{"id":59404,"date":"2008-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008"},"modified":"2014-05-03T05:00:29","modified_gmt":"2014-05-02T23:30:29","slug":"c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nST.Rev..No. 435 of 2006()\n\n\n1. C.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, M\/S.C.M.CHICKEN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\n\n3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),\n\n4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :11\/08\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                   H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J.\n                  --------------------------------------------\n                         S.T.Rev.No.435 of 2006\n                   --------------------------------------------\n                  Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2008\n\n                                   ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.Dattu,C.J.\n<\/p>\n
             The assessee is a dealer and effects sales of chicken. The<\/p>\n
business premises of the assessee was inspected by the Intelligence<\/p>\n
Officer of the Department on 15.01.2002. During the said inspection, the<\/p>\n
assessee had failed to produce the books of accounts for the assessment<\/p>\n
year 2001-02, and further, the Intelligence Officer had recovered the<\/p>\n
paper slips, estimate bills, cash receipts, etc. From out of the slips, the<\/p>\n
Intelligence Officer was of the opinion that the assessee had suppressed a<\/p>\n
sales turnover of Rs.3,10,115\/-.\n<\/p>\n
             2. The assessing authority, after issuing the pre-assessment<\/p>\n
notice, and since he was not convinced with the explanation offered by<\/p>\n
the assessee, has completed the best judgment assessment and in that,<\/p>\n
apart from the actual suppression detected, has made an addition of ten<\/p>\n
times towards the probable omission and suppression and, accordingly,<\/p>\n
has quantified the tax liability of the assessee.<\/p>\n
             3. This order of the assessing authority was carried in an<\/p>\n
appeal by the assessee before the first appellate authority. In the grounds<\/p>\n
of appeal, the assessee had stated, that, the assessee has purchased the<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.435 of 2006                       – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
chicken from small farmers in the Villages in Wynad District and the<\/p>\n
turnover of the assessee is exempt from payment of sales tax. Though this<\/p>\n
ground was taken in the memorandum of appeal, from the perusal of the<\/p>\n
orders passed by the first appellate authority, it is not forthcoming<\/p>\n
whether that point was urged and argued before the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority. However, the first appellate authority, taking a lenient view and<\/p>\n
further of the opinion that the additions made by the assessing authority is<\/p>\n
excessive, has modified the best judgment assessment passed by the<\/p>\n
assessing authority and has restricted the additions to three times the<\/p>\n
suppression detected at the time of inspection by the Intelligence Officer<\/p>\n
of the Department, viz., on 15.01.2002.\n<\/p>\n
              4. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority, the assessee was before the Tribunal in T.A.No.16 of 2006.<\/p>\n
Before the Tribunal, the assessee had argued only the following issues.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal at paragraph 4 of its order has extracted the issues raised by<\/p>\n
the assessee’s representative. They are:\n<\/p>\n
                     “It is significant to note that in spite of the fact<\/p>\n
       that a demand was made by the assessing authority, the<\/p>\n
       appellant had failed to produce his books of accounts for<\/p>\n
       verification for the assessment year 2001-2002. It is also to<\/p>\n
       be noticed that the appellant had submitted his monthly as<\/p>\n
       well as annual returns only on 29.12.04. From a perusal of<\/p>\n
       the records, it is further evident that at the time of inspection<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.435 of 2006                    – 3 –<\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      by the Intelligence Officer on 15.1.2002, paper slips,<\/p>\n
      estimate bills, cash receipts, etc., were seized and it was<\/p>\n
      found that turnover of Rs.3,10,115\/- was suppressed. It is<\/p>\n
      pertinent to note that the assessee himself had admitted<\/p>\n
      before the Intelligence Officer that he was not in the habit of<\/p>\n
      maintaining regular books of accounts. The offence<\/p>\n
      committed by the assessee was imposed with a penalty of<\/p>\n
      Rs.10,000\/-. Now, the appellant contends that he was<\/p>\n
      maintaining his books of accounts regularly and the findings<\/p>\n
      of the assessing authority in this regard is not at all<\/p>\n
      sustainable. From a perusal of the assessment records, it is<\/p>\n
      clear that on 13.1.2003, the assessee himself had submitted<\/p>\n
      a statement before the Intelligence Officer clearly admitting<\/p>\n
      that he was not in the habit of maintaining books of<\/p>\n
      accounts. So, we are of the view that the finding of the<\/p>\n
      assessing authority that the books of accounts produced on<\/p>\n
      29.12.2004 were subsequently created by the assessee is just<\/p>\n
      and proper. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept<\/p>\n
      the contention of the appellant that the lower authorities had<\/p>\n
      over-looked the fact that he was maintaining regular books<\/p>\n
      of accounts. We are of the further view that the findings of<\/p>\n
      the lower authorities that as the appellant had failed to<\/p>\n
      maintain regular books of accounts, the Returns as well as<\/p>\n
      the books of accounts produced by him on 29.12.2004 are<\/p>\n
      liable to be rejected to do not warrant any interference on<\/p>\n
      our hands”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             5. The Tribunal, after considering those issues urged and<\/p>\n
argued, has answered the same in the following manner:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
S.T.Rev.435 of 2006                      – 4 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
               “There cannot be any serious dispute regarding the<\/p>\n
        fact that the inspection conducted on 15.1.2002 had<\/p>\n
        unearthed suppression of Rs.3,10,115\/-. It is true that the<\/p>\n
        addition made by the assessing authority was reduced by the<\/p>\n
        First appellate authority considerably in the First appeal<\/p>\n
        submitted by the assessee. It is significant to note that the<\/p>\n
        suppression was detected only on 15.1.2002 and no similar<\/p>\n
        pattern of suppression were detected during the relevant<\/p>\n
        assessment year. In such circumstances, we are of the view<\/p>\n
        that reducing the addition to two times of the suppressed<\/p>\n
        turnover will meet the ends of justice”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               6.   Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in<\/p>\n
T.A.No.16 of 2006 dated 28th September, 2006, the assessee is before us<\/p>\n
in this Sales Tax Revision.\n<\/p>\n
               7. The assessee has framed the following questions of law<\/p>\n
for our consideration and decision. They are as under:<\/p>\n
               “(i)  Is not the decision of the tribunal vitiated on<\/p>\n
        account of the non-consideration of the contention that the<\/p>\n
        entire turnover is exempt from sales tax?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (ii)  Has not the Tribunal erred in law in finding<\/p>\n
        taxable turnover without even considering if the turnover is<\/p>\n
        incurred on account of purchase of chicken from outside<\/p>\n
        the State?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iii) In the absence of even a suggestion that<\/p>\n
        chicken had been purchased from outside the State and in<\/p>\n
        the absence of any interception at any check-post or<\/p>\n
        elsewhere is it just and proper to hold that the turnover is<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.435 of 2006                      – 5 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       taxable?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iv)   Is not the burden of proof on the revenue and<\/p>\n
       has it not failed to prove the existence of taxable turnover?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (v)    When the assessment proceedings is based<\/p>\n
       only on the recovery made in an inspection made on<\/p>\n
       15.1.2002 and when no material even suggesting inter-State<\/p>\n
       purchase of chicken is recovered is it just and proper to<\/p>\n
       pass an assessment order of the present nature?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (vi)   Is the addition of two times the turnover<\/p>\n
       justified?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
              8.   Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
assessee, would submit, that, it was the specific case of the assessee, both<\/p>\n
before the first appellate authority and before the Tribunal, that, the<\/p>\n
assessee purchases chicken from small farmers of the Villages in<\/p>\n
Wynad District and        effects sale and therefore, the turnover of the<\/p>\n
assessee is exempt from payment of tax under the Act and, accordingly<\/p>\n
the learned counsel is of the view, that, the first appellate authority and<\/p>\n
the Tribunal were not justified in merely reducing the additions made by<\/p>\n
the assessing authority while completing the best judgment assessment for<\/p>\n
the assessment year 2001-02.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              9. In order to appreciate the contention canvassed by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the assessee, we have carefully perused the<\/p>\n
orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. Neither<\/p>\n
before the first appellate authority nor before the Appellate Tribunal, the<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.435 of 2006                       – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
assessee, though had taken up the aforesaid contention in the<\/p>\n
memorandum of appeal, had not argued the same. What was not argued<\/p>\n
and urged before the appellate authority cannot be argued and urged for<\/p>\n
the first time before this Court. If, for any reason, the assessee was of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the aforesaid issue was canvassed before the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority and also before the Tribunal and if that issue had not been<\/p>\n
noticed either by the first appellate authority or by the Tribunal and they<\/p>\n
have not answered the same in one way or the other, the assessee should<\/p>\n
have filed an appropriate review petition either before the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority or before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
              10. The orders passed by the assessing authority is a best<\/p>\n
judgment assessment. The said assessment is based on the recovery of the<\/p>\n
paper slips, estimate bills, cash receipts, etc. from the business premises<\/p>\n
of the assessee at the time of inspection by the Intelligence Officer of the<\/p>\n
Intelligence Wing of the Department on 15.01.2002. The slips recovered<\/p>\n
would indicate that there was suppression of sales of chicken, amounting<\/p>\n
to Rs.3,10,115\/-. While completing the best judgment assessment, the<\/p>\n
assessing authority has made an addition of ten times towards the<\/p>\n
probable omission and suppression, which was reduced to three times by<\/p>\n
the first appellate authority and, further, to two times by the Appellate<\/p>\n
Tribunal. The orders passed by the authorities under the Act and also by<\/p>\n
S.T.Rev.435 of 2006                      – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
the Tribunal are purely based on facts. No question of law as such would<\/p>\n
arise in this revision petition for our consideration and decision. We<\/p>\n
hasten to add that it is not the case of the assessee’s learned counsel that<\/p>\n
findings and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal is a perverse<\/p>\n
finding. In that view of the matter, the revision petition requires to be<\/p>\n
rejected and it is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
              11. This Court, while entertaining the revision petition, had<\/p>\n
directed the assessee to deposit one-half of the tax assessed.<\/p>\n
Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, requests us<\/p>\n
to grant him another two months time to pay the balance amount. The<\/p>\n
request so made by the learned counsel is reasonable and, if the request is<\/p>\n
granted, it would not cause any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore,<\/p>\n
we grant the petitioner two months’ time from today to pay up the balance<\/p>\n
amount as quantified by the Appellate Tribunal.<\/p>\n
              Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        H.L.Dattu
\n                                                      Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                                      A.K.Basheer
\n                                                         Judge
\nvku\/dk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ST.Rev..No. 435 of 2006() 1. C.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, M\/S.C.M.CHICKEN … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED … Respondent 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), 4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, […]<\/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-59404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 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\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-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=\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-02T23:30:29+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-02T23:30:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1616,\"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\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008\",\"name\":\"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-02T23:30:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 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":"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 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\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-02T23:30:29+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-02T23:30:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008"},"wordCount":1616,"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\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008","name":"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-02T23:30:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-muhammedkutty-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-11-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Muhammedkutty vs The State Of Kerala on 11 August, 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\/59404","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=59404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}