{"id":62627,"date":"2010-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-07T17:06:47","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T11:36:47","slug":"b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 432 of 2010()\n\n\n1. B.SURENDRAN,AGED 53 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.KARUNAKARAN,S\/O.KESAVAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.ROBINSON\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :08\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n                     -------------------------------\n                    Crl. R.P.No.432 of 2010\n                     -------------------------------\n           Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010.\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     The accused in a prosecution for an offence u\/s.138 of<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by<\/p>\n
the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The case of the complainant is that, towards the<\/p>\n
discharge of the liability due to the complainant, the accused<\/p>\n
issued a cheque dated 18.1.2005 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000\/-,<\/p>\n
which when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there<\/p>\n
was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused<\/p>\n
and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal<\/p>\n
demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed<\/p>\n
the offence punishable u\/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.<\/p>\n
With the said allegation, the complainant initially approached the<\/p>\n
Judl. First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara, by filing a<\/p>\n
formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u\/s.138 of<\/p>\n
                                 2<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.170\/05 and<\/p>\n
subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of Judicial<\/p>\n
First Class Magistrate-IV (Principal Munsiff)-Neyyattinkara,<\/p>\n
wherein the case is renumbered as C.C.No.700\/05. During the<\/p>\n
trial of the case, PW1, the complainant himself was examined<\/p>\n
from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P9 were<\/p>\n
marked. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced from<\/p>\n
the side of the defence. On the basis of the available materials<\/p>\n
and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the<\/p>\n
cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner\/<\/p>\n
accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the<\/p>\n
complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the<\/p>\n
complainant has established the case against the accused\/<\/p>\n
revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is<\/p>\n
guilty and thus convicted him u\/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and also<\/p>\n
directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000\/- to<\/p>\n
                                  3<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
the complainant as compensation u\/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., within<\/p>\n
30 days from the date of judgment, failing which the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15<\/p>\n
days.\n<\/p>\n
         3.   Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner\/accused, by judgment dated 6.11.2009 in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.1136\/06, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Trivandrum,<\/p>\n
allowed the appeal only in part and while confirming the<\/p>\n
conviction, the sentence is modified and directed the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the<\/p>\n
court and to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
complainant and the default sentence is fixed as one month<\/p>\n
simple imprisonment. It is the above conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
challenged in this revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
         4. I have heard Adv.Sri.D.Robinson, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the revision petitioner and Adv.Sri.Nagaraj<\/p>\n
Narayanan, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and I<\/p>\n
have also carefully perused the judgments of the courts below.<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
         5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner is that though the trial court has allowed<\/p>\n
his petition u\/s.311 of Cr.P.C., the witness was not examined<\/p>\n
and thereby shut down the defence evidence, which resulted in<\/p>\n
miscarriage of justice. According to the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner the cheque in question was given as a<\/p>\n
security to the complainant, connected with a property<\/p>\n
transaction, when the revision petitioner received a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/- being the earnest money for the sale of property<\/p>\n
which belonged to the revision petitioner and his wife.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, in order to establish the above<\/p>\n
transaction he had moved the trial court by filing a proper<\/p>\n
petition and the same was though allowed by the trial court, the<\/p>\n
witness was not examined inspite of the fact that he had<\/p>\n
deposited a sum of Rs.400\/- being the cost ordered by the court<\/p>\n
below. According to the learned counsel, in the petition itself it<\/p>\n
was prayed that a summons be issued to the witness cited by<\/p>\n
the defence. But inspite of that prayer, the court below directed<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
him to produce the witness.           At present, the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant is that the witness who sought to be summoned<\/p>\n
and examined is a police officer working as Asst. Commissioner<\/p>\n
and therefore it was not easy for him to produce by himself and<\/p>\n
therefore he sought the assistance of the court by filing the<\/p>\n
petition. However, according to the learned counsel though the<\/p>\n
prayer was allowed and witness was not examined and thereby<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner had sustain irreparable injury and<\/p>\n
hardship, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. On the other<\/p>\n
hand, the counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, since he was<\/p>\n
protracting the proceedings in the court below and he miserably<\/p>\n
failed to produce the witness inspite of the fact that he was<\/p>\n
directed to produce the witness.\n<\/p>\n
         6. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by<\/p>\n
the learned counsels of both sides and I have also perused the<\/p>\n
materials made available to me.\n<\/p>\n
         7. The specific case of the complainant is that the accused<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000\/- and towards the discharge of<\/p>\n
the said liability, the accused issued a cheque in question, which<\/p>\n
when presented for encashment dishonoured as there was not<\/p>\n
sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused. The<\/p>\n
trial court as well as the appellate court accepted the<\/p>\n
contentions of the complainant and found that the accused has<\/p>\n
committed the offence punishable u\/s.138 of Negotiable<\/p>\n
Instruments Act. It is the above concurrent findings of the court<\/p>\n
below sought to be challenged in this revision petition. It is in<\/p>\n
support of the above challenge, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner submitted that the court below denied the<\/p>\n
opportunity of the revision petitioner to examine his witness and<\/p>\n
in support of the above submission, the learned counsel brought<\/p>\n
to     my notice        a decision    reported   in   T.Nagappa Vs.<\/p>\n
Y.R.Muralidhar [AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2010].<\/p>\n
         8. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that, the evidence<\/p>\n
of the complainant was closed on 24.3.2006 and the case was<\/p>\n
posted for recording 313 statement of the accused on 20.5.2006<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
and subsequently the case was adjourned to 19.6.2006 for<\/p>\n
defence evidence. On 20.7.2006 though the complainant as<\/p>\n
well as the accused were present, no ‘witness schedule’ for the<\/p>\n
defence was filed and hence the defence evidence was closed<\/p>\n
on 20.7.2006 and the case was adjourned to 28.7.2006 and<\/p>\n
then to 30.8.2006. It was on 30.8.2006, the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
moved an application u\/s.311 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by a<\/p>\n
separate order dated 30.8.2006.      In the above order, the trial<\/p>\n
court has specifically directed the revision petitioner\/accused to<\/p>\n
produce the witness and also observed that summons could<\/p>\n
have been applied for. After issuing the above order the trial<\/p>\n
court adjourned the case to 13.9.2006. On 13.9.2006, the court<\/p>\n
has recorded that the accused present but no witness present<\/p>\n
and accordingly the defence evidence was closed. Finally the<\/p>\n
case was disposed of by judgment dated 31.10.2006.            The<\/p>\n
present case of the revision petitioner is that he could not<\/p>\n
produce the witness and he was not expected to produce the<\/p>\n
witness, because the prayer in the petition was to summon the<\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
witness by the court. But the above contention can not be<\/p>\n
accepted at this stage.       Though there was an order dated<\/p>\n
30.8.2006, directing the revision petitioner to produce the<\/p>\n
witness, no step was taken at the appropriate time.<\/p>\n
         9. Going by the case of the revision petitioner it appears to<\/p>\n
me that by the non-examination of the witness sought to be<\/p>\n
examined no much prejudice is caused to the revision petitioner,<\/p>\n
especially in the light of the defence set up by the accused.<\/p>\n
Regarding the property transaction, there is no agreement or<\/p>\n
atleast a receipt or acknowledgment regarding the issuance of<\/p>\n
the cheque or the acceptance of the earnest money. If actually<\/p>\n
there was such an agreement and payment of the earnest<\/p>\n
money, it was for the purchaser to insist for a written agreement<\/p>\n
or atleast to demand for the acknowledgment of the receipt of<\/p>\n
the amount. Normally, the seller is on the safer side in the<\/p>\n
absence of any document, even if he receives money.<\/p>\n
Therefore the explanation offered can not be swallowed without<\/p>\n
a pinch of salt. Even according to the revision petitioner, the<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
alleged agreement was on 23.6.2004. Ext.P6 notice was issued<\/p>\n
by the complainant on 31.1.2005. Allegedly Ext.P7 notice from<\/p>\n
the side of the revision petitioner was issued on 27.1.2005.<\/p>\n
Regarding the sale or execution of the documents etc., there is<\/p>\n
no evidence and in the absence of any evidence regarding those<\/p>\n
aspects there is no explanation as to how and why Ext.P7 notice<\/p>\n
was issued on 27.1.2005. In para 8 of the of the decision of the<\/p>\n
Apex Court in the decision cited supra, the apex Court has also<\/p>\n
observed that, ” But ordinarily an accused should be allowed to<\/p>\n
approach the Court for obtaining its assistance with regard to the<\/p>\n
summoning of witnesses etc. If permitted to do so, steps therefor,<\/p>\n
however, must be taken within a limited time. There can not be any<\/p>\n
doubt whatsoever that the accused should not be        allowed to<\/p>\n
unnecessarily protracting the trial or summon witnesses whose<\/p>\n
evidence would not be at all relevant.”     In the nature of the<\/p>\n
contentions raised in this revision petition and especially in the<\/p>\n
light of the above decision, I am of the view that non-<\/p>\n
examination of the witnesses cited by the accused is not at all<\/p>\n
fatal or any prejudice is caused to the revision petitioner,<\/p>\n
                                      10<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
especially when the revision petitioner miserably failed to take<\/p>\n
appropriate steps at appropriate time to get examined the<\/p>\n
witnesses inspite of the fact that the court has allowed his<\/p>\n
prayer. Therefore it can be safely concluded that the intention of<\/p>\n
the accused was to protract the matter. In the light of the above<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances involved in the case and in view of the<\/p>\n
above discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
concurrent findings of the court below.\n<\/p>\n
         10. Regarding the sentence, it appears to me that though<\/p>\n
the trial court has imposed a sentence of one month simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment, the appellate court has reduced the same to one<\/p>\n
day simple imprisonment ie., till the rising of the court, so no<\/p>\n
interference is called for, with respect to the sentence also.<\/p>\n
Both the courts below directed the revision petitioner to pay a<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.1,25,000\/- to the complainant u\/s.357(3) of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
         In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming<\/p>\n
the conviction against the revision petitioner u\/s.138 of<\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay the amount<\/p>\n
within 2 months from today and it is made clear that the default<\/p>\n
sentence ordered by the court below will be attracted only if<\/p>\n
there is any default on the part of the revision petitioner in<\/p>\n
paying the compensation within the time limit fixed by this court.<\/p>\n
It is also made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the<\/p>\n
compensation amount either directly to the complainant or by<\/p>\n
remitting the same in the trial court, which ever subject to the<\/p>\n
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on or before<\/p>\n
10.1.2011, to pay the compensation amount as ordered by<\/p>\n
courts below and approved by this court. In case, any failure on<\/p>\n
the part of the revision petitioner in paying the compensation<\/p>\n
amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure<\/p>\n
the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the<\/p>\n
sentence awarded against the revision petitioner. The execution<\/p>\n
of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be<\/p>\n
                                     12<\/span>
\nCrl. R.P.No.432 of 2010<\/p>\n
deferred till 10.1.2011.\n<\/p>\n
         Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                                     V.K.MOHANAN,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
ami\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 432 of 2010() 1. B.SURENDRAN,AGED 53 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.KARUNAKARAN,S\/O.KESAVAN, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.D.ROBINSON For Respondent :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated :08\/11\/2010 […]<\/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-62627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 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\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-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=\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-07T11:36:47+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T11:36:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2030,\"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\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010\",\"name\":\"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-07T11:36:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 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":"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 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\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-07T11:36:47+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T11:36:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010"},"wordCount":2030,"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\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010","name":"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-07T11:36:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-surendran-vs-k-karunakaran-on-8-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Surendran vs K.Karunakaran on 8 November, 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\/62627","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=62627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}