{"id":87922,"date":"2008-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-30T11:47:27","modified_gmt":"2016-07-30T06:17:27","slug":"wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 4455 of 2003()\n\n\n1. WILSON,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. M\/S. PARIS ELECTRICALS TRADERS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. M\/S. JOS ELECTRICALS (AGENCIES),\n\n                For Petitioner  :RAMAKUMAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :26\/03\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                 A.K.BASHEER, J.\n        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n           Crl.M.C.No.4455, 4490, 4558 & 4565 OF 2003\n        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Dated this the 26th day of March 2008\n\n                                         ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     These four Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed under<\/p>\n
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being<\/p>\n
disposed of by this common order, since the parties and the issue<\/p>\n
involved in them are common.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The common petitioners in these cases are being<\/p>\n
prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s<\/p>\n
Court, Ernakulam in four Calender Cases namely, C.C.2471\/98,<\/p>\n
2469\/98, 2342\/98 and 2345\/98.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   Petitioners are a partnership firm and its managing<\/p>\n
partner. They seek to quash the proceedings pending against<\/p>\n
them before the lower court primarily on the ground that the<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate had committed serious illegality and<\/p>\n
irregularity by allowing a petition filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
complainant to substitute the name of the managing partner of<\/p>\n
the firm in the course of the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.Nos.4455, 4490, 4558 & 4565 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4. Respondent No.1 had filed the four complaints against<\/p>\n
the firm and its Managing Partner alleging that the four cheques<\/p>\n
issued by the managing partner on behalf of the firm in discharge<\/p>\n
of a legally enforceable debt were dishonoured when they were<\/p>\n
presented for encashment. According to the complainant, the<\/p>\n
amount covered under the four cheques represented the value of<\/p>\n
electrical goods purchased by the firm from the complainant.<\/p>\n
The cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in<\/p>\n
the account of the firm\/accused.          In spite of service of the<\/p>\n
statutory demand notice on the accused, the liability was not<\/p>\n
discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   It is beyond controversy that the complainant had<\/p>\n
arraigned Mr.Selvam, the brother of petitioner No.1 as the<\/p>\n
Managing partner\/first accused in a representative capacity in<\/p>\n
the complaint. Mr.Selvam was also implicated as accused No.2<\/p>\n
in his capacity as the managing partner of the firm. It appears<\/p>\n
that in the course of the proceedings an application was filed on<\/p>\n
behalf of the complainant “seeking permission of the court to<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.Nos.4455, 4490, 4558 & 4565 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ncorrect the name of the accused”. A copy of the said application<\/p>\n
is available on record as Annexure B. In the said application filed<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the complainant, it was averred that<\/p>\n
the name of the managing partner was shown as Selvam in the<\/p>\n
complaint due to “an inadvertent typographical mistake”<\/p>\n
committed by his clerk. It was further averred that the managing<\/p>\n
partner of the firm was not Mr.Selvam but Mr.Wilson, petitioner<\/p>\n
No.1 herein. The said mistake was noticed only when the court<\/p>\n
had directed the complainant to furnish the correct address of<\/p>\n
the accused, as the summons issued to the accused had been<\/p>\n
returned without service; the learned Magistrate had allowed<\/p>\n
the prayer.      Resultantly, petitioner No.1 was arraigned as<\/p>\n
accused in his capacity as the Managing Partner of the firm.<\/p>\n
     6.   It is contended by Sri.Ram Kumar, learned Senior<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate had no<\/p>\n
inherent power or jurisdiction to correct the name of the accused<\/p>\n
in the course of the proceedings and that too without issuing<\/p>\n
notice on the application submitted on behalf of the complainant.<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.Nos.4455, 4490, 4558 & 4565 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nIt is further contended that the application filed by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel on behalf of the complainant was by itself incompetent.<\/p>\n
Since there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to<\/p>\n
substitute one person with another as an accused in a complaint,<\/p>\n
the order of the learned Magistrate is wholly without jurisdiction,<\/p>\n
especially because a criminal court is not vested with any<\/p>\n
inherent power.\n<\/p>\n
      7. At the very outset it may be noticed that Sri.Wilson,<\/p>\n
petitioner No.1 does not have a case that he is not the managing<\/p>\n
partner of the firm. Not only that, he has described himself as<\/p>\n
managing partner in the petitions filed by him before this court.<\/p>\n
He had signed the vakalath before this court as well as the trial<\/p>\n
court describing him as managing partner under the seal of the<\/p>\n
firm. I have also perused the trial court records. It is seen from<\/p>\n
the cheque that it was signed by the managing partner. The<\/p>\n
signature in the cheque and that of petitioner No.1 in the<\/p>\n
vakalath filed before this court as well as before the trial court is<\/p>\n
exactly similar and identical to the naked eye. As mentioned<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.Nos.4455, 4490, 4558 & 4565 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nearlier, petitioner does not have a case that he was not the<\/p>\n
managing partner of the firm at the relevant point of time or that<\/p>\n
he had not signed the cheque. His only grievance is that the<\/p>\n
complainant having initially implicated his brother Selvam as the<\/p>\n
managing partner in the four complaints, it was not open to him<\/p>\n
to delete the name of Mr.Selvam from the party array and to<\/p>\n
implead petitioner No.1 at a later stage. This according to the<\/p>\n
petitioner was without jurisdiction. I am unable to agree.<\/p>\n
     8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances,<\/p>\n
especially on perusal of the trial court records, I have no<\/p>\n
hesitation to repel the above contention raised by the petitioners.<\/p>\n
In this context, it may also be noticed that the complainant had<\/p>\n
addressed the statutory demand notice to the Managing Partner<\/p>\n
of the firm without mentioning any name.         The notice was<\/p>\n
accepted by the authorised signatory.        But while filing the<\/p>\n
complaint, the name of Mr.Selvam, the brother of petitioner<\/p>\n
No.1, was wrongly shown in the cause title. In the application<\/p>\n
filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, it was<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.Nos.4455, 4490, 4558 & 4565 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nspecifically averred that the above inadvertent mistake was<\/p>\n
committed by his clerk. In my view, the learned Magistrate was<\/p>\n
justified in allowing the prayer for correction.<\/p>\n
      9. As indicated earlier, petitioner No.1 has not disputed his<\/p>\n
status as the Managing Partner of the firm. The signature in the<\/p>\n
cheque and that of petitioner No.1 are exactly similar to the<\/p>\n
naked eye. Therefore, I am satisfied that the order of the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate cannot be faulted. The correction of the name of the<\/p>\n
accused would serve the interest of justice.       In Madhavi v.<\/p>\n
Thupran (1987 (1) KLT 488) this court had held correcting a<\/p>\n
mistake in the name for the purpose of bringing justice was<\/p>\n
within the competence of any criminal court. Similarly, in Ninan<\/p>\n
v. Rufus Olivero [1994 (1) KLT 984], this court took the view<\/p>\n
that the name of the accused in a complaint under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
the Negotiable Instruments Act can be corrected, if there was no<\/p>\n
dispute with regard to the identity and also if all other statutory<\/p>\n
formalities had been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Lastly, learned senior counsel has raised a contention<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.Nos.4455, 4490, 4558 & 4565 OF 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthat there was no specific averment against petitioner No.1 in<\/p>\n
the complaint. He invites my attention to a recent decision of<\/p>\n
their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sabitha Ramamurthy<\/p>\n
v. Channabasavaradhya<\/a> [2006 (4) KLT 1017 (SC)] and in<\/p>\n
Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State (Nct of Delhi) and<\/a> another<\/p>\n
[2007 (3) SCC 693].\n<\/p>\n
     I do not propose to deal with the above contention at this<\/p>\n
stage, since the primary challenge was against the order passed<\/p>\n
by the learned Magistrate substituting the name of the accused.<\/p>\n
Moreover, no such ground was raised by the petitioners in the<\/p>\n
memorandum of Criminal M.C. It is made clear that it will be<\/p>\n
open to the petitioners to urge all their contentions before the<\/p>\n
trial court at the appropriate stage.         Criminal M.Cs. are<\/p>\n
dismissed with the above observation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
\njes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 4455 of 2003() 1. WILSON, … Petitioner 2. M\/S. PARIS ELECTRICALS TRADERS, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. M\/S. JOS ELECTRICALS (AGENCIES), For Petitioner :RAMAKUMAR (SR.) 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-87922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - 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\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-30T06:17:27+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-30T06:17:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1241,\"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\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-30T06:17:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - 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\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-30T06:17:27+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-30T06:17:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"},"wordCount":1241,"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\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008","name":"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-30T06:17:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wilson-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/87922","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=87922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}