{"id":58574,"date":"2010-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-18T00:25:38","modified_gmt":"2016-08-17T18:55:38","slug":"t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1620 of 2003(C)\n\n\n1. T.R. GOPAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THOMAS GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, CRISS CROSS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA BY GOVT. PLEADER.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :21\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n           ---------------------------------------------\n            CRL.R.P.NO.1620 OF 2003\n           ---------------------------------------------\n               Dated 21st July, 2010\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       Petitioner,                  the            accused      in<\/p>\n
C.C.202\/1999 on the file of Judicial First<\/p>\n
Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam was convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
138   of    Negotiable                  Instruments          Act.<\/p>\n
Petitioner challenged the conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence    before              Sessions                Judge   in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.318\/2002. Learned Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge  on     re-appreciation                       of    evidence<\/p>\n
confirmed the conviction and sentence and<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in<\/p>\n
the revision.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Learned             counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the   revision            petitioner                  and    first<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
           3. Case  of  first  respondent  in  the<\/p>\n
complaint filed before the learned Magistrate,<\/p>\n
which      was  taken  cognizance,  was   that  in<\/p>\n
November      1995   petitioner   entrusted   first<\/p>\n
respondent     a  proprietary  concern,  publicity<\/p>\n
work     of   his  establishment,   namely,  Gowri<\/p>\n
Nandana Herbal Industries, Aluva. It is alleged<\/p>\n
that total amount payable for the preparation<\/p>\n
of     leaf-lets,    cartons,   screen    printing,<\/p>\n
stickers      and  to   other   advertisement   was<\/p>\n
Rs.97,912\/-     and  deducting  the  payment  made<\/p>\n
Rs.61,912\/-      was  to   be   paid   along  with<\/p>\n
Rs.4,600\/- being interest calculated at 18% per<\/p>\n
annum. According to first respondent towards<\/p>\n
that    amount   petitioner  issued  Ext.P1  cheque<\/p>\n
dated 2\/2\/1996 for Rs.5,000\/- and Ext.P2 cheque<\/p>\n
dated 6\/2\/1996 for Rs.47,000\/- drawn in his<\/p>\n
account     in     State     Bank  of  Travancore,<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
Thottakkattukara Branch making first respondent<\/p>\n
to believe that cheques could be encashed. It<\/p>\n
is alleged that Ext.P1 cheque when presented<\/p>\n
for encashment was dishonoured on 7\/2\/1996 and<\/p>\n
it was intimated to the first respondent on<\/p>\n
20\/2\/1996 and he contacted the petitioner and<\/p>\n
then petitioner remitted Rs.5,000\/- by Demand<\/p>\n
Draft      requesting  to   hold the  cheque  for<\/p>\n
discharge of the balance amount. It is also<\/p>\n
alleged that      Ext.P2 cheque was presented for<\/p>\n
encashment and was dishonoured on 12\/4\/1996,<\/p>\n
which     was  intimated  to  first respondent on<\/p>\n
17\/4\/1996. When first respondent intimated the<\/p>\n
dishonour to the petitioner on 24\/4\/1996, he<\/p>\n
paid Rs.10,000\/- and thereafter issued Ext.P5<\/p>\n
cheque      dated    24\/4\/1996,  for  Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
requesting to hold all the three cheques for<\/p>\n
discharge of the balance amount within 45 days.<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
It is alleged that Ext.P6 letter was sent to<\/p>\n
the    petitioner  informing  that  the  balance<\/p>\n
payable     is  Rs.66,512\/-. Petitioner  without<\/p>\n
paying the amount sent Ext.P7 reply raising<\/p>\n
false contentions. First respondent thereafter<\/p>\n
presented Exts.P1 and P2 once again, along with<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 cheque and all of them were dishonoured<\/p>\n
for want of sufficient funds on 18\/6\/1996 which<\/p>\n
was intimated to first respondent on 4\/7\/1996.<\/p>\n
First respondent sent Ext.P11 notice demanding<\/p>\n
the amount covered by all the three cheques<\/p>\n
together     and petitioner without  paying  the<\/p>\n
amount sent Ext.P12 reply and thereby committed<\/p>\n
the offence under Section 138 of      Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act. Complaint was filed by first<\/p>\n
respondent personally. But when the evidence<\/p>\n
was    recorded,   instead  of  examining  first<\/p>\n
respondent, PW1, his brother was examined as<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
power      of  attorney  holder  appointed   under<\/p>\n
Ext.P14 power of attorney. Ext.P14 was executed<\/p>\n
on    20\/6\/2001     whereunder  first   respondent<\/p>\n
appointed     petitioner   as  General  power   of<\/p>\n
attorney to conduct the cases and it is not in<\/p>\n
respect      of   the   complaints   against   the<\/p>\n
petitioner alone. Petitioner       did not admit<\/p>\n
issuance     of the cheque either in Ext.P7 reply<\/p>\n
to Ext.P6 notice or in Ext.P12 reply sent to<\/p>\n
Ext.P11      notice.  It   is  contended  by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner that he had entrusted signed blank<\/p>\n
cheques as security to      Radhakrishnan Nair, an<\/p>\n
employee of first respondent     who had contacted<\/p>\n
the petitioner promising to do the work for<\/p>\n
lesser rate than what was being paid to the<\/p>\n
earlier firm and Exts.P2 and P5 cheques were<\/p>\n
not issued to the first respondent       and they<\/p>\n
were not issued towards discharge of any debt<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
or liability.\n<\/p>\n
           4.   Learned  Magistrate  and  learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
and for the failure of the petitioner to give<\/p>\n
evidence,    accepted the  evidence  of  PW1  and<\/p>\n
found the petitioner guilty. As rightly pointed<\/p>\n
out by the    learned   counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, it is clear from the judgments of<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
that material evidence were either overlooked<\/p>\n
or ignored. The evidence was not         properly<\/p>\n
appreciated.    In  such  circumstances,  it   is<\/p>\n
necessary to re-appreciate the evidence. Though<\/p>\n
learned      counsel  appearing  for   the  first<\/p>\n
respondent    argued  that  in  exercise  of  the<\/p>\n
revisional powers, this court is not to       re-<\/p>\n
appreciate the evidence, when it is absolutely<\/p>\n
clear that material evidence was overlooked and<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
relevant     aspects  were not considered, this<\/p>\n
court though exercising revisional powers, is<\/p>\n
bound to re-appreciate the   evidence.<\/p>\n
           5. A reading of the complaint shows<\/p>\n
that according to the first respondent total<\/p>\n
liability of the petitioner was Rs.97,912\/-.<\/p>\n
Deducting       the  payment made,  the  balance<\/p>\n
payable was Rs.61,912\/- in 1996. It is the<\/p>\n
specific     case   that  out of   that  amount,<\/p>\n
Rs.4,600\/- being interest calculated at 18% per<\/p>\n
annum was added and Exts.P1 and P2 cheques were<\/p>\n
issued. Ext.P1 is for Rs.5,000\/- and Ext.P2 is<\/p>\n
for Rs.47,000\/-. Former is dated 2\/2\/1996 and<\/p>\n
latter is dated 6\/2\/1996. Paragraph 2 of the<\/p>\n
complaint itself shows that Ext.P1 cheque was<\/p>\n
dishonoured on 7\/2\/1996, which was intimated to<\/p>\n
the first respondent on 20\/2\/1996. It is the<\/p>\n
allegation     in  paragraph 5  itself that   on<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
getting information of the dishonour       first<\/p>\n
respondent    contacted   petitioner. Petitioner<\/p>\n
then paid Rs.5,000\/- by demand draft and agreed<\/p>\n
that Ext.P1 cheque could be retained towards<\/p>\n
the     liability.  The   date  of   payment  of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- by demand draft is not mentioned in<\/p>\n
the complaint. Ext.P13 series      are the bills<\/p>\n
produced by the first respondent. Ext.P13 is<\/p>\n
the bill for Rs.6,282\/- dated 8\/1\/1996. Ext.P13<\/p>\n
bill shows that out of that bill, Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
received by demand draft on 19\/2\/1996        and<\/p>\n
Rs.1,000\/- was received by cash and the balance<\/p>\n
is   shown   as   Rs.282\/-.  Ext.P13 shows  that<\/p>\n
payment of RS.5,000\/- was by demand draft on<\/p>\n
19\/2\/1996. This payment falsifies the case in<\/p>\n
the complaint that demand draft for Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
was paid, when petitioner was informed     about<\/p>\n
the    dishonour  of   the  cheque,  on  getting<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
information     that  cheque    was  dishonoured.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 5 of the complaint itself shows that<\/p>\n
first respondent was aware of the dishonour of<\/p>\n
the cheque only on 20\/2\/1996. If that be the<\/p>\n
case, demand draft could not have been given by<\/p>\n
the petitioner on the information received by<\/p>\n
the first respondent about dishonour of the<\/p>\n
cheque.     Unfortunately, this  aspect was  not<\/p>\n
considered by both the courts below.<\/p>\n
           6. Along with Ext.P6 notice demanding<\/p>\n
Rs.66,512\/-    being  the  balance amount, first<\/p>\n
respondent sent Ext.P8 statement of accounts.<\/p>\n
Though PW1 deposed that Ext.P8 is the statement<\/p>\n
sent by the petitioner, on its face it is<\/p>\n
incorrect. Ext.P8 is a statement sent along<\/p>\n
with Ext.P6 notice by the first respondent as<\/p>\n
stated therein. Ext.P8 shows the amount, which<\/p>\n
according to first respondent was payable by<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
the    petitioner   to  him.  Amount  covered   by<\/p>\n
Ext.P13(d) bill are shown     in Ext.P8. Exts.P13<\/p>\n
to    13(d)     bills  dated   9\/2\/1996   is   for<\/p>\n
advertising the ceremony in connection with the<\/p>\n
death.      It cannot be  an  advertisement    in<\/p>\n
respect of the       proprietary concern of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.     When  PW1  was  questioned   about<\/p>\n
Ext.13(d)      bill,  he   has   no   explanation.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Ext.P13(d) bill is necessarily      to<\/p>\n
be eschewed. If that be so, Rs.66,512\/- claimed<\/p>\n
therein should be less by Rs.9,450\/- covered by<\/p>\n
Ext.P13(d). Added to this, Ext.P8 bills     shows<\/p>\n
that there was a claim for Rs.5,580\/-, as per a<\/p>\n
bill dated 31\/5\/1996. Such a         bill is not<\/p>\n
forthcoming.     Complaint does not disclose  any<\/p>\n
liability by the petitioner subsequent to the<\/p>\n
issuance      of Exts.P1,  P2  and   P5  cheques.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Rs.5,518\/- claimed as per bill dated<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
31\/5\/1996     is  also  to  be  deducted  from  the<\/p>\n
amount. Though nothing is stated in Ext.P11<\/p>\n
notice      or at the time of evidence, with regard<\/p>\n
to the payment of Rs.6,000\/-, Ext.P8 statement<\/p>\n
shows     that  there  has  been  a    payment  of<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- on 31\/5\/1996       prior to the sending<\/p>\n
of Ext.P11 notice. Therefore, on the date of<\/p>\n
Ext.P11 notice, there should necessarily be      a<\/p>\n
further deduction of Rs.6,000\/- that what was<\/p>\n
claimed in Ext.P6. Evidence of PW1 does not<\/p>\n
give any light on the controversies.<\/p>\n
           7. Evidence of PW1 is to be appreciated<\/p>\n
in this backgrounds. As stated earlier, PW1 is<\/p>\n
not    the complainant.     He is only the brother<\/p>\n
of the complainant.        Though he is also the<\/p>\n
power     of  attorney    holder,  by  a  power  of<\/p>\n
attorney       executed by first respondent five<\/p>\n
years     after  the  lodging  of   the  complaint,<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
neither in the complaint nor in Ext.P14 power<\/p>\n
of attorney    it is stated that PW1 was aware of<\/p>\n
the     transactions  involved   in   this   case.<\/p>\n
Therefore,    as  rightly   pointed  out  by   the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the      petitioner,<\/p>\n
evidence    of  PW1 can   only  be  treated    the<\/p>\n
evidence of a witness and not that of the<\/p>\n
complainant. PW1 has no case         that he was<\/p>\n
present when Exts.P1, P2 and P5 cheques were<\/p>\n
issued.      Even  though  PW1  has  stated  that<\/p>\n
petitioner    was   contacted  over   phone  when<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 and P2 cheques were dishonoured, he has<\/p>\n
no   case   that  he contacted     the  petitioner<\/p>\n
personally. If at all, it could only be hearsay<\/p>\n
evidence.    PW1  has  also  no  case  that  when<\/p>\n
Exts.P1, P2 and P5 cheques were issued, he was<\/p>\n
present.     Question is in such circumstances,<\/p>\n
when petitioner contended that Ext.P1, P2 and<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
P5 cheques were issued as blank cheques, is<\/p>\n
there any evidence to prove that cheques were<\/p>\n
issued      by first   respondent.  There  is   no<\/p>\n
evidence.      These  aspects    were   also   not<\/p>\n
considered by the      learned Magistrate or the<\/p>\n
learned Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
           8. Even  on  the  admitted  facts,  the<\/p>\n
conviction for the offence under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act will not stand. As<\/p>\n
far as Ext.P1 cheque is concerned, it is the<\/p>\n
specific case in the complaint itself that,<\/p>\n
when it was dishonoured on presentation first<\/p>\n
respondent intimated petitioner and he paid the<\/p>\n
amount      by demand  draft.  Therefore,    first<\/p>\n
respondent     could not have presented the cheque<\/p>\n
again and prosecuted the petitioner for the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 138 on the very same<\/p>\n
cheque, unless it is proved that there was an<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement     on  the  date  of  the   payment of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/-     by  demand  draft,  that  the  said<\/p>\n
cheque cold be treated as for payment of the<\/p>\n
balance     amount.   There  is   no  such   case.<\/p>\n
Similarly, when it is the admitted case of the<\/p>\n
first      respondent  that  Ext.P2   cheque   was<\/p>\n
presented      for encashment    and dishonoured,<\/p>\n
first respondent intimated petitioner about the<\/p>\n
dishonour and then he paid Rs.10,000\/- by cash.<\/p>\n
If that be so, out of Rs.47,000\/- covered by<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 cheque petitioner paid Rs.10,000\/- and<\/p>\n
what       remains   only    RS.37,000\/-.    First<\/p>\n
respondent cannot present the same cheque again<\/p>\n
and lodge a complaint based on that cheque for<\/p>\n
Rs.47,000\/-.     Added  to  this,  it  cannot   be<\/p>\n
believed     that  petitioner  would  again  issue<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 cheque for Rs.10,000\/- or that first<\/p>\n
respondent     would  receive   that  cheque   for<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- when the total liability of the<\/p>\n
first respondent was Rs.50,000\/- at that time.<\/p>\n
On   appreciation    of  the  entire  evidence, it<\/p>\n
could only be found that       Exts.P1, P2 and P5<\/p>\n
cheques were not      issued by the petitioner to<\/p>\n
the    first    respondent  in  discharge   of  an<\/p>\n
existing debt or liability. Hence conviction of<\/p>\n
the petitioner for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
138 of       Negotiable Instruments Act is     not<\/p>\n
sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
           Revision is allowed. Conviction of the<\/p>\n
petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.202\/1999 on<\/p>\n
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam     as confirmed by  Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge,     Ernakulam  in  Crl.A.318\/2002    is set<\/p>\n
aside.      Petitioner is found not guilty of the<\/p>\n
offence. He is acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
CRRP 1620\/03
\n                16<\/span><\/p>\n
                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                              JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1620 of 2003(C) 1. T.R. GOPAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, … Petitioner Vs 1. THOMAS GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, CRISS CROSS … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA BY GOVT. PLEADER. For Petitioner :SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-58574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-17T18:55:38+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\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-17T18:55:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1937,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010\",\"name\":\"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-17T18:55:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-17T18:55:38+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\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-17T18:55:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010"},"wordCount":1937,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010","name":"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-17T18:55:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-r-gopakumar-vs-thomas-george-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.R. Gopakumar vs Thomas George on 21 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/58574","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=58574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58574\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}