{"id":118201,"date":"2009-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-27T01:06:28","modified_gmt":"2019-01-26T19:36:28","slug":"k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 04\/02\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nCrl.A.No.708 of 2002\n\nK.Jayaraman\t\t\t     . . . Appellant\/\n\t\t\t\t\t    Accused\nVs.\n\nState rep. by the\nInspector of Police,\nVigilance and Anticorruption,\nPudukkottai.\n(Crime No.2 of 1996)\t\t     . . . Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t   Complainant\n\n\t Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the\nconviction and sentence dated 18.04.2002 passed in Special Calendar Case No.1 of\n1998 by the Addl. District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.\n\n!For appellant    ...Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham,\n\t\t     Senior Counsel for\n\t\t     Mr.M.Suri\n^For respondent   ...Mr.Muthuvenkatesan,\n\t\t     Government Advocate,\n\t\t     (criminal side)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tChallenge in this criminal appeal is to the conviction and sentence dated
\n18.04.2002 passed in Special Calendar Case No.1 of 1998, by the Additional
\nDistrict cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The epitome of the prosecution case is that the accused by name
\nJayaraman has served as Junior Assistant, in the office of the District Manager,
\nTamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited (TADHCO),
\nPudukottai, during the relevant period i.e. from 17.07.1992 to 20.11.1996.  He
\nis a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act, 1988. The complainant by name K.Tamilselvan, son of Karuppan
\nbelongs to Hindu Adi-Diravidar Community and on 08.08.1996 he submitted an
\napplication with all enclosures for getting a loan of Rs.77,360\/- in Co-
\noperative Land Development Bank, Annavasal so as to purchase a Xerox machine. On
\n25.07.1996 he submitted an application for sanctioning of marginal money and
\nsubsidy in the office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing
\nand Development Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukkottai. The special Officer,
\nCo-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Annavasal has sent Form-III to the
\nOffice of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development
\nCorporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukottai. The application of the complainant
\nhas been dealt with by the accused.  On 07.11.1996 the accused has demanded
\nRs.3,000\/- from the complainant by way of illegal gratification.  On 19.11.1996
\nalso the accused has demanded Rs.3,000\/- from the complainant and then reduced
\nthe amount to the tune of Rs.2,500\/- and also directed him to pay Rs.1,000\/- as
\nfirst instalment and the complainant has expressed his inability, but the
\naccused has asked him to pay Rs.800\/- as first instalment and further he
\ndirected the complainant to give the same on 19.11.1996 at about 3.00 p.m. by
\nputting the same in a cover and accordingly, on the same date, the accused has
\nreceived the said sum of Rs.800\/- from the complainant and under the said
\ncircumstances, the accused is said to have committed offences under Sections 7 &
\n13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The investigating agency, after completing investigation, has laid a
\nfinal report on the file of the trial Court and the same has been taken on file
\nin Special Calendar Case No.1 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.On the basis of the alleged culpability of the accused, the trial Court
\nhas framed first charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
\n1988 and the second charge under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the said
\nAct and the same have been read over and explained to him.  The accused has made
\na candid denial and also claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 have been examined and
\nExs.P1 to P24 and MOs.1 to 6 have been marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in
\nevidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crimes.  However no oral
\nand documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.On the basis of available evidence on record, the trial Court has found
\nthe accused guilty under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
\nof Corruption Act, 1988 and for each offence sentenced him to undergo two years
\nrigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000\/- with default clause.
\nAgainst the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present
\ncriminal appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused as appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Before excogitating the rival submissions made by either counsel, it
\nwould be more useful to look into the necessary factual and legal aspects so as
\nto attract the penal provisions of Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In a case like this, the following factual and legal aspects are very
\nmuch essential;\n<\/p>\n
\ta)There must be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by
\nthe concerned accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)The concerned accused must have accepted the same or agreed to accept
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)If the concerned trap has been done due   to motive, the concerned
\naccused should prove the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.With these legal and factual aspects, the Court has to perpend the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the
\ncomplainant by name Tamilselvan belongs to Hindu Adi Diravidar Community. On
\n08.08.1996 he submitted an application in the Co-operative Land Development
\nBank, Annavasal for getting a loan of Rs.77,360\/- so as to purchase a Xerox
\nmachine and during the relevant period, the accused has served as Junior
\nAssistant in the Office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar
\nHousing and Development Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukottai and the
\napplication of the complainant has been dealt with by the accused and on
\n07.11.1996 the accused has demanded Rs.3,000\/- from the complainant and also
\ndirected him to pay Rs.1000\/- as initial payment.  On 19.11.1996 at about 11.30
\na.m. the complainant has again met the accused in his office and he demanded
\nRs.3,000\/- from the complainant and subsequently reduced the same to the tune of
\nRs.2,500\/- and also directed him to pay Rs.1000\/- as initial payment and the
\ncomplainant has expressed his inability and therefore, the accused has directed
\nhim to pay Rs.800\/- by placing the same in a cover, on the same day, at about
\n3.00 p.m. and accordingly, on the same day, at about 4.50 p.m. the accused has
\nreceived Rs.800\/- from the complainant by way of gratification other than legal
\nremuneration.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.As adverted to earlier, the first two legal as well as factual aspects
\nmust be proved only by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The prosecution has set the law in motion on the basis of complaint
\nalleged to have been given by the complainant on 19.11.1996 to the Inspector,
\nVigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai and the same has been marked as Ex.P4,
\nwherein it has been clearly stated about the factum of submission of necessary
\napplication by the complainant and also about the demand of money by the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The author of Ex.P4 viz., complainant has been examined as PW2.  He
\nwould say in his evidence that he has studied upto 10th standard and he is an
\nunemployed and on 08.08.1996 he submitted an application for getting loan along
\nwith all relevant documents. On 30.10.1996, the Special Officer has passed
\nnecessary orders and after one week, he has gone to the office of the District
\nManager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and Development Corporation Limited,
\n(TADHCO), Pudukottai and met the Manager and he directed him to meet the accused
\nviz., Jayaraman and after lapse of ten days, he appeared for interview.  After
\nthree months, he again met the Manager and he directed him to meet the accused.
\nOn 07.11.1996, he met the accused and the accused has directed him to give
\nRs.3,000\/- for making necessary recommendations and he expressed to the effect
\nthat he is not in a position to give the same and the accused has told him that
\nhe should give Rs.1,000\/- for Deepavali Expenses. On 18.11.1996 he again went to
\nthe office of the District Manager, Tamil Nadu Adi Diravidar Housing and
\nDevelopment Corporation Limited, (TADHCO), Pudukottai and on that day, the
\naccused has not come to the office and on 19.11.1996 at about 11.30 a.m. he met
\nthe accused and he demanded Rs.3,000\/- and he expressed his inability and
\nultimately told him that he would give Rs.800\/- and the accused has directed him
\nto give the said amount by way of putting the same in a cover and subsequently
\nhe has given Ex.P4 to the Inspector, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai
\nand the signature found thereon is Ex.P5.  On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m.
\ntwo officials have come to the office of the Vigilance and Anticorruption and
\nafter five minutes, he has been directed to come inside and the Inspector has
\ngiven the complaint given by him to the said officials and after reading the
\nsame, they ascertained its genuineness and subsequently the Inspector has
\nobserved all formalities and directed him and also the officer by name
\nSrinivasan to go to the office of the accused and accordingly both of them have
\ngone there at about 4.30 p.m. and both of them have met the accused.  The
\naccused has demanded money from him by way of making gesticulation and he
\nreplied to the effect that he has brought Rs.800\/- as demanded by the accused
\nand subsequently handed over the cover in question to the accused and he
\nreceived the same by using his right hand and by using his left hand, he placed
\nthe same in a drawer of a table and after some time, he and the said Srinivasan
\nhave come out from the office of the accused and he has given necessary signal
\nto the Inspector, Vigilance and Anticorruption and he and others have come to
\nthe office of the accused and he identified the accused to the Inspector of
\nVigilance and Anticorruption.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The decoy witness by name Srinivasan has been examined as PW3.  He has
\nstated in his evidence that on 19.11.1996 he served as Assistant Engineer in
\nVeeran Alagumuthukone Transport Corporation and on the same day, at about 3.30
\np.m. his higher official has received a secret information and directed him to
\ngo to the office of the Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai and
\naccordingly he has gone there at about 4.00 p.m. and one Ramakodi, Assistant
\nEngineer, has also come there and both of them have met the Inspector, Vigilance
\nand Anticorruption and he introduced the complainant. The Inspector of Vigilance
\nand Anticorruption, has given a complaint alleged to have been given by the
\ncomplainant and both of them have read and ascertained its genuineness by way of
\nenquiring the complainant and subsequently, the complainant has given Rs.800\/-
\n(Eight Hundred Rupees Currency Notes)  and the Inspector of Vigilance and
\nAnticorruptuion, after observing all formalities, has asked him and also PW2 to
\ngo to the Office of the accused and accordingly on the same day, at about 4.50
\np.m. he and PW2 met the accused and the accused has demanded money from the
\ncomplainant by way of gesticulation and the complainant has given the cover in
\nquestion which contained Rs.800\/- and the same has been received by the accused
\nand further he has stated in his evidence that after some time, necessary signal
\nhas been given to the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption and the
\ncomplainant has identified the accused to the Inspector of Vigilance and
\nAnticorruption and subsequently, all formalities have been observed and the
\nInspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption has seized the cover which contained
\nRs.800\/- from the complainant and also another cover under mahazars.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The concerned Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai
\nhas been examined as PW7.  He would say in his evidence that on 19.11.1996 he
\nserved as Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai and on the same
\nday, PW2 has given the complaint which has been marked as Ex.P4, wherein it has
\nbeen stated that the accused has demanded Rs.3,000\/- from him by way of
\ngratification other than legal remuneration and he accepted to give Rs.800\/-.
\nAfter ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint, he sought the role of PW3
\nand one Ramakodi. The accused has given Rs.800\/- (Eight Hundred Rupees Currency
\nNotes) and after observing all necessary formalities, he directed PWs.2 & 3 to
\ngo to the office of the accused and accordingly they have gone there and after
\ngetting signal from PW2, he and others entered into the office of the accused
\nand he has been enquired into about the money received by him and initially he
\nrefused and subsequently he produced the cover which contained Rs.800\/- and
\nafter observing all formalities, he recovered the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.The money, alleged to have been demanded and received by the accused,
\nhas been marked as MO.1 series and the covers in question have been marked as
\nMOs.5 & 6.  The concerned Chemical Analysist has been examined as PW8.  She
\nwould say in her evidence that she examined all the materials objects in
\nquestion and ultimately submitted her report which has been marked as Ex.P23.
\nTherefore, from the conjoint reading of Ex.P4 as well as other documents and
\nalso testimonies of PWs.2, 3, 7 & 8, coupled with the materials objects referred
\nto above, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that on 19.11.1996
\nthe accused has demanded gratification other than legal remuneration from PW2
\nviz., complainant and accordingly, he received the same from the complainant on
\nthe same day.  Under the said circumstances, there is no dubitation in coming to
\na conclusion that the accused has committed the offences mentioned in the
\ncharges.  Therefore, it is quite clear that the prosecution has clearly
\nestablished the first two factual and legal aspects.\n<\/p>\n
\t  18.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/accused has made his
\nfirst attack to the effect that the uncle of the complainant by name Tamilselvan
\nhad tried to obtain bullock cart loan illegally and his attempt has been turned
\ndown by the accused and due to that a strong motive is in existence between the
\ncomplainant and accused, and in order to wreck vengeance, Ex.P4 has been given
\nerroneously and further the complainant has clearly admitted in his evidence
\nthat the accused has received the cover in question by way of thinking that the
\nsaid cover only contains Form-III and therefore, the accused has not made any
\ndemand of gratification other than legal remuneration so as to invoke the penal
\nprovisions of Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act, 1988 and therefore, the same are not present in this case and
\nthe conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are totally erroneous and
\nthe same are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.Of-course it is true that PW2, viz., complainant during the course of
\ncross-examination has admitted to the effect that his uncle’s name is
\nTamilselvan.  But, further he has stated in his evidence that he has not known
\nabout the alleged attempt made by the said Tamilselvan so as to get bullock cart
\nloan illegally and the same has been rejected by the accused. If really the said
\nTamilselvan has applied for getting bullock cart loan and the same has been
\nrejected by the accused, definitely, some documents would have emerged
\nofficially, but to utter dismay, no such document has been filed on the side of
\nthe defence.  Further as stated earlier, PW2 viz., complainant has not at all
\naccepted the alleged attempt made by the said Tamilselvan.  Therefore, the
\nalleged motive for trap has not at all been established on the side of the
\naccused.  It has already been pointed out to the effect that if the alleged trap
\nhas been done due to motive, the same should be proved by the accused.  In the
\ninstant case, as animadverted to earlier, no acceptable and trustworthy evidence
\nare placed on the side of the accused so as to explain the alleged motive for
\ntrap.  Under the said circumstances, the first limb of argument advanced by the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the appellant\/accused is sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/accused has also
\nadvanced his inert argument to the effect that in the instant case, the alleged
\ndemand as well as receipt of the gratification other than legal remuneration on
\nthe part of the appellant\/accused have not been proved by the prosecution, in
\nview of the clear admission made by PW2 viz., complainant and the trial Court
\nwithout considering the above aspect has erroneously invited the conviction and
\nsentence against him and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the
\ntrial Court are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) has
\nsparingly contended that in the instant case, the alleged demand as well as
\nreceipt of gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused have
\nclearly been proved by PWs.2 & 3 and other connected witnesses, and therefore,
\nthe argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/accused
\nis of no use and the same is liable to be eschewed.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/accused has advanced
\nthe above limb of argument on the basis of the evidence given by PW2 viz.,
\ncomplainant to the effect that the accused has received the cover in question by
\nway of thinking that it contains Form-III. It is an everlasting principle of law
\nthat the evidence of witnesses should be read in whole and the Court cannot read
\na  portion of evidence by way of pick and choose.  In the instant case, PW2
\nviz., complainant has clinchingly stated in his evidence about the alleged
\ndemand made by the accused on 07.11.1996 and also on 19.11.1996 and further he
\nstated in his evidence that on 19.11.1996, he and PW3 have met the accused and
\nthe accused has demanded money from him by way of making gesticulation. The
\ndecoy witness by name Srinivasan is an Assistant Engineer and he has been
\nexamined as PW3 and no motive has been suggested to him so as to give false
\nevidence against the accused and his clear testimonies are that on 19.11.1996 as
\nper the direction of the Inspector of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai,
\nhe and PW2 have met the accused in his office and he demanded money from PW2 by
\nway of making gesticulation and PW2 has given the cover which contained Rs.800\/-
\nand the same has been received by the accused and subsequently placed the same
\nin a drawer of a table and after getting signal from PW2, the Inspector of
\nVigilance and Anticorruption and others have come to the office of the accused
\nand he recovered the amount in question from the accused.   In fact, the
\nevidence of PW2 has been clearly corroborated by unshattered evidence of PW3.
\nBy way of believing the testimonies given by PWs.2 & 3, the Court can easily
\ncome to a conclusion that the accused has demanded the money in question from
\nthe complainant and the complainant has given the same to the accused and he
\naccepted the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.Of-course it is true that PW2, during fag end of his cross-examination,
\nadmits to the effect that the accused has received the cover in question
\nthinking that it contains Form-III. But, as stated in many places, both PWs.2 &
\n3 have clearly stated in their evidence about the demand of money by the accused
\nas well as receipt of the same by him.  Simply because PW2 has given evidence to
\nthe effect mentioned supra, the Court cannot belittle the remaining portion of
\nevidence given by PW2 as well as the entire evidence given by PW3.  Therefore,
\nthe second attack made on the side of the appellant\/accused cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/accused has advanced
\nhis residual argument stating that the specific case of the prosecution is that
\nthe money alleged to have been given to the accused has been placed in a pink
\ncolour cover and the same has not been subjected to chemical analysis and
\ntherefore, the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.In order to analyse the above argument, evidence of PW7 should be
\nscrutinished very carefully.  It has already been pointed out that the concerned
\nInspector has been examined as PW7.  He would say in his evidence that the
\naccused has produced a pink colour cover and the same has been examined and
\nfound Rs.800\/- (Eight Hundred Rupees Currency Notes) and its numbers have been
\ncompared with the numbers noted down in Ex.P6 and the same are tallied and
\nfurther he would say in his evidence that a brown colour cover has also been
\ntaken and the same has been subjected to chemical examination and therefore, it
\nis very clear that the cover which contained the money in question has not been
\nsubjected to chemical examination. It is only a flimsy mistake committed on the
\nside of the prosecution.  Further the alleged demand of money as well as receipt
\nof the same by the accused from PW2 and also seizure have been clearly proved by
\nthe prosecution.  Since the above factual and legal aspects have been clearly
\nproved by the prosecution, it is needless to say that the said flimsy mistake
\ncommitted by the prosecution has not at all impinched its case.  Therefore, the
\nresidual argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellant\/accused is also equally sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.Now the Court has to analyse the quantum of sentence imposed against
\nthe appellant\/accused under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The trial Court has awarded two years
\nrigorous imprisonment under the said Sections for each offence and also imposed
\na fine of Rs.1000\/- with default clause (In aggregation Rs.2,000\/-).\n<\/p>\n
\t27.Considering the quantum of amount received by the accused, this Court
\nis of the view that one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence would be
\nsufficient to meet the ends of justice and to that extent alone, the present
\ncriminal appeal can be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed in part.  The conviction
\npassed by the trial Court under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant\/accused is confirmed,
\nbut, the sentence imposed against him, for each offence is modified as follows;
\n\tThe appellant\/accused is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous
\nimprisonment for offences committed  under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
\nof the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  In other aspect, the judgment of the
\ntrial Court is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
gcg<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The Addl. District Judge cum
\n  Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Pudukkottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/02\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM Crl.A.No.708 of 2002 K.Jayaraman . . . Appellant\/ Accused Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Pudukkottai. (Crime No.2 of 1996) . . […]<\/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-118201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009 - 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-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-26T19:36:28+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=\"19 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-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T19:36:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3629,\"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-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T19:36:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009 - 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-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-26T19:36:28+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T19:36:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009"},"wordCount":3629,"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-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009","name":"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T19:36:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayaraman-vs-state-rep-by-the-on-4-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Jayaraman vs State Rep. By The on 4 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/118201","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=118201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}