{"id":61430,"date":"2000-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000"},"modified":"2015-03-16T05:30:41","modified_gmt":"2015-03-16T00:00:41","slug":"pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000","title":{"rendered":"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, J., R.P. Sethi, J.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPP UNNIKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPUTTIYOTTIL ALIKUTTY ANR ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/09\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS, J. &amp; R.P. SETHI, J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>T THOMAS, J.@@\tJJJJJJJJJJ<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    Two\t cops who are caught in the dock of a criminal court<br \/>\nwant to pre-empt the trial on the ground of limitation.\t But<br \/>\nthe  trial court and the High Court did not accede to  their<br \/>\nplea.\tHence  they  are  now\tbefore\tthe  Supreme   Court<br \/>\nchallenging  the  order\t of the High Court.   How  they\t got<br \/>\nthemselves   enmeshed\tin  the\t  cobweb  of  the   criminal<br \/>\nproceedings  can be narrated in brief:\tFirst appellant\t was<br \/>\nthe  Sub-Inspector  of\tPolice and second  appellant  was  a<br \/>\nPolice\tConstable  attached  to\t  Perambra  Police   Station<br \/>\nsituated  in  a moffusil centre within the Calicut  district<br \/>\n(Kerala).   First  respondent, a middle aged  shopkeeper  of<br \/>\nPerambra, was living with his wife and three children within<br \/>\nthe  limits  of\t the said Police Station.  On  1.9.1995\t the<br \/>\nfirst\trespondent   (hereinafter  referred    to   as\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant)  filed a complaint against the two appellants<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Judicial  Magistrate of  First  Class  Perambra<br \/>\ncomplaining  that  the\tappellants have\t committed  offences<br \/>\nunder  Sections\t 325,  342, 330 and 506(1) IPC.\t  The  First<br \/>\nClass  Magistrate after examining the complaint on oath\t and<br \/>\nafter  taking cognizance of the said offences issued process<br \/>\nto   the  appellants.\tThey   entered\tappearance  in\t the<br \/>\nMagistrates court and raised preliminary objection that the<br \/>\nmagistrate  should not have taken cognizance of the offences<br \/>\nin  view of the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the Kerala<br \/>\npolice\tAct (for short the KP Act) which fixed a period of<br \/>\nsix  months  from the date of commission of the offence\t for<br \/>\ntaking\tcognizance  thereof.  The magistrate over-ruled\t the<br \/>\nobjections.   Appellants  then\tmoved the High\tCourt  under<br \/>\nSection\t 482  of the Code of Criminal Procedure\t (For  short<br \/>\nthe  Code) for quashing the criminal proceeding\t initiated<br \/>\nby  the\t complainant.\tThey contended that  the  Magistrate<br \/>\ncould  not take cognizance of the offences as the  complaint<br \/>\nwas filed only after the expiry of six months of the alleged<br \/>\ncommission  of the offences.  A learned single judge of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court dismissed the petition as per the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For\t dealing with the question raised in this appeal  it<br \/>\nis  necessary to extract, at least briefly, the\t allegations<br \/>\nmade in the complaint.\tThey are the following:\n<\/p>\n<p>    On\tthe evening of 23.12.1994 the complainant was called<br \/>\nto  the police station, he was asked to remain therein\ttill<br \/>\nthe  arrival of the first appellant.  But appellants did not<br \/>\narrive\tat  the police station on that evening nor  was\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant permitted to leave the police station.  Hence he<br \/>\nhad  to remain inside the police station overnight.  On\t the<br \/>\nnext morning, both the appellants reached the station.\tThey<br \/>\nput the complainant in the lock up room, and first appellant<br \/>\nasked  him  did\t you not steal the articles from  the  next<br \/>\nshop?  and  so asking he started beating  the  complainant.<br \/>\nThereafter both the appellants together showered a volley of<br \/>\nblows all over his body.  He fell down.\t Appellants kept him<br \/>\ninside\tthe  lock-up room and left the police  station.\t  By<br \/>\nevening\t they  returned\t to the police station\tand  resumed<br \/>\ntheir  assault operation during which they inflicted lots of<br \/>\nblows  on  different  portions of his body by  uttering\t the<br \/>\nwords  if  you do not tell the truth you will  be  killed.<br \/>\nThereafter the complainant was asked to sit on the floor and<br \/>\nthen  both  the\t appellants stood on his legs  and  in\tthat<br \/>\nposture\t they  inflicted blows on him with hands as well  as<br \/>\nlathi.\t He  again  fell  down\t and  this  time  he  became<br \/>\nunconscious.   He  was\tkept in the lock up room  from\t24th<br \/>\nDecember,  95 till the morning of 27th December, 95.  He was<br \/>\nreleased  from\tthe  confinement of police  station  on\t the<br \/>\nmorning\t of  27th after administering a warning that  if  he<br \/>\ndivulged  to any person outside of what happened he would be<br \/>\ntrapped\t in  a\tfalse case.  The above is in  substance\t the<br \/>\nallegations in the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Section 64 of the K.P.Act deals with initiation of legal<br \/>\nproceedings  against  police officers or  magistrates.\t The<br \/>\nfirst  two  sub-sections are intended to  afford  protection<br \/>\nagainst\t any penalty or action for damages on account of any<br \/>\nact, done by such officers in good faith in pursuance of any<br \/>\nduty  imposed or any authority conferred.  Sub-section\t(3),<br \/>\nwhich is relied on by the appellants as the sheet anchor for<br \/>\ntheir safety, is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n<p>    No\tcourt  shall  take  cognizance\t of  any  suit\t or<br \/>\ncomplaint,  in respect of any offence or wrong alleged to be<br \/>\ncommitted  or done by a Magistrate, Police Officer or  other<br \/>\nperson\ton account of any act done in pursuance of any\tduty<br \/>\nimposed\t or  authority conferred on him by this Act  or\t any<br \/>\nother  law for the time being in force or any rule, order or<br \/>\ndirection  lawfully made or given thereunder unless the suit<br \/>\nor complaint is filed within six months of the date on which<br \/>\nthe  offence  or wrong is alleged to have been committed  or<br \/>\ndone.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  Single  Judge  of the High Court  repelled\t the<br \/>\ncontention  based  on the sub-section on two premises.\t For<br \/>\nthe first premise he made the following observations:\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the allegation made in the Annexure-A complaint it<br \/>\nis clear that the allegation made against the petitioner are<br \/>\nwith regard to the commission of several offences punishable<br \/>\nunder  the IPC.\t By no stretch of imagination it can be said<br \/>\nthat  the  offence  alleged  to have  committed\t is  in\t the<br \/>\ndischarge of the official duties of the petitioners so as to<br \/>\nattract the protection under sec.64 (3) of the Police Act in<br \/>\nfavour of the petitioners.  Therefore, the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioners  that  since Annexure-A complaint is  barred  by<br \/>\ntime  the  cognizance  of the offence taken by\tthe  learned<br \/>\nMagistrate is illegal, is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t second premise is based on Section 473 of the Code.<br \/>\nLearned Single Judge has observed thus on that aspect:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Under  Sec.473  of\tthe  Cr.P.C.  the  courts  have\t got<br \/>\njurisdiction  not only in cases where applications are filed<br \/>\nto  condone  the  delay\t by explaining\tthe  delay  occurred<br \/>\nproperly  but  also  in appropriate cases even\twithout\t any<br \/>\napplication  to condone the delay in order to meet the\tends<br \/>\nof  justice.   In this case the petitioner has\talleged\t the<br \/>\nreasons\t for  the delay in filing the complaint.  It is\t for<br \/>\nthe  trial  court to consider whether there  are  sufficient<br \/>\nreasons\t to condone the delay in filing the complaint at the<br \/>\nappropriate  stage  merely  because  of the  fact  that\t the<br \/>\ncomplaint  was filed after the lapse of six months from\t the<br \/>\ndate of alleged offence committed or acts done the complaint<br \/>\nfiled  against\tthe  police officials cannot be\t thrown\t out<br \/>\nunder  Section 64(3) of the Police Act.\t If such  contention<br \/>\nis  accepted, the unscrupulous police officials can drag the<br \/>\ninvestigation  for six months and contend that the complaint<br \/>\nfiled subsequent thereto is barred by time.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Section  473  of the Code is the last of the  provisions<br \/>\nsubsumed  in  Chapter XXXVI of the Code.  The title of\tthat<br \/>\nChapter\t is  Limitation\t for taking cognizance\tof  certain<br \/>\noffences.  The Chapter contains a fasciculus of only  seven<br \/>\nsections  starting  with  Section 467.\tIt is  necessary  to<br \/>\nextract that commencing provision which is as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>    467.   Definitions.-  For the purpose of  this  Chapter,<br \/>\nunless\t the   context\totherwise   requires,\tperiod\t of<br \/>\nlimitation  means  the period specified in section 468\tfor<br \/>\ntaking cognizance of an offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It is clear from a reading of the said opening provision<br \/>\nthat  the  entire Chapter concerns only with the  period  of<br \/>\nlimitation  prescribed\tin  the succeeding  provisions.\t  Of<br \/>\ncourse\tthe usual play at the joints is provided therein  by<br \/>\nusing  the  words unless the context  otherwise\t requires.<br \/>\nBut  on reading Section 473 it would become crystally  clear<br \/>\nthat it is intended to be applied only with reference to the<br \/>\nperiod\tfixed  in Section 468 of the Code.  Now\t we  extract<br \/>\nbelow Section 473 of the Code:\n<\/p>\n<p>    473.   Extension  of  period of  limitation\t in  certain<br \/>\ncases.\t  &#8211;  Notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\t the<br \/>\nforegoing  provisions  of this Chapter, any Court  may\tmake<br \/>\ncognizance  of an offence after the expiry of the period  of<br \/>\nlimitation,  if\t it  is satisfied on the facts\tand  in\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of the case that the delay has been  properly<br \/>\nexplained  or that it is necessary so to do in the interests<br \/>\nof justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The extension of period contemplated in the said Section<br \/>\nis  only  by way of an exception to the period fixed as\t per<br \/>\nthe provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code.  Section 473 of<br \/>\nthe  Code therefore cannot operate in respect of any  period<br \/>\nof  limitation prescribed under any other enactment.   Hence<br \/>\nwe  are\t unable\t to uphold the view adopted by\tthe  learned<br \/>\nSingle\tJudge of the High Court that Section 473 of the Code<br \/>\ncan   appropriately  be\t invoked  by  the  complainant\t for<br \/>\ncircumventing the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the K.P.<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Shri L.N.  Rao, learned counsel for the complainant made<br \/>\nan endeavour to support the impugned order of the High Court<br \/>\nby contending that the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the<br \/>\nK.P.   Act would be restricted to the offences specified  in<br \/>\nthat Act and it cannot encompass any other offence under any<br \/>\nenactments, particularly the penal code offences.\n<\/p>\n<p>    To bolster up the contention learned counsel invited our<br \/>\nattention  to the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1288544\/\">Maulud Ahmad vs.<br \/>\nState of Uttar Pradesh<\/a> {1963 Supp.(2) SCR 38}.\tIn that case<br \/>\none  Police  Head  constable challenged his  conviction\t and<br \/>\nsentence  under\t Section 218 of the IPC.  As the High  Court<br \/>\nconfirmed the conviction he approached this Court by special<br \/>\nleave.\t One of the grounds urged in this Court was based on<br \/>\nSection\t 42  of the Indian Police Act which says  that\tall<br \/>\nactions\t and  prosecutions against any person, which may  be<br \/>\nlawfully  brought  for anything done or intended to be\tdone<br \/>\nunder  the  provisions\tof this Act, or\t under\tthe  general<br \/>\npolice\tpowers hereby given shall be commenced within  three<br \/>\nmonths\tafter  the  act\t complained   of  shall\t have\tbeen<br \/>\ncommitted, and not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Subba  Rao, J.  (as the learned Chief Justice then\twas)<br \/>\nfelt that Section 42 of the Indian Police Act does not apply<br \/>\nto  prosecutions against any person for anything done  under<br \/>\nthe provisions of any other Act.  The reasoning for adopting<br \/>\nthe  said  legal position is quite obvious from the  section<br \/>\nitself.\t Learned Judge has stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Under S.36 nothing contained in the Police Act shall be<br \/>\nconstrued  to prevent any person from being prosecuted under<br \/>\nany  Regulation\t or Act for any offence made  punishable  by<br \/>\nthis  Act or for being liable under any other Regulation  or<br \/>\nAct  or\t any other or higher penalty or punishment  than  is<br \/>\nprovided  for such offence by this Act.\t This section  makes<br \/>\nit  clear  that the provisions of the Act including s.42  do<br \/>\nnot  preclude a person from being prosecuted for an  offence<br \/>\nunder any other Act.  A combined reading of these provisions<br \/>\nleads  to  the\tconclusion  that  s.42\tonly  applies  to  a<br \/>\nprosecution  against a person for an offence committed under<br \/>\nthe Police Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t aforesaid  provision is not identically  worded  as<br \/>\nSection\t 64(3)\tof the K.P.  Act.  The words  any  offence<br \/>\nmentioned   in\tthe  said   sub-section\t indicate  that\t the<br \/>\nprovision is not restricted to the offences specified in the<br \/>\nK.P.   Act.  It is advantageous in this context to refer  to<br \/>\nSection\t 2(n)  of the Code which is the definition  for\t the<br \/>\nword  offence.\t It  means  any\t  act  or  omission  made<br \/>\npunishable by any law for the time being in force.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Even otherwise there is nothing in Section 64 (3) of the<br \/>\nKP  Act\t which\twould warrant a construction  that  the\t ban<br \/>\ntherein\t is  intended  only with reference to  the  offences<br \/>\nmentioned in that Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Ms.M.   Jayshree,  learned\tcounsel for  the  appellants<br \/>\ncontended that Section 64(3) of the K.P.  Act contains words<br \/>\nwhich  are analogous to the words employed in Section 197(1)<br \/>\nof the Code and on that premise learned counsel requested us<br \/>\nto  follow certain decisions for understanding the scope  of<br \/>\nthe  sub-section concerned in the K.P.\tAct.  Even  assuming<br \/>\nthat  the words employed in those two different sub-sections<br \/>\n(one  in  the K.P.  Act and the other in the Code)  are\t the<br \/>\nsame  it has to be pointed out that the context envisaged in<br \/>\nSection\t 197(1)\t of the Code or the purpose of\tproviding  a<br \/>\nfilter\ttherein is demonstrably different from the object of<br \/>\nSection\t 64(3) of the K.P.  Act.  Section 197(1) of the Code<br \/>\ndoes  not impose any absolute ban against taking  cognizance<br \/>\nof  the\t offence,  but\tit   only  says\t that  the  sanction<br \/>\ncontemplated  therein  is a condition precedent\t for  taking<br \/>\nsuch  cognizance.   It\tobviously is for  preventing  public<br \/>\nservants  from being subjected to frivolous prosecutions for<br \/>\ndischarging  their  official  duties.  On  the\tother  hand,<br \/>\nSection\t 64(3) of the K.P.  Act incorporates an absolute ban<br \/>\nagainst\t taking\t cognizance  of\t the offences  of  the\ttype<br \/>\nmentioned  therein  on\tthe expiry of the  period  specified<br \/>\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n<p>    That  apart the words used in Section 197(1) of the Code<br \/>\nfor qualifying the offence are seemingly wider.\t Those words<br \/>\nare  these:  any offence alleged to have been committed\t by<br \/>\nhim  while  acting or purporting to act in the discharge  of<br \/>\nhis  official duty.  In Section 64(3) of the K.P.  Act\tthe<br \/>\noffence\t is  qualified as the offence committed by a  police<br \/>\nofficer on account of any act done in pursuance of any duty<br \/>\nimposed\t or  authority conferred on him, by this Act or\t any<br \/>\nother  law for the time being in force or any rule, order of<br \/>\ndirection lawfully made or given thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The commission of an offence, while acting or purporting<br \/>\nto  act in the discharge of his official duty is of a  wider<br \/>\nradius when compared with an offence committed on account of<br \/>\nan  act done in pursuance of any duty or authority.  In\t the<br \/>\nlatter,\t the  act  done\t itself should\tbe  an\texercise  in<br \/>\ndischarge  of  his  duty or authority and  that\t act  should<br \/>\namount\tto  an\toffence.   It is not  enough  that  the\t act<br \/>\ncomplained  of\twas only purported to be in exercise of\t his<br \/>\nduty  though  it maybe sufficient under the former.  So\t the<br \/>\nscope  under Section 64(3) of the K.P.\tAct is much narrower<br \/>\nthan  the  amplitude  of Section 197(1) of the\tCode  for  a<br \/>\npublic servant to claim protection.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Even  under\t Section 197 of the Code no  protection\t has<br \/>\nbeen granted to public servants for the type of acts alleged<br \/>\nin  the case against the appellants.  Decisions are a legion<br \/>\nrelating to the scope of the protection under Section 197(1)<br \/>\nof the Code.  In Matakpg Dpneu vs.  H.C.  Bhari{1955 (2) SCR<br \/>\n925}  this  Court  made\t a slight deviation  from  the\tview<br \/>\nadopted\t by  the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council  in<br \/>\nGills  case  (1948  Law\t Reports  75).\t This  Court  after<br \/>\nreferring  to  earlier\tdecisions  summed up  the  scope  of<br \/>\nSection 197(1) of the Code thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>    There  must be a reasonable connection between the\tact<br \/>\nand  the discharge of official duty;  the act must bear such<br \/>\nrelation   to  the  duty  that\t the  accused  could  lay  a<br \/>\nreasonable,  but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that  he<br \/>\ndid it in the course of the performance of his duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>    While  following the said decision this Court has found,<br \/>\non  a  subsequent  occasion,  that a  superior\tofficer\t who<br \/>\nassaulted  his subordinate for defying his orders could\t not<br \/>\nbe  said  to have acted in the course of performance of\t his<br \/>\nduty,  (vide <a href=\"\/doc\/1444608\/\">Pukhraj vs.  State of Rajasthan and Anr.<\/a>  {1974<br \/>\n(1) SCR 559}.\n<\/p>\n<p>    If a police officer dealing with law and order duty uses<br \/>\nforce  against unruly persons, either in his own defence  or<br \/>\nin defence of others and exceeds such right it may amount to<br \/>\nan  offence.   But  such  offence   might  fall\t within\t the<br \/>\namplitude  of  Section\t197 of the Code as well\t as  Section<br \/>\n64(3)  of the K.P.  Act.  But if a police officer assaults a<br \/>\nprisoner  inside  a lock-up he cannot claim such act  to  be<br \/>\nconnected with the discharge of his authority or exercise of<br \/>\nhis  duty unless he establishes that he did such acts in his<br \/>\ndefence or in defence of others or any property.  Similarly,<br \/>\nif  a  police  officer wrongfully confines a person  in\t the<br \/>\nlock-up\t beyond a period of 24 hours without the sanction of<br \/>\na  magistrate or an order of a court it would be an  offence<br \/>\nfor  which  he\tcannot claim any protection  in\t the  normal<br \/>\ncourse,\t nor can he claim that such act was done in exercise<br \/>\nof  his official duty.\tA policeman keeping a person in\t the<br \/>\nlock-up\t for  more  than 24 hours without authority  is\t not<br \/>\nmerely\tabusing his duty but his act would be quite  outside<br \/>\nthe contours of his duty or authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Ms.\t  M.  Jayshree, learned counsel for the\t appellants,<br \/>\nmade  a last attempt to salvage the appellant from  criminal<br \/>\nproceedings on the strength of a recent decision rendered by<br \/>\nthis  Court  in K.K.  Patel &amp; anr.  vs.\t State of Gujarat  &amp;<br \/>\nanr.   {2000  (6) SCC 195}.  That decision was\trendered  in<br \/>\nconsideration  of  Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police\tAct.<br \/>\nThe  phraseology used in that sub-section is far wider\tthan<br \/>\nSection 64(3) of the K.P.  Act.\t Under the former protection<br \/>\nis given for acts done under colour or in excess of duty or<br \/>\nauthority  by  providing  that action should  be  initiated<br \/>\nwithin\ta  particular period and if it is not  so  initiated<br \/>\nwithin that period the action can be initiated only with the<br \/>\nsanction of the Government.  The said decision is of no help<br \/>\nto  the\t appellants as the sub-section (3) of Section 64  of<br \/>\nthe K.P.  Act is differently worded.\n<\/p>\n<p>    If\tsub-section  (3) of Section 64 of the K.P.   Act  is<br \/>\ngiven  the interpretation sought for by the learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  appellants,  it  may\t give  rise  to\t  calamitous<br \/>\nconsequences,  e.g.  if a police officer inflicts torture on<br \/>\na prisoner inside the lock up and he knows that the right of<br \/>\nthe  prisoner  to move within the time prescribed  for\tsuch<br \/>\nacts  would  stand permanently debarred after the expiry  of<br \/>\nsix  months, he might inflict such sorts of physical harm to<br \/>\nthe  prisoner as to disable him from moving out for the next<br \/>\n6  months  so  that  the  offending  policeman\twould  stand<br \/>\npermanently  immuned  from  any prosecution  proceedings  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the offences committed by him.  This may be only<br \/>\nan  illustration in fiction but such fiction may turn out to<br \/>\nbe  reality,  at  least\t in   exceptional  cases.   So\t the<br \/>\ninterpretation which may lead to such dangerous consequences<br \/>\nshould be averted.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For\t the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to afford<br \/>\nthe  benefit envisaged in Section 64(3) of the K.P.  Act  to<br \/>\nthe appellants.\t The appeal is hence dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000 Bench: K.T. Thomas, J., R.P. Sethi, J. PETITIONER: PP UNNIKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: PUTTIYOTTIL ALIKUTTY ANR ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/09\/2000 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS, J. &amp; R.P. SETHI, J. JUDGMENT: T THOMAS, J.@@ JJJJJJJJJJ Leave granted. L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61430","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-16T00:00:41+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T00:00:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3091,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000\",\"name\":\"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T00:00:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-16T00:00:41+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T00:00:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000"},"wordCount":3091,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000","name":"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T00:00:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pp-unnikrishnan-and-another-vs-puttiyottil-alikutty-anr-another-on-5-september-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pp Unnikrishnan And Another vs Puttiyottil Alikutty Anr Another on 5 September, 2000"}]},{"@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\/61430","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=61430"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61430\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}