{"id":62132,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-20T01:03:05","modified_gmt":"2014-09-19T19:33:05","slug":"k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 1686 of 2010()\n\n\n1. K.C.PALANISAMI, S\/O.CHENNIAPPA GOUNDER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. K.K.SIVAKUMAR, S\/O.A.KRISHNASWAMY,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. N.SAKARIYA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086\/92)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :15\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n          ===========================\n          CRL.M.C.No.1686     OF 2010\n          ===========================\n\n   Dated this the  15th day of September,2010\n\n                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Petitioners the accused 1 and 2 in Crime<\/p>\n
No.199\/2009   of   Edavanna    Police    Station<\/p>\n
registered under Annxure A11 F.I.R for the<\/p>\n
offences under sections 420, 468 and 471 read<\/p>\n
with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, filed<\/p>\n
this petition under section 482 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal  Procedure to   quash   the  F.I.R  and<\/p>\n
further proceedings as against them.    Annexure<\/p>\n
A11 F.I.R was registered based on Annexure A10<\/p>\n
private   complaint   filed   by    the   second<\/p>\n
respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Manjeri  and  sent   for   investigation   under<\/p>\n
section  156(3)   of   the   Code  of   Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.  Case of the petitioners     is that<\/p>\n
none of the ingredients of the offences are<\/p>\n
attracted on the allegations raised in Annexure<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010             2<\/span><\/p>\n
10 complaint and          therefore continuation of the<\/p>\n
investigation        against them is only an abuse of<\/p>\n
process of court. Petitioners contended that though<\/p>\n
first petitioner was the Managing Director of the<\/p>\n
Company, he ceased to be the Director with effect<\/p>\n
from 1.4.1997 and the second petitioner ceased to<\/p>\n
be the Director with effect from 27.5.2008 and<\/p>\n
therefore when according to Annexure 10 complaint,<\/p>\n
second respondent         entered into the transaction<\/p>\n
with the Company        petitioners have nothing to do<\/p>\n
with United Plantation Ltd, private limited company<\/p>\n
and therefore they cannot be prosecuted.          It is<\/p>\n
also contended that though third accused was the<\/p>\n
General Manager of the Company, he was removed from<\/p>\n
the service of the Company on 17.7.2009 and a<\/p>\n
public      notice   was  issued  in Tamil  Dailies on<\/p>\n
21.8.2009 and in such circumstances, petitioners<\/p>\n
cannot be prosecuted.\n<\/p>\n
      2.         Learned  counsel  appearing   for  the<\/p>\n
petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010            3<\/span><\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     Annexure 10 complaint shows that it is the<\/p>\n
case of the second respondent that on 29.11.2008<\/p>\n
all the accused received Rs.1,00,000\/- and after<\/p>\n
one week received Rs.6,00,000\/-, based on a lease<\/p>\n
agreement executed on 29.11.2008 between M\/s.United<\/p>\n
Plantation Ltd, the Company and       second respondent<\/p>\n
whereunder       second respondent  was   permitted  to<\/p>\n
collect tea leaves for a period of three years from<\/p>\n
the Estate consisting of 104 acres.       It is alleged<\/p>\n
that subsequently due to        labour dispute between<\/p>\n
the workers of the Company, second respondent could<\/p>\n
not collect the tea leaves and the lease agreement<\/p>\n
was cancelled       and so the accused persons orally<\/p>\n
agreed to pay Rs.6,30,000\/- after deducting 10%<\/p>\n
towards their expenses.        It is the case that on<\/p>\n
1.9.2009 the accused persons came to Edavanna and<\/p>\n
made the second respondent         believe that third<\/p>\n
accused is the General Manager and the authorised<\/p>\n
signatory of the Company competent to issue a<\/p>\n
cheque on behalf of the Company and believing the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010             4<\/span><\/p>\n
representation made by the accused after providing<\/p>\n
a copy of power of attorney which was attested by<\/p>\n
P.Ranga Swamy Advocate and Notary, Othakamandalam<\/p>\n
second       respondent   received   the  cheque  dated<\/p>\n
4.9.2009 for Rs.6,30,000\/- drawn on Union Bank of<\/p>\n
India, Gudallur Branch signed by third accused as<\/p>\n
the authorised signatory of the Company.          It is<\/p>\n
contended        that  second  respondent was  made  to<\/p>\n
believe       that   the  cheque  will  be honoured  on<\/p>\n
presentation.        But when the cheque was presented,<\/p>\n
it was dishonoured and second respondent sent a<\/p>\n
notice to the accused persons as well as the<\/p>\n
Company and he received          reply stating that the<\/p>\n
accused persons have no connection with the Company<\/p>\n
and then second respondent came to know that the<\/p>\n
accused persons were making false representations<\/p>\n
and      induced     the   complainant  to   part  with<\/p>\n
Rs.7,00,000\/-        with  the  dishonest intention  of<\/p>\n
cheating the complainant and issued a cheque for<\/p>\n
Rs.6,30,000\/- suppressing the material facts.        It<\/p>\n
is contended that accused persons thereby committed<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010            5<\/span><\/p>\n
the offence under sections 420, 468 and 471 of<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Annexure I copy of Form 32 issued by the<\/p>\n
Registrar        of Companies  establish that    first<\/p>\n
petitioner\/first accused resigned from the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors with effect from 1.4.1997.       Annexure II<\/p>\n
copy of the resignation letter sent by the second<\/p>\n
petitioner to the Board of Directors of the Company<\/p>\n
dated 27.5.2008 shows that he has resigned from the<\/p>\n
Directorship of the Company and requested the Board<\/p>\n
of Directors to send a copy of Form 32 for filing<\/p>\n
the     same     to the  office  of  the Registrar  of<\/p>\n
Companies. Annexure III the extract of the minutes<\/p>\n
of the meeting of the Board of Director held on<\/p>\n
27.5.2008 shows that         resignation of the second<\/p>\n
petitioner\/second accused as the Director of the<\/p>\n
Company was accepted with effect from 27.5.2008.<\/p>\n
      5.     Annexure IV and V copies of Dinakaran and<\/p>\n
Dinamalar Tamil Dailies       dated 2.8.2009 show that<\/p>\n
public notice was issued by the Company, United<\/p>\n
Plantation Ltd, to the effect that       third accused<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010           6<\/span><\/p>\n
was dismissed from       service of the Company with<\/p>\n
effect from 17.7.2009.      When Annexure VII notice<\/p>\n
was issued by the second respondent, on dishonour<\/p>\n
of the cheque issued by the third accused as the<\/p>\n
authorised agent of the United Plantation Ltd,<\/p>\n
Annexure VIII and IX replies were respectively sent<\/p>\n
by    petitioners 1 and 2 stating that first accused<\/p>\n
resigned from the Directorship of the Company on<\/p>\n
1.4.1997 and      second petitioner resigned from the<\/p>\n
Directorship on 27.5.2008 and therefore they have<\/p>\n
nothing to do with the Company.          Annexure 10<\/p>\n
complaint was filed thereafter alleging that an<\/p>\n
offence under sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code was committed.\n<\/p>\n
      6.      As rightly pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the petitioners, even if the<\/p>\n
entire allegations raised     against the petitioners<\/p>\n
in Annexure 10 complaint are accepted, an offence<\/p>\n
under sections 468 or 471 of Indian Penal Code is<\/p>\n
not     attracted.     The complaint  does  not  even<\/p>\n
disclose which is the forged document allegedly<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010            7<\/span><\/p>\n
created      or   used  as genuine.    Learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the second respondent submitted that<\/p>\n
in the light of the contentions of the petitioners,<\/p>\n
they could not have been the Managing Director or<\/p>\n
Director of the Company on 13.10.2008 and in such<\/p>\n
circumstances,       the  notarised     copy   of   the<\/p>\n
authority allegedly executed on 13.10.2008 could<\/p>\n
only be a forged document.        But when Annexure 10<\/p>\n
complaint does not disclose that it is the said<\/p>\n
power of authority         executed on 13.10.2008 which<\/p>\n
is alleged to be the forged document, and      was used<\/p>\n
as genuine and when even the details of the forged<\/p>\n
documents       was  not  disclosed    on  Annexure  10<\/p>\n
complaint the learned Magistrate could not have<\/p>\n
taken cognizance of the offences under sections 468<\/p>\n
and     471     of  Indian Penal   Code. Hence     said<\/p>\n
cognizance taken on those offences can only be<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
      7.      Then the question is whether an offence<\/p>\n
under      section    420 of   Indian  Penal  Code   is<\/p>\n
attracted.        if we are  to accept the contentions<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010            8<\/span><\/p>\n
raised in Annexure 10 as such, the case is that a<\/p>\n
lease agreement was entered into by the second<\/p>\n
respondent       with  the  Company  whereunder  second<\/p>\n
respondent was permitted to collect         tea leaves<\/p>\n
from the Estate of the Company for a period of<\/p>\n
three years.        That agreement was entered into on<\/p>\n
29.11.2008.       That agreement was not seen produced<\/p>\n
before      the   learned  Magistrate.    As   per  the<\/p>\n
complaint,       Rs.1,00,000\/-  was   paid  under   the<\/p>\n
agreement on 29.11.2008 and Rs.6,00,000\/- within<\/p>\n
one week from 29.11.2008.         Therefore as per the<\/p>\n
complaint, the money due under the lease agreement<\/p>\n
was    paid     before the  expiry  of  one  week  from<\/p>\n
29.11.2008.       There is no allegation in Annexure 10<\/p>\n
complaint that the said agreement was executed by<\/p>\n
petitioners 1 and 2.       On the other hand, a reading<\/p>\n
of the complaint reveals that the         agreement was<\/p>\n
entered into by the second respondent with the<\/p>\n
Company and for the Company the third accused has<\/p>\n
acted as its        authorised agent.   If that be the<\/p>\n
case, the further allegation in the complaint that<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010             9<\/span><\/p>\n
after the lease agreement was cancelled,       accused 1<\/p>\n
and 2 induced the second respondent to believe that<\/p>\n
third accused is the authorised agent cannot be<\/p>\n
correct      because   when  the  agreement  itself  was<\/p>\n
entered       into   with  the  third  accused  as   the<\/p>\n
authorised agent, there is no necessity for a<\/p>\n
subsequent inducement as alleged in the complaint.<\/p>\n
Moreover, when there is no case in the complaint<\/p>\n
that when the       lease agreement was entered into and<\/p>\n
second respondent parted with the money there was<\/p>\n
an intention for the petitioners to cheat, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that an offence under section 420 of<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code        is attracted.  Learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioners pointed out that in<\/p>\n
the last         paragraph disclosing the facts of the<\/p>\n
case, it is alleged that after receipt of the reply<\/p>\n
second respondent came to know that the accused<\/p>\n
persons         made   representations   inducing    the<\/p>\n
complainant to part with money with the dishonest<\/p>\n
intention        of  cheating  and  issued  cheque   for<\/p>\n
Rs.6,30,000\/- suppressing material facts           those<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.1686\/2010           10<\/span><\/p>\n
allegations are       also insufficient to attract an<\/p>\n
offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code<\/p>\n
against the petitioners.        In such circumstances,<\/p>\n
continuation       of  the   prosecution   as   against<\/p>\n
petitioners 1 and 2      can  only be quashed.   Though<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent<\/p>\n
relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Venkateshwaran and another v. M\/s.Singaravel Yarn<\/p>\n
Traders (2009 KHC 741), it has no application on<\/p>\n
the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
      Petition is allowed.      Annexure A11 F.I.R as<\/p>\n
against petitioners 1 and 2 the accused 1 and 2 in<\/p>\n
Crime No.199\/2009 of Edavanna Police Station is<\/p>\n
quashed.       It is made clear that the case could be<\/p>\n
investigated as against the third accused.<\/p>\n
                                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                           JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     ———————\n<\/p>\n
      W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
     ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1686 of 2010() 1. K.C.PALANISAMI, S\/O.CHENNIAPPA GOUNDER, … Petitioner 2. K.K.SIVAKUMAR, S\/O.A.KRISHNASWAMY, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. N.SAKARIYA, For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086\/92) The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR […]<\/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-62132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 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\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-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=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-19T19:33:05+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-19T19:33:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1533,\"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\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-19T19:33:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 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":"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 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\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-19T19:33:05+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-19T19:33:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":1533,"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\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010","name":"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-19T19:33:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisami-vs-state-of-kerala-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.C.Palanisami vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 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\/62132","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=62132"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62132\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}