{"id":96837,"date":"1999-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999"},"modified":"2015-10-21T16:12:59","modified_gmt":"2015-10-21T10:42:59","slug":"omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999","title":{"rendered":"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T. Thomas, M.B. Shah<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1152 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nOMPARKASH SHIVPRAKASH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.I. KURIAKOSE AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/11\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. THOMAS &amp; M.B. SHAH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1999 Supp(4) SCR 269<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>THOMAS, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant is a firm. It has now been impleaded as the 6th accused in a<br \/>\nprosecution case launched by the Food Inspector, Cochin Corporation, for<br \/>\nthe offence under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,<br \/>\n1954 (for short &#8220;the Act&#8221;). Appellant moved the High Court under Section<br \/>\n482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short &#8220;the Code&#8221;) to quash the<br \/>\norder by which the appellant was impleaded as an accused in the criminal<br \/>\ncase, A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition as<br \/>\nper the order which is now being challenged before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>The skeletal facts, for dealing with the questions raised, are these:\n<\/p>\n<p>Food Inspector of Cochin Corporation filed a complaint before a judicial<br \/>\nmagistrate court at Ernakulam, against five persons shown as accused<br \/>\nalleging that on 16.9.1995 another Food Inspector, who was attached to the<br \/>\nmobile Vigilance squad, had visited the business premises of the first<br \/>\naccused and took sample of 750 grams of Toor Dhall and divided it into<br \/>\nthree parts as prescribed by the Rules; when one of the parts of the sample<br \/>\nwas analysed by the Public Analyst it was found not conforming to the<br \/>\nstandards prescribed for Toor Dhall and that it contained Kesari Dhall<br \/>\nwhich is a prohibited substance: As the first accused told the Food<br \/>\nInspector that he purchased the article from second accused the Food<br \/>\nInspector sent a letter to the second accused (third accused is the<br \/>\nManaging Partner of the second accused firm). In reply to the letter the<br \/>\nthird accused informed that he purchased the food article from the 4th<br \/>\naccused firm (of which 5th accused is the person in charge of the<br \/>\nbusiness). Thus the Food Inspector has arrayed all the above five persons<br \/>\nas accused in the complaint<\/p>\n<p>The 5th accused soon after entering appearance in the court filed a<br \/>\npetition to implead the appellant firm as an accused in the case on the<br \/>\npremise that 5th accused purchased the Toor Dhall from the appellant<br \/>\ncompany. On 23.1.1998 an order was passed by the learned magistrate on the<br \/>\nsaid petition on the following lines :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Heard the Petitioner and the other accused persons. Since A.P.P. is not<br \/>\navailable, he could not be heard. However the bill No, OS\/td\/046 dated<br \/>\n7.4.1995 produced by the petitioner shows that they purchased Toor Dhall<br \/>\nfrom M\/s. Omprakash Shivprakash Akola. Hence, for the ends of justice it is<br \/>\nnecessary that they shall be impleaded as an accused in this case. Hence<br \/>\nthe petition is allowed and M\/s. Omprakash Shivprakash Ltd., Kiranabazar,<br \/>\nAkola, represented by Sanjay Kumar is impleaded as an accused in this case.<br \/>\nIssue summons to him.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned Single Judge repelled the contention of the appellant that it could<br \/>\nnot have been impleaded at that stage and in support of such stand learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge relied on the decisions in <a href=\"\/doc\/1224472\/\">M\/s Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander v.<br \/>\nDelhi Administration,<\/a> [1975] I SCC 866 and <a href=\"\/doc\/431513\/\">Delhi Cloth and General Mills<br \/>\nCo. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Ors.,<\/a> [1995J 6 SCC 62, besides two other<br \/>\ndecisions of the same High Court. Learned Single Judge has observed thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is clear from the above noted decisions of the Supreme Court and this<br \/>\nCourt that the manufacturer can be impleaded at any stage of the trial and<br \/>\nit need not be after framing charge under Section 246 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure, if the case is tried as a summons case, instituted<br \/>\notherwise than on a police charge. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the<br \/>\nsenior counsel of the petitioner, relying upon the decision of a two judge<br \/>\nbench of the Supreme Court while considering the commencement of trial<br \/>\nunder general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, has no application<br \/>\nto the commencement of trial of a case for the purpose of the special<br \/>\nprovision in Section 20-A of the P.F.A. Act. Hence, the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner that Annexure-C order passed by the learned Magistrate,<br \/>\nimpleading him as accused before commencement of the trial in this case is<br \/>\nnot sustainable is of no force,&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It can be pointed out now that the plea of any of the accused was not<br \/>\nrecorded nor even asked by the magistrate before he ordered impleadment of<br \/>\nthe appellant Power of the court to implead the manufacturer, distributor<br \/>\nor dealer, in cases involving offences under the Act, is envisaged in<br \/>\nSection 20-A of the Act. It reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged<br \/>\nto have been committed by any person, not being the manufacturer,<br \/>\ndistributor or dealer of any article of food, the court is satisfied, on<br \/>\nthe evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or<br \/>\ndealer is also concerned with that offence, then, the court may,<br \/>\nnotwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 319 of the<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in Section 20 proceed<br \/>\nagainst him as though a prosecution had been instituted against him under<br \/>\nSection 20.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above provision overrides the ban contained in Section 20 of the Act<br \/>\nthat no prosecution shall be instituted for the offences under the Act<br \/>\nexcept by or with the consent of the authorities mentioned in the Section,<br \/>\nThe essential conditions for invoking the power under Section 20-A are that<br \/>\n(1) the trial should have begun already; (2) the trial must be of any<br \/>\noffence under the Act allegedly committed by a person other than the<br \/>\nmanufacturer or distributor or dealer of the food article; (3) the court<br \/>\nmust have been satisfied that such manufacturer or dealer or distributor is<br \/>\nalso concerned with the offence; (4) such satisfaction must have been<br \/>\nformed &#8220;on the evidence adduced before the court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 319 of the Code empowers the court to proceed against any person<br \/>\nwho is not being made an accused already, if it appears from the evidence<br \/>\ncollected in the inquiry or trial of an offence that such person has<br \/>\ncommitted an offence for which he could be tried together with the already<br \/>\narraigned accused. One of the differences between Section 319 of the Code<br \/>\nand Section 20-A of the Act is that, while in the former even if it appears<br \/>\nto the court from the evidence (either during inquiry or trial of the<br \/>\noffence), that another person is to be tried along with the already<br \/>\narraigned accused, then the court can proceed against that other person,<br \/>\nwhile in the latter the satisfaction of the court that such manufacturer<br \/>\n(distributor or dealer) is also concerned with that offence must be<br \/>\ngathered from &#8220;the evidence adduced before it during the trial&#8221;. In other<br \/>\nwords, the power under Section 20-A cannot be invoked until the trial<br \/>\nbegins and after the trial ends.\n<\/p>\n<p>When does the &#8220;trial&#8221; begin as for an offence under the Act? The word<br \/>\n&#8220;trial&#8221; is not defined either in the Act or in the Code. However, the Code<br \/>\nhas distinguished the trial from inquiry as could be noted from Section<br \/>\n2(g) of the Code wherein the word &#8220;inquiry&#8221; is defined thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Inquiry means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code<br \/>\nby a Magistrate or Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The term &#8220;trial&#8221; cannot be given a fixed meaning to be applied in all cases<br \/>\nuniformly. The connotation of that word changes with the difference in<br \/>\nwhich the term is employed in a particular provision of any statute, This<br \/>\nCourt has said in <a href=\"\/doc\/997644\/\">The State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR<\/a> (1957) SC<br \/>\n389 = [1957] SCR 279 thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The words `tried&#8217; and `trial&#8217; appear to have no fixed or universal<br \/>\nmeaning. No doubt, in quite a number of sections in (he Code to which our<br \/>\nattention has been drawn the words `tried&#8217; and `trial&#8217; have been used in<br \/>\nthe sense of reference to a stage after the inquiry. That meaning attaches<br \/>\nto the words in those sections having regard to the context in which they<br \/>\nare used. There is no reason why where these words are used in another<br \/>\ncontext in the Code, they should necessarily be limited in their<br \/>\nconnotation and significance. They are words which must be considered with<br \/>\nregard to the particular context in which they are used and with regard to<br \/>\nthe scheme and purpose of the provision under consideration.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We will examine the relevant provisions to ascertain as to when the trial<br \/>\nin a case involving offences under the Act would commence. Section 16-A of<br \/>\nthe Act empowers a Judicial Magistrate of First Class to try the offence<br \/>\nunder Section 16(1) of the Act in a summary way. Chapter XXI of the Code<br \/>\ndeals with summary trials of which Section 262 says that the procedure<br \/>\nspecified for trial of summons cases shall be followed for summary trial<br \/>\nsubject to some variations. Chapter XX is titled &#8220;Trial of Summon Cases by<br \/>\nMagistrate&#8221;. Section 251 of the Code is the commencing provision of that<br \/>\nChapter, It requires that when the accused appears or is brought before the<br \/>\nmagistrate the particulars of offence shall be stated to him and he shall<br \/>\nbe asked whether he pleads guilty or not. Section 254( 1) of the Code says<br \/>\nthat if the magistrate does not convict the accused he shall proceed to<br \/>\nhear the prosecution and &#8220;take all such evidence&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The above scrutiny of the relevant provisions reveals that the trial of<br \/>\noffences under the Act begins when the magistrate asks the accused whether<br \/>\nhe pleads guilty or not as envisaged in Section 251 of the Code, if the<br \/>\nmagistrate opts to hold summary trial. Hence, evidence in a trial under the<br \/>\nAct can be adduced only after recording the plea of the accused as<br \/>\nenvisaged in the said section. Thus, it is clear that a magistrate can<br \/>\nimplead any person under Section 20-A of the Act only after reaching the<br \/>\nstage envisaged in Section 254(1) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>As a matter of legal proposition this Court has clearly stated in M\/s<br \/>\nBhagwan Das Jagdish Chancier (supra) that &#8220;it is clear that the<br \/>\ncontemplated action can only be taken during the course of the trial&#8221;. (The<br \/>\nsaid decision has been referred to by the learned Single Judge in the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment.)<\/p>\n<p>The other decision cited by the High Court in the judgment is Delhi Cloth<br \/>\nand General Mills Co. Ltd, (supra). In that case a three Judge Bench<br \/>\nconsidered yet another facet of Section 20-A of the Act. However, there is<br \/>\nno indication in the said decision that power under the Section could be<br \/>\nused at any stage before trial commences.\n<\/p>\n<p>In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R. Sahai and ors. etc., AIR (1979) SC<br \/>\n1544 = [1979] 3 SCR 625, a two Judge Bench of this Court has stated that<br \/>\nthe power under Section 20-A can be exercised only during trial. The<br \/>\nrelevant facts in that case were that a magistrate acquitted an accused and<br \/>\nthereafter he issued notice to the manufacturer purportedly under Section<br \/>\n20-A of the Act. When the said manufacturer challenged the action of the<br \/>\nmagistrate this Court laid emphasis to the words &#8220;during trial of any<br \/>\noffence&#8221;, and observed thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The opening lines of Section 20-A clearly contemplate a contingency where<br \/>\nthe discretionary jurisdiction under this Act can be exercised only during<br \/>\nthe trial of any offence, that is to say, the stage at which the Magistrate<br \/>\ncan exercise the discretion under this section must be before the trail has<br \/>\nconcluded and ended in acquittal or conviction&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus the position is clear that power under Section 20-A cannot be invoked<br \/>\nbefore the stage of adducing evidence in the trial, nor can it be invoked<br \/>\nafter the conclusion of the trial. In the present case, the magistrate has<br \/>\nchosen to exercise the power prematurely and hence the action is without<br \/>\njurisdiction. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt and that of the Magistrate, However, we make it clear that this<br \/>\njudgment will not preclude the magistrate from considering the question<br \/>\nafresh at the appropriate stage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999 Bench: K.T. Thomas, M.B. Shah CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1152 of 1999 PETITIONER: OMPARKASH SHIVPRAKASH RESPONDENT: K.I. KURIAKOSE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/11\/1999 BENCH: K.T. THOMAS &amp; M.B. SHAH JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1999 Supp(4) SCR 269 The Judgment of the [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-21T10:42:59+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T10:42:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2005,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999\",\"name\":\"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-21T10:42:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-21T10:42:59+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T10:42:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999"},"wordCount":2005,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999","name":"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-21T10:42:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omparkash-shivprakash-vs-k-i-kuriakose-and-ors-on-1-november-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Omparkash Shivprakash vs K.I. Kuriakose And Ors on 1 November, 1999"}]},{"@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\/96837","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=96837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}