{"id":75909,"date":"2009-06-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-10T15:15:43","modified_gmt":"2016-10-10T09:45:43","slug":"anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1829 of 2009()\n\n\n1. ANILKUMAR,S\/O.ANANDAN,AGRICULTURAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ABDUL REHMAN,S\/O.MUHAMMED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :12\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                  ------------------------------------\n                     Crl.R.P.NO.1829 OF 2009\n                ----------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. Notice<\/p>\n
to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am<\/p>\n
proposing to make which is not prejudicial to him.<\/p>\n
     2.     Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor.<\/p>\n
     3.     This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -I), Manjeri in Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
No.18 of 2008. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 alleging that petitioner committed offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act<\/p>\n
(for short, “the Act”).     According to him, petitioner borrowed<\/p>\n
Rs.2 = lakhs from him on 20.5.2005 and for the discharge of<\/p>\n
that liability issued cheque, dated 14.8.2006. That cheque was<\/p>\n
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Respondent No.1 issued<\/p>\n
notice to the petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding<\/p>\n
payment of the amount. Petitioner did not pay the amount in<\/p>\n
spite of service of notice on him.            Respondent No.1 gave<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1829\/09               2<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence as PW1 and testified to his case. Case pleaded by<\/p>\n
petitioner is that he had no transaction with respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
He had some transaction with one Saidalavi to whom a blank<\/p>\n
cheque was given. That blank cheque is misused, according to<\/p>\n
him. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of that<\/p>\n
contention. Respondent No.1 when examined as PW1 testified<\/p>\n
to his case. He claimed that petitioner borrowed the amount<\/p>\n
from him on 20.5.2005 and for the discharge of that liability<\/p>\n
issued Ext.P1, the cheque. He denied that he got the cheque<\/p>\n
from the said Saidalavi. Courts below found in favour of due<\/p>\n
execution of cheque for the discharge of legally enforceable<\/p>\n
debt\/liability. That finding is under challenge in this revision.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel contended that due execution of the cheque is<\/p>\n
not proved.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     It is not disputed and proved by respondent No.1<\/p>\n
that Ext.P1 contained the signature of petitioner and is drawn<\/p>\n
on the account maintained by him.            According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, he had given that cheque to Saidalavi from whom<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 got it stealthily.     But apart from merely<\/p>\n
suggesting so to respondent No.1, petitioner did not take any<\/p>\n
steps to prove or probabilise that contention. Even Saidalavi<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1829\/09               3<\/span><\/p>\n
to whom petitioner is said to have handed over the cheque was<\/p>\n
not cited as a witness.     Nor did petitioner give a reply to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 on being served with notice of dishonour of<\/p>\n
the cheque for Rs.2 = lakhs and demand to pay the said<\/p>\n
amount.      There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1. I do not find reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
concurrent finding entered by the courts below regarding<\/p>\n
execution of the cheque, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds<\/p>\n
and failure of petitioner to pay the amount in spite of<\/p>\n
dishonour     intimation and    demand.    Petitioner  was    not<\/p>\n
successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of<\/p>\n
the Act. Hence conviction cannot be assailed.<\/p>\n
       5.    Learned   Chief   Judicial magistrate    sentenced<\/p>\n
petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five months<\/p>\n
and imposed cost of Rs.1,000\/- with a default sentence for one<\/p>\n
day.     In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge while<\/p>\n
modifying the substantive sentence as Simple Imprisonment<\/p>\n
till rising of the court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2 =<\/p>\n
lakhs under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
(for short, “the Code”) as compensation and in default of<\/p>\n
payment to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1829\/09                4<\/span><\/p>\n
Learned counsel contends that appellate court could not have<\/p>\n
enhanced the sentence on an appeal preferred by the<\/p>\n
convicted accused. It is also contended by learned counsel<\/p>\n
that facts and circumstances did not justify awarding<\/p>\n
compensation of Rs.2 = lakhs. It is also argued that appellate<\/p>\n
court could not have enhanced th default sentence.<\/p>\n
      6.     So far as substantive sentence is concerned,<\/p>\n
appellate court took a lenient view and modified the same to<\/p>\n
Simple Imprisonment till rising of the court.       There is no<\/p>\n
challenge to the reduction of the substantive sentence.<\/p>\n
      7.     Learned Chief Judicial magistrate observed that this<\/p>\n
is not a case where respondent No.1 has been put to loss by<\/p>\n
any act of the petitioner in that, respondent No.1 could recover<\/p>\n
the amount by filing a suit. As there is no loss, there is no<\/p>\n
need for awarding compensation to respondent No.1 in the<\/p>\n
opinion of learned Chief Judicial magistrate. Appellate court<\/p>\n
invoking Section 357(4) of the Code directed payment of<\/p>\n
compensation.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     Time and again this Court has pointed out the<\/p>\n
necessity to award compensation following conviction in cases<\/p>\n
involving under Section 138 of the Act to compensate the loss<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1829\/09                5<\/span><\/p>\n
caused to the payee or holder in due course as the case may<\/p>\n
be.     Those directions were issued taking into account the<\/p>\n
object of legislation as well.    Appellate court has observed<\/p>\n
that the view taken by learned Chief Judicial magistrate that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 is not put to loss on account of dishonour of<\/p>\n
the cheque is not correct. I do not find reason to interfere with<\/p>\n
that finding of the appellate court in view of the object of<\/p>\n
legislation and the decisions of this Court.<\/p>\n
      9.     Then the question is whether appellate court could<\/p>\n
have directed payment of compensation.           Compensation<\/p>\n
payable under Section 357(3) of the Code is not part of the<\/p>\n
sentence.       Section 357(3) is provided in the Code to<\/p>\n
compensate the victims who suffered at the hands of offender<\/p>\n
who has been found guilty. Therefore a direction for payment<\/p>\n
of compensation cannot be treated on part with the sentence.<\/p>\n
Section 357(4) of the Code specifically empowers the appellate<\/p>\n
and revisional courts to award compensation.              Hence<\/p>\n
notwithstanding that learned Chief Judicial magistrate had<\/p>\n
refused to award compensation, it was well within the power of<\/p>\n
the appellate court to invoke Section 357(4) and award<\/p>\n
compensation.        The default sentence provided for non-<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1829\/09                6<\/span><\/p>\n
payment of compensation cannot also treated as sentence<\/p>\n
since providing such default sentence is only to enforce<\/p>\n
payment of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Then     the    question   is  whether  amount     of<\/p>\n
compensation awarded to respondent No.1 is excessive.<\/p>\n
Ext.P1, cheque is dated 14.8.2006 and is for Rs.2 = lakhs.<\/p>\n
Evidence of respondent No.1 which the Courts below accepted<\/p>\n
is that petitioner borrowed Rs.2 = lakhs from him and for the<\/p>\n
discharge of that liability issued the cheque. There is no case<\/p>\n
for petitioner that at any time after 14.8.2006 he paid any<\/p>\n
amount to respondent No.1. Appellate court disposed of the<\/p>\n
appeal only on 31.3.2009, ie. almost three years after the<\/p>\n
transaction and execution of the cheque.           Hence the<\/p>\n
compensation awarded, cannot be said to be excessive.<\/p>\n
      11. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be<\/p>\n
given four months’ time to deposit compensation as directed<\/p>\n
by the appellate court. Considering the amount involved, I am<\/p>\n
inclined to allow that request.\n<\/p>\n
      12. Resultantly, this revision fails.   It is dismissed.<\/p>\n
Petitioner is granted four months’ time from today to deposit<\/p>\n
compensation in the trial court as ordered by the appellate<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1829\/09                7<\/span><\/p>\n
court. In case of default, he shall undergo imprisonment as<\/p>\n
ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that it will be<\/p>\n
sufficient compliance with the direction for payment of<\/p>\n
compensation      if petitioner   paid    the  compensation    to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 through his counsel in the trial court and<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 filed statement in the trial court through his<\/p>\n
counsel acknowledging receipt of the compensation within the<\/p>\n
aforesaid time.\n<\/p>\n
      Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 14.10.2009 to<\/p>\n
receive the sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
Acd<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.1829\/09    8<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1829 of 2009() 1. ANILKUMAR,S\/O.ANANDAN,AGRICULTURAL … Petitioner Vs 1. ABDUL REHMAN,S\/O.MUHAMMED, … Respondent 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :12\/06\/2009 […]<\/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-75909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 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\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-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=\"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-10T09:45:43+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T09:45:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1229,\"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\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T09:45:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 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\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-10T09:45:43+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T09:45:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009"},"wordCount":1229,"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\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009","name":"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T09:45:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anilkumar-vs-abdul-rehman-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anilkumar vs Abdul Rehman on 12 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:\/\/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\/75909","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=75909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75909\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}