 (SC)), contending that he may discharge that<\/p>\n
burden on the basis of the materials available. So, according<\/p>\n
to the learned counsel, no interference with the judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal is called for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4. I have examined the materials of the case, giving<\/p>\n
consideration to the submissions made by the counsel of both<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
sides. First and foremost, the appreciation of evidence in the<\/p>\n
case by the learned Magistrate, as disclosed by the judgment,<\/p>\n
appears to be erroneous.         The learned Magistrate had<\/p>\n
proceeded with an enquiry, whether the accused had<\/p>\n
borrowed Rs.80,000\/- from the complainant and issued Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque to discharge that debt. Ext.P1 cheque was issued as a<\/p>\n
security in connection with a different transaction was the<\/p>\n
plea canvassed by the accused. He had no case when PW1<\/p>\n
was cross examined that the cheque was issued in blank form<\/p>\n
with his signature alone though he had developed such a case<\/p>\n
when questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. During the<\/p>\n
examination of PW1, what was suggested was that in respect<\/p>\n
of a different transaction relating to the obtaining of a visa for<\/p>\n
the son-in-law of the complainant, some dispute arose between<\/p>\n
the parties and pursuant to police complaint, it was settled at<\/p>\n
the police station. When such a settlement was effected, he<\/p>\n
issued a cheque as security was his version. When such a<\/p>\n
defence had been set up to a prosecution arising from a<\/p>\n
complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, naturally, one<\/p>\n
would expect the accused to lead evidence and marshal<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances establishing that the transaction giving rise to<\/p>\n
the issue of the cheque had taken place as contended. Merely<\/p>\n
because the accused had contended that the cheque was<\/p>\n
issued in ‘blank form’ with his signature alone, which was his<\/p>\n
later case, it does not presuppose that it has to be accepted as<\/p>\n
gospel truth.    The totality of the circumstances has to be<\/p>\n
viewed to examine whether in the nature of defence so set up,<\/p>\n
the complainant has to prove due execution of the cheque. In<\/p>\n
that context, the statutory notice issued on dishonour of the<\/p>\n
cheque and the refusal to accept that notice, which was<\/p>\n
returned unclaimed, assumes much significance. The accused<\/p>\n
has not established by any material that notice issued in his<\/p>\n
address was returned on account of some fraud played by the<\/p>\n
complainant. Returning of the notice as ‘unclaimed’, indicated<\/p>\n
due service of the notice, as there was improper refusal on the<\/p>\n
part of the accused to accept that notice. Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
cheque arose from an account maintained by the accused and<\/p>\n
it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in his account.<\/p>\n
Coupled with these circumstances, the sworn testimony of the<\/p>\n
complainant that a duly executed cheque was handed over by<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused to discharge the debt or liability has to be<\/p>\n
appreciated.    When complainant examined as PW1 was<\/p>\n
subjected to cross examination, it has been brought out that in<\/p>\n
respect of a transaction, he had collected a sum of Rs.15,000\/-<\/p>\n
from the accused. But it has not been established that such<\/p>\n
payment was made after handing over of the Ext.P1 cheque to<\/p>\n
the complainant.     True, the complainant as PW1 had stated<\/p>\n
that he had no transaction with the accused other than the<\/p>\n
one covered by the cheque. That version was shown incorrect<\/p>\n
when he admitted of receiving Rs.15,000\/- at the station in<\/p>\n
respect of a different transaction. But the crucial question is<\/p>\n
whether he had received such sum after the issue of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque and as part of the sum covered under that instrument.<\/p>\n
Even the accused has no such case, nor even a suggestion to<\/p>\n
the complainant that the sum of Rs.15,000\/- was paid after<\/p>\n
the issue of the cheque. So much so, the discrepancy or even<\/p>\n
contradiction in the evidence of PW1 as to the collection of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- from the accused does not have any significance.<\/p>\n
      5. PW1 is a retired teacher and it is his case that the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
monetary benefits obtained by him after his retirement was<\/p>\n
handed over to the accused as a loan. His case was that in<\/p>\n
discharge of the loan the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque. Even<\/p>\n
assuming that the cheque had been issued in respect of a<\/p>\n
transaction relating to the issue of a visa, as contended by the<\/p>\n
accused, where the proved facts prima facie show that the<\/p>\n
cheque had been issued towards discharge of a debt or<\/p>\n
liability, and it had been dishonoured on account of<\/p>\n
insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused, he cannot<\/p>\n
escape from the penal consequences on such dishonour. I do<\/p>\n
not find any merit in the submission made by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the accused relating to the dismissal of the civil<\/p>\n
case filed to claim the amount under the cheque, as it has no<\/p>\n
bearing on the prosecution launched on dishonour of the<\/p>\n
cheque. Penal provisions have been brought in the Act in<\/p>\n
addition to the civil remedies available for realisation of the<\/p>\n
sum covered by the negotiable instrument. Dismissal of the<\/p>\n
civil case for nonpayment of the court fee and otherwise than<\/p>\n
on merit, only indicate a case of non prosecution of a civil<\/p>\n
remedy available under the negotiable instrument. So far as<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
the case of part payment made by the accused, the suggestive<\/p>\n
questions made to the complainant, when examined as PW1,<\/p>\n
and the answers elicited from him are relied to contend that<\/p>\n
such payment had been made towards the sum covered by the<\/p>\n
cheque. Not even a single suggestion had been made to PW1<\/p>\n
when he was in the box that any payment was made after<\/p>\n
issuing of the cheque, which according to the accused was<\/p>\n
given as a security. Admission of the complainant that he had<\/p>\n
received Rs.15,000\/- at the station is not sufficient to prove<\/p>\n
that it was received as part payment of the sum covered by the<\/p>\n
cheque, after that instrument was handed over. Further more,<\/p>\n
the suggestive questions put by the accused would show that<\/p>\n
part payment had been made after collecting documents or<\/p>\n
receipts acknowledging payment. If at all, such part payments<\/p>\n
had been made on collecting receipts, nothing prevented the<\/p>\n
accused from producing those documents before the court.<\/p>\n
Production of Ext.D1, the extract of the savings bank account<\/p>\n
of the complainant to advance the case that the complainant at<\/p>\n
no point of time, had a sum of Rs.80,000\/- in his account, and<\/p>\n
so much so, his case of advancing of Rs.80,000\/- has to be<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
disbelieved,  deserves to be noted in the backdrop of the<\/p>\n
defence canvassed by the accused, when questioned under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.    The maximum balance in the<\/p>\n
account of the complainant during the relevant period as per<\/p>\n
Ext.D1 was only Rs.60,000\/-. But the accused has admitted, as<\/p>\n
seen from his statement made when questioned under Section<\/p>\n
313 of the Cr.P.C., the sum of Rs.70,000\/- was received from<\/p>\n
the complainant to give a visa to his son-in-law.    So the<\/p>\n
capacity of the complainant to raise sums in excess of the<\/p>\n
amount shown in his savings bank account is not disputed,<\/p>\n
but, admitted by the accused. So, the primary question that<\/p>\n
required consideration under the facts presented in the case<\/p>\n
was whether the accused had rebutted the presumption under<\/p>\n
Section 139 of the N.I.Act demanding the complainant to<\/p>\n
prove that the cheque had been issued towards discharge of a<\/p>\n
debt. On the facts in the case, even on the admissions made<\/p>\n
by the accused, the cheque is supported by consideration. To<\/p>\n
prove the plea of discharge, as to the extent of the part<\/p>\n
payment made, no material was placed before the court.<\/p>\n
Admissions made by the accused, as under the defence case<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
canvassed, would show that the cheque had been issued<\/p>\n
towards a debt or liability and it was supported by<\/p>\n
consideration, whether it be in respect of a loan transaction or<\/p>\n
in obtaining of a visa.      No burden was cast upon the<\/p>\n
complainant in the given facts of the case, to lead evidence on<\/p>\n
the transaction under which the cheque was issued.          The<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate, in such circumstances went wrong in<\/p>\n
casting the burden on the complainant to             prove the<\/p>\n
transaction to sustain the prosecution set up against the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.   The decision cited by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
accused Joseph Sartho v. Gopinathan Nair (2008 (4) KLT<\/p>\n
509) has no application to the facts of the case, where it has<\/p>\n
not been established that any part payment had been received<\/p>\n
by the complainant in respect of any sum covered by Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque. The admission of the complainant that he received<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- with an explanation that it was in respect of a<\/p>\n
different transaction will not assist the accused so long as it<\/p>\n
has not been established that the receipt of that amount was<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
after the issue of Ext.P1 cheque.       Similarly, the decision<\/p>\n
rendered by the apex court, namely, Krishna Janardhan<\/p>\n
Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde<\/a> (2008 (1) KHC 410 (SC))<\/p>\n
relied on by the counsel as regards the burden cast upon the<\/p>\n
accused to rebut the presumption is also of no assistance to<\/p>\n
the accused in the present case.       Here the accused has<\/p>\n
practically conceded by his own admission that the cheque<\/p>\n
was supported by consideration and it has been issued in<\/p>\n
discharge of a debt or liability. What he had contended is that<\/p>\n
part payment had been made and the transaction under which<\/p>\n
the cheque was issued was different from that canvassed by<\/p>\n
the complainant in his complaint.     Part payment of any sum<\/p>\n
under the instrument was not established. The cheque was<\/p>\n
issued in connection with a different transaction that<\/p>\n
circumstance by itself, even if found proved, will not exonerate<\/p>\n
him from his liability or relieve him from penalty when the<\/p>\n
instrument issued by him was dishonoured due to insufficiency<\/p>\n
of funds. The evidence of DW1 examined by the accused to<\/p>\n
show that there was part payment need be taken note of only<\/p>\n
for discarding it where the accused, from the suggestive<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
questions made to PW1, had contended that even part<\/p>\n
payments were made only after collecting documents\/receipts.<\/p>\n
Further more, on close scrutiny it is seen that evidence of<\/p>\n
DW1 is artificial and unreliable. So, this was a case where the<\/p>\n
complainant had established by convincing evidence that<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque     had been issued by the accused towards<\/p>\n
discharge of a debt or liability, and it was dishonoured due to<\/p>\n
insufficiency of funds in the account maintained by him.<\/p>\n
Statutory compliance    had been made for the prosecution of<\/p>\n
the accused. The defence canvassed by the accused to escape<\/p>\n
from the penal consequences is found to be meritless. So, in<\/p>\n
reversal of the judgment of the acquittal, I hold the accused<\/p>\n
guilty and convict him for the offences under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
the N.I.Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7. Now on the question of sentence, having regard to the<\/p>\n
proved facts and circumstances involved, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
incarceration of the accused for a term is not called for, but,<\/p>\n
the punishment to be meted out has to take note that the<\/p>\n
cheque involved was issued 13 years ago, which, necessarily,<\/p>\n
CRL.A.26\/02                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
requires due weightage in fixing the compensation payable.<\/p>\n
So much so, the accused is sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to pay a<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.1 lakh under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
within two months from the date of this judgment.<\/p>\n
Compensation, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant. In<\/p>\n
default of payment of compensation, the accused shall<\/p>\n
undergo simple imprisonment for four months.      The accused<\/p>\n
shall appear and his sureties to produce her before the<\/p>\n
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, on 2nd June<\/p>\n
2009, and the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence<\/p>\n
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.26 OF 2002 (A)<\/p>\n
———————————————————<\/p>\n
                                   J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
———————————————————<\/p>\n
                                 24th March, 2009<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 26 of 2002() 1. T.M.ALIYAR RAVUTHAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. M.P.MOIDEEN, MOOLAKKAL PUTHIYAPURAYIL … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :24\/03\/2009 O R D E R S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. […]<\/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-45995","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 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\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-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=\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-07T00:35:43+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T00:35:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3280,\"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\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009\",\"name\":\"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T00:35:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 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":"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 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\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-07T00:35:43+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T00:35:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009"},"wordCount":3280,"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\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009","name":"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T00:35:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-m-aliyar-ravuthar-vs-m-p-moideen-on-24-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.M.Aliyar Ravuthar vs M.P.Moideen on 24 March, 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\/45995","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=45995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45995\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}