{"id":58073,"date":"2007-06-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007"},"modified":"2018-03-10T05:49:24","modified_gmt":"2018-03-10T00:19:24","slug":"ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 1087 of 2007()\n\n\n1. NCJ RAJAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. JOHN NEROTH,\n3. JOHN MATHEW,\n4. JOHN CHACKO,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.K.KUMUDINI, D\/O. LATE KRISHNAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. M.P.SOURO, S\/O. PAPPU,\n\n3. N.J.CHACKO, DIRECTOR,\n\n4. FRANCIS JOB NEROTH,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ROY CHACKO\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :08\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                R.BASANT, J.\n\n                              ----------------------\n\n                           Crl.M.C.No.1087 of 2007\n\n                         ----------------------------------------\n\n                    Dated this the  8th day of June 2007\n\n\n                                    O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       The  petitioners  are  accused  1 and 3  to 5   in  a  prosecution<\/p>\n
under   the   provisions  of  ‘The   Water    (Prevention   and  Control   of<\/p>\n
Pollution)   Act,   1974.     It   is   alleged   that   they   are   directors   of   a<\/p>\n
company.     The   crux   of   the   allegation   is   that   the   said   company<\/p>\n
had committed  offence  of  water  pollution   punishable  under  the<\/p>\n
Act in   the   locality   in  which  it is  working.   The  petitioners  have<\/p>\n
come before this court with a prayer that the prosecution against<\/p>\n
them   may   be   quashed   invoking   the   extraordinary   inherent<\/p>\n
jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
       2.     What   are   the   reasons?     The   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   has   identified   five   specific   reasons   on   the   basis   of<\/p>\n
which   he   claims   quashing   of   proceedings.     First   of   all,   it   is<\/p>\n
contended  that no  notice under  Section  49  of the  Act has been<\/p>\n
issued   to   the   Pollution   Control   Board   by   the   first   respondent\/<\/p>\n
complainant before launching this prosecution.  After discussions<\/p>\n
at the bar, this point is not seriously pressed.   It is evident that<\/p>\n
this contention is not available to the petitioners in as much as<\/p>\n
there is specific averment in the complaint and Ext.P1 document<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
marked in  the  course of the  sworn  statement of complainant to<\/p>\n
show that notice under Section 49 of the Act had been issued to<\/p>\n
the Pollution Control Board before the complainant embarked on<\/p>\n
this prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.       The second contention raised is that the complaint is<\/p>\n
not maintainable  in  as much crucial  averments  to implicate  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  are  not  there  in  the complaint.     Section  47(1)  reads<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               47.Offences   by   companies-  (1)     Where   an<\/p>\n
      offence   under   this   Act   has   been   committed   by   a<\/p>\n
      company,  every   person   who   at   the   time   the   offence<\/p>\n
      was committed was in charge of, and was responsible<\/p>\n
      to the company for the conduct of, the business of the<\/p>\n
      company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to<\/p>\n
      be   guilty   of   the   offence   and   shall   be   liable   to   be<\/p>\n
      proceeded against and punished accordingly:<\/p>\n
               Provided   that   nothing   contained   in   this   sub-<\/p>\n
      section   shall   render   any   such   person   liable   to   any<\/p>\n
      punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the<\/p>\n
      offence was committed without his knowledge for that<\/p>\n
      he   exercised   all   due   diligence   to   prevent   the<\/p>\n
      commission of such offence.\n<\/p>\n
                                               (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      4.       The relevant averment against the accused persons on<\/p>\n
this aspect appears in paragraph 3 of the complaint which also I<\/p>\n
extract below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “It   is   respectfully   submitted   that,   50   meters<\/p>\n
      away from the residence of the complainant, there is a<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
       Coir Factory in the name and style of M\/s.N.C.John &<\/p>\n
       Co   (herein   after   referred   as   the   Company   in   short),<\/p>\n
       owned   by   the   accused   herein.    The   accused   are   the<\/p>\n
       directors   of   the   said   company   who   are   solely<\/p>\n
       responsible   for   any   crime   committed   by   the<\/p>\n
       company.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      5.     The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   relies   on<\/p>\n
various   decisions   on   this   aspect   by   courts   culminating   in   the<\/p>\n
decision in  SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla<\/a> [2005(8)<\/p>\n
SCC 89] that was a decision rendered in relation to a prosecution<\/p>\n
under   Section   138   read   with   Section   141   of   the   Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments   Act.     In   the   said   decision,   it   has  been   held   clearly<\/p>\n
and   unambiguously   that   unless   the   requisite   averments<\/p>\n
attracting   culpability   so   far   as   the   directors   are   concerned   are<\/p>\n
made   specifically   in   the   complaint,     cognizance   should   not   be<\/p>\n
taken against such accused directors.  It is unnecessary to advert<\/p>\n
to   precedents   earlier   in  SMS   Pharmaceuticals   Ltd.   vs.   Neeta<\/p>\n
Bhalla<\/a>   [2005(8)   SCC   89].       After   considering   the   entire   law   on<\/p>\n
the   point,   it   has   been   held   unambiguously   that   the   requisite<\/p>\n
averments must be there in order to attract the culpable liability<\/p>\n
for the directors.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
      6.     That   position   of   law   is   therefore   well   settled.     The<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   for   the   complainant   makes   an   attempt   to<\/p>\n
contend   that  SMS  Pharmaceuticals   Ltd.   vs.  Neeta   Bhalla<\/a>   [2005<\/p>\n
(8) SCC 89] is applicable only to a prosecution like the one under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the offence<\/p>\n
alleged   is   comparatively   insignificant   and   light   and   such   an<\/p>\n
interpretation regarding the requirement of pleadings cannot be<\/p>\n
blindly imported into prosecution for a very serious offence like<\/p>\n
the one under the pollution laws.  The offence alleged committed<\/p>\n
by the petitioners in this case affects posterity and therefore the<\/p>\n
principles   of   interpretation   under   Section   141   of   the   N.I.Act<\/p>\n
cannot   be   blindly   imported.     That   contention   may,   of   course,<\/p>\n
require   serious   consideration   but   cannot   of   course   be   readily<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.     The   learned   counsel   for   the   complainant   then<\/p>\n
contends that it is not the law that the words of the statute must<\/p>\n
be   repeated   and   reiterated   in   the   complaint.     The   core   of   the<\/p>\n
issue   is   whether   the   requisite   allegations   have   been   raised<\/p>\n
against   the   accused   who   are   directors   of   the   company.<\/p>\n
Paragraph   3   extracted   above,   according   to   me,   sufficiently<\/p>\n
notifies the accused persons of the nature of the allegations that<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
are raised against them.  That they are solely responsible for the<\/p>\n
crime   committed   by   the   company   is   specifically   and   effectively<\/p>\n
narrated   and   communicated.     The   requirement   of   pleadings<\/p>\n
whether it be civil law or criminal law is that the adversary must<\/p>\n
be   notified   of   the   case   on   his   opponent.     The   requirements   of<\/p>\n
pleadings   is   not   certainly   an   empty   formality.     This   has   its<\/p>\n
foundation in the principles of natural justice which demand that<\/p>\n
no   persons   must   be   condemned   without   being   heard.<\/p>\n
Opportunity for  being heard effectively  includes  the  right  to be<\/p>\n
notified of the allegations that he has to meet.    Language of the<\/p>\n
statute need not be ritualistically repeated.  It is sufficient if such<\/p>\n
averments are there which would effectively and cogently convey<\/p>\n
to the indictees the case which they have to meet.  Materials and<\/p>\n
evidence   in   support   of   such   pleadings   will   come   only   later.     In<\/p>\n
this   view   of   the   matter,   I   am   of   the   opinion   that   it   may   not   be<\/p>\n
appropriate   or   proper   to   throw   the   prosecution   out   at   the<\/p>\n
threshold invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction on the<\/p>\n
ground   that   the   averments   in   paragraph   3   extracted   above   are<\/p>\n
not   succinct,   sufficient   and   specific   –   that   they   do   not   repeat<\/p>\n
crucial and key words of the statute in Section 47(1) of the Act.<\/p>\n
This   is   not   to   say   that   I   am   totally   satisfied   with   the   nature   of<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
pleadings.     But   the   inadequacy   of   the   pleadings   must   be<\/p>\n
realistically   considered   and   undeserved   benefit   cannot   be<\/p>\n
conferred on an indictee and he cannot be spared of the liability<\/p>\n
to face the trial only on such reason.   Significantly, this is not a<\/p>\n
case   where   there   are   no   averments   at   all.     The   averments   in<\/p>\n
paragraph   3   extracted   above   indicate   clearly   that   the   accused<\/p>\n
are directors of the company and they are solely responsible for<\/p>\n
the   acts   of   the   company   –   that   is   the   crime   committed   by   the<\/p>\n
company.   In these circumstances, I am certainly of the opinion<\/p>\n
that   the   trial   must   proceed   and   the   court   must   wait   for   the<\/p>\n
evidence   which   is   likely   to   be   adduced,   the   core   having   been<\/p>\n
stated   in   paragraph   3   extracted   above.     The   second   contention<\/p>\n
raised cannot in these circumstances, justify this court invoking<\/p>\n
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8.     The   third   contention   raised   is   that   there   are   no<\/p>\n
relevant   averments   which   can   attract   culpability   under   Section<\/p>\n
47(2)   of   the   Act.     I   agree   with   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   on   this   aspect.     There   is   no   contention   that   any<\/p>\n
consent   or   connivance   was  there   on   the   part   of   the   petitioners<\/p>\n
which   resulted   in   the   commission   of   the   offence   nor   does   the<\/p>\n
complainant have a specific case – it is evident on going through<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
the pleadings, that the petitioners are liable under Section 47(2)<\/p>\n
of the Act.  The contention raised under Section 47(2) of the Act<\/p>\n
is therefore entitled to succeed but such success is irrelevant in<\/p>\n
view   of   the   answer   already   given   to   contention   No.2   referred<\/p>\n
above.     Further,   it   is   apposite   to   note   that   accused   No.1   is<\/p>\n
alleged   to   be   executive   director   and   sixth   accused   is   executive<\/p>\n
officer\/alleged director as status.  What the expression executive<\/p>\n
director   and   executive   officer   means   will   certainly   have   to   be<\/p>\n
amplified in evidence by the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.     Fourthly   it   is   contended   that   subsequent   to   the<\/p>\n
alleged act of pollution in this case, writ petition has been filed<\/p>\n
by the complainant along with another before the High court to<\/p>\n
ensure that the factory is closed down and does not continue to<\/p>\n
perpetuate   the   alleged   pollution.     Subsequently,   commissions<\/p>\n
have  been  taken out in  the  court.    These, according  to me,  are<\/p>\n
absolutely   irrelevant   in   as   much   as   the   precise   offence   alleged<\/p>\n
has been committed in respect of period prior to the filing of the<\/p>\n
writ petition.   I am not, in these circumstances, referring to the<\/p>\n
various materials  that have  been  introduced in  evidence, in  the<\/p>\n
course of the writ petition.   Significantly, there is no contention<\/p>\n
that   the   allegation   made   in   the   petition   do   not   reveal   the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
commission of an offence under the Act by the company during<\/p>\n
the relevant period –  i.e the period prior to the filing of the writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10.     Fifthly   and   lastly   it   is   contended   that   the   Pollution<\/p>\n
Control   Board   has   subsequently   duly   licensed   the   petitioner’s<\/p>\n
company.           The   subsequent   establishment   of   appropriate<\/p>\n
pollution   plants   and   abatement   of   nuisance   of   pollution   cannot<\/p>\n
certainly have the effect of obliterating or effacing the offence, if<\/p>\n
any   already   committed.     In   view   of   that   also,   the   subsequent<\/p>\n
granting of licence by the Pollution Control Board cannot, in any<\/p>\n
way deliver any advantage to the petitioners.<\/p>\n
       11.     No   other   contentions   are   raised.     I   am,   in   these<\/p>\n
circumstances,   of   the   opinion   that   no   circumstances   have   been<\/p>\n
brought   out   which   would   justify   premature   termination   of   the<\/p>\n
proceedings   against   the   petitioners   by   invoking   the<\/p>\n
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.  It<\/p>\n
is   unnecessary   to   advert   to   precedents   which   have   been   cited<\/p>\n
copiously   at   the   Bar   on   this   aspect.     Suffice   it   to   say   that   the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise is an<\/p>\n
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction which cannot be invoked as a<\/p>\n
matter  of  course  and  which   ought  to   be   invoked  only   sparingly<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
and in exceptional cases –  in  the rarest of rare cases as held in<\/p>\n
Kurukshetra   University   vs.   State   of   Haryana   [AIR   1977   SC<\/p>\n
2229].  I   am   of   the   opinion   that   the   materials   available   in   this<\/p>\n
case   [considering   the   nature   of   allegations,   the   gravity   of   the<\/p>\n
allegations and the precise conduct alleged as revealed from the<\/p>\n
circumstances] this is not a fit case where such a jurisdiction can<\/p>\n
and   ought   to   be   invoked.     I   must,   however,   hasten   to   observe<\/p>\n
that   I   have   not   intended   to   finally   conclude   any   disputed<\/p>\n
question   of   fact   or   law   and   I   have   only   chosen   to   hold   that<\/p>\n
powers   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C   need   not   be   invoked   at   this<\/p>\n
stage and with the present materials.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12.    This   Criminal   Miscellaneous   Case   is   accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed with the above observations.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
jsr<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07    10<\/span><\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.1087\/07    11<\/span><\/p>\n
       R.BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
         CRL.M.CNo.\n<\/p>\n
            ORDER<\/p>\n
21ST DAY OF MAY2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 1087 of 2007() 1. NCJ RAJAN, … Petitioner 2. JOHN NEROTH, 3. JOHN MATHEW, 4. JOHN CHACKO, Vs 1. P.K.KUMUDINI, D\/O. LATE KRISHNAN … Respondent 2. M.P.SOURO, S\/O. PAPPU, 3. N.J.CHACKO, DIRECTOR, 4. […]<\/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-58073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNcj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007 - 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\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-10T00:19:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-10T00:19:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1825,\"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\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-10T00:19:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007 - 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\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-10T00:19:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-10T00:19:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007"},"wordCount":1825,"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\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007","name":"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-10T00:19:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ncj-rajan-vs-p-k-kumudini-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ncj Rajan vs P.K.Kumudini on 8 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/58073","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=58073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}