{"id":58039,"date":"2008-06-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-01T11:29:19","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T05:59:19","slug":"n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 2708 of 2004()\n\n\n1. N.SHIVADASAN, S\/O.BALAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. HASEENA BHANU, D\/O.MUSHRATH BHANU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ISHRATH BHANU,\n\n3. FATHIMA SABIYA BHEEGAM,\n\n4. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SUDHEER\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :20\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                      V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n          ----------------------------------------------\n                  CRL.M.C. No.2708 of 2004\n          ----------------------------------------------\n                   Dated, 20th June, 2008.\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     This Crl.M.C. is filed by the de facto complainant in<\/p>\n
C.C.No.172\/2001 on the file of the Judicial           First Class<\/p>\n
Magistrate’s Court-I, Kannur challenging         the concurrent<\/p>\n
finding of the trial court as well as the lower revisional<\/p>\n
court by which the respondents 1 to 3 were acquitted off<\/p>\n
the offence punishable under sections 380 of IPC.<\/p>\n
      2. The allegation against respondents 1 to 3\/accused<\/p>\n
is that on   26-2-2001 at about 11 a.m., they entered into<\/p>\n
the shop viz., M\/s. Ambika Jewelleries at Kannur under the<\/p>\n
pretext of purchasing gold ornaments and stolen away<\/p>\n
four   bangles weighing     about 94.6 grams.        Only in the<\/p>\n
evening when the stocks were verified, the theft came to<\/p>\n
light and   immediately     a complaint was filed before the<\/p>\n
Town police Station, Kannur suspecting the respondents<\/p>\n
having committed the crime. Annexure-I is the copy of the<\/p>\n
complaint.     Based upon Annexure-1 complaint,            Crime<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                               -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
No.125\/2001 was registered in the Kannur police station for<\/p>\n
the offence punishable under Section 380 read with S.34 of<\/p>\n
IPC. The police, after investigation, filed final report based<\/p>\n
upon which the trial court took cognizance and instituted<\/p>\n
C.C.No.172\/2001. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 7 were<\/p>\n
examined as prosecution witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P5<\/p>\n
on the side of the prosecution.       M.O-1 bag identified as<\/p>\n
material object.   No evidence either oral or documentary<\/p>\n
adduced from the side of defence.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The trial court by its judgment dated 4-2-2004 found<\/p>\n
that the evidence adduced        by the prosecution is really<\/p>\n
inadequate and    insufficient  to believe that   the accused<\/p>\n
persons    had actually committed theft and also found that<\/p>\n
the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond     all<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed<\/p>\n
by   the   trial  court,   the   petitioner herein   preferred<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.32\/2004 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. By<\/p>\n
judgment dated 21-7-2004, the Sessions Court found that the<\/p>\n
trial court has considered      the evidence let in by the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                               -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution, appreciated the same and found that the version<\/p>\n
of the prosecution is improbable and the benefit of doubt to<\/p>\n
the accused was granted and acquitted them. Thus refusing to<\/p>\n
exercise the revisional power of the court below, the Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge dismissed the Crl.revision petition.    It is the above<\/p>\n
concurrent judgments of the court below are under challenge<\/p>\n
in this proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
      4. The main contention in this petition is that the court<\/p>\n
below failed to appreciate the evidence of     PWs 1 to 3 in<\/p>\n
proper sense and the minor variations         occurred in the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 to 3 ought not have been considered as<\/p>\n
relevant and minor variation in the weight of ornaments need<\/p>\n
not have been considered after giving much importance.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, the finding of the trial court that<\/p>\n
the incident was at about 11 a.m. is not correct but it was at<\/p>\n
about noon.    It is also challenged the finding of the court<\/p>\n
below that the prosecution has not seized the stock register<\/p>\n
to prove that actually the bangles were stolen.    It is averred<\/p>\n
that it is a wrong ground for acquittal because no one had<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                                -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
put forth a plea that ornaments were not actually stolen from<\/p>\n
the shop. It is also further case of the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
minor variation regarding the weight of the ornaments is not at<\/p>\n
all a ground for acquittal.    It is submitted by the petitioner<\/p>\n
that in the    complaint it is shown that only 94 grams were<\/p>\n
stolen but in the deposition it is stated as 94 grams and 6oo<\/p>\n
ml. So according to the petitioner\/complainant, he has stated<\/p>\n
about the weight only approximately as 94 grams. Therefore,<\/p>\n
according to the petitioner, the trial court ought not have held<\/p>\n
that the complainant has not mentioned the correct weight<\/p>\n
but, during examination, the correct weight was given in the<\/p>\n
deposition. So, though correct weight was given through the<\/p>\n
deposition, the variation regarding the weight , i.e. 0.6 grams<\/p>\n
cannot be     treated as a valid    ground    for acquittal. The<\/p>\n
petitioner also attacked the grounds on which the accused<\/p>\n
were acquitted on the basis of identity. The failure on the part<\/p>\n
of PW-2 to identify the accused was not a ground to acquit<\/p>\n
the accused since the accused have no case that they never<\/p>\n
visited the shop. According to the petitioner, the court below<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                                -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
held that PW-2 could identify only Accused 1 and 3 and not<\/p>\n
Accused No.2. So, the acquittal of the accused on the ground<\/p>\n
that the witnesses could not identify the accused is incorrect.<\/p>\n
Another ground      is that the accused had miserably failed to<\/p>\n
explain under what circumstances they were in possession of<\/p>\n
Rs.19110\/-, especially, in the background that     they had no<\/p>\n
case that they had not visited the shop.       According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, it is brought out in evidence that the accused were<\/p>\n
arrested when they attempted to commit similar offence in a<\/p>\n
shop at Thalassery. The trial court had not only failed to note<\/p>\n
the above aspect but also acquitted the accused due to the<\/p>\n
minor variations in the deposition of the witnesses. It is also<\/p>\n
the case of the petitioner that the Sessions Court went wrong<\/p>\n
in taking decision in the revision petition against the order of<\/p>\n
acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  I have     gone through    the materials available on<\/p>\n
record and the judgments of the trial court as well as the<\/p>\n
revisional court. Going by the judgment of the trial court, it<\/p>\n
appears that all the contentions and legal questions involved<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                                 -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
in the    case have been elaborately considered      by the trial<\/p>\n
court and came into       its conclusion after appreciating the<\/p>\n
evidence. After a close analysis of the entire materials , the<\/p>\n
trial court found that there was delay in lodging the complaint<\/p>\n
and there is no explanation     what so ever. It is also held by<\/p>\n
the trial court that there is no consistent version regarding the<\/p>\n
time of occurrence. After analyzing the evidence of PW-1, the<\/p>\n
trial court found that PW-1 has got incongruous version about<\/p>\n
the transaction    that took place in the shop especially that<\/p>\n
three purdahnishant      ladies   had taken possession of gold<\/p>\n
bangles. Regarding the      quantity of gold ornaments and its<\/p>\n
weight, there is no      uniform version and there is glaring<\/p>\n
variation regarding the weight of the ornaments alleged to<\/p>\n
have been stolen. So, after an elaborate appreciation of the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, and other evidence,       the trial court<\/p>\n
came into a conclusion that        the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution is inadequate and insufficient to believe that the<\/p>\n
accused persons had actually committed theft as claimed by<\/p>\n
the prosecution.      Thus, the trial court found     that    the<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                                -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable<\/p>\n
doubt. After the appreciation of the evidence on record, the<\/p>\n
lower revisional court also found that the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
found loopholes in the prosecution evidence and after<\/p>\n
considering    the evidence gave the benefit of doubt to the<\/p>\n
accused and accordingly they were acquitted.         Hence, the<\/p>\n
revisional court was also declined to interfere with the order<\/p>\n
of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
      6.  From the above discussion, it appears to me that<\/p>\n
both the trial court as well as the lower revisional court have<\/p>\n
appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and after<\/p>\n
having found    that the prosecution has miserably failed to<\/p>\n
establish    its   case   beyond      doubt,    acquitted   the<\/p>\n
accused\/respondents 1 to 3. No case is made out to take a<\/p>\n
different view apart from the view taken by the trial court as<\/p>\n
well as the revisional court. In the absence of strong case so<\/p>\n
as to warrant interference of this Court with the concurrent<\/p>\n
findings of the courts below, this petition      is only to be<\/p>\n
dismissed and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                               -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed as devoid of any<\/p>\n
merit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
kvm\/-\n<\/p>\n
CRL.M.C.2708\/04
\n                   -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                            V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     No….\n<\/p>\n
                              Judgment\/Order<\/p>\n
                                     Dated:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 2708 of 2004() 1. N.SHIVADASAN, S\/O.BALAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. HASEENA BHANU, D\/O.MUSHRATH BHANU, … Respondent 2. ISHRATH BHANU, 3. FATHIMA SABIYA BHEEGAM, 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SUDHEER For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR […]<\/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-58039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 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\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-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=\"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T05:59:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T05:59:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1345,\"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\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008\",\"name\":\"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T05:59:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 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":"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 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\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T05:59:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T05:59:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008"},"wordCount":1345,"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\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008","name":"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T05:59:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-shivadasan-vs-haseena-bhanu-on-20-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Shivadasan vs Haseena Bhanu on 20 June, 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\/58039","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=58039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}