{"id":89004,"date":"2008-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-17T05:14:57","modified_gmt":"2017-05-16T23:44:57","slug":"t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 3010 of 2003()\n\n\n1. T.KUNHI MOOSA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SALES TAX INSPECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :22\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n\n              ---------------------------------------------\n\n                   Crl.M.C.No. 3010 of  2003\n\n              ---------------------------------------------\n\n         Dated this the  22nd   day of  February, 2008\n\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
              The   petitioner,   who   is   the   first   accused   in<\/p>\n
Crime   No.59   of   2003   of   the   Thalassery   Police   Station,<\/p>\n
preferred   this   Crl.M.C.   with   a   prayer   to   quash   all<\/p>\n
proceedings   in   the   above   crime     in   which   the   offence<\/p>\n
alleged   is   under   Section   420   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code<\/p>\n
(hereinafter   referred   to   only   for   short   as   ‘the   I.P.C.’).<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, no offence under Section 420<\/p>\n
of   the   I.P.C.   is   attracted   against   him   even   if   the   entire<\/p>\n
prosecution   case   is   admitted   as   true   and   therefore,   the<\/p>\n
very  registration  of the  above crime and all  proceedings<\/p>\n
thereon are really abuse of process of law.<\/p>\n
       2.     The allegation against the petitioner is that on<\/p>\n
25.1.2003,   the   departmental   officers   had   intercepted<\/p>\n
Lorry No.KL-11 E-9759 at about 23.15 Hrs. at New Mahe<\/p>\n
and   found   that   the   vehicle   carries   invoice   raised   in   the<\/p>\n
name   of   Pondicherry   Spices,   Chalakkara,   for   the   sale   of<\/p>\n
90 bags of pepper amounting to Rs.1,80,000\/- vide invoice<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
\nNos.32   &   33   to   Delhi.     Besides   the   invoice,   the   driver<\/p>\n
carries Form 27C Transit Pass for getting  Transit Pass,<\/p>\n
declaration   in   27   B   etc.     According   to   the   prosecution,<\/p>\n
on physical verification of the goods under transport in<\/p>\n
the lorry, it is noted that, it carries 63 bags of unsaleable<\/p>\n
pepper waste and even not a single bag ‘bold pepper’ is<\/p>\n
seen transporting in the lorry.  Thus, on interrogation of<\/p>\n
the driver, cleaner and the headload worker available in<\/p>\n
the   lorry,   it   came   out   that   63   bags,   containing   waste<\/p>\n
pepper,   are   loaded   from   a   house   nearer   to   Mahe-<\/p>\n
Thalassery   road   and   the   vehicle   was   then   taken   to<\/p>\n
Chalakkara area and from there, the writer gave invoice<\/p>\n
to   the   driver   to   be   produced   before   the   Check   Post<\/p>\n
Official for getting Transit Pass etc.   It is  also revealed<\/p>\n
through  interrogation   that directions   were  given  to the<\/p>\n
driver   that   on   getting   Transit   Pass   from   Check   Post<\/p>\n
Officials, the lorry is to be taken to Iritty from where the<\/p>\n
waste pepper  loaded in   the  lorry   are  to be  replaced  by<\/p>\n
bold   pepper   for   onward   transport   to   outside   Kerala   on<\/p>\n
the   strength   of   Mahe   Invoice   along   with   Transit   Pass<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
\nobtained   from   the   Check   Post   Officials.     Later,   the<\/p>\n
vehicle   along   with   the   goods   was  taken   custody   by   the<\/p>\n
Check Post officials for further action.<\/p>\n
      3.       According   to   the   prosecution,   the   above<\/p>\n
instance clearly shows the modus operandi practised by<\/p>\n
the petitioner in smuggling pepper for evading payment<\/p>\n
of   tax.     It   is   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/accused   procured   pepper,   supari   etc.   from<\/p>\n
pepper   and   supari   cultivated   areas   like   Iritty,   Irikkur,<\/p>\n
Sreekandapuram, Kanhangad, Kasaragod etc. and stored<\/p>\n
in   some   undisclosed   go   downs   there.     Further,   the<\/p>\n
allegation is that, at the very same time, in Chalakkara,<\/p>\n
the vehicles were loaded with unsaleable   waste pepper<\/p>\n
and such  other waste goods and they were  transported<\/p>\n
along   with   invoices   raised   by   Pondicherry   Spices,<\/p>\n
Chalakkara and on reaching the  Check Post on producing<\/p>\n
the Mahe invoice,  fraudulently obtain  Transit Pass  and  on<\/p>\n
getting Transit Pass, the vehicle with waste pepper was<\/p>\n
driven   to   place   where   bold   pepper   is   stored   and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
replaced the pepper waste with bold pepper  for onward<\/p>\n
transport   to   outside  Kerala,  through  border  check  post.<\/p>\n
It is the definite case of the prosecution that by adopting<\/p>\n
this   mode   of   operation,   the   petitioner   had   transported<\/p>\n
more   than   1564   bags   of   pepper   and   80   bags   of   Supari<\/p>\n
procured   from   Kannur   and   Kasaragod   area   and  evaded<\/p>\n
payment   of   tax  which   are   legitimately   payable   for   the<\/p>\n
Government,   by   fraudulently   obtaining   Transit   Pass   on<\/p>\n
the strength of Mahe invoice.     Therefore, according to<\/p>\n
the   prosecution,   the   petitioner   along   with   others<\/p>\n
committed   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   420<\/p>\n
read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.   Based upon the First<\/p>\n
Information  Statement given  by one  C.G.Mathew, Sales<\/p>\n
Tax   Inspector,   Sales   Tax   Checkpost,   New   Mahe   before<\/p>\n
the   Sub   Inspector   of   Police,   Thalassery   Police   Station,<\/p>\n
Crime No.59 of 2003 has been registered for the above<\/p>\n
offences implicating the   petitioner as first accused and<\/p>\n
there are altogether  four accused in the petition.<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-5-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.     The   petitioner   approached   this   Court   when<\/p>\n
the investigation was in the infant stage.  It appears that<\/p>\n
the   above   Crl.M.C.   dated   9.4.2003   was   moved   before<\/p>\n
this Court  on 11.4.2003 and thereafter, the matter was<\/p>\n
being   adjourned   continuously   and   no   stay   was  granted<\/p>\n
although  Crl.M.P.No.3684  of 2003 was filed for staying<\/p>\n
all further proceedings in Crime No.59 of 2003 including<\/p>\n
the   laying   of   final   report   after   investigation.     By   order<\/p>\n
dated   31.3.2006,   this   Court   had   made   clear   that   it   is<\/p>\n
open   to   the   Police   to   proceed   with   the   investigation   of<\/p>\n
the   case.     Thus,   the   investigation   in   the   above   case   is<\/p>\n
already   over   and   a   final   report   has   already   been   filed<\/p>\n
before   the   court   below   and   accordingly,   C.C.No.417   of<\/p>\n
2004 is instituted.  It is the above case and proceedings<\/p>\n
are being sought to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.     The main contention raised in this case is that<\/p>\n
no   offence   under   Section   420   of   the   I.P.C.   is   disclosed<\/p>\n
against   the   petitioner,   even   if   the   entire   allegation   is<\/p>\n
admitted   as   true.     According   to   the   petitioner,   there   is<\/p>\n
no tax evasion and he had not deprived of any property<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                          :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
\nof the Government and unless and until there is specific<\/p>\n
property   which   was   transported   without   paying   tax,<\/p>\n
Section   420  will   not   be  attracted.     It   is  also   contended<\/p>\n
that   the   liability   comes   only   when   there   is   a   proper<\/p>\n
adjudication by the assessing authority and even in that<\/p>\n
case,   if   the   finding   is   against   the   assessee,   the   matter<\/p>\n
can   be   taken   in   appeal   and   therefore,   according   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner,   Section   420   will   not   come   into   play.<\/p>\n
Therefore,   according   to   the   petitioner,   the   registration<\/p>\n
of   crime   against   the   petitioner   for   the   offence   under<\/p>\n
Section   420   is   unjust   and   illegal.     Along   with   Crl.M.C.,<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   has   produced   Annexure-A1   which   is   a<\/p>\n
copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to a<\/p>\n
notice   issued   by   the   Sales   Tax   Authority.     Another<\/p>\n
document   is   Annexure   A-2   which   is   a   copy   of   the<\/p>\n
assessment   proceedings   initiated   against   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
by         the         Assistant         Commissioner         (Assessment),<\/p>\n
Commercial   Taxes,   Special   Circle,   Kannur.     On   the<\/p>\n
strength   of   the   above   document,   the   contention   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that even according to the Department, the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-7-:\n<\/p>\n
\nonly   allegation   against   him   is   infringement   of   certain<\/p>\n
statutory   provisions   for   which   concerned   authority   has<\/p>\n
already   initiated   statutory   proceedings.       By   producing<\/p>\n
Annexure   A3   document,   which   is   an   order   by   the<\/p>\n
Session’s   Court,   Thalassery   in   Crl.M.C.No.269   of   2003<\/p>\n
by which anticipatory bail was granted in favour of him<\/p>\n
and in the above order, it is submitted that the Session’s<\/p>\n
Court   has   observed   that   the   case   diary   shows   that   the<\/p>\n
investigation   is   in   progress   and   so   far,   they   could   not<\/p>\n
ascertain   whether   the   criminal   prosecution   will   lie   in<\/p>\n
respect   of   the   evasion   of   tax.     Thus,   based   upon   the<\/p>\n
above   document,   the   petitioner   submitted   that   at   any<\/p>\n
rate, no offence  under Section  420  of the I.P.C.  will lie<\/p>\n
against   the   petitioner   and   therefore,   prayed   for<\/p>\n
quashing the entire proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.     I have heard Mr.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.     Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits<\/p>\n
that even if the entire allegation is admitted as true, no<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                   :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
\noffence   under   Section   420   of   I.P.C.   will   attract   against<\/p>\n
the   petitioner.     According   to   counsel,   no   goods   have<\/p>\n
been   seized   from   the   vehicle   which   was   subjected   for<\/p>\n
inspection on the date of occurrence and therefore, even<\/p>\n
the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has tried<\/p>\n
to   transport   goods   without   paying   the   tax   due   to   the<\/p>\n
Government   and  the   petitioner  has   tried  to  evade   from<\/p>\n
paying the tax.  The learned counsel strenuously argued<\/p>\n
that   by   the   alleged   incident,   the   petitioner   has   not<\/p>\n
caused   any   loss   to   the   Government.     In   the   absence   of<\/p>\n
any such allegation, no offence under Section 420 of the<\/p>\n
I.P.C. will lie against the petitioner.  The learned counsel<\/p>\n
took me through Section 415 which reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
                 “415.        Cheating.–   Whoever,   by<\/p>\n
          deceiving   any   person,   fraudulently   or<\/p>\n
          dishonestly   induces   the   person   so   deceived<\/p>\n
          to deliver any property to any person, or to<\/p>\n
          consent   that   any   person   shall   retain   any<\/p>\n
          property, or intentionally induces the person<\/p>\n
          so   deceived   to   do   or   omit   to   do   anything<\/p>\n
          which he would not do or omit if he were not<\/p>\n
          so deceived, and which act or omission causes<\/p>\n
          or is likely to cause damage or harm to that<\/p>\n
          person in body, mind, reputation or property<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                   :-9-:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n            is said to “cheat”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Explanation.–A   dishonest   concealment<\/p>\n
            of facts is a deception within the meaning of<\/p>\n
            this section.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
According   to   counsel   for   the   petitioner,   unless   it   is<\/p>\n
specifically   alleged   or   pleaded   that   the   petitioner   has<\/p>\n
obtained a Transit Pass, and by using such Transit Pass,<\/p>\n
the petitioner had transported goods without paying tax,<\/p>\n
no   offence   under   Section   420   will   lie   against   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.     The   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   also<\/p>\n
invited   my   attention   to   the   ingredients   of   Sections   415<\/p>\n
and 420 of the I.P.C. in support of the above contention.<\/p>\n
      8.       The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a<\/p>\n
decision   of   the   Apex   Court   reported   in  Hari   Sao    v.<\/p>\n
State   of   Bihar  (AIR   1970   SC   843)   in   support   of   the<\/p>\n
above contention.  In the above decision, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
had   held   that   the   false   representation   made   by   the<\/p>\n
appellants in obtaining the railway receipt in the form in<\/p>\n
which  it  was issued  did  not  cast  any  additional   liability<\/p>\n
on   the   railway   and   the   issue   of   the   railway   receipt<\/p>\n
therefore was not likely to cause any damage or harm to<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-10-:\n<\/p>\n
\nthe   railway.     It   was   also   held   that   no   question   of<\/p>\n
cheating   the   railway   or   the   Station   Master   therefore<\/p>\n
arose in the  above case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.     On   the   strength   of   the   above   decision,   the<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits   that   in   the   present<\/p>\n
case, even according to the prosecution, the case is that<\/p>\n
there is only  an attempt from the  part of the  petitioner<\/p>\n
for the evasion of tax even at the time of producing the<\/p>\n
declaration for obtaining the Transit Pass.  If that be so,<\/p>\n
therefore,   the   ingredients   of   Sections   415   or   420   have<\/p>\n
not   so   far   been   disclosed   and   hence   all   proceedings<\/p>\n
initiated   against   the   petitioner   are   clear   abuse   of<\/p>\n
process of law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.    In   this   juncture,   it   is   relevant   to   note   that<\/p>\n
Annexure   A-4   is   the   F.I.R.   in   Crime   No.59\/03   of<\/p>\n
Thalassery   Police   Station.     Along   with   Annexure   A-4<\/p>\n
F.I.R., the petitioner has produced the seizure Mahazar.<\/p>\n
Besides   the   above   document   along   with   Crl.M.C.,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   has   also   produced   Annexure   A2   which   is   a<\/p>\n
copy   of   the   assessment   order   wherein   after   giving   the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-11-:\n<\/p>\n
\nbrief allegation against the petitioner, the authority has<\/p>\n
provisionally   shown   the   proposed   assessment   against<\/p>\n
the petitioner for the period from April, 2002 to January,<\/p>\n
2003   and   thus   the   total   taxable   turn   over   proposed   is<\/p>\n
fixed as Rs.70 lakhs.  In Annexures A2 document as well<\/p>\n
as   A4   F.I.R.,   the   allegation   is   to   the   effect   that   in<\/p>\n
Chalakkara,   the   vehicles   were   loaded   with   unsaleable<\/p>\n
pepper waste and such waste goods and transported the<\/p>\n
same   along   with   invoices   raised   by   the   Pondicherry<\/p>\n
Spices, Chalakkara and on reaching the Check Post and<\/p>\n
on   producing   the   Mahe   Invoice,  fraudulently   obtain<\/p>\n
Transit   Pass   and   on   getting   Transit   Pass,  waste  pepper<\/p>\n
were  driven   to   places   where   bold   pepper  is   stored   and<\/p>\n
replaced the pepper waste with bold pepper for onward<\/p>\n
transport to outside Kerala through Border Check Post.<\/p>\n
It is also clear from the above words which runs “through<\/p>\n
this modus operandi, he had transported more than 1564 bags of<\/p>\n
Pepper and 80 bags of Supari procured from Kannur and Kasaragod<\/p>\n
area and evaded payment of tax legitimately due to Government by<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                  :-12-:\n<\/p>\n
\nfraudulently   obtaining   transit   pass   on   the   strength   of   Mahe<\/p>\n
invoice.”    In   the   present   case,   it   is   the   stand   of   the<\/p>\n
prosecution   that   when   the   petitioner   with   the   vehicle<\/p>\n
approached the Check Post, the vehicle was intercepted<\/p>\n
on the basis of Intelligence Report even before obtaining<\/p>\n
the Transit Pass.  So the prosecution is specific that even<\/p>\n
before   obtaining   the   Transit   Pass,   they   intercepted.     If<\/p>\n
that be so, it cannot be said that any of the ingredients<\/p>\n
of Section  415 or  420 of I.P.C. is attracted.   Of course,<\/p>\n
there   may  be   violation   of  other   statutory   provisions   for<\/p>\n
which   the   concerned   authority   has   already   initiated<\/p>\n
proceedings as evidenced by the documents produced by<\/p>\n
the petitioners.   That does not mean that on the basis of<\/p>\n
the present set of averments, an offence   under Section<\/p>\n
420 is disclosed.   It appears that the date of occurrence<\/p>\n
as   alleged   is   25.1.2003   and   thereafter,   more   than   five<\/p>\n
years   are   over   and   so   far,   there   is   no   progress   in   the<\/p>\n
trial   and   especially   in   the   absence   of   sufficient   factual<\/p>\n
averments and allegations so as to constitute the offence<\/p>\n
under   Section   420   of   I.P.C.,   there   is   no   meaning   in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                 :-13-:\n<\/p>\n
\ndirecting   the   petitioner   to   undergo   the   ordeal   of   trial,<\/p>\n
especially   in   a   case   where   there   is   no   scope   for<\/p>\n
conviction.     Therefore,   I   am   of   the   view   that   the<\/p>\n
registration   of   the   crime   and   all   further   proceedings<\/p>\n
thereon   including   the   investigation   and   the   subsequent<\/p>\n
institution of Calendar Case   in Crime No.59 of 2003 of<\/p>\n
Thalassery  Police   Station  is  a  clear  abuse  of process of<\/p>\n
court   and   for   the   ends   of   justice,   it   is   absolutely<\/p>\n
inevitable to quash all the proceedings thereon.<\/p>\n
        11.    In   the   result,   this   Crl.M.C.   is   allowed<\/p>\n
quashing   Annexure   A4   F.I.R.   and   the   final   report   and<\/p>\n
C.C.No.417   of   2004   instituted   thereon   and   pending   in<\/p>\n
the  Court  of  the  Judicial  First  Class  Magistrate’s  court,<\/p>\n
Thalassery.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  V.K.Mohanan,<\/p>\n
                                                        Judge<\/p>\n
Mbs\/<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                                        :-14-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   V.K.MOHANAN, J<\/p>\n
                                —————————————————-<\/p>\n
                                           Crl.M.C.NO.  3010 OF 2003<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                           ——————————————–<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                      O R D E R<\/p>\n
                                                  DATED: 22-2-2008<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.NO. 3010 of 2003<\/p>\n
                            :-15-:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 3010 of 2003() 1. T.KUNHI MOOSA, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. SALES TAX INSPECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-89004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 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\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-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=\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-16T23:44:57+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-16T23:44:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2346,\"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\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\",\"name\":\"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-16T23:44:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 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":"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 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\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-16T23:44:57+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-16T23:44:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"},"wordCount":2346,"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\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008","name":"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-16T23:44:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-kunhi-moosa-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Kunhi Moosa vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 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\/89004","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=89004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}