{"id":115336,"date":"2004-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004"},"modified":"2015-08-04T22:08:54","modified_gmt":"2015-08-04T16:38:54","slug":"k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 16\/02\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI\n\nCRL.APPEAL No.357 of 1997\n\nK. Dhanalakshmi                                        ...  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by:\nInspector of Factories,\nVillupuram.                                     ...  Respondent.\n\n                Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 30.12.1996 made  in\nC.C.   No.10  of  1996  on  the  file  of  Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief\nJudicial Magistrate, Villupuram.\n\n!For appellant  :  Mr.N.Sankarasubramanian\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                Appellant is the Accused in C.C.No.10 of 1996 on the  file  of
\nAdditional Sessions  Judge-cum-Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.  By the
\njudgment dated 30.12.1996, Accused was convicted under  Sec.6  and  Sec.92  of
\nFactories  Act, 1948 r\/w Rule 3 of 1950, Sec.6(1) and Sec.92 of Factories Act,
\n1948 r\/w Rule 4 of 1950 and Sec.7(1) and Sec.92 of  Factories  Act,  1948  r\/w
\nRule  12  of  1950 and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000 \/- on each count; total fine
\namount of Rs.15,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Respondent \/ Complainant is the Factories Inspector, Villupuram.   The
\nAppellant  \/  Accused – Dhanalakshmi is the owner and the occupier of Sri Siva
\nBlue Metals, where stone crushing work is being carried on.  On  20.06.1996  –
\n3.30 p.m., Factories Inspector, Villupuram inspected Sri Siva Blue Metals.  At
\nthat time,  he  had  noted six men and five women working.  The stone crushing
\nwork was being done, installing the machinery of 40  H.P.    At  the  time  of
\ninspection, Factories Inspector noted the following violations:-\n<\/p>\n
Sec.7(1) r\/w Rule 12
\n        Violation of Sec.7(1)
\nr\/w Rule 12<\/p>\n
Requiring  previous permission in writing of the State Government or the Chief
\nInspector to be obtained for the site on which the factory to be situated  and
\nfor the construction or extension of any factory ;\n<\/p>\n
For the purpose of considering applications for such permission the submission
\nof plans and specifications.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant \/ Accused has not obtained prior permission for the plan;\n<\/p>\n
Nature of the plan was not submitted in violation of Sec.6(1)(b) r\/w Rule 3.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 6(1)(d) r\/w Rule 4
\nViolation of Sec.6(1)(d)
\nr\/w Rule 4
\nThe Rule may require for the-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Registration of factories or any class or description of factories,\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Licensing of factories or any class or description of factories,\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  Fees  payable  for  such  registration and licensing and the renewal of
\nlicences.\n<\/p>\n
Total amount of power installed was 40 H.P.;\n<\/p>\n
Six men and five women were employed in the stone crushing unit;\n<\/p>\n
Non obtaining of registration of Factories \/ licencing of  factories  and  non
\npayment  of  fees  payable  for  such  registration,  which is in violation of
\nSec.6(1)(d) r\/w Rule 4.\n<\/p>\n
Section 7(1) imposes an obligation on the occupier of  a  factory  to  send  a
\nwritten  notice,  containing prescribed particulars, to the Chief Inspector at
\nleast 15 days before an occupier begins to occupy  or  use  a  premises  as  a
\nfactory–\n<\/p>\n
The name and situation of the factory;\n<\/p>\n
The name and address of the occupier and such others.
\nNot sent the written notice to the Chief Inspector in the form with prescribed
\nparticulars  as  contemplated under Sec.7(1) within 15 days prior to occupying
\nor using the premises as a factory; thereby violating Sec.7(1) r\/w Rule 12.\n<\/p>\n
All the above violations are punishable under Sec.92 of the Factories Act.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Complainant \/ Factories Inspector prepared the  Inspection
\nReport.  Show  cause notice was served upon the Appellant \/ Accused.  Since no
\nreply was forthcoming, complaint was launched against the Appellant \/  Accused
\nfor  violations of provisions of Factories Act on three counts as noted above.
\nThe facts constituting the gist of the offences were set forth in the charge.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  In the trial Court, when the Accused was  questioned,  she
\nhas admitted  the offences.  On her admission, the trial convicted the Accused
\nunder Ss.6 of Factories Act, 1948 r\/w Rule 3 of 1950, 6(1) of  Factories  Act,
\n1948  r\/w  Rule  4 of 1950 and 7(1) of Factories Act, 1948 r\/w Rule 12 of 1950
\nand imposed a  fine  of  Rs.5,000\/-  on  each  count;  total  fine  amount  of
\nRs.15,000\/-.   Aggrieved  over  the  imposition  of  fine  of Rs.15,000\/-, the
\nAppellant \/ Accused has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  In the Memorandum  of  Grounds,  it  is  stated  that  for
\nsimilar  other Accused, the uniform fine amount of Rs.100\/- is imposed and the
\nAppellant \/ Accused ought to have been viewed of similar  footing  imposing  a
\nfine of Rs.100\/-.  Assailing the quantum of fine as harsh, the learned counsel
\nfor the Appellant \/ Accused has raised the following three contentions:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)     Placing reliance upon the case of State of Gujarat v.   Dineshchandra
\n(1994 CRL.L.J.1393) it is submitted that        when the guilt is not pure and
\nsimple, there cannot be finding of guilty and imposition of fine;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    further reliance placed upon in Kerala judgment (AIR    1958    KERALA\n<\/p>\n
237) in support of the contention that for      violation of Ss.6  and  7  r\/w
\nRules 3, 4 and 12, penal        provision of Sec.92 is not applicable.<\/p>\n
\n\n(iii)On 07.11.1996, Appellant \/ Accused has obtained the        licence    for\nrunning the stone crusher, which the trial      Court has not  taken  note  of\nwhile recording the plea of     guilt  on  30.12.1996  and  imposing  fine  of\nRs.5,000\/-      on each count.\n\n<\/pre>\n
                6.  Pointing out that the Quarry was in full operation on  the
\ndate  of  Inspection  –  20.06.1996, the learned Government Advocate submitted
\nthat only penal provision of Sec.92 of the Act is applicable  and  when  under<\/p>\n
Sec.92 of the Act for any violation two years punishment and fine of Rs.1 Lakh
\nis  provided  for, the trial Court has shown extreme leniency in imposing fine
\nof Rs.5,000\/- on each counts, which warrants no interference.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  This appeal is preferred against the plea of admission  of
\nguilt.   Under  Sec.375  Crl.P.C.,  no  appeal  lies in cases when the Accused
\npleads guilty excepting to the extent or legality of the sentence.  It  is  to
\nbe  seen  whether the fine amount of Rs.5,000\/- on each counts on admission of
\nplea of guilt is reasonable or excessive  as  contended  by  the  Appellant  \/
\nAccused.\n<\/p>\n
                        8.  We may firstly refer to the third contention urged
\nby the  Appellant  \/ Accused.  It is submitted that the Appellant has obtained
\nthe permission and licence for the quarry on 07.11.1996, which was  not  taken
\nnote  of  by  the trial Court while recording the plea of guilt and imposing a
\nfine, by judgment dated 30.12.1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            9.<\/span><\/p>\n
Obtaining permission \/ licence on 07.11.1996 would not in any way mitigate the
\nrigor of the earlier violation.  It is to be noted that the show cause  notice
\nwas  issued  to  the  Accused  on  02.0  7.1996  as  to  why she should not be
\nprosecuted.  In continuation of the show cause notice, Corrigendum was  issued
\nto the Accused on 14.08.1 996.  Despite issuance of the notices, the Appellant
\nhas  not  taken immediate steps to obtain licence, indicating that the initial
\npreparation for obtaining the licence, plan and others were not ready at hand.
\nInspecting the premises by the authorities has its definite purpose.    Safety
\nmeasures would  be  ensured  before  issuance  of  the licence.  Operating the
\nquarry without submitting the plan and without obtaining the licence seriously
\nendangers the life of the workers, who are employed in the  Quarry.    On  the
\ndate of  inspection  i.e.  on 20.06.1996 , the Complainant \/ Factory Inspector
\nfound six men and five women working in the  premises  with  40  H.P.    Power
\ninstalled.  It  is  not known whether safety measures were installed.  In that
\nview of the matter, non-obtaining of licence cannot  be  considered  to  be  a
\nsimple violation,  which could be rectified at a later date.  Further more, at
\nthe time of pleading guilty, the Appellant \/ Accused has not  brought  to  the
\nnotice  of  the  trial  Court about her subsequent obtaining of the licence on
\n07.11.1996.  When that was not brought to the notice of the trial  Court,  now
\nit is not open to the Appellant to urge this contention before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                10.    The  decision  in  1994  CRL.L.J.1393  was  a  case  of
\nrepetition of the offence and conviction under Sec.94 of  the  Factories  Act.
\nIn  that  view  of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
\nCourt found that the plea of guilty was not a pure and simple but a ‘composite
\nplea of guilty’.  By perusal of the records of the case in hand,  it  is  seen
\nthat the entire facts containing the gist of the offence were set forth in the
\ncharge and  the  Accused  was  questioned  on  08.12.1996.   All the essential
\ndetails are clearly set forth in the charge and the Accused had  admitted  the
\noffence.   The  admission  of guilt is a simple one and not a composite one as
\nwas the case before the Gujarat High Court.    The  said  decision  cannot  be
\napplied to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   The  learned  counsel  for  the  Appellant \/ Accused has
\ncontended that the penal provision of Sec.92 is not applicable  for  violation
\nof Ss.6  and  7  r\/w  Rules  3, 4 and 12.  This contention also has no merits.
\nSec.92 is the penal provision “for contravention of any of  the  provision  of
\nthis  Act  or  of  any  Rule  made  thereunder  or  of  any  order  in writing
\nthereunder”.  Sec.92 is the general  penal  provision  for  the  offences  and
\nChapter 1  is nowhere excluded from the operation of Sec.9 2.  In the decision
\nrelied upon by the Accused in the case  of  V.M.    Patel  v.    Inspector  of
\nFactories  (AIR  1958  KERALA 237), the premises related to Gujarat Travancore
\nAgency to which the provision of the Factories Act was  not  then  applicable.
\nIn  that  view of the matter, the Kerala High Court held that the requirements
\nof Ss.6 and 7 of the Act r\/w Rules 3, 4 and 12 and the Rules framed thereunder
\nare not punishable under Sec.92 of the Act regarding the premises in question.
\nThat decision cannot be made applicable to the case in hand,  where  Sri  Siva
\nBlue  Metal  Unit is clearly covered under the provisions of the Factories Act
\nto which penal provision of Sec.92 is applicable.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  Sec.92 of the Factories Act contemplates imprisonment for
\na term of two years or with fine which may extend to Rupees One Lakh  or  with
\nboth.   Since  violations  of  the  provisions  are serious offence, huge fine
\namount  of  Rupees  One  Lakh  is  contemplated  for  such  violation  of  the
\nprovisions.  When the licence was not obtained, nor the plan was submitted for
\napproval, the  same  cannot  be viewed as lesser offence.  The trial Court has
\nshown extreme leniency in imposing Rs.5,000\/- on each counts.   It  cannot  be
\nsaid to  be excessive or unreasonable.  This appeal has no merits and is bound
\nto fail.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  Therefore, the conviction of the Appellant \/  Accused  in
\nC.C.No.10  of  1996  (dated 30.12.1996) and the quantum of fine are confirmed.
\nThis appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
sbi<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Addl.  Sessions Judge -cum-\n<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nVillupuram.\n<\/p>\n
2 Through, the Principal District and
\nSessions Judge, Villupuram.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Factories,
\nVillupuram.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Chennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16\/02\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI CRL.APPEAL No.357 of 1997 K. Dhanalakshmi … Appellant -Vs- State by: Inspector of Factories, Villupuram. … Respondent. Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 30.12.1996 made in C.C. […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004 - 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\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-04T16:38:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-04T16:38:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1664,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004\",\"name\":\"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-04T16:38:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004 - 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\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-04T16:38:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-04T16:38:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004"},"wordCount":1664,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004","name":"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-04T16:38:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dhanalakshmi-vs-state-by-on-16-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Dhanalakshmi vs State By: on 16 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/115336","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=115336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115336\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}