{"id":73687,"date":"2010-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-13T22:29:06","modified_gmt":"2015-04-13T16:59:06","slug":"n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1897 of 2004()\n\n\n1. N.JACOB PAUL, NETTARAKONATHU VEEDU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. C.GOPALAN, SEETHANKUZHI KUNNIL VEEDU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.L.MOHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :18\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.\n          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Crl.Appeal No: 1897 of 2004\n          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n           Dated this the 18th day of November 2010\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 342 of<\/p>\n
2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I<\/p>\n
Neyyattinkara. The first respondent herein was the accused in that<\/p>\n
case, which was filed by the complainant alleging the commission<\/p>\n
of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows. The 1st<\/p>\n
respondent\/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.31,000\/- from the<\/p>\n
complainant on 18.12.1999. To discharge the said debt the accused<\/p>\n
issued two cheques both dated 18.2.2000 for Rs.16,000\/- and<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- respectively drawn on Vellanadu Service Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank. When the cheques were presented for encashment through<\/p>\n
his bank namely, the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                   :2:<\/span><\/p>\n
   Bank Ltd., it was returned due to insufficiently of funds, of which<\/p>\n
   information from the bank was obtained by the appellant on<\/p>\n
   20.3.2000. Therefore the complainant had demanded payment of<\/p>\n
   money through lawyer’s notice dated 30.3.2000. But the accused<\/p>\n
   did not pay the amount. Therefore the complaint was filed.<\/p>\n
         3. Before the trial court appellant examined himself as PW1<\/p>\n
   and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the 1st respondent, a<\/p>\n
   witness was examined as DW1 and Exts. D1 and D2 were marked.<\/p>\n
   The defence of the first respondent was that he borrowed sum of<\/p>\n
   Rs.20,000\/- from the appellant and issued 5 blank signed cheques.<\/p>\n
   The appellant then filed a case by using one of the cheques and<\/p>\n
   claiming a sum of Rs.40,000\/- The respondent paid the amount and<\/p>\n
   got the matter settled. Though that cheque was returned, it was told<\/p>\n
   that the rest of the cheques were destroyed by him. On receipt of<\/p>\n
   the lawyers notice when contacted, he was told that he should pay<\/p>\n
   the expenses met for the earlier case. Therefore the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
   states that the present cheques are without consideration.<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                   :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
        4. The court below on the reason that the present cheque<\/p>\n
   being anterior in serial number to Ext. D1 cheque assumed that it<\/p>\n
   must have been issued earlier and therefore the evidence of the<\/p>\n
   appellant is not sufficient to prove the case and the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
   was acquitted.     Against the judgment of the acquittal the<\/p>\n
   complainant filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned<\/p>\n
   Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
        6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
   court below should have found that the complainant had proved all<\/p>\n
   the necessary ingredients of the offece under Section 138 of N.I.<\/p>\n
   Act against the accused and that the statutory presumption under<\/p>\n
   Section 139 of N.I. Act has not been rebutted by the accused . The<\/p>\n
   learned counsel further submitted that the court below should have<\/p>\n
   noted that there was no impediment on the appellant to state about<\/p>\n
   the Ext.P1 and P2 cheques in Ext.D2 and that the non-mentioning<\/p>\n
   of the other cheques in Ext.D2 cuts the roots of the defence case.<\/p>\n
   The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                   :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
   ought to have considered the fact that no reply was sent by the<\/p>\n
   accused to Ext.P6 lawyer notice.          He further submitted that<\/p>\n
   assumption of the court below that Ext.P1 and P2 cheques bearing<\/p>\n
   Serial numbers anterior to Ext.D1 could not be issued at a later<\/p>\n
   stage is without basis and that it is not human course of conduct to<\/p>\n
   verify the cheque numbers on each occasion when cheques are<\/p>\n
   received from another at difference intervals. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
   for the appellant submitted that the approach of the court below<\/p>\n
   suspecting the receipt of two cheques for the amounts is also<\/p>\n
   without any basis.\n<\/p>\n
         7.  When the accused was questioned under Section 313<\/p>\n
   Cr.P.C. his case is that he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000\/- from<\/p>\n
   the complainant. At that time he issued 5 blank signed cheques to<\/p>\n
   the complainant. The complainant then filed a case before Judicial<\/p>\n
   First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada by using one of the<\/p>\n
   cheques. He claimed an amount of Rs.40,000\/- in that case. The<\/p>\n
   accused finally paid the entire amount to the complainant and got<\/p>\n
   the matter settled. The complainant returned the cheque used for<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                  :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
   filing the complaint before that court alone to the accused. He<\/p>\n
   informed the accused that rest of the cheques were destroyed by<\/p>\n
   him. While so the accused received a notice demanding the amount<\/p>\n
   covered under Ext.P1 and P2.          When the complainant was<\/p>\n
   contacted, he told the accused that he should be given the expense<\/p>\n
   he met for prosecuting the earlier case. The accused, hence submits<\/p>\n
   that two of the cheques retained by the complainant are used for<\/p>\n
   filing this complaint without any consideration.<\/p>\n
         8. For proving the defence the accused examined one of his<\/p>\n
   neighbours as DW1.      According to DW1 the accused borrwed an<\/p>\n
   amount of Rs.20,000\/- from the complainant in January 1998. Five<\/p>\n
   cheuqes were issued by the accused towards security. Exts.P1 and<\/p>\n
   P2 included among those cheques. He further testified that the<\/p>\n
   accused repaid the entire amount by making payment of Rs.200\/-<\/p>\n
   each for 115 days consecutively.        A case was filed by the<\/p>\n
   complainant against the accused before the court at Kattakkada, got<\/p>\n
   settled after repaying the entire cheque amount.       The cheque<\/p>\n
   involved in that case was returned to the accused as per an<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                  :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
   agreement entered into between the complainant and the accused.<\/p>\n
   Ext.D1 is the cheque returned to the accused. Ext.D2 is the receipt<\/p>\n
   issued by the complainant at the time of settling that case.<\/p>\n
         9. In cross examination DW1 admitted that he has no full<\/p>\n
   knowledge about the financial transaction of the accused. Ext.D1 is<\/p>\n
   the cheque dated 3.6.1998 for Rs.40,000\/- which was returned to<\/p>\n
   the accused when the case pending before Kattakkada Court was<\/p>\n
   settled between the complainant and accused. Ext.D2 is the letter<\/p>\n
   dated 24.7.1999 issued by the complaint to the accused stating that<\/p>\n
   as the accused paid the entire amount of the cheque for Rs.40,000\/-<\/p>\n
   the case pending before the Kattakkada Court will be withdrawn by<\/p>\n
   him. In Ext.D2 nothing is stated about the Ext.P1 and P2 cheques<\/p>\n
   involved in this case. Serial number of Ext.D1 cheque is 0226,<\/p>\n
   serial number of Ext.P2 cheque is 0223 and that of Ext.P2 cheque is<\/p>\n
   0221. The mere fact that Ext.D1 cheque bears a posterior serial<\/p>\n
   number than Ext.P1 and P2 cheques is not sufficient reason to<\/p>\n
   accept the case of the accused that he gave 5 blanks cheques when<\/p>\n
   he borrowed Rs.20,000\/- in January 1998.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
         10. The complainant is examined as PW1. He deposed that<\/p>\n
   on 18.12.1999 the accused borrowed Rs.31,000\/- from him. The<\/p>\n
   accused then issued two cheque for the said amount to be encashed<\/p>\n
   after two months. Cheque number 221 was issued for Rs.15,000\/-<\/p>\n
   and cheque No.223 was issued for Rs.16,000\/-. Both the cheques<\/p>\n
   were dated 18.2.2000 and drawn on Vellanad Service Co-operative<\/p>\n
   Bank Ltd., Vellanad. The cheques are marked as Exts. P1 and P2.<\/p>\n
         11. PW1 stated that he presented Exts.P1 and P2 cheques for<\/p>\n
   collection at Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank,<\/p>\n
   Morning and evening branch, Neyyattinkara. The cheques were<\/p>\n
   dishonoured for the reason ‘funds insufficient’ as is evident from<\/p>\n
   Ext.P3 and P4 dishonour memos. Ext.P5 is the intimation slip<\/p>\n
   dated 20.3.2000 received by the complainant from his bank. The<\/p>\n
   oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P3 to P5 are sufficient to hold that<\/p>\n
   Exts.P1 and P2 cheques were dishonoured for the reason ‘funds<\/p>\n
   insufficient’.\n<\/p>\n
         12. According to PW1, he got information regarding the<\/p>\n
   dishonour of Exts.P1 and P2 cheques on 20.3.2000. The same is<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                   :8:<\/span><\/p>\n
   evident from Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the demand notice issued to the<\/p>\n
   accused. Postal receipt in proof of despatch is marked as Ext.P7.<\/p>\n
   The accused received the notice on 3.4.2000 which is evident from<\/p>\n
   Ext.P8 postal acknowledgment card. The accused failed to repay<\/p>\n
   the cheque amount within 15 days from 3.4.2000. The cause of<\/p>\n
   action in this case arose on 18.4.2000. The complaint is seen filed<\/p>\n
   on 2.5.2000. It is well within the statutory limit.<\/p>\n
        13. It has come out in evidence that Ext.P6 notice sent by the<\/p>\n
   complainant demanding payment of amount was accepted by the<\/p>\n
   accused. But he did not send any reply. Consequently the accused<\/p>\n
   miserably failed to avail his first and best opportunity to set forth<\/p>\n
   his defence and to prevent the complaint from taking legal action, if<\/p>\n
   the defence is true. In appreciating the evidence on record, I am of<\/p>\n
   the view that the complainant has succeeded in proving all the<\/p>\n
   ingredients to arrive at a finding that the accused committed the<\/p>\n
   offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and that the<\/p>\n
   accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sec. 139 of N.I. Act.<\/p>\n
   Therefore the learned Magistrate is not justified in acquitting the<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                  :9:<\/span><\/p>\n
   accused.   Since the accused has committed the offence under<\/p>\n
   Section 138 of N.I. Act, he is convicted under Section 138 of N.I.<\/p>\n
   Act.\n<\/p>\n
        14. In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed<\/p>\n
   Babalal H<\/a> (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a case of<\/p>\n
   dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be<\/p>\n
   given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the facts and<\/p>\n
   circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the<\/p>\n
   accused to pay a fine of Rs.35,000\/- would meet the ends of justice.<\/p>\n
        15. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The judgment of<\/p>\n
   acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 342 of 2000 on the file of the<\/p>\n
   Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.I, Neyyattinkara under<\/p>\n
   Section 138 of N.I. Act is set aside and the accused is convicted<\/p>\n
   under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
   Rs.35,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        16.    The said fine shall be paid as compensation to the<\/p>\n
   complainant under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.        The accused is<\/p>\n
   permitted either to deposit the said fine amount before the court<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No: 1897 of 2004
\n                                 :10:<\/span><\/p>\n
   below or directly pay the compensation to the complainant within<\/p>\n
   four months from today and produce a memo to that effect before<\/p>\n
   the trial court in case of direct payment. If the accused fails to<\/p>\n
   deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid period, the<\/p>\n
   accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month by way of<\/p>\n
   default sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS
\n                                        ( Judge)<\/p>\n
dl\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1897 of 2004() 1. N.JACOB PAUL, NETTARAKONATHU VEEDU, … Petitioner Vs 1. C.GOPALAN, SEETHANKUZHI KUNNIL VEEDU, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.L.MOHANAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH […]<\/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-73687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-13T16:59:06+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\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T16:59:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1735,\"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\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010\",\"name\":\"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T16:59:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-13T16:59:06+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\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T16:59:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010"},"wordCount":1735,"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\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010","name":"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T16:59:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-jacob-paul-vs-c-gopalan-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Jacob Paul vs C.Gopalan on 18 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73687","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=73687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}