{"id":70167,"date":"2009-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-04T04:53:46","modified_gmt":"2016-08-03T23:23:46","slug":"ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1028 of 2002()\n\n\n1. AJITHKUMAR S\/O. KELUKUTY NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. REJINKUMAR S\/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 31\/02,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :11\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Crl.A.No.1028 of 2002\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Dated: 11th June, 2009\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Complainant is the appellant. His complaint filed under Section<\/p>\n
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I.Act’) against<\/p>\n
the first respondent, after trial, ended in a judgment absolving the<\/p>\n
accused of the offence. Questioning the correctness and propriety of<\/p>\n
the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused, he has<\/p>\n
filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       2. The case of the complainant in brief is thus: Towards<\/p>\n
discharge of a liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,50,000\/- promising its encashment on presentation in due<\/p>\n
course. The cheque presented, however, was dishonoured with<\/p>\n
endorsement “payment was stopped by drawer”. Enquiry by the<\/p>\n
complainant disclosed that the accused had no sufficient funds in his<\/p>\n
account to honour the cheque. Statutory notice issued intimating the<\/p>\n
dishonour demanding the sum covered by the instrument to the<\/p>\n
accused was responded with a reply raising false contentions.<\/p>\n
Complainant, thereupon, launched prosecution against the accused<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act filing the complaint.<\/p>\n
       3. The accused, on appearance, pleaded not guilty when the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                 – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
particulars of the offence were made known. Complainant examined<\/p>\n
himself as P.W.1 and two other witness as P.Ws.2 and 3. He also got<\/p>\n
marked Exts.P1 to P12 to prove his case. Accused questioned under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C. reiterating his innocence denied of having any<\/p>\n
transaction with the complainant. He examined two witnesses as<\/p>\n
D.Ws.1 and 2 the former to disprove the case of the complainant that<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards balance sale price of a motor<\/p>\n
vehicle in his favour and the latter to show that there was substantial<\/p>\n
difference in the specimen signature in the card maintained in the<\/p>\n
bank with that seen in Ext.P1 cheque, the signature of which was<\/p>\n
disputed as not having been subscribed by him. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate, after considering the materials produced, concluded that<\/p>\n
the complainant had not proved the due execution of Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
by the accused and also that the transaction alleged by him relating<\/p>\n
to the instrument was not acceptable. The contention of the accused<\/p>\n
that there was variation of his signature in Ext.P1 cheque with the<\/p>\n
specimen signatures was found appealing to the court below which<\/p>\n
concluded that there is no proof that Ext.P1 was issued by the<\/p>\n
accused to the complainant in discharge of a legally existing debt. In<\/p>\n
that view of the matter, the accused was found not guilty and he was<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
acquitted of the offence imputed.\n<\/p>\n
      4. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the complainant assailed the judgment of acquittal passed in<\/p>\n
favour of the accused as unsustainable under law and facts<\/p>\n
submitting that the evidence tendered in the case has been<\/p>\n
misappreciated by the learned Magistrate and that has resulted in<\/p>\n
miscarriage of justice. Ext.P7 agreement relating to the transaction<\/p>\n
between the complainant and the accused over the sale of a motor<\/p>\n
vehicle in which the issue of Ext.P1 cheque by the accused towards<\/p>\n
the balance sum payable on such sale, it is submitted, was duly<\/p>\n
proved in the case. But the court below on mere surmise and<\/p>\n
conjunctures discarded its evidentiary value. The case of the<\/p>\n
complainant regarding the sale transaction of the vehicle and issue of<\/p>\n
Ext.P cheque, it is submitted by the learned counsel, was disbelieved<\/p>\n
by the court for the reason that no material was produced to show<\/p>\n
that he was the registered owner of the vehicle overlooking the<\/p>\n
prevailing practice that ownership of motor vehicles often take place<\/p>\n
without change of names in R.C.Book, but, on the basis of sale letter<\/p>\n
and other documents. The case set up by the accused as to missing<\/p>\n
of his cheque book in the hotel of his father and the dispute regarding<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the signature in Ext.P1 cheque remained unsubstantiated by any<\/p>\n
convincing legal evidence, but, still the court below has accepted that<\/p>\n
defence, submits the counsel. Further opportunity sought by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to examine the witness who had subscribed in Ext.P7<\/p>\n
agreement to prove the sale transaction of the vehicle and issue of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque was declined by the learned Magistrate and it had<\/p>\n
resulted in denial of opportunity to the complainant in proving his<\/p>\n
case, is the further grievance of the complainant. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the accused contended that the judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity<\/p>\n
and requires only to be confirmed. When an enquiry on the complaint<\/p>\n
was proceeded by the Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the<\/p>\n
complainant had stated that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards<\/p>\n
discharge of a loan availed by the accused, but, later in evidence a<\/p>\n
contradictory version of the transaction was presented that the<\/p>\n
instrument was given towards the balance sale price over a motor<\/p>\n
vehicle sold to the accused producing Ext.P7 agreement. Accused had<\/p>\n
denied the execution of Ext.P7 agreement and also the sale<\/p>\n
transaction of the vehicle and no convincing evidence was adduced by<\/p>\n
the complainant to prove his case over the transaction canvassed. In<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                 – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
such circumstances, the acquittal of the accused passed by the court<\/p>\n
below is proper, correct and valid and the appeal is devoid of any<\/p>\n
merit, submits the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   I have considered the submissions of the counsel with<\/p>\n
reference to the materials produced in the case. The most significant<\/p>\n
question emerging for consideration is whether the complainant has<\/p>\n
proved due execution of Ext.P1 cheque and also         the transaction<\/p>\n
relating to the issue of that cheque, both of which were disputed by<\/p>\n
him contending that the cheque book covering Ext.P1 cheque leaf was<\/p>\n
missing from the hotel of his father where it was kept by him and also<\/p>\n
that he had no transaction whatsoever with the complainant at any<\/p>\n
point of time. Complainant examined as P.W.1 gave evidence that<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused towards the balance sale<\/p>\n
consideration over the sale of his vehicle, a tempo challenger jeep to<\/p>\n
the accused. He produced Ext.P7 agreement to substantiate the sale<\/p>\n
transaction of the vehicle wherein the issue of Ext.P1 cheque towards<\/p>\n
the balance sale consideration due has been specifically made<\/p>\n
mention of. He was not the registered owner of the vehicle covered<\/p>\n
by Ext.P7 agreement, but some one else and no witness was<\/p>\n
examined to prove the sale transaction and issue of Ext.P1 cheque by<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused persuaded the learned Magistrate to hold that the<\/p>\n
evidence of the complainant is insufficient to prove his case that<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque was duly executed and issued by the cheque towards<\/p>\n
discharge of a debt or liability to him. I am afraid that the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate failed to take note of some material circumstances borne<\/p>\n
out by the records produced in the case which prima facie<\/p>\n
demonstrated that the defence canvassed by the accused was<\/p>\n
unworthy of any credence. The accused has issued a stop payment<\/p>\n
order to the bank before the presentation of Ext.P1 cheque. Other<\/p>\n
than a plea raised that the whole cheque book covering 10 cheque<\/p>\n
leaves was missing from the hotel of his father he has not produced<\/p>\n
a scrap of paper to show what was the instruction given to the bank<\/p>\n
to stop payment of the cheque or cheques presented as drawn by<\/p>\n
him. I have adverted to the above aspect taking note of the specific<\/p>\n
assertion of the accused in Ext.P6 reply notice sent in response to the<\/p>\n
statutory notice issued by the complainant on dishonour of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque. He had stated in the reply notice that his cheque book<\/p>\n
containing 10 leaves, bearing Nos.05391 to 05400, with all the leaves<\/p>\n
in blank and none signed by him, was missing from the hotel of his<\/p>\n
father and it came to his notice in January, 1998, and then he<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                 – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
informed the bank for stop payment of the cheque leaves. Is there<\/p>\n
any truth in that defence has to be examined with reference to<\/p>\n
Ext.P10, the certified statement of accounts relating to his account<\/p>\n
maintained in the bank. Ext.P10 would disclose that one among the<\/p>\n
cheque, cheque No.05392 covered by his cheque book which was<\/p>\n
stated to have been missing was transacted for a sum of Rs.250\/- as<\/p>\n
early as on 5.2.1996. So, one among the cheque leaves covered by<\/p>\n
the book was transacted through his account is a material<\/p>\n
circumstance discrediting the defence canvassed by him that the<\/p>\n
cheque book containing all 10 cheque leaves kept in blank form and<\/p>\n
none signed by him was missing. That also indicates that he could not<\/p>\n
have issued a stop payment order to the bank for stoppage of all the<\/p>\n
10 cheque leaves in the book, as contended by him when one of<\/p>\n
them had already been transacted.\n<\/p>\n
      6. I do note that the falsity of the defence canvassed by the<\/p>\n
accused by itself is not sufficient to improve the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant. But, in examining the merits of the case advanced by<\/p>\n
the complainant and in appreciating his sworn testimony before the<\/p>\n
court which has withstood the cross examination of the accused, the<\/p>\n
falsity of the defence set up by the accused definitely has to be taken<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                 – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
into consideration in forming a conclusion whether the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant deserve acceptance. It is too much to believe after<\/p>\n
examining Ext.P7 agreement that it was fabricated by the accused to<\/p>\n
sustain his case. Ext.P7 agreement shows that the stamp papers for<\/p>\n
executing that agreement was purchased in the name of the accused<\/p>\n
as early as on 21.8.1997. Specific mention of Ext.P1 cheque with the<\/p>\n
number and sum is stated in Ext.P7 agreement which according to<\/p>\n
the complainant was entered into on the sale transaction of his<\/p>\n
vehicle, a challenger tracks jeep, bearing registration No.KL-12\/2627<\/p>\n
with the accused for a sum of Rs.3,10,000\/-. On the date of the<\/p>\n
transaction, the agreement would show a sum of Rs.60,000\/- was<\/p>\n
paid and the rest agreed to be paid on or before 8th January, 1998 for<\/p>\n
which Ext.P1 cheque was executed by the accused and handed over<\/p>\n
to the complainant. In this connection, it is to be noted Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
is dated 8.1.1998. Handing over of the registration certificate, sale<\/p>\n
letter, insurance tax token etc. to the accused on the sale transaction<\/p>\n
of the vehicle is also made mention of in Ext.P7 agreement. As rightly<\/p>\n
contended by the learned counsel for the complainant, the common<\/p>\n
prevailing practice in respect of sale transactions over vehicles is by<\/p>\n
way of handing over the sale letter, registration certificate, insurance<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                  – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
tax token etc. for which the vendor need not be the registered owner<\/p>\n
shown in the registration certificate of the vehicle. Complainant was<\/p>\n
not the registered owner of the vehicle as recorded in the registration<\/p>\n
certificate of the vehicle is of no consequence because sale of motor<\/p>\n
vehicles is often carried out on the basis of possessory title handing<\/p>\n
over the connected documents. I find no reason whatsoever to<\/p>\n
discard the evidentiary value of Ext.P7 agreement which has been<\/p>\n
proved by the complainant, one of the parties involved in the<\/p>\n
transaction covered by that agreement. He has not examined any<\/p>\n
witness to prove the transaction and also the execution of the<\/p>\n
agreement by the accused has no value especially where the accused<\/p>\n
has not taken any step for forensic examination of the signatures<\/p>\n
which are disputed contending that they were not subscribed by<\/p>\n
him.`<\/p>\n
       7. The learned Magistrate has compared the signatures of the<\/p>\n
drawer in Ext.P1 with the admitted signatures of the accused in some<\/p>\n
documents, Ext.P5 acknowledgement card and Ext.D3 specimen<\/p>\n
signature card of the accused produced by D.W.2,           which was<\/p>\n
maintained by the bank wherein the account relating to Ext.P1 was<\/p>\n
operated. In the impugned judgment, reference is also made that<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
comparison was made with another document exhibited as Ext.D5,<\/p>\n
presumably it must be a mistake as Exts.D1 to D3 alone were<\/p>\n
exhibited by the accused. Strangely enough, no comparison was<\/p>\n
made by the learned Magistrate of the signature appearing in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
with the signatures of the accused seen in Ext.P7 agreement.<\/p>\n
Signature of the accused in Ext.P5 acknowledgement card and his<\/p>\n
vakkalath for comparison with the signature in Ext.P1 by the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate    to determine whether Ext.P1 had been signed by the<\/p>\n
accused, no doubt, was a futile exercise. No relevance could have<\/p>\n
been    given   to  the   signature   of   the  accused   in   Ext.P5<\/p>\n
acknowledgement card and vakkalath which have got only self<\/p>\n
serving value and, further, those signatures were subscribed by the<\/p>\n
accused after the dishonour of Ext.P1 cheque. Strangely enough, the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate has also taken the statement of P.W.1 in his<\/p>\n
evidence that there is difference in the signature of Ext.P1 and P5<\/p>\n
acknowledgement card of the accused as a circumstance justifying his<\/p>\n
conclusion that the signature in Ext.P1 cheque differed from the<\/p>\n
signatures of the accused in other documents. The accused who<\/p>\n
disputed his signature in Ext.P1 has not taken any step to<\/p>\n
substantiate his plea of not signing that instrument was lost sight of<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                – 11 –<\/span><\/p>\n
by the learned Magistrate when he proceeded to compare the<\/p>\n
signature appearing in Ext.P1 with the signatures of the accused in<\/p>\n
some documents of which other than Ext.D3 specimen card could<\/p>\n
have been given any value for the purpose of comparison. I fail to<\/p>\n
understand why the learned Magistrate has not verified the signature<\/p>\n
in Ext.P1 with Ext.P7 agreement, the stamp papers which had been<\/p>\n
purchased in the name of the accused nearly four months prior to the<\/p>\n
presentation of Ext.P1 cheque before the bank. No burden was cast<\/p>\n
upon the complainant to prove that the signature appearing in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
was that of the accused as it was for the accused to establish his<\/p>\n
defence that the instrument    admittedly    covered by the account<\/p>\n
maintained by him was not signed by him. To sustain his case that<\/p>\n
the instrument was forged and his signature was fraudulently<\/p>\n
subscribed by someone else in Ext.P1 instrument as contended by the<\/p>\n
accused, he should establish it by taking steps for sending the<\/p>\n
document for forensic examination with such other documents<\/p>\n
containing his signatures subscribed at an anterior point of time<\/p>\n
earlier to Ext.P1. No such step was taken by the accused other than<\/p>\n
causing the production of Ext.D3 specimen signature card relating to<\/p>\n
his account which is hardly sufficient to show that Ext.P1 instrument<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                – 12 –<\/span><\/p>\n
was not signed by him. He has not even made any attempt to<\/p>\n
substantiate his defence over the denial of his signature in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
cheque. Opinion given by D.W.2, the Secretary of the Bank that the<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.P1 differed from the signatures of the accused in<\/p>\n
Ext.D3 specimen card, which, of course, the learned Magistrate has<\/p>\n
not taken into account, is unworthy of any value.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The accused has examined a witness as D.W.1 and through<\/p>\n
him got marked photo copy of the R.C.Book of the vehicle KL-<\/p>\n
12\/2627 covered by Ext.P7 agreement. The attempt of the accused,<\/p>\n
it appears, was to show that at the time of Ext.P7 agreement one<\/p>\n
K.A.Mohammed was the registered owner of the vehicle for which he<\/p>\n
relied on the endorsement in the R.C.Book separately marked as<\/p>\n
Ext.D2(a). Whatever be the attempt of the accused to show that the<\/p>\n
complainant     was not the registered owner and as such he was<\/p>\n
incapable of effecting of a transfer of the vehicle and so much so,<\/p>\n
authenticity of Ext.P7 should be doubted is shown to be bereft of any<\/p>\n
value by the evidence of D.W.1. The witness asserted that he is the<\/p>\n
owner in possession of the vehicle though ownership of the vehicle is<\/p>\n
shown in the name of another person. He would also state that the<\/p>\n
usual practice of sale transaction of the vehicle is done by handing<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                 – 13 –<\/span><\/p>\n
over the agreement and a signed sale paper and not necessarily by<\/p>\n
change of ownership in the registration certificate of the vehicle. The<\/p>\n
witness would further state that the R.C. ownership is different from<\/p>\n
ownership of the vehicle with possession. When the sale paper given<\/p>\n
by the previous owner is duly filled up and presented<\/p>\n
at the R.T.O.Office, necessary changes are made in the R.C.Book<\/p>\n
regarding ownership, but, even before, on the basis of the sale<\/p>\n
document and other documents regarding the possession of the<\/p>\n
vehicle, ownership can be legally claimed over the vehicle. The<\/p>\n
defence of the accused is seen shattered by the evidence of his own<\/p>\n
witness D.W.1. Needless to point out that ownership recorded in<\/p>\n
registration certificate is not the sole criteria for having ownership<\/p>\n
over a vehicle which can be claimed on the basis of possession over<\/p>\n
the vehicle     with relevant documents. A close scrutiny of the<\/p>\n
materials produced in the case would show that other than putting<\/p>\n
forth some suggestive questions when the complainant was examined<\/p>\n
as P.W.1 disputing the signature in Ext.P1 and also the sale<\/p>\n
transaction over the vehicle and impeaching the validity of Ext.P7<\/p>\n
agreement contending that it is a forged document, the accused has<\/p>\n
not placed any material worthmentioning to discredit the evidence of<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                – 14 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the complainant. The evidence of his witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2, that of<\/p>\n
the former is totally destructive of his defence and the latter, the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the Bank, has innocuous value as his opinion regarding<\/p>\n
the difference in the signature in Ext.P1 cheque with those in the<\/p>\n
specimen card (Ext.D3) deserve to be noticed only for its rejection as<\/p>\n
he has no expertise to express such opinion.\n<\/p>\n
       9. The complainant had stated during the enquiry under Section<\/p>\n
200 Cr.P.C. on presentation of his complaint that Ext.P1 cheque had<\/p>\n
been issued towards discharge of debt in a loan transaction which<\/p>\n
was highlighted by the learned counsel for the accused to contend<\/p>\n
that a contradictory version was presented by him at the time of trial,<\/p>\n
in the given facts of the case and materials tendered, has no<\/p>\n
significance. He was answering the questions put by the Magistrate<\/p>\n
during the enquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has to be taken note of<\/p>\n
in appreciating the submissions made at that point of time with his<\/p>\n
sworn testimony when examined before the court in the trial of the<\/p>\n
case. Statement made by the complainant that Ext.P1 cheque was<\/p>\n
issued in respect of discharge of a debt utmost has to be treated as a<\/p>\n
mistake not affecting the merit of his case when he has produced<\/p>\n
cogent and convincing evidence that the cheque was issued by the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02                 – 15 –<\/span><\/p>\n
accused in discharge of a liability arising from a sale transaction of a<\/p>\n
motor vehicle. Sworn testimony of the accused supported by the<\/p>\n
materials    produced,   especially,    Ext.P7   agreement    deserved<\/p>\n
acceptance in the proved facts and circumstances of the case. The<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate went wrong in holding that the complainant has<\/p>\n
not proved due execution of the cheque by the accused and that<\/p>\n
conclusion formed on the basis of comparison of the signature in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 with Ext.P5 acknowledgement card and vakkalath and Ext.D3<\/p>\n
specimen card of the accused and finding fault with the complainant<\/p>\n
for not proving the sale transaction of the vehicle despite production<\/p>\n
of Ext.P7 agreement is patently erroneous and unsustainable under<\/p>\n
law and facts. I find, the complainant has established his case with<\/p>\n
cogent and convincing legal evidence and the defence canvassed by<\/p>\n
the accused disputing his signature in Ext.P1 cheque and also liability<\/p>\n
under the sale transaction covered by Ext.P7 agreement in respect of<\/p>\n
which Ext.P1 was issued, is totally false. So much so, in reversal of<\/p>\n
the order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused, he is found<\/p>\n
guilty and convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.<\/p>\n
      7. Having regard to the nature of the offence, falling under<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the N.I.Act, I am of the view that incarceration of the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.1028\/02               – 16 –<\/span><\/p>\n
accused in prison for a term is not called for to advance the ends of<\/p>\n
justice. Accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising<\/p>\n
of the court, and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000\/- as compensation<\/p>\n
under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the complainant within three<\/p>\n
months from the date of this judgment. In default of payment of<\/p>\n
compensation as directed, the accused shall undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for four months. The accused shall appear and his<\/p>\n
sureties shall produce him before the Judicial Magistrate of First<\/p>\n
Class-I, S.Bathery on 15th September, 2009, and the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate shall execute the sentence as directed.<\/p>\n
      Appeal is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                          S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1028 of 2002() 1. AJITHKUMAR S\/O. KELUKUTY NAIR, … Petitioner Vs 1. REJINKUMAR S\/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 31\/02, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble […]<\/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-70167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAjithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 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\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-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=\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-03T23:23:46+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-03T23:23:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3560,\"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\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-03T23:23:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 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\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-03T23:23:46+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-03T23:23:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009"},"wordCount":3560,"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\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009","name":"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-03T23:23:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajithkumar-vs-rejinkumar-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajithkumar vs Rejinkumar on 11 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/70167","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=70167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}