{"id":65351,"date":"2009-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-06-28T13:52:39","modified_gmt":"2018-06-28T08:22:39","slug":"kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1258 of 2001()\n\n\n\n1. KANDATHIL NALINI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :05\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                R.BASANT, J\n                              ----------------------\n                      Crl.R.P.No.1258 of 2001\n                     ----------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 5th day of August 2009\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner, a woman, has filed this revision petition to<\/p>\n
assail the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
in a prosecution under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.<\/p>\n
She now faces a substantive sentence of S.I for a period of three<\/p>\n
months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000\/- and in default to undergo<\/p>\n
S.I for a period of three months.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is<\/p>\n
that at 1.30 p.m on 12\/4\/1996, when she was intercepted by an<\/p>\n
excise party led by PW1, she was found to keep in her possession<\/p>\n
in MO1 plastic pot 10 litres of wash, thereby she is alleged to<\/p>\n
have committed the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The<\/p>\n
accused denied the offence alleged against her. Thereupon, the<\/p>\n
prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and proved Exts.P1 to P3.<\/p>\n
MO1 was also marked.             PW1 is the Preventive Officer who<\/p>\n
allegedly intercepted the accused, detected the offence and<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09                2<\/span><\/p>\n
effected seizure of MO1 from the possession of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is the seizure mahazer prepared by him.         PW2 is an<\/p>\n
attester to Ext.P1 seizure mahazer. PW3 is the Excise Inspector<\/p>\n
before whom the seized articles and the relevant documents<\/p>\n
were produced by PW1. Ext.P2 is the crime and occurrence<\/p>\n
report. Ext.P3 is the chemical examiner’s report.<\/p>\n
      4.     The accused denied the offence alleged against him.<\/p>\n
In the course of cross-examination and when examined under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C, she took up a defence of total denial. No<\/p>\n
defence evidence was adduced.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the oral evidence of PW1 can safely be accepted.         His<\/p>\n
evidence, if accepted, it was found established the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, it was held. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the courts below proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent<\/p>\n
verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence.<\/p>\n
      6.     Before   me,    the   learned   counsel    for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor had<\/p>\n
advanced their arguments.         The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner assails the impugned order on the following grounds:<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
      i)     The courts below should not have accepted and acted<\/p>\n
upon the uncorroborated oral evidence of PW1.<\/p>\n
      ii)    At any rate, the sentence imposed is excessive.<\/p>\n
      7.     The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1. The<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 is about the seizure of MO1 with the<\/p>\n
contraband liquor from the possession of the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
prosecution relied on the contemporaneous Ext.P1 seizure<\/p>\n
mahazer to support the oral evidence of PW1. The prosecution<\/p>\n
had examined PW2, an attester to Ext.P1 seizure mahazer. PW2<\/p>\n
admitted his signature; but did not subscribe to the contents of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1. PW2 evasively stated that though he had subscribed his<\/p>\n
signature, he had not witnessed the act of seizure.<\/p>\n
      8.     The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that<\/p>\n
PW1 is an Excise official and is hence interested in the<\/p>\n
prosecution.      Reliance should not have been placed on the<\/p>\n
uncorroborated interested oral evidence of PW1, contends the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously. He, in support of<\/p>\n
his contention, further urges that no other witness has been<\/p>\n
examined though many appear to have been available at the<\/p>\n
scene of the crime.        The learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
contends that though the seizure was effected on 12\/4\/1996, the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09              4<\/span><\/p>\n
contraband article was produced before the learned Magistrate<\/p>\n
only on 07\/051996 as per the records of the court.           This<\/p>\n
unexplained delay in production of the material objects before<\/p>\n
the court must arouse doubt and suspicion. Consequently, the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt, contends the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      9.     The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
contends that the courts below have committed no indiscretion<\/p>\n
warranting revisional interference in placing reliance on the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1. PW1 is, of course, an excise official. In that<\/p>\n
view of the matter, PW1 is interested in the prosecution.<\/p>\n
Successful conduct of the prosecution is the sublime duty of<\/p>\n
public officials. This interest which every conscientious public<\/p>\n
official is bound to and expected to have in the successful<\/p>\n
detection of offence and prosecution of offenders cannot, by any<\/p>\n
stretch of imagination, reduce him to the category of interested<\/p>\n
witnesses, for whose oral evidence, corroboration is insisted by<\/p>\n
courts not as a rule of law; but as a rule of prudence. I have<\/p>\n
gone through the oral evidence of PW1 in detail. I have gone<\/p>\n
through the 313 statement of the accused. To me, it appears to<\/p>\n
be of crucial relevance that there is not a semblance of a<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09              5<\/span><\/p>\n
challenge against the evidence of PW1 on the ground that he is<\/p>\n
in any way interested against the accused.             In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, the mere fact that PW1 is an excise official and in<\/p>\n
such capacity interested in the prosecution cannot justify the<\/p>\n
omnibus rejection of the oral evidence of PW1.<\/p>\n
      10. I find merit in the contention of the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor that the oral evidence of PW1 is eminently supported<\/p>\n
by the contents of the contemporaneous seizure mahazer Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
It is of course true that Ext.P1 had reached the court only on<\/p>\n
15\/4\/1996. But that delay of 3 days cannot, at all, justify any<\/p>\n
doubt or suspicion against the oral evidence of PW1 especially<\/p>\n
when there is not a semblance of motive suggested against PW1<\/p>\n
to speak falsely against the petitioner. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner relying on documents of the court contends that<\/p>\n
the material objects had reached the court only on 07\/05\/1996,<\/p>\n
25 days after the detection of the crime on 12\/4\/1996. Crucially<\/p>\n
and significantly I note that PW1 or PW3 was not subjected to<\/p>\n
any cross-examination on this aspect. In these circumstances,<\/p>\n
the mere inconsequential delay from 12\/4\/1996 to 07\/05\/1996 in<\/p>\n
producing the material objects before court, does not impress me<\/p>\n
on a valid reason for discarding the evidence of PW1, more so,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09               6<\/span><\/p>\n
when the court gets assurance that Ext.P2 crime and occurrence<\/p>\n
report had reached the court on 15\/4\/1996. The contents of<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 dated 15\/4\/1996 do also support the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PW1.\n<\/p>\n
      11. PW2 has, of course, turned hostile; but he had<\/p>\n
unambiguously admitted his signature in Ext.P1.       As already<\/p>\n
noted, the contents of the contemporaneous seizure mahazer<\/p>\n
eminently support the oral evidence of PW1. Hostility of PW2 is,<\/p>\n
according to me, of no crucial significance. Courts in India are<\/p>\n
unfortunately exposed to the hostility of independent eye<\/p>\n
witnesses. With impunity, witnesses swear and speak falsehood.<\/p>\n
That must impress upon the courts the need to subject evidence<\/p>\n
to close scrutiny but such hostility cannot persuade the courts to<\/p>\n
commit the indiscretion of rejecting the evidence that is already<\/p>\n
available.    PW2 has stated without any conjunction that he had<\/p>\n
not witnessed the seizure and had signed the mahazer without<\/p>\n
even adverting to the contents thereof. In these circumstances,<\/p>\n
the hostility of PW2 cannot also deliver any advantage to the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
      12. The evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1 when accepted<\/p>\n
clearly shows that the petitioner was in possession of MO1<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09               7<\/span><\/p>\n
containing contraband liquor.      PW1 stated that it was wash<\/p>\n
intended for the preparation of illicit arrack. Under Section 55<\/p>\n
(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, possession of any material<\/p>\n
whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing liquor is<\/p>\n
objectionable. The chemical examiner’s report confirms that the<\/p>\n
article contained a low percentage of alcohol confirming the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 that it was a material used for the<\/p>\n
manufacturing of liquor.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Thus, I find absolutely no reason at this third tier of<\/p>\n
criminal litigation at the revisional stage to interfere with the<\/p>\n
concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner<\/p>\n
under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The decision of<\/p>\n
the courts below to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW1 as<\/p>\n
also the finding that the offence under Section 55(g) of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Abkari Act has been made out do appear to me to be<\/p>\n
absolutely correct, fair, just and reasonable. The challenge on<\/p>\n
the first ground does, in these circumstances, fail.<\/p>\n
      14. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally contends<\/p>\n
that the sentence imposed is excessive. It may be taken note of<\/p>\n
that the revision petitioner was a woman aged 35 years in 1997.<\/p>\n
She is not shown to have any culpable past or questionable<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09              8<\/span><\/p>\n
antecedents, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the<\/p>\n
petitioner has been enduring the trauma of this prosecution for<\/p>\n
the past about 13 years. At the relevant time punishment for<\/p>\n
Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act was only imprisonment for<\/p>\n
a term which may extent to 2 years and fine which shall not be<\/p>\n
less than Rs.25,000\/-, points out the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner.       At any  rate,  the   substantive   sentence    of<\/p>\n
imprisonment may be modified and reduced. The petitioner may<\/p>\n
not be dragged to prison now for the indiscretion committed by<\/p>\n
her more than 13 years back, contends the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      15. I take note of the relevant provisions regarding<\/p>\n
punishment for the offence under Section 55(g) of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Abkari Act. Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine which<\/p>\n
shall not be less than Rs.25,000\/- is the punishment.         I am<\/p>\n
satisfied, in these circumstances, that the sentence of fine can be<\/p>\n
enhanced to accommodate the prayer of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner for reduction of the substantive sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment.      The prayer for reduction of the substantive<\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment is found to be reasonable and just.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
The same is accepted.\n<\/p>\n
      16. The challenge raised in this revision petition succeeds<\/p>\n
only to the above extent.<\/p>\n
\n\n      17. In the result,\n\n      a)     This Crl.R.P is allowed in part.\n\n      b)     The verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner\n\n<\/pre>\n
under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act are upheld.<\/p>\n
      c)     But the sentence imposed on the petitioner is<\/p>\n
modified.      In supersession of the sentence imposed on the<\/p>\n
petitioner by the courts below, she is sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
imprisonment till rising of court. She is further directed to pay a<\/p>\n
fine of Rs.30,000\/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) and in default<\/p>\n
to undergo S.I for a period of three months.\n<\/p>\n
      18. The petitioner shall have time till 07\/09\/2009 to<\/p>\n
undergo the modified sentence hereby imposed.           She shall<\/p>\n
appear and her sureties shall produce her before the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate on or before that date.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
\njsr<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09    10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    R.BASANT, J<\/p>\n
                           Crl.R.P.No.1258 of 2001<\/p>\n
                                         ORDER<\/p>\n
                                       05\/08\/2009<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1258\/09    11<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1258 of 2001() 1. KANDATHIL NALINI … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :05\/08\/2009 O R D E R R.BASANT, J ———————- […]<\/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-65351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009 - 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\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-28T08:22:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T08:22:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1752,\"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\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T08:22:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009 - 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\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-28T08:22:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T08:22:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009"},"wordCount":1752,"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\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009","name":"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T08:22:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandathil-nalini-vs-state-on-5-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kandathil Nalini vs State on 5 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/65351","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=65351"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65351\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}