{"id":63745,"date":"2001-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001"},"modified":"2017-05-09T08:25:51","modified_gmt":"2017-05-09T02:55:51","slug":"sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001","title":{"rendered":"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Misra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.P.Misra, S.V.Patil<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1022  of  0000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSAJAN ABRAHAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/08\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nA.P.Misra, S.V.Patil\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G E M E N T<\/p>\n<p>MISRA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Kerala in criminal appeal setting aside an order of<br \/>\nacquittal passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant under<br \/>\nSection 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,<br \/>\n1985 (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Act&#8217;) and sentencing him to<br \/>\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of rupees one<br \/>\nlakh, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.  In<br \/>\norder to appreciate the controversy, we are herewith giving the<br \/>\nessential matrix of facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant was put on trial for an offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 21 of the Act.\tAs per prosecution story, on the 10th October,<br \/>\n1993 at 7.45 p.m. the appellant was in possession of manufactured<br \/>\ndrug by name &#8216;Tidigesic&#8217; and three syringes for injecting the same, by<br \/>\nthe road near the Blue Tronics Junction at Palluruthy.\t The Head<br \/>\nConstable PW 3 and two other Constables of the Special Squad got<br \/>\ninformation at about 7 p.m. on the said date that a person was selling<br \/>\ninjectible narcotic drugs near the Blue Tronics Junction, Palluruthy.<br \/>\nThey informed this to PW5, Sub Inspector of police, Palluruthy Cusba<br \/>\nPolice Station who was coming in a jeep along with his police party.<br \/>\nThereafter PW5 along with his police party including PW3 and other<br \/>\nmembers of the Special Squad went to the scene of occurrence and<br \/>\nstopped their vehicle little away from the spot.  On reaching there they<br \/>\nfound the accused standing on the road with a packet in his hand.  He<br \/>\nwas identified by PW3 and apprehended by PW5.  On search, the<br \/>\npacket possessed by the appellant revealed it contained 5 strips of 5<br \/>\nampoules each of Tidigesic and three injection syringes and a purse<br \/>\ncontaining currency note of Rs.10\/-.  At the spot one ampoule was<br \/>\ntaken as sample for chemical analysis and the said contraband articles<br \/>\nwere seized as per Ex.P1 seizure mahazar prepared at the spot.\tThe<br \/>\nappellant was also arrested there.  The charge sheet was submitted, the<br \/>\nappellant pleaded not guilty.\n<\/p>\n<p>The trial court found discrepancies in the evidence of the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses thus disbelieved the prosecution story,  hence<br \/>\nacquitted the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the trial court records,  Ex.P8 is a certificate of analysis<br \/>\nissued by the Regional Chemical Examiner&#8217;s Laboratory, Kakkanad,<br \/>\nwhich shows that the articles seized was Buprenorphine<br \/>\nHydrochloride solution containing 0.3 milligram of Buprenorphine<br \/>\nper milli litre and that Buprenorphine is a thebaine derivative.  It is<br \/>\naccepted that baine is a phenanthrene alkaloid, an opium derivative<br \/>\nand as such it is a manufactured drug coming within the ambit of<br \/>\nSection 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.\t As per the evidence of PW 3, he got<br \/>\nthe information about the appellant at about 7 p.m. and to ascertain<br \/>\nthis he actually arrived there at 7.30 p.m.  After identifying him he<br \/>\nproceeded to Palluruthy Police Station to inform his superior the sub-<br \/>\nInspector of Police.  But on the way he met S.I. of Police, Palluruthy<br \/>\nwho was on patrol duty.\t Then they all went to the place where the<br \/>\nappellant was standing.\t The prosecution case is that before search the<br \/>\nprosecution complied with the condition as laid down under Section<br \/>\n50 of the NDPS Act.  Thereafter he was searched wherein it was<br \/>\nfound that he was in possession of 25 ampoules of Tidigesic in 5<br \/>\nstrips and three injection syringes.  PW1 and one Shamsuddin CW2<br \/>\nare two independent witnesses of the seizure mahazar Ex.P1 since<br \/>\nother three witnesses are police constables.  Since Shamsuddin was<br \/>\nnot available for examination in spite of the efforts, PW1 deposed<br \/>\nabout the said search and seizure.  Finally, the High Court held that<br \/>\nPW1&#8217;s evidence is fully corroborated by PW3 and PW5 with respect<br \/>\nto the prosecution version regarding the seizure of the contraband and<br \/>\nthe arrest of the appellant by PW5.  The discrepancies in their<br \/>\ntestimony as pointed out by the trial court were trivial which do not<br \/>\naffect the veracity or the credibility of the prosecution story.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court on reappraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\ntrial court was not justified in acquitting the appellant.  It held that the<br \/>\nprosecution has established with positive evidence beyond reasonable<br \/>\ndoubt that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 21 of the Act, hence convicted and sentenced the appellant as<br \/>\naforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<p>The leaned counsel for the appellant submits with vehemence<br \/>\nthat the prosecution has violated mandatory provisions of the Act,<br \/>\nnamely, Section 42, Section 50 and Section 57, hence conviction and<br \/>\nsentence is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>With regard to Section 42, the submission is that PW5 has not<br \/>\nrecorded the information given by PW3 with respect to the appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\ninvolvement before proceeding to arrest him in this case.   This<br \/>\nconstitutes violation of Section 42 of the Act.\t It is true under Section<br \/>\n42(1), the officer concerned, when he has reason to believe from his<br \/>\npersonal knowledge or information received from any person, he is<br \/>\nobliged to take it down in writing if such information constitutes an<br \/>\noffence punishable under Chapter IV of the Act and send it forthwith<br \/>\nto his immediate superior.  Such an officer is empowered to search<br \/>\nany building, conveyance and in case of any resistance, break up any<br \/>\ndoor or remove any obstacle for such entry, seizure of such drug or<br \/>\nsubstance and to arrest such person whom he has reason to believe to<br \/>\nhave committed any offence punishable under the said Chapter.<br \/>\nThereafter such officer has to send a copy of this information<br \/>\nforthwith to his immediate superior.   Submission is that PW5 after<br \/>\nreceiving the said information has not communicated it to his<br \/>\nimmediate superior which constitutes violation of Section 42.  In<br \/>\nconstruing any facts to find, whether prosecution has complied with<br \/>\nthe mandate of any provision which is mandatory, one has to examine<br \/>\nit with pragmatic approach. The law under the aforesaid Act being<br \/>\nstringent to the persons involved in the field of illicit drug, traffic and<br \/>\ndrug abuse, the legislature time and again has made some of its<br \/>\nprovisions obligatory for the prosecution to comply, which the courts<br \/>\nhave interpreted it to be mandatory.  This is in order to balance the<br \/>\nstringency for an accused by casting an obligation on the prosecution<br \/>\nfor its strict compliance. The stringency is because of the type of<br \/>\ncrime involved under it, so that no such person escapes from the<br \/>\nclutches of law.  The court however while construing such provisions<br \/>\nstrictly should not interpret it so literally so as to render its<br \/>\ncompliance, impossible.\t However, before drawing such an inference,<br \/>\nit should be examined with caution and circumspection. In other<br \/>\nwords, if in a case, the following of mandate strictly, results in delay<br \/>\nin trapping an accused, which may lead the accused to escape, then<br \/>\nprosecution case should not be thrown out.\n<\/p>\n<p> In the present case, PW3 the Head Constable got information<br \/>\nwith reference to the appellant only at about 7 p.m. that the person is<br \/>\nselling injectable Narcotic drugs near the Blue Tronics Junction,<br \/>\nPalluruthy.  When he proceeded for Pilluruthy Police Station to give<br \/>\nthis information to his immediate superior S.I. of Police PW5, he<br \/>\nfound PW5 along with his police party, who were on patrol duty<br \/>\ncoming, hence the said information was communicated there by PW3<br \/>\nto PW5.\t Thereafter, PW5 along with his police party and PW3<br \/>\nimmediately proceeded towards the place where the appellant was<br \/>\nstanding.  Had they not done so immediately, the opportunity of<br \/>\nseizure and arrest of the appellant would have been lost.  How PW5<br \/>\ncould have recorded the information given by PW3 and<br \/>\ncommunicated to his superior while he was on motion, on patrol duty,<br \/>\nin the jeep before proceeding to apprehend him is not understandable?<br \/>\nHad they not acted immediately, appellant would have escaped.  On<br \/>\nthese facts, we do not find any inference could be drawn that there has<br \/>\nbeen any violation of Section 42 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Next submission is, the prosecution has violated Section 50 of<br \/>\nthe Act which is mandatory as held by the Constitution Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1438183\/\">State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh<\/a> (1999) 6 SCC 172.  The<br \/>\nsubmission is, the appellant was not informed in writing of his right to<br \/>\nbe searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>We find PW1, PW3 and PW5 have deposed that PW5 has<br \/>\ninformed the respondent orally about it but the appellant opted out of<br \/>\nthis right. It is only thereafter a search was made.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the present case we find the High Court recorded a finding<br \/>\nthat PW5 informed the appellant about his right as provided under<br \/>\nSection 50 of the Act which is established not only by the oral<br \/>\nevidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 5, but also by the recitals made in Ext.P1<br \/>\nthe seizure mahazar prepared by PW5 and the F.I. Statement given by<br \/>\nthe respondent (the appellant before us).  The submission, however,  is<br \/>\ncommunicating orally to the appellant is not a compliance under<br \/>\nSection 50.  We cannot agree.  The aforesaid Constitution Bench<br \/>\nupholds oral communication also to be valid under Section 50 of the<br \/>\nAct.  Hence, this submission has no merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus in our considered opinion, we do not find, on the facts of<br \/>\nthis case, as also recorded by the High Court that there has been any<br \/>\nviolation of Section 50 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The last submission for the appellant is, there is non-<br \/>\ncompliance of Section 57 of the Act.  He submits under it, an<br \/>\nobligation is cast on the prosecution while making an arrest or seizure,<br \/>\nthe officer should make full report of all particulars of such arrest or<br \/>\nseizure and send it to his immediate superior officer within 48 hours<br \/>\nof such arrest or seizure.  The submission is, this has not been done.<br \/>\nHence the entire case vitiates.\t It is true that the communication to the<br \/>\nimmediate superior has not been made in the form of a report, but we<br \/>\nfind, which is also recorded by the High Court that PW5 has sent<br \/>\ncopies of FIR and other documents to his superior officer which is not<br \/>\nin dispute.  Ex.P9 shows that the copies of the FIR along with other<br \/>\nrecords regarding the arrest of appellant and seizure of the contraband<br \/>\narticles were sent by PW5 to his superior officer immediately after<br \/>\nregistering the said case. So, all the necessary information to be<br \/>\nsubmitted in a report was sent.\t This constitutes substantial<br \/>\ncompliance and mere absence of any such report cannot be said it has<br \/>\nprejudiced the accused.\t This section is not mandatory in nature.<br \/>\nWhen substantial compliance has been made, as in the present case it<br \/>\nwould not vitiate the prosecution case. In the present case, we find<br \/>\nPW5 has sent all the relevant material to his superior officer<br \/>\nimmediately.  Thus we do not find any violation of Section 57 of the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>In State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh  (1994) 3 SCC 299, this<br \/>\nCourt held:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The provisions of Sections 52 and 57<br \/>\nwhich deal with the steps to be taken by the<br \/>\nofficers after making arrest or seizure under<br \/>\nSections 41 to 44 are by themselves not<br \/>\nmandatory..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of our aforesaid findings, we do not find any infirmity<br \/>\nin the impugned order of the High Court.  Accordingly the present<br \/>\nappeal fails and has no merit and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001 Author: Misra Bench: A.P.Misra, S.V.Patil CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1022 of 0000 PETITIONER: SAJAN ABRAHAM Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/08\/2001 BENCH: A.P.Misra, S.V.Patil JUDGMENT: J U D G E M E N T MISRA, J. This appeal [&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-63745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001 - 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\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-09T02:55:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-09T02:55:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1897,\"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\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001\",\"name\":\"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-09T02:55:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001 - 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\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-09T02:55:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001","datePublished":"2001-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-09T02:55:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001"},"wordCount":1897,"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\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001","name":"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-09T02:55:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sajan-abraham-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-august-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sajan Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2001"}]},{"@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\/63745","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=63745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}