{"id":122227,"date":"2003-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003"},"modified":"2019-01-28T10:33:11","modified_gmt":"2019-01-28T05:03:11","slug":"k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 16\/12\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\n\nCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.30168 of 2003\n\n\nK.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah                        ..Petitioner(A2)\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by Inspector of Police,\nE.4 Maduravoil Police Station,\nChengai East District.                          ..Respondent\n\n\n        Petition for anticipatory bail filed under  Section  438  of  Criminal\nProcedure Code.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.  V.  Gopinath, S.C.  for\n                M\/s.  C.Christopher and\n                D.Saravanan\n\n                :  Mr.I.Subramanian, P.P.\n                Amicus Curiae.\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.V.  Jayaprakash Narayanan,G.A.\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        K.V.T.   @  Thirupathiaiah,  the   petitioner   herein   seeking   for
\nanticipatory bail in respect of the case registered in Crime No.792 of 2003 on
\nthe  file  of the Inspector of Police, E.4, Maduravoil Police Station, Chengai
\nEast District, for the offences under Sections 147,148,341,4 47,506(ii) I.P.C.
\nread with  Section  25  of  the  Arms  Act,  has  filed  this  application  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.30168 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  This application was  filed  on  3.9.2003.    The  petitioner  has
\nengaged  Mr.V.Gopinath,  the  senior  counsel  through  the  counsel on record
\nM\/s.C.Christopher and D.Saravanan.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Even prior to this, the very same petitioner filed an  application
\nfor  anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003 in respect of the same case
\non 27.8.2003 through the  counsel  one  Mr.K.Varadha  Raja  and  the  same  is
\npending.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   When  the matter came up before this Court after notice for final
\ndisposal,   Mr.V.Gopinath,   the   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   in
\nCrl.O.P.No.30168  of  2003, would point out that the petitioner Thirupathiaiah
\nhas never engaged the said Mr.Varadha Raja, the learned counsel and he has not
\ngiven instruction to him to file an application for anticipatory bail  and  as
\nsuch,  the application in Crl.O.P.no.29502 of 20 03 has been filed without any
\nauthorisation from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  To this  effect,  Thirupathiaiah,  the  petitioner  has  filed  an
\naffidavit stating that he had not instructed anybody to file anticipatory bail
\npetition  on his behalf and as such, petition in Crl.O.P.No.2950 2 of 2003 was
\nfiled by the said Varadha Raja, the learned counsel without his authorisation.
\nIt is also pointed out in  this  affidavit  that  the  particulars  about  the
\naddress  of  the  petitioner  and  his  father’s  name  are  wrongly  given in
\nCrl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003.  In the petition in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of  2003  filed
\nby the  counsel Mr.Varadha Raja, it is stated that the petitioner is K.V.T.  @
\nThirupathi Ayya, S\/o.  Karuppiah, No.5,  Gandhi  Road,  Villivakkam,  Chennai,
\nwhereas  the  actual particulars relating to the address and father’s name are
\nK.V.T.  @ Thirupathiaiah, S\/o.  K.Venkatasubbiah, No.100, 15th  Cross  Street,
\nSenthil Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai-99.  These particulars are correctly given in
\nthe  complaint  which has been given by the defacto complainant against him as
\nwell as in this petition.       He  has  also  filed  a   separate   affidavit
\nauthorising   Mr.V.Gopinath,   the   learned   senior   counsel  to  represent
\nM\/s.C.Christopher and D.Saravanan to appear for him.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  When the matter was taken up by this Court,  the  said  Mr.Varadha
\nRaja,   who   claimed   himself   as   the   counsel  for  the  petitioner  in
\nCrl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003 was not present.  Then, notice was  ordered  to  him.
\nDespite that,  he  did not appear.  Therefore his Court heard the arguments of
\nMr.V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel in Crl.O.P.No.30 168 of 2003 for the
\npetitioner and also the reply by the Government  Advocate  appearing  for  the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   According  to  prosecution,  one  Krishnan, the Power of Attorney
\nAgent of one Abdul Hadhi Basha has been looking after his lands in the village
\nand one Abdul Haque is having lands adjoining the  lands  of  the  said  Abdul
\nHadhi  Basha  and  when the said Abdul Haque disturbed the possession of Abdul
\nHadhi Basha, Krishnan, his Power Agent gave a complaint to the police, but  no
\naction  was taken and therefore, he filed a suit in O.S.No.197 of 2000 against
\nthe neighbouring  land  owner  Mr.    Abdul  Haque  and  obtained  an  interim
\ninjunction  order  in  I.A.No.740  of  2000 on the file of the District Munsif
\nCourt, Poonamallee.  On 5.7.2 003 at about 6.00 p.m., when Krishnan, the Power
\nAgent  of  Abdul  Hadhi  Basha  was  proceeding  to  the  above   said   land,
\nThirupathiaiah,  the  petitioner and other accused, the supporters of the said
\nAbdul Haque, came to the land and questioned the Power  Agent  and  picked  up
\nquarrel  with  him for having resorted to initiation of the proceedings before
\nthe police as well as before  the  civil  Court.    One  Ranganathan,  M.L.A.,
\nPurasawalkam  Constituency (A3) instigated the petitioner to attack him and at
\nhis instance, the petitioner with a revolver aimed at him and ultimately, shot
\nat the air.  With referen ce to this incident,  Krishnan  lodged  a  complaint
\nbefore the police.    But,  no  action  was  taken.  Therefore, Krishnan filed
\nCrl.O.P.No.26730 of 2003 before this Court for giving  suitable  direction  to
\nthe police.    Accordingly,  this Court by the order dated 13.8.2003, directed
\nthe respondent police to register his complaint and file a final report.    In
\npursuance  of  this  order, the case was registered against the petitioner and
\nothers in Crime No.792 of 2003 by the respondent police for the offences under
\nSections 147, 148, 341, 447, 506(ii) I.P.C.  read with Section 25 of the  Arms
\nAct.   At  that  stage,  the  petitioner apprehending arrest in respect of the
\nabove offences, filed this application in Crl.O.P.No.30168 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  According to Mr.Gopinath, the  learned  senior  counsel,  a  false
\ncomplaint  had been given by the complainant against the petitioner and others
\ndue to rivalry and actually, no such occurrence had taken  place  and  as  the
\npetitioner  is  a respectable person and dealing with Real Estate business, he
\nseeks anticipatory bail, otherwise if arrested, he will be put  to  shame  and
\ndisgrace.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   This  Court  has  heard  the learned Government Advocate and gone
\nthrough the case diary.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  It is to be noted in this context that co-accused Ranganathan has
\nalready been granted anticipatory  bail  subject  to  some  conditions.    The
\ncounsel  for  the  petitioner  would submit that the petitioner is prepared to
\nabide by any condition in the event of grant of anticipatory bail.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  During the pendency of enquiry in this application, this Court by
\nthe order dated 29.9.2003 directed that the petitioner shall not  be  arrested
\npending enquiry  in  this  petition.    Further, this Court passed an order on
\n4.9.2003 directing the petitioner to hand over the revolver which  is  alleged
\nto have  been  used  by  him  to the police within two days.  In the very same
\norder, Mr.K.Varadha Raja, the learned counsel in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003  who
\nclaimed  that  he  has  been engaged by the petitioner, was directed to appear
\nbefore this Court to verify as to whether such an instruction had  been  given
\nby the  petitioner  to  him  as declared by him in his memo of appearance.  In
\npursuance of the above direction, the  petitioner  handed  over  his  revolver
\nbearing No.A-87064,  32  Bore  revolver  make:   Webly & Scott by England, and
\nbearing licence No.4\/4\/V-4 renewed  from  01.01.2003  to  31.12.2005,  to  the
\nInspector of  Police,  E4 Maduravoil Police Station.  To this effect, the memo
\nby the Inspector of Police dated 9.9.2003 has been filed  before  this  Court.
\nHowever,  Mr.K.Varadha  Raja,  the learned counsel in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003
\ndid not choose to appear before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In view of the fact that the occurrence took place  on  5.7.2003,
\nthat  the  co-accused  has already been granted anticipatory bail and that the
\nrevolver has been handed over to the police, this Court is of  the  view  that
\nthe  petitioner  also  could  be  granted  anticipatory  bail  with  stringent
\nconditions in the light of the serious allegation made against him.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the result, the petitioner shall be released on bail,  in  the
\nevent of arrest, on his depositing a cash security of Rs.10,000\/- ( Rupees Ten
\nthousand)  before  the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee and on his
\nexecuting a bond for Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees Ten thousand) with one surety  for  a
\nlike  sum to the satisfaction of the above said Court and on further condition
\nthat he shall report to the respondent police  daily  at  10.00  a.m.    until
\nfurther orders.  The petitioner shall surrender within two weeks from the date
\nof  receipt  of  this  order,  or  else,  this order would stand automatically
\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained to  deal
\nwith  the  sordid feature which is noticed in this case relating to the filing
\nof the application in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003 by one K.   Varadha  Raja,  the
\ncounsel on behalf of the petitioner, even without getting any instruction from
\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   In  this  case,  the  occurrence  had  taken  place on 5.7.2003.
\nInitially, the complaint given by Krishnan, the Power  Agent  of  Abdul  Hadhi
\nBasha was  not entertained by the police.  Subsequently, as stated earlier, by
\nthe order dated 13.8.2003 of this Court, the respondent registered  the  case.
\nWithin a few days, Mr.K.Varadha Raja, the counsel claiming himself that he has
\nbeen  instructed  to  appear on behalf of the petitioner, filed a petition for
\nanticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003  on  27.8.2003
\nalong with the memo of appearance.  Actually, no instruction had been given to
\nhim by the petitioner, who has filed an affidavit to the said effect.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   Without  the knowledge that another application had already been
\nfiled on his behalf in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of 2003 and the same is  pending,  the
\npetitioner  filed  Crl.O.P.No.30168  of  2003  by  engaging  the  counsel M\/s.
\nC.Christopher and D.Saravanan, who in turn engaged Mr.V.  Gopinath, the senior
\ncounsel to argue on behalf of the petitioner Thirupathiaiah.  This application
\nwas filed on 3.9.2003.  Only at that stage, the petitioner came to  know  that
\non  his  behalf,  an application has been filed earlier in Crl.O.P.No.29502 of
\n2003 without getting any  instruction  from  him.    Therefore,  he  filed  an
\naffidavit  in  Crl.O.P.No.29502  of  2003  stating  that he has not instructed
\nanybody to file anticipatory bail petition  and  the  said  anticipatory  bail
\npetition  has  been filed by the same advocate with an ulterior motive without
\nhis instruction by giving different father’s name and address.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In view of such development, as indicated above, this  Court  was
\nconstrained  to issue notice to the said Varadha Raja, the counsel, who claims
\nto be a member of MHAA.  Despite adjourning the matter for  several  hearings,
\nthe  said  K.Varadha  Raja  has  not chosen to appear before this Court, which
\nconduct on the part of the counsel  would  show  that  the  statement  of  the
\npetitioner that  he  has  not  given any instruction to him is true.  Further,
\ncounsel address was not furnished in the memo and his Enrollment  Number  also
\nhas not been given.\n<\/p>\n
        18.   It  is  quite  unfortunate  to  notice  in recent times that the
\nanticipatory bail applications have come to be filed by different advocates in
\nrespect of one and the same accused in the  same  crime  number  both  in  the
\nSessions Court as well as in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   Therefore,  this  Court  asked Mr.V.Gopinath, the learned senior
\ncounsel to give suggestion  to  avoid  this  anomalous  situation  in  future.
\nMr.I.Subramanian,  the  learned Public Prosecutor also was appointed as Amicus
\nCuriae to give suggestion to this Court so that suitable  direction  could  be
\ngiven to  the  Registry of this Court as well as to the Sessions Courts.  Both
\nof them made submissions at length and filed notes of submissions.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  This Court on earlier occasion would come across a case where  an
\naccused  filed  an application for anticipatory bail before the this Court and
\nthe same was dismissed.  After dismissal, he engaged  counsel  at  Madurai  to
\nfile  an  application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Madurai
\nwithout informing about the dismissal of the application in  the  High  Court.
\nThe  said  application  was dismissed by the Madurai Sessions Court on merits.
\nThe accused moved another application through another counsel before the  High
\nCourt  without  showing  the dismissal of the earlier applications both in the
\nHigh Court and in the Sessions Court.  The same was again dismissed on merits.
\nEven thereafter, the petitioner engaged one other counsel before the  Sessions
\nCourt  at  Madurai  and filed an application for anticipatory bail without the
\nearlier details.  This time, the accused was able  to  get  anticipatory  bail
\nbefore the  Madurai  Sessions  Court  subject to some conditions.  Even though
\nanticipatory bail had been obtained by him from the  Madurai  Sessions  Court,
\nanother application has been moved before the High Court without knowing about
\nthe anticipatory  bail  order  of the Sessions Court.  When the matter came up
\nbefore the High Court, neither the counsel for the accused nor the  prosecutor
\ninformed about the grant of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.  However,
\nhaving no knowledge about that, this time, the High Court granted anticipatory
\nbail subject to some condition.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   The  most  funniest  part  is  that  thereafter, even though the
\npetitioner was able to get anticipatory bail both in the Sessions Court and in
\nthe High Court, without knowing the same, one other counsel on behalf  of  the
\npetitioner  filed an application again for anticipatory bail before this Court
\nin respect of the very same case.  Only at that stage, this Court was able  to
\nfind  out  the  sorry state of affairs where the petitioner even after getting
\nanticipatory bail both from the Sessions Court and the High Court, again moved
\nthe High Court by engaging different counsel.   In  that  matter,  ultimately,
\nthis Court found that the police officers have not given proper instruction to
\nthe  Prosecutor  concerned  and  consequently,  this  anomalous  situation was
\ncreated wherein the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail  without  knowing
\nthe  order  of  the  High  Court  dismissing the anticipatory bail application
\nearlier or the Sessions Court  granting  bail  without  knowing  that  already
\nanticipatory bail  granted  by  the High Court.  This Court was constrained to
\nconduct enquiry  in  that  matter  and  summoned  the  persons  concerned  and
\nultimately, this Court imposed heavy costs on the accused concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        22.    These  occasions  had  arisen  due  to  the  only  reason  that
\ninstructions have been given separately  to  different  counsel  both  by  the
\nfriends  and  relatives  of  the  accused  as well as the accused and on those
\ninstructions, the different counsel would rush to the Court to  file  separate
\napplications in  different  fora.  This situation would often arise because of
\nthe fact that there is no opportunity for the counsel to have a direct contact
\nwith the client in such matters.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  It is quite obvious that such an  unsavory  situation  arises  in
\nmatters  of  anticipatory  bail because of the fact that the Criminal Rules of
\nPractice does not provide for vakalat  but  merely  provides  for  a  Memo  of
\nappearance  to  be  filed  on  behalf of the accused persons, be it before the
\nlower Courts or in the High Court for that matter.  Ultimately, the  different
\ncounsel,  who are being misled by the friends and relatives of the accused and
\nthe  accused,  on  the  basis  of  their  instruction,  have  filed  different
\napplications  before  different fora simultaneously, only by filing of memo of
\nappearance as nobody insists for vakalat to be obtained from the accused.  So,
\nin order to avoid such anomalies, the present endeavour is made detailing  the
\nrelevant  provisions of the Criminal Rules of Practice and suggesting ways and
\nmeans to remove such ugly picture in future.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  The Criminal Rules of Practice and Orders are framed  and  issued
\nfrom  time  to  time  by  the Government and the High Court in exercise of the
\npowers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  The preamble to
\nthe Criminal Rules of Practice, Madras would however state that the High Court
\nmakes the rules and orders for the guidance of Criminal Courts  and  the  High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  Rule 29(28) of the Rules of Practice provides as under:
\n        “Pleader  to  file  vakalatnama for prosecution and memo of appearance
\nfor defence.— (1) Every Pleader, as defined in  Section  4(r)  of  the  Code
\nother  than  an Advocate or a Public Prosecutor, appearing for the prosecution
\nin any criminal proceeding other than a Criminal Appeal shall file in court  a
\nvakalatnama from  his  client  authorizing  him so to appear.  In all Criminal
\nAppeals, such pleader may  file  a  memorandum  of  appearance  instead  of  a
\nvakalat.   Every  such  pleader defending an accused person and every Advocate
\nappearing in any criminal proceedings in any Court shall be required to file a
\nmemorandum of appearance containing  a  declaration  that  he  has  been  duly
\ninstructed  to  appear  by,  or  on  behalf  of,  the party, whom he claims to
\nrepresent.\n<\/p>\n
        In all other cases, a vakalat is required.”\n<\/p>\n
        26.  Thus, Rule No.29(28) of the Criminal Rules of Practice  does  not
\ncontemplate  filing of vakalat and as per the rule every Advocate appearing in
\nany court on behalf of accused shall be  required  to  file  a  memorandum  of
\nappearance containing declaration that he has been fully instructed by, or, on
\nbehalf of the party, whom he claims to represent.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   Rule  247  (234)  provides  that the rules and orders framed and
\nissued by the High Court shall govern the practice of the High  Court  on  the
\nappellate side  to  the  extent  to which they are applicable.  Apart from the
\naforesaid two provisions, the Criminal Rules of Practice does not lay down any
\nother guidance or criteria in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  In the case reported in 1988 L.W.  (Crl.) 185,  the  Madras  High
\nCourt  had  occasion  to  consider  the  application  of the Criminal Rules of
\nPractice and with reference to the Rule 29(1), it had  observed  that  in  the
\ncontext   of   the  specific  provision  contained  therein,  proceedings  for
\nmaintenance even though they are in the nature of criminal proceedings, a memo
\nof appearance would suffice for defending a husband\/respondent  in  the  above
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  It  has  been  held  in  MANIKONDA LINGAYYA v.  EMPEROR (1924 The
\nMadras Weekly Notes 51) that a memorandum of appearance is sufficient for  the
\nvalid presentation a criminal appeal and no vakalat is necessary for the same.\n<\/p>\n
        30.   Similarly,  in the bail applications also, this Court would come
\nacross cases where the bail applications  are  being  filed  through  memo  of
\nappearance  by the different counsel for the same accused even without getting
\ninstruction directly from the accused who is in prison.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  This Court would recall one shocking incident.  In one case,  the
\ncomplainant party himself had arranged a counsel to file a bail application on
\nbehalf of the accused who was in prison against whom the complainant party had
\na  revengeful  grudge  and  after  getting  the  bail application ordered, the
\ncomplainant party  arranged  for  sureties  and  furnished  the  same  and  in
\npursuance  of  the  bail  order of the Judicial Magistrate after accepting the
\nsureties, the accused person who had not known about the bail application  and
\nthe  bail  order, was released from the jail and when he came out of the jail,
\nhe was murdered by the other  party.    In  the  light  of  these  situations,
\nquestion arises, how to prevent these awkward and anomalous situations?\n<\/p>\n
        32.   As  pointed  out  in  the Criminal Rules of Practice and in 1924
\nMadras Weekly Notes page 51(supra), this Court is not inclined to  insist  for
\nvakalat as  vakalat requires affixure of stamp.  Therefore, it would be better
\nto insist for the filing of memo of appearance with signature of every accused
\nauthorising the counsel to appear on his behalf and the same must be  attested
\nby  an  Advocate  or  Notary  Public  and  the same shall be identified by the
\ncounsel appearing for the accused in the case of Anticipatory bail.   Further,
\nit  is to be noted that in the memo of appearance, the counsel should give the
\nEnrollment number as well as the detailed address  so  that  the  Court  could
\ncontact the  counsel  for  further  clarification.    Similarly,  in  the bail
\napplication, the memo of appearance with  signature  of  accused  attested  by
\nPrison authorities can be insisted.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  In  T.D.JOSEPH v.  SUNIL AND OTHERS (1995(2) L.W.441), a Division
\nBench of  this  Court,  while  dealing  with  anticipatory  bail  application,
\nemphasized  that  either  the  Sessions Court or the High Court while granting
\nanticipatory bail, must be satisfied that the  person  who  seeks  relief  was
\nwithin its jurisdiction and this satisfaction cannot merely arise on the basis
\nof  some  address  given  in  the  cause  title of the petition even without a
\nsupporting affidavit and there must be materials  to  show  to  the  court  to
\nsatisfy  its  conscience  that  the  person concerned was certainly within its
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  Therefore, the following  directions  are  being  issued  to  the
\nRegistry  of  this  Court  as  well  as  to  the  other  Courts  in  regard to
\nentertainment of the bail  applications  as  well  as  the  anticipatory  bail
\napplications:\n<\/p>\n
        (1)  In  the  case  of applications seeking for anticipatory bail, the
\nOffice should insist that the memo of appearance should contain the  signature
\nof  every  accused  and  the  same must be attested by an Advocate or a Notary
\nPublic and also to be identified by the counsel appearing for the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) In the case of bail applications where the accused is in  judicial
\nremand,  it  shall  be insisted that the memo of appearance should contain the
\nsignature of the accused attested by the Prison Superintendent or Jailor.   It
\nwould  be  desirable  for  the  Prison Superintendents to forward such memo of
\nappearance signed by the accused, duly attested by them, to the  Advocates  or
\nthe near relatives of the accused without any delay whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) In the anticipatory bail application, as laid down by the Division
\nBench of  this Court in 1995(2) L.W.  (Crl.) 441, the Office should insist for
\nthe  clear  particulars  about  the  address  of  the  person  who  seeks  for
\nanticipatory bail to verify whether he was within its jurisdiction either with
\nsupporting  affidavit or some other materials and also the address particulars
\nof the advocate as well as his Bar Council Enrollment Number.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  These directions are issued subject to the approval  of  My  Lord
\nthe Hon’ble  The  Chief Justice.  Therefore, the Registry is directed to place
\nthe papers before My Lord The Hon’ble The Chief Justice for approval  and  for
\nissuing administrative directions to the courts concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   This  Court  records  its  full  appreciation  for  the services
\nrendered by Mr.I.Subramanian, the learned Public  Prosecutor  (Amicus  Curiae)
\nand Mr.V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel in this matter.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
mam<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16\/12\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.30168 of 2003 K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah ..Petitioner(A2) -Vs- State by Inspector of Police, E.4 Maduravoil Police Station, Chengai East District. […]<\/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-122227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003 - 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-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-28T05:03:11+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-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-28T05:03:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3633,\"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-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003\",\"name\":\"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-28T05:03:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003 - 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-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-28T05:03:11+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-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-28T05:03:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003"},"wordCount":3633,"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-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003","name":"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-28T05:03:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-v-t-thirupathiaiah-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-16-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.V.T. @ Thirupathiaiah vs State By Inspector Of Police on 16 December, 2003"}]},{"@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\/122227","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=122227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}