{"id":52073,"date":"2008-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008"},"modified":"2014-04-10T13:55:48","modified_gmt":"2014-04-10T08:25:48","slug":"m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 883 of 1999()\n\n\n\n1. M.V.MOHAMMED SHERIFF\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :14\/03\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                             A.K.BASHEER, J.\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the 14th day of March 2008\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     These two appeals which are at the instance of the two<\/p>\n
accused in C.C.12\/98 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner<\/p>\n
and Special Judge, Thrissur are directed against the judgment<\/p>\n
of conviction and sentence passed against them.                             The trial<\/p>\n
court found the appellants guilty under Section 13(1)(c) read<\/p>\n
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/p>\n
and also under Section 120B, 409, 471 and 477A read with<\/p>\n
Section 34 IPC.          They were convicted and sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay<\/p>\n
a fine of Rs.25,000\/- each and in default to undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for 1= years each under Section 13(1)(c) read<\/p>\n
with Section 13(2) of the Act. They were also sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under<\/p>\n
Section 120B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for four years each<\/p>\n
under Section 409 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years<\/p>\n
each under Section 471 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                             :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthree years each and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000\/- each and in<\/p>\n
default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1= years each<\/p>\n
under Section 477A IPC.\n<\/p>\n
     2.  Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Idukki had<\/p>\n
charge sheeted the appellants for the offences mentioned<\/p>\n
above. Prosecution case in brief was that accused No.1 was<\/p>\n
working as Special Deputy Tahsildar, Cardamom Settlement<\/p>\n
at Devikulam during July 1993 while accused No.2 was the<\/p>\n
Special Village Officer in the office of accused No.1. The two<\/p>\n
accused being public servants had hatched a criminal<\/p>\n
conspiracy during July 1993 pursuant to which they collected<\/p>\n
a sum of Rs.2,22,800\/- towards land conservancy charges<\/p>\n
from certain landholders (PW1 and PW2). The accused had<\/p>\n
collected the money between July 8, 1993 and August 11,<\/p>\n
1993 and issued T.R.5 receipts in acknowledgment thereof.<\/p>\n
The said money was misappropriated by the accused without<\/p>\n
entering the same in the cash book or remitting it at the Sub<\/p>\n
Treasury, Devikulam. Prosecution alleged that for the above<\/p>\n
purpose accused had falsified the entries in the cash book and<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                           :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ndishonestly cancelled the Counter Foils of T.R.5 receipts.<\/p>\n
They had used the counter foil receipts as genuine with intent<\/p>\n
to make them appear that collections were not effected under<\/p>\n
those receipts.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Before the trial court, the prosecution had examined<\/p>\n
PW1 to PW9 and Exts.P1 to P30 were marked on its side. On<\/p>\n
the side of the defence DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D9<\/p>\n
were marked.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The court below after considering the oral and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence on record took the view that the<\/p>\n
prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the<\/p>\n
accused and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced<\/p>\n
as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   PW1 deposed before the court that three land<\/p>\n
conservancy cases relating to him and his close relatives were<\/p>\n
pending before the Cardamom Settlement Officer.         These<\/p>\n
three cases were L.C.Nos.35\/93, 34\/93 and 40\/93. In addition<\/p>\n
to the above, there were seven other land conservancy cases<\/p>\n
also, in respect of the land purchased by his close relatives<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nfrom PW2. He further stated that he had remitted a total sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.2,22,800\/- as land conservancy dues (prohibitory tax) in<\/p>\n
respect of all these cases. The payment was made by him on<\/p>\n
behalf of his relatives\/land holders as authorised by them.<\/p>\n
PW1 stated that the above sum of Rs.2,22,800\/- was entrusted<\/p>\n
by him to accused No.1 for which ten receipts signed by<\/p>\n
accused No.1 were issued. He further stated that accused<\/p>\n
No.2 had written these receipts. He had also seen accused<\/p>\n
No.1 putting his signature in them. But a little later in the<\/p>\n
course of his examination PW1 stated that he did not see<\/p>\n
accused No.2 writing the receipts, though it was he who had<\/p>\n
brought these receipts before accused No.1 for signature.<\/p>\n
According to this witness, accused No.2 and PW2 came to his<\/p>\n
residence after about 1= to 2 months and returned the<\/p>\n
money.    On receipt of the money he gave back the ten<\/p>\n
receipts to accused No.2. Those receipts were marked in the<\/p>\n
case as Exts.P4(a), P4(c), P4(e), P5 to P10 and P18.<\/p>\n
According to PW1, no dates had been entered in these<\/p>\n
receipts. In cross examination, PW1 stated that he and his<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                              :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nwife were not available at home for most of the days during<\/p>\n
that period. To a suggestion made on behalf of the accused<\/p>\n
that the amount had been paid back to him on the second day<\/p>\n
itself, it was stated by PW1 that he had not received the<\/p>\n
money within two days.\n<\/p>\n
      6. PW2 deposed before the court that he had entered<\/p>\n
into an agreement for sale of about 100 acres to PW1 and his<\/p>\n
close relatives. He conceded that ten land conservancy cases<\/p>\n
in respect of the above land had been pending before the<\/p>\n
Deputy Tahsildar, Cardamom Settlement Office, Devikulam.<\/p>\n
This witness also stated that he had gone along with accused<\/p>\n
No.2 to repay the sum of Rs.2,22,800\/- to PW1. He further<\/p>\n
deposed that PW1 had remitted the amount at the Cardamom<\/p>\n
Settlement Office on his behalf and other landholders. He<\/p>\n
also stated that accused No.2 had received the ten receipts<\/p>\n
after the amount was repaid to PW1. At that time, accused<\/p>\n
No.2 had put the date as November 16, 1993 in the receipts.<\/p>\n
I will refer to the evidence of PW2 in detail, a little later.<\/p>\n
      7. PW3, who was working as the Assistant Settlement<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nOfficer, Cardamom Settlement Office at Devikulam, deposed<\/p>\n
before the court that at the relevant point of time accused<\/p>\n
No.1 was the Deputy Tahsildar at Nedumkandam, and he was<\/p>\n
in additional charge of Devikulam Cardamom Settlement<\/p>\n
Office also at that time. He further stated that accused No.2<\/p>\n
was the Village Officer in that office under accused No.1.<\/p>\n
Therefore, he could identify the handwriting and signature of<\/p>\n
the accused in Exts.P4(a) to P4(l) receipts and counterfoils.<\/p>\n
He stated that the handwriting in those documents were that<\/p>\n
of accused No.2. The signature in Exts.P4(c) to P4(e) was<\/p>\n
that of accused No.1. The other handwritings and signatures<\/p>\n
of the two accused were also identified by PW3. He also<\/p>\n
identified Ext.P20 cash book maintained at the Devikulam<\/p>\n
office. With reference to pages 35 to 59 in Ext.P20, which<\/p>\n
was for the period from 8th July 1993 till December 31, 1993,<\/p>\n
he stated that there was no corresponding entry with regard<\/p>\n
to the T.R.5 receipts for accepting the sum of Rs.2,22,800\/-<\/p>\n
from PW1. He also stated that Exts.P1, P1(b), P2(b), P11(b),<\/p>\n
P12(b), P13(b), P14(b), P15(b), P16(b) and P17(b) orders were<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
\npassed by accused No.1 on July 22, 1993.         Prohibition<\/p>\n
assessment to be collected from the land holders in those<\/p>\n
cases was reckoned on the basis of the rate mentioned in<\/p>\n
those orders. Demand notices in respect of Exts.P1 to P3 and<\/p>\n
P11 to P17 could have been issued only after the date of the<\/p>\n
order viz. July 22, 1993. All the demand notices were signed<\/p>\n
by accused No.1.      In Ext.P20(a) just below the opening<\/p>\n
balance it was noted as follows: “Receipt Nos.44 to 46<\/p>\n
cancelled.” The said handwriting was not that of accused<\/p>\n
No.2. He further stated that he could not say whether the<\/p>\n
handwriting was that of accused No.1. Similarly, entries in<\/p>\n
respect of the other T.R.5 receipts were also referred to by<\/p>\n
PW3. He also spoke about the orders of cancellation of L.C.<\/p>\n
proceedings in Exts.P1 to P3 and Ext.P11       to P17.    He<\/p>\n
admitted that no date was seen on the orders of cancellation.<\/p>\n
In   cross   examination,   PW3     stated that   Ext.P19(b)<\/p>\n
representation submitted by PW2 and others was received by<\/p>\n
him with an endorsement made by the Revenue Minister. In<\/p>\n
Ext.P19(b), it was requested by PW2 and others that they may<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nbe allowed to remit the arrears of dues under the Land<\/p>\n
Conservancy Act amounting to Rs.4,50,000\/- without insisting<\/p>\n
for interest.  On the said representation, the Minister for<\/p>\n
Revenue and Law had put a note directing the Assistant<\/p>\n
Settlement Officer, Kumili to take “urgent necessary action<\/p>\n
excluding interest”. Consequently, Ext.P19(c) communication<\/p>\n
was sent on July 15, 1993 by PW3 to the Cardamom<\/p>\n
Settlement Officer, Devikulam (CW15) informing him that<\/p>\n
necessary direction had been issued to the Special Deputy<\/p>\n
Tahsildar, Devikulam (accused No.1) to collect L.C. dues<\/p>\n
excluding interest and also to proceed in the matter “as per<\/p>\n
L.C. Act’. It is seen from Ext.P19(c), that copy of the said<\/p>\n
communication was marked to accused No.1 for necessary<\/p>\n
action. PW3 also deposed that CW15 had told him that the<\/p>\n
L.C. proceedings initiated against PW1, PW2 and others were<\/p>\n
not proper or correct especially since the High Court, the<\/p>\n
Government and the Civil Court at Thodupuzha had issued<\/p>\n
orders interdicting the Department from initiating such<\/p>\n
action. CW15 had further instructed PW3 to cancel the L.C.<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nproceedings initiated already. PW3 conceded that all these<\/p>\n
instructions issued to him by CW15 were only oral.       He<\/p>\n
further stated that on the next day he had summoned accused<\/p>\n
1 and directed him to cancel the L.C. proceeding.      When<\/p>\n
accused No.1 had informed him that he had already collected<\/p>\n
the L.C. dues, he was directed to refund the same. In answer<\/p>\n
to a specific question in cross examination, PW3 stated that<\/p>\n
accused 1 had cancelled the L.C. proceeding and refunded the<\/p>\n
money only on the basis of the direction issued by him and<\/p>\n
CW15.\n<\/p>\n
     8. PW4, the Sub Treasury Officer, Devikulam deposed<\/p>\n
that the amount of Rs.2,22,800\/- collected by the accused<\/p>\n
under T.R.5 receipts had not been remitted at the Sub<\/p>\n
Treasury. He proved Exts.P22 and P23 Subsidiary registers<\/p>\n
in this connection.   PW5 stated that he had received the<\/p>\n
sanction order to prosecute the appellants, which was marked<\/p>\n
as Ext.P24.    PW6 registered the first information report<\/p>\n
(Ext.P25). PW7 conducted preliminary investigation. PW8<\/p>\n
stated that he had questioned PW5.       PW9 completed the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ninvestigation and laid the charge sheet before the court.<\/p>\n
     9. While assailing the order of conviction and sentence,<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the two accused have<\/p>\n
vehemently contended that the court below had proceeded at<\/p>\n
a totally wrong tangent overlooking the inherent flaws in the<\/p>\n
prosecution case. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW3 will clinchingly show that the accused<\/p>\n
were totally innocent.      They further contend that the<\/p>\n
prosecution had tried to suppress very many material<\/p>\n
documents in an attempt to cover up the real story behind the<\/p>\n
prosecution case. It is the specific case of accused No.1 that<\/p>\n
he had initiated L.C. proceedings against PW1, PW2 and<\/p>\n
others as per the provisions contained in the L.C. Act and the<\/p>\n
Rules as could be seen from Exts.P1, P2, P3, P11 to P17 (‘b’<\/p>\n
series). He had also collected the L.C. dues and issued T.R.5<\/p>\n
receipts. But he was informed by PW3 to refund the amount<\/p>\n
to PW1, if it had already been collected.      He was further<\/p>\n
directed to cancel L.C. proceedings which were initiated<\/p>\n
already.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10. It is curious to note that PW3, who is the superior<\/p>\n
officer of accused No.1, had claimed that he had issued the<\/p>\n
above orders as per the oral instructions received by him from<\/p>\n
CW15, who was his superior officer. Strangely, CW15 was<\/p>\n
not examined by the prosecution. No attempt was also made<\/p>\n
by the prosecution to explain on what basis PW3 had issued<\/p>\n
such orders on the strength of some oral instructions<\/p>\n
allegedly issued by CW15.\n<\/p>\n
      11. A perusal of the deposition of PW3 coupled with<\/p>\n
Exts.P19(b) and P19(c) will undoubtedly cast a dark shadow<\/p>\n
over the entire prosecution case. PW3 for some unknown<\/p>\n
reason had not been declared hostile because obviously his<\/p>\n
evidence was detrimental to the prosecution case. It may be<\/p>\n
noticed that the entire prosecution case was primarily<\/p>\n
projected through the evidence of PW3, who was the only<\/p>\n
official witness who gave evidence as regards the collection of<\/p>\n
the L.C. dues and the alleged failure of the accused to remit it<\/p>\n
in the treasury.\n<\/p>\n
      12. But according to the learned Public Prosecutor the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                             :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nevidence of PW3 had brought out that the accused had failed<\/p>\n
to remit the money collected by the accused in the treasury<\/p>\n
on the same day or atleast on the next working day itself.<\/p>\n
Similarly, the accused had also failed to enter the collection in<\/p>\n
Ext.P29 cash book. This clearly proved that the accused had<\/p>\n
misappropriated the money collected from PW1.                The<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 showed that he had received the money back<\/p>\n
from accused No.2 only after about 45 days. Learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor submits that the accused had illegally kept the<\/p>\n
money with them during the entire period without remitting it<\/p>\n
to the treasury or even entering it in the cash book.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the accused had committed the offence alleged<\/p>\n
against them, it is contended.\n<\/p>\n
     13. In response to the above contention, it is submitted<\/p>\n
on behalf of the accused that PW3 himself had deposed before<\/p>\n
the court that in the event of occurrence of any mistake in the<\/p>\n
cash receipt or if the party refused to remit the entire amount<\/p>\n
after preparation of the receipt the collection need not be<\/p>\n
entered in the cash book. It is contended by the learned<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 13 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ncounsel that shortly after collecting the money the accused<\/p>\n
had been informed by PW3 that it had to be refunded to PW1.<\/p>\n
Though the accused had attempted to make refund, PW1 was<\/p>\n
not available at his residents.\n<\/p>\n
     14. The above explanation, which is apparently feeble, if<\/p>\n
not puerile, cannot be accepted. But as mentioned earlier,<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW3 will lend some support to the defence<\/p>\n
version that the amount was kept in the office pursuant to the<\/p>\n
direction issued by PW3. In this context, it may also have to<\/p>\n
be noticed that there was some attempt on the part of the<\/p>\n
prosecution to cover up the fact that someone else was<\/p>\n
interested in scuttling the entire prosecution, be they the<\/p>\n
superior officers of the accused or some outside agencies.<\/p>\n
     15. In this context, it may also be pertinent to note that<\/p>\n
neither PW1 nor PW2 had lodged any complaint against<\/p>\n
collection of the money from them especially in the backdrop<\/p>\n
of issuance of orders of cancellation of the L.C. Proceedings.<\/p>\n
It is not discernible from the file as to why PW3 had<\/p>\n
instructed accused No.1 to issue orders of cancellation of the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 14 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nL.C proceedings because in Ext.P19(c) he had informed CW15<\/p>\n
that accused No.1 had been directed to continue with the L.C.<\/p>\n
Proceedings.    As mentioned earlier,      there existed some<\/p>\n
gaping holes in the entire story.\n<\/p>\n
     16.   It may also be noticed that Ext.P25,     F.I.R. was<\/p>\n
registered more than 2 years after the alleged commission of<\/p>\n
the offences. Of course, learned Public Prosecutor has sought<\/p>\n
to explain it away by saying that for the enquiry contemplated<\/p>\n
under the annal relating to Vigilance cases, some delay was<\/p>\n
inevitable. But, still for the reasons stated above, I am not<\/p>\n
satisfied with   explanation given by the accused for<\/p>\n
withholding remittance of the amount in the treasury for more<\/p>\n
than 1 = months. However, the fact remains that the money<\/p>\n
had been refunded and the original T.R.5 receipts were taken<\/p>\n
back from PW1.\n<\/p>\n
     17. The prosecution had also not explained why the L.C.<\/p>\n
Proceedings initiated against PW1 and other landholders had<\/p>\n
been cancelled. Therefore, obviously there was something<\/p>\n
more what meets the eye in the delay in registering the case<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                            :: 15 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nagainst the accused. As per the court charge the accused had<\/p>\n
collected Rs.2,22,800\/- towards L.C. Charges as per T.R.5<\/p>\n
receipts during the period from 8.7.1993 to 11.8.1993. But no<\/p>\n
evidence has been adduced by the prosecution that the<\/p>\n
accused had actually collected the money during the period<\/p>\n
mentioned above.        More importantly the above charge<\/p>\n
against the version given by PWs 1 and 2 in the case.<\/p>\n
     18. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the two accused that the entire evidence, even if it<\/p>\n
accepted on its face value, will not show that there was<\/p>\n
fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the accused in<\/p>\n
the alleged transaction.       Accused had acted only in<\/p>\n
accordance with the directions and instructions received from<\/p>\n
their superior officers. But as noticed already, the superior<\/p>\n
officer (PW3) had given a very hazy and evasive version of the<\/p>\n
entire episode. CW15 who was the superior officer of PW3<\/p>\n
was never examined. Thus, it remained a mystery as to why<\/p>\n
L.C. proceedings which were initiated against PW1 and other<\/p>\n
landholders had been cancelled.     If the above aspects are<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                           :: 16 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nconsidered in the backdrop of Exts.P19(b) and (c) and also the<\/p>\n
orders of cancellation of the L.C. Proceedings, I am satisfied<\/p>\n
that the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the judgment passed by the court below is set<\/p>\n
aside.  The appellants are found not guilty and they are<\/p>\n
acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals are allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
\njes<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999
\n                          :: 17 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           A.K.BASHEER, J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
\n                                  Crl.A.Nos.882 & 883 OF 1999\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                      Dated 14th Mar. 2008<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 883 of 1999() 1. M.V.MOHAMMED SHERIFF … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER Dated :14\/03\/2008 O R D […]<\/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-52073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008 - 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\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-10T08:25:48+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-10T08:25:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2957,\"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\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008\",\"name\":\"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-10T08:25:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008 - 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\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-10T08:25:48+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-10T08:25:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008"},"wordCount":2957,"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\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008","name":"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-10T08:25:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-mohammed-sheriff-vs-state-of-kerala-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.V.Mohammed Sheriff vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/52073","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=52073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}