{"id":86735,"date":"2007-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007"},"modified":"2016-02-09T03:40:40","modified_gmt":"2016-02-08T22:10:40","slug":"shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 1160 of 2006()\n\n\n1. SHAJI, S\/O. JANARDHANAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :28\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n\n                              V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n                            * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n                Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160 of 2006, 1308 of 2006\n\n                                            &\n\n                                     2039 of 2006\n\n                           * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n                         Dated, 28th day of March 2007\n\n\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Accused Nos. 3, 2 and 1  respectively in S.C. No. 129\/’01 on the file<\/p>\n
of   the     Addl.   Sessions   Court   For   The   Trial   of   Abkari   Act     Cases,<\/p>\n
Neyyattinkara,  are respectively the appellants in these  Appeals.  Crl. A.<\/p>\n
Nos. 1160 of 2006   and 1308 of 2006  are preferred by accused Nos.   3<\/p>\n
and 2 through private counsels.  Crl. Appeal No. 2039 of 2006 is preferred<\/p>\n
by   the   first   accused   from   the   Central   Prison,   Thiruvananthapuram   and<\/p>\n
represented through State Brief.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.     In   these   appeals,   the     three   accused   persons   challenge   the<\/p>\n
conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for an offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section  58 of the Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The case of the prosecution is that on 14-3-1998 at about 7<\/p>\n
p.m. the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyardam  and his police party  while<\/p>\n
on patrol duty stumbled upon  an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KL 01 L<\/p>\n
8589  driven   by  the   3rd  accused   and     carrying   accused   Nos.   1  and   2  as<\/p>\n
passengers  along with the  jerry  can having  a  capacity of 10 litres.    He<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
signalled   the   autorickshaw   to   stop   and,    on  interrogation,     the   accused<\/p>\n
persons admitted that the jerry can contains   arrack.   Thereupon the Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector arrested the accused persons and seized the jerry can under     a<\/p>\n
mahazar prepared from the spot.   The accused as well as the properties<\/p>\n
were   taken     to   the   Neyyardam   Police   Station   from   where   a   case   was<\/p>\n
registered as  Crime No. 32\/98.   The accused  were  produced before  the<\/p>\n
J.F.C.M.,   Kattakkada   and   the   properties   were   produced   before   the<\/p>\n
Magistrate,  subsequently.  The sample taken therefrom   and dispatched<\/p>\n
to   the   Chemical   Examiner’s   Laboratory,   Thiruvananthapuram     through<\/p>\n
court   revealed   that   the   sample   contained   14.80   percent   by   volume   of<\/p>\n
Ethyl   Alcohol.     The   accused   have   thereby   committed   an   offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Sec. 58 of the Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          4.     On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge       framed<\/p>\n
against   them     by   the   court   below   for   the   aforementioned   offence,   the<\/p>\n
prosecution was permitted  to adduce evidence in support of its case.  The<\/p>\n
prosecution     altogether   examined   6   witnesses   as   P.W.s   1   to   6   and   got<\/p>\n
marked  9 documents as Exts. P1 to P9  and 3 material objects as Mos 1<\/p>\n
and 3.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          5.     After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused  were<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
questioned under Sec. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating<\/p>\n
circumstances   appearing   against   them       in   the   evidence   for   the<\/p>\n
prosecution.       They     denied   those   circumstances   and   maintained   their<\/p>\n
innocence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        6.       Since the  learned Addl. Sessions Judge  did not consider this<\/p>\n
a fit case for recording an order of acquittal under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. the<\/p>\n
accused   persons   were     called   upon   to   enter   on   their     defence     and   to<\/p>\n
adduce any evidence which they might   have in support thereof.   They<\/p>\n
did not adduce any defence evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        7.       The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after trial,  as per judgment<\/p>\n
dated   8-6-2006   found     all   the   appellants   guilty   of   the   offence   and<\/p>\n
sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay  a fine<\/p>\n
of Rs. 1,00,000\/- each and on default to pay the fine,   to suffer rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for six months.  It is the said judgment which is assailed in<\/p>\n
these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8.       I   heard   Advocate     Sri.     Sasthamangalam   Ajithkumar,   the<\/p>\n
learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A. 1160 of 2006 and<\/p>\n
Adv. Sri. R.T. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in<\/p>\n
Crl.   Appeal   No.   1308   of   2006   and   Adv.   Sri.     P.V.   Vijayakumar,   the<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel who defended the appellant   in Crl.Appeal No. 2039 of<\/p>\n
2006 on State Brief.  I also heard Adv. Sri. K.S. Sivakumar,  the learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor who defended the State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        9.       The only point which arises for consideration is as to whether<\/p>\n
the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the appellant are<\/p>\n
sustainable or not ?\n<\/p>\n
\nTHE POINT:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        10.      P.Ws 1 and 2 are the independent witnesses who had figured<\/p>\n
as attestors     to Ext.P1 mahazar prepared by the detecting officer.   Even<\/p>\n
though both of them admitted their signatures in the mahazar they turned<\/p>\n
hostile   to   the   prosecution.     P.W.3   is   the   owner   of   the   autorickshaw<\/p>\n
examined   to     say   that   it   was   the   3rd  accused   who   was   driving   the<\/p>\n
autorickshaw   on   the       fateful   day.     P.W.4   was   the   head   constablle   of<\/p>\n
Neyyardam   Police   Station   who   was   in   the   company   of   the   detecting<\/p>\n
officer.  P.W.5 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyardam who detected<\/p>\n
the   offence.     P.W.6   was   the   Thondi   Section   Clerk   attached     to   the<\/p>\n
J.F.C.M., Court, Kattakkada which was the committal court in respect of<\/p>\n
this case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        11.      After an anxious consideration of the oral and documentary<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence in the case and after hearing both sides, I am of the view that the<\/p>\n
prosecution   has   not   succeeded   in   establishing   the   guilt   of   the   accused<\/p>\n
beyond reasonable  doubt.   Notwithstanding the disloyalty shown by P.W<\/p>\n
1 and   2, the evidence of P.Ws 4 and 5 can be accepted to hold that the<\/p>\n
accused persons along with MO2 jerry can were in the autorickshaw and<\/p>\n
that on the reasonable belief   that the jerry can   contained illicit arrack,<\/p>\n
P.W. 5 had arrested the accused and seized the jerry can together with the<\/p>\n
bag and autorickshaw under Ext.P1 contemporaneous mahazar prepared<\/p>\n
by   him   from     the   spot   itself.     But   the   further   question   is   whether   the<\/p>\n
contents   of   MO2   jerry   can   has   conclusively   been   proved   to   be   illicit<\/p>\n
arrack so as to justify the conviction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        12.      Eventhough   P.W.5   claims   to   have   seized     the   contraband<\/p>\n
liquor  at 7 p.m. on 14-3-1998, the properties were produced before court<\/p>\n
only   on   23-3-1998.       Except   for   a   bald   statement   by   P.W.5   from   the<\/p>\n
witness box that  until their production  in Court the properties were in his<\/p>\n
custody,  he has not given any satisfactory explanation as  to why he  kept<\/p>\n
the properties in his custody  for 9 days.  There is therefore, infraction of<\/p>\n
Sec. 102 (3) Cr.P.C.  That apart, going by the recitals in Ext.P1 mahazar,<\/p>\n
P.W.5  had,  before seizing the jerry can,    sealed the same.  But the jerry<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
can   described as Item I in Ext.P5 property list is not shown as sealed.<\/p>\n
This means that there is no acceptable evidence to show that it was the<\/p>\n
very same jerry can which was seized   after sealing the same which was<\/p>\n
produced before court 9 days  after the alleged seizure.<\/p>\n
        13.      The prosecution would have it that the sample taken from the<\/p>\n
above   jerry   can   by   the   committal     Magistrate   and   dispatched   to   the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner has proved the fact that the contents of the jerry can<\/p>\n
was illicit arrack.  The prosecution has not produced  any forwarding note<\/p>\n
or     requisition   by   the   investigating   agency   requesting   the   committal<\/p>\n
Magistrate   to   take   sample   from   MO2   and   despatch     the   same   to   the<\/p>\n
chemical examiner for report.  In the absence  of  any such request from<\/p>\n
the   investigating     agency   it   is   not       known     as   to   why   the   committal<\/p>\n
Magistrate   took   the   sample   and   despatched   the   same   to   the   chemical<\/p>\n
examiner.  P.W.6 is the thondi Section Clerk who has deposed that on the<\/p>\n
strength   of   the   orders   of   the   Magistrate   he   took   the   sample   .     Neither<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 property list nor Ext.P9   certified   extract of the relevant page of<\/p>\n
the thondi  section register shows  any endorsement by the Magistrate to<\/p>\n
take sample from the jerry can produced in this case.   On the contrary,<\/p>\n
both Exts.P5 and P9 contain  endorsement by the Magistrate on 23-3-1998<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
directing that the properties be kept in the custody of the   Station House<\/p>\n
Officer until further orders.   If that direction of the Magistrate  had been<\/p>\n
promptly complied with, it is not known   as to how   P.W.6 could take a<\/p>\n
sample.   Even assuming that there was a direction by the Magistrate to do<\/p>\n
so,       P.W.6 does not say the date   on which he took the sample or the<\/p>\n
quantity drawn by him as sample and the mode of  despatch of the same<\/p>\n
to the chemical examiner.   What Ext.P8 certificate of analysis shows   is<\/p>\n
that the sample was despatched   to the chemical  examiner along with a<\/p>\n
covering   letter   of   the   Magistrate   dated   18-5-1998   and   the   sample   was<\/p>\n
produced     in  the laboratory on  20-5-1998   by   P.C. 4386.   Ext.P9,  no<\/p>\n
doubt,   contains     an  endorsement   that   the   sample   was   entrusted   to   P.C.<\/p>\n
4386.  But then, it does not carry the date of entrustment.  The  said police<\/p>\n
constable also was not examined before court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        14.      It is well settled that in a case of this nature the prosecution<\/p>\n
can succeed in securing a conviction only if it   is proved that a sample<\/p>\n
drawn from the contraband  substance seized  from the possession of the<\/p>\n
accused   was   despatched   to   the   chemical   examiner   in   a   tamper   proof<\/p>\n
condition.   To put it differentlt,   the prosecution has to inevitably show<\/p>\n
that the sample which was analysed by the chemical examiner   was the<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
very same sample   which was drawn from the contraband liquor alleged<\/p>\n
possessed by the accused. This is particularly so since  the sample which<\/p>\n
eventually reaches   the hands of the chemical examiner changes several<\/p>\n
hands.    (Vide   The   State   of   Rajasthan  v.   Daulat   Ram<\/a>  –  AIR   1980  SC<\/p>\n
1314 and  Valsala v. State of Kerala<\/a> –  1993 (2) KLT 550).    In the case<\/p>\n
on hand,  first of all  it is doubtful whether  jerry can  which was produced<\/p>\n
before court after 9 days of the seizure  was the very same jerry can which<\/p>\n
was  seized under Ext.P1 mahazar.  Consequently, there is absolutely no<\/p>\n
contemporaneous record maintained by the committal Magistrate to show<\/p>\n
that   there   was   a   direction   to       take   sample   and   pursuant   to   the   said<\/p>\n
direction sample was taken.   There is no record     showing the     date of<\/p>\n
sampling,  the quantity of sample and the date of despatch of  the same to<\/p>\n
the Chemical Examiner etc.   All these are capable  of  record and proof.<\/p>\n
As mentioned earlier, even without a forwarding note or requisition for<\/p>\n
sampling it was no part of the   duty of the Magistrate   to take a sample<\/p>\n
and   send   the   same   to   the   Chemical   Examiner.     In   the   absence   of   any<\/p>\n
acceptable evidence to show that the sample which was analysed under<\/p>\n
Ext.P8 certificate of analysis was the very same  sample which was seized<\/p>\n
from   the   jerry   can   allegedly   possessed   by   the   accused   persons,   the<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160<\/p>\n
of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
conviction entered and the sentence passed against the appellants cannot<\/p>\n
be sustained and are accordingly dislodged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        15.      The appellants are found not guilty of the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under Sec. 58 of the Abkari Act and are acquitted thereunder.   They are<\/p>\n
set at liberty. The first accused  (appellant in  Crl. Appeal 2039 of 2006)<\/p>\n
shall be released from prison forthwith unless his   continued detention is<\/p>\n
needed in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        In the result, these  Criminal Appeals are allowed as above.<\/p>\n
                                                     V. RAMKUMAR,     JUDGE.\n\n\n\n\nani\n\n\nCrl. Appeal Nos. 1160\n\nof 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006    -:10:-<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n\n                                                        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n                                                                Crl. Appeal Nos. 1160\n\n                                                   of 2006, 1308 of 2006 &  2039 of 2006\n\n                                                        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n                                                               Dated, this the  29th  day of\n\n\n                                                                             January  2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                JUD\n                                                                                       GMENT\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 1160 of 2006() 1. SHAJI, S\/O. JANARDHANAN … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR […]<\/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-86735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007 - 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\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-08T22:10:40+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\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T22:10:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1812,\"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\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T22:10:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007 - 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\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-08T22:10:40+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\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T22:10:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007"},"wordCount":1812,"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\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007","name":"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T22:10:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaji-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 28 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/86735","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=86735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86735\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}