{"id":67275,"date":"2009-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-09-13T03:08:10","modified_gmt":"2018-09-12T21:38:10","slug":"moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 61 of 2009(S)\n\n\n1. MOIDEEN MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL BAVU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY\n\n3. THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH\n\n Dated :24\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n            S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n   W.P.(Crl) Nos.61\/2009-S, 50\/2009-S, 52\/2009-S & 67\/2009-S\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n          Dated, this the 24th day of September, 2009\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
           Since all these habeas corpus writ petitions arise<\/p>\n
from the same set of facts and as the grounds of detention<\/p>\n
against all the detenus is same, for the purpose of<\/p>\n
consideration of common questions of law and facts argued,<\/p>\n
with the consent of learned counsels on both sides all these<\/p>\n
writ petitions are taken up for consideration          together and<\/p>\n
being disposed of by the common judgment.<\/p>\n
           2.    The facts are common. However,             individual<\/p>\n
acts and the arguments in respect of individual detenu,<\/p>\n
wherever necessary,         are dealt with separately in this<\/p>\n
judgment itself.\n<\/p>\n
           3.   One Muhammed Alshab is the detenu in W.P.<\/p>\n
(Crl.) No.61 of 2009 and alleged to be the main culprit. The<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                   – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwrit petition is filed by his father, challenging the detention<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
           4. The allegations against the said detenu<\/p>\n
Muhammed Alshab are as follows.-                On a specific<\/p>\n
intelligence   report,   the    Senior   Intelligence  Officer,<\/p>\n
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calicut with his team<\/p>\n
checked the passengers arriving at Karipur International<\/p>\n
Airport, Calicut at about 0540 hours on 16.08.2008,<\/p>\n
especially of Flight RAK Airways Flight RT 0601T. As the<\/p>\n
Senior Intelligence Officer and his team were checking the<\/p>\n
travel documents of the passengers, the detenu Muhammed<\/p>\n
Alshab, who was one of the passengers arrived by the said<\/p>\n
Flight, was intercepted with a dark blue coloured strolley<\/p>\n
bag, one cardboard carton and one zipper bag while he was<\/p>\n
getting out of the exit gate. On enquiry, he disclosed his<\/p>\n
name and stated that he had no undisclosed items with him.<\/p>\n
\n\nWP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &\nconnected cases                - 3 -\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
He produced his Passport, Electronic Air Ticket, Economy<\/p>\n
Class Boarding Pass, Baggage tags and Customs Gate Pass.<\/p>\n
On search of the cardboard cartons, it was found that they<\/p>\n
contained fake Indian currencies for a total face value of<\/p>\n
Rs.72,50,000\/- (Rupees seventy two lakhs and fifty<\/p>\n
thousand only). On further enquiry, the detenu said to have<\/p>\n
disclosed that he had visited Dubai on the basis of Visiting<\/p>\n
Visa sponsored by a man from Kerala, India, named Abdul<\/p>\n
Malik (on whose behalf W.P.(Crl.)No.50 of 2009 has been<\/p>\n
filed), who had provided him a job and accommodation. It is<\/p>\n
further stated that one or two days earlier to 16.08.2008,<\/p>\n
the said Malik had contacted the detenu on his mobile phone<\/p>\n
and asked him to go to Calicut urgently and directed him to<\/p>\n
take some money with him. He was further instructed that<\/p>\n
one Majeed and another person by name Rafi would meet<\/p>\n
him at the place where the detenu was residing at Dubai.<\/p>\n
\n\nWP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &\nconnected cases                - 4 -\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
They accordingly handed over to him one cardboard carton<\/p>\n
and a strolley bag and directed him to hand over those bags<\/p>\n
to one Sajin and Babu, who would be waiting outside the<\/p>\n
Airport at Calicut and to hand over the money to them.<\/p>\n
According to the case of the Detaining Authority, the said<\/p>\n
Sajin and one Abdul Malik were caught outside the Airport,<\/p>\n
who were said to have been waiting for the arrival of the<\/p>\n
present detenu, and recorded their statements also under<\/p>\n
Section 108 of the Customs Act. The currencies were<\/p>\n
scrutinized by the officers of the Reserve Bank of India,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram and found to be fake or counterfeit<\/p>\n
currencies. Search at the residences of these detenus were<\/p>\n
carried out. After their arrest, the detenus filed Bail<\/p>\n
Applications and the same were rejected. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
proceedings under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange<\/p>\n
and Prevention of        Smuggling Activities Act, 1974<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\n(“COFEPOSA Act” for short) were initiated and detention<\/p>\n
order came to be passed on 4.10.2008 and the same was<\/p>\n
confirmed by the Advisory Board also. It is this detention<\/p>\n
order which is the subject matter of the present writ<\/p>\n
petitions.\n<\/p>\n
           5.   Taking us through the detention order, the<\/p>\n
grounds therein and various documents accompanying the<\/p>\n
same, Shri. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently<\/p>\n
contended that the impugned order of detention is illegal<\/p>\n
and arbitrary and vitiated by the contravention of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act and the Constitution of India. It is<\/p>\n
mainly contended that there is no reference as to the<\/p>\n
retraction of the alleged confessional statements recorded.<\/p>\n
It is submitted that as per Exhibits P6 to P9, the Bail<\/p>\n
Applications filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the<\/p>\n
detenu has specifically denied of having made the<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                  – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\nconfessional statements before the authorities and without<\/p>\n
reference to the same or even reference to the contents of<\/p>\n
the Bail Application, the impugned detention order has been<\/p>\n
passed, which is illegal and unsustainable. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that, failure to consider the retraction of the confessional<\/p>\n
statement is illegal and the same has vitiated the detention<\/p>\n
order. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has relied<\/p>\n
upon the unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Mohd.Towfeek v. The Additional<\/p>\n
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P.(Crl).No.602 of<\/p>\n
1989 decided on 23.2.1990], Arun Kumar Soni v. Union of<\/p>\n
India<\/a> (1992 L.W.(Crl.) 170) and K.T.M.S.Mohd. v. Union of<\/p>\n
India (AIR 1992 SC 1831).\n<\/p>\n
           6. Nextly it is contended that failure on the part of<\/p>\n
the Detaining Authority to state as to whether prosecution<\/p>\n
and adjudicatory proceedings (criminal proceedings under<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                 – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe Indian Penal Code and Customs Act) would be sufficient<\/p>\n
to deal with the detenu and the Detaining Authority is<\/p>\n
unnecessarily resorting to the drastic measure of invoking<\/p>\n
the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act. It is submitted that as<\/p>\n
criminal cases against the detenu and others have been<\/p>\n
registered under Section 489A to 489C of Indian Penal Code,<\/p>\n
it was necessary for the Detaining Authority to apply its<\/p>\n
mind and state in the detention order as to whether this<\/p>\n
prosecution and adjudication proceedings under other penal<\/p>\n
provisions would be sufficient to deal with the detenu and as<\/p>\n
to the necessity of resorting to drastic measure of invoking<\/p>\n
the preventive detention law.\n<\/p>\n
           7.   So far as the other detenus are concerned,<\/p>\n
apart from the grounds of non-consideration of alleged<\/p>\n
retracted confession in the bail application and the<\/p>\n
non-satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as to the<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                 – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
\nimminent necessity of invoking preventive detention law in<\/p>\n
spite of there being prosecution and adjudication in respect<\/p>\n
of the fake currency, it is commonly contended that as the<\/p>\n
bail applications of the detenus had been rejected by the<\/p>\n
jurisdictional Magistrate, the Detaining Authority ought to<\/p>\n
have satisfied itself by application of mind to find out<\/p>\n
whether there is any possibility of the detenus coming out of<\/p>\n
jail and continuing the commission of the offence. It is also<\/p>\n
contended that precise grounds of detention were not<\/p>\n
mentioned or given to these detenus as to their individual<\/p>\n
role and the alleged detention order is very vague and<\/p>\n
omnibus as to the individual roles of all these detenus. As<\/p>\n
such, the detention order is passed without application of<\/p>\n
mind and as the same being vague, is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
           8. It is also contended that there are no grounds<\/p>\n
to show the nature of alleged abetment of the detenus –<\/p>\n
\n\nWP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &\nconnected cases                  - 9 -\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Abdul Malik, Abdul Kareem and Sajin with the main detenu<\/p>\n
Muhammed Alshab. The absence of the same in the<\/p>\n
detention order indicates clear non-application of mind and<\/p>\n
passing of the detention order in a mechanical way.<\/p>\n
           9. On these among other grounds, it is contended<\/p>\n
that as the detention orders are illegal and vitiated – (i) due<\/p>\n
to non-application of mind (ii) not taking into account the<\/p>\n
relevant matters and consideration of materials which are<\/p>\n
extraneous, (iii) the detention order is thus illegal and<\/p>\n
stands vitiated. It is also contended that the detention order<\/p>\n
was passed solely on the basis of the statement of<\/p>\n
Muhammed Alshab recorded under Section 108 of the<\/p>\n
Customs Act and applying the facts stated therein the<\/p>\n
detention in respect of other detenus also is illegal and liable<\/p>\n
to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
           10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                   – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
\nrespondents argued in support of the detention order with<\/p>\n
reference to various pronouncements of the Honourable<\/p>\n
Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
           11. We have heard learned counsel at length and<\/p>\n
perused all the records and the citations in depth.<\/p>\n
           12. At the outset, it is to be noted that – (a) time<\/p>\n
and again the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court<\/p>\n
have stated that the purpose of detention under the<\/p>\n
COFEPOSA Act is not punitive, but preventive and (b) that<\/p>\n
the Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, should<\/p>\n
show the awareness of the facts, as the detenu being in jail<\/p>\n
as a result of rejection of bail application.<\/p>\n
           13.   So far as non-consideration of the alleged<\/p>\n
retracted statement in the bail application, as held by the<\/p>\n
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v.<\/p>\n
Sunil Fulchand Shah (AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 723), in the grounds of<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                 – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
\ndetention, it is not necessary for the Detaining Authority to<\/p>\n
set out the reaction to every piece of evidence. In the<\/p>\n
present case, in the grounds of detention, there is an<\/p>\n
express reference to the bail application of the detenu. The<\/p>\n
bail applications are annexed to the grounds of detention. It<\/p>\n
cannot, therefore, be said that the Detaining Authority was<\/p>\n
unaware of the retraction by the detenu of his statement<\/p>\n
before the Customs Authority. As observed by the apex<\/p>\n
Court in the case of B.Subaida v. State of Kerala<\/a> [1993(1)<\/p>\n
KLJ 489], reference to the remand to judicial custody and<\/p>\n
reference to bail application are indication of application of<\/p>\n
mind by the Detaining Authority, not only to the order of<\/p>\n
rejection of bail, but also to the contents of the bail<\/p>\n
application. In our view, keeping in view the object of bail<\/p>\n
application, it was not necessary to mention the alleged<\/p>\n
retraction of their statements under Section 108 of the<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                 – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
\nCustoms Act. Admittedly, no separate applications or<\/p>\n
statements have been filed by the detenus retracting their<\/p>\n
earlier version either before the Detaining Authority or the<\/p>\n
Customs Authority. Therefore, in our view, it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind to the<\/p>\n
retraction. As noted by the apex Court, the Detaining<\/p>\n
Authority is not required to state in the grounds of detention<\/p>\n
its reaction to every piece of evidence which is relied upon<\/p>\n
by it. If all material factors have been considered by the<\/p>\n
Detaining Authority before passing the order of detention,<\/p>\n
the detention order can be held valid and hence we see no<\/p>\n
reason to accept the contention of the petitioner in this<\/p>\n
regard as the same is devoid of merits.\n<\/p>\n
           14.   So far as the argument that the Detaining<\/p>\n
Authority failed to state whether the prosecution and<\/p>\n
adjudicatory proceedings would be sufficient to deal with the<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
\ndetenu instead of resorting to drastic measure of preventive<\/p>\n
detention action, at the outset it is to be noticed that the<\/p>\n
detention order is passed on 4.10.2008 whereas the criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings for the offences under Sections 489A to 489C<\/p>\n
have been registered against the detenus only on<\/p>\n
12.3.2009. As such, as there were no cases registered<\/p>\n
against the detenus, this ground is otherwise without merit<\/p>\n
even on facts.\n<\/p>\n
           15.   So far as the argument that the Detaining<\/p>\n
Authority had solely relied upon the confessional statement<\/p>\n
of the main detenu Muhammed Alshab as to the alleged<\/p>\n
abetment of the other detenus       is concerned, it is to be<\/p>\n
noted that the case against the other detenus is not built<\/p>\n
upon the statement of Muhammed Alshab alone. The said<\/p>\n
Muhammed Alshab was caught red handed while carrying<\/p>\n
fake currency to the tune of Rs.72,50,000\/- and he was<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                 – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
\ncaught immediately after alighting from the aeroplane, that<\/p>\n
the other detenus, viz., Sajin and Abdul Malik, were not only<\/p>\n
waiting for him in the Airport, who were also caught, but<\/p>\n
also the fact that they were in touch with the said<\/p>\n
Muhammed Alshab through the mobile phones carried by<\/p>\n
them and supported by the fact that their mobile numbers<\/p>\n
were in the mobile phone of Muhammed Alshab which would<\/p>\n
clearly indicate their role in the act of bringing fake<\/p>\n
currencies to India.\n<\/p>\n
           16.     After careful examination of the entire<\/p>\n
materials placed before us, we may restate that the liberty<\/p>\n
of a citizen is undoubtedly very important. As such, it is our<\/p>\n
duty to ensure that there is strict compliance with the<\/p>\n
provisions of law. But the Court cannot lose sight of the fact<\/p>\n
that those who commit economic offences do harm the<\/p>\n
national interest and economy. As reported in recent past,<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                  – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe growing incidents of bringing and circulating fake Indian<\/p>\n
currencies all over India and thereby destabilizing the Indian<\/p>\n
economy is to be seriously viewed. It is also to be noted<\/p>\n
that the exercise of jurisdiction under preventive detention<\/p>\n
law is not punitive, but only to prevent such repeated acts<\/p>\n
by the alleged culprits.\n<\/p>\n
           17. On careful consideration of the entire material,<\/p>\n
in our view, the Detaining Authority has taken in cumulative<\/p>\n
view of the situation and has rightly held that the detenus<\/p>\n
have violated the provisions of the law and their activities<\/p>\n
are     detrimental to the national interest. In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, the Courts also should be slow to interfere<\/p>\n
with such orders.\n<\/p>\n
           18. Considering the entire materials afresh, we<\/p>\n
find absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in the detention<\/p>\n
order passed. The Detaining Authority has applied its mind<\/p>\n
WP(Crl).No.61\/2009 &
\nconnected cases                 – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
\nto all the materials placed before it to come to the right and<\/p>\n
just conclusion that the detention of these detenus under<\/p>\n
the COFEPOSA Act is essential.\n<\/p>\n
           We find absolutely no merit in the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the detenus and hence the writ petitions are<\/p>\n
dismissed, upholding the detention orders.<\/p>\n
                                           S.R.Bannurmath,
\n                                            Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n
                                             Kurian Joseph,
\n                                                 Judge.\n<\/p>\n
vku\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(Crl.).No. 61 of 2009(S) 1. MOIDEEN MUNNAKKAPARAMBIL BAVU, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO … Respondent 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, For […]<\/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-67275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMoideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 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\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-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=\"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-12T21:38:10+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T21:38:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2331,\"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\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T21:38:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 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":"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 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\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-12T21:38:10+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T21:38:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009"},"wordCount":2331,"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\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009","name":"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T21:38:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moideen-munnakkaparambil-bavu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moideen Munnakkaparambil Bavu vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 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\/67275","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=67275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}