{"id":122868,"date":"1980-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980"},"modified":"2017-02-15T18:30:03","modified_gmt":"2017-02-15T13:00:03","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 175, \t\t 1981 SCR (1) 774<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.SHANUMUGHAM CHETTIAR & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR  175\t\t  1981 SCR  (1) 774\n 1980 SCC  (4) 487\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1981 SC 611\t (1)\n RF\t    1983 SC 684\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\n     Prevention of  Food  Adulteration\tAct,  1954;  Section\n16(1)(a) read  with Section  (i) and  2(i)(L)-gingelly\toil-\nincrease in  the Free Fatty Acid content-oil whether becomes\nadulterated.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Under section  2(i)(L) (before  it was amended in 1976)\nof the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an article\nof food\t is deemed  to be  adulterated \"if  the\t quality  of\npurity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or\nits constituents  are present  in quantities  which  are  in\nexcess of the prescribed limits of variability\".\n     On\t November  1,  1969,  sample  of  gingelly  oil\t was\npurchased by  the Municipal  Food Inspector from the shop of\nthe respondents. After completing the necessary formalities,\nthe Food  Inspector arranged  to send one part of the sample\nto the\tPublic Analyst\tfor  analysis.\tThe  Public  Analyst\nanalysed the  sample on\t November 11, 1969 and reported that\nit  contained  5.1%  of\t Free  Fatty  Acid  as\tagainst\t the\npermissible limit  of 3%.  On receipt  of  the\treport,\t the\nrespondents  were  prosecuted  for  offences  under  Section\n16(1)(a)(i) read  with\tSection\t 7(i)  and  2(i)(L)  of\t the\nPrevention of  Food  Adulteration  Act.\t At  the  trial,  in\npursuance of the respondents request, another sample was got\nanalysed on  February 6,  1970 by the Director, Central Food\nLaboratory.  According\tto  his\t report,  the  gingelly\t oil\ncontained 6.2%\tof the\tFree Fatty  Acid and  was therefore,\nadulterated.\n     The District  Magistrate observing\t that the Free Fatty\nAcid had  increased from  5.1% to  6.2% between November 11,\n1969 and  February 6, 1970 and it was therefore, likely that\nthe Free  Fatty Acid content in the oil might have similarly\nincreased between November 1, 1969 when the sample was taken\nand November  11, 1969\twhen the  sample was analysed by the\nPublic Analyst,\t held that  it was  not possible to say that\nthe prosecution\t had established  that on  the date when the\nsample was  taken the  Free Fatty  Acid content\t of the\t oil\nexceed 3%  and\tacquitted  the\trespondents.  The  order  of\nacquittal was  confirmed by the High Court. In the appeal to\nthis Court, it was,\n^\n     HELD:1 (i) The judgments of the District Magistrate and\nthe High  Court are  set aside.\t The  second  respondent  is\nconvicted under\t Section 16(1)(a)(i)  and sentenced to pay a\nfine. [780C]\n     (ii) There\t was no\t justification for the conclusion of\nthe District  Magistrate and  the High\tCourt that  the Free\nFatty Acid  content of\tthe oil\t on the date when the sample\nwas taken  might have  been less  than 3%  and therefore not\nadulterated. [780B]\n775\n     In the instant case, the Public Analyst report had been\nsuperseded by the  certificate of the Director, Central Food\nLaboratory, and the latter certificate had become conclusive\nevidence of  the facts\tmentioned in  it. The  sample,\tmust\ntherefore be  held, to\tbe adulterated. There was nothing in\nthe  evidence,\t nor  had   anything  been  shown  from\t any\nscientific work which would suggest that the Free Fatty Acid\ncontent would  so rapidly  increase in\tthe space  of  about\nthree months.  If it  was less\tthan 3%\t on November 1, 1969\nwhen the  sample was  taken it\tcould not  have increased to\n6.2% by February 6, 1970 when the sample was analysed by the\nCentral Food Laboratory. [777H, 778D]\n     2. Gingelly  (Til or  Sesame) oil is a semi-drying oil.\nIt is  only after  Prolonged exposure  to air and light that\nthere may  be some  discernible chemical changes in gingelly\n(Til or sesame) oil. [779G]\n     New Encyclopaedia\tBritannica, Vol.  13  pages  526-527\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n115 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated 10-1-1972\t of the Madras High Court in Crl. Appeal No.
\n64 No. 657\/70.<\/span>
\n     A. V. Rangam for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     A. T. M. Sampath for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-On November  1, 1969,\t a sample of
\ngingelly oil  was purchased  by the  Food Inspector, Madurai
\nMunicipality from  the shop  of the first respondent, who is
\nnow reported  to be dead and against whom, this appeal, has,
\ntherefore,  abated.  At\t that  time  respondent\t No.  2\t was
\nattending to  the business.  After completing  the necessary
\nformalities the\t Food Inspector arranged to send one part of
\nthe sample to the Public Analyst at Madras for analysis. The
\nsample was  analysed by\t the Public  Analyst on November 11,
\n1969 and  it was  reported by  him that it contained 5.1% of
\nFree Fatty  Acid as  against the  limit of  3.0% permissible
\nunder clause A.17.11 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food
\nAdulteration Rules,  1955. In  his report  he also mentioned
\nthat  the  sample  was\tproperly  sealed,  it  was  air-and-
\nmoisture-tight and  packed in  thick paper so as to be proof
\nagainst light,\tand, the  Free Fatty Acid content of the oil
\nwould, therefore,  remain unchanged  for several  months. On
\nreceipt of the Public Analyst’s report a complaint was filed
\nagainst the  two respondents for an offence under sec. 16(1)\n<\/p>\n
(a) and Sec. 7(i) read with sec. 2(i) (L) and Clause A.17.11
\nof Appendix  ‘B’ to  the  Prevention  of  Food\tAdulteration
\nRules. Both the respondents denied the offence. The
\n776<\/span>
\nsecond respondent  stated that\the  signed  on\tthe  various
\ndocuments produced  by the prosecution as he was asked to do
\nso by  the Inspector.  He did not read the contents of those
\ndocuments. The brother of the second respondent was examined
\nas a  defence witness  and he stated that he was in the shop
\nwhen the  Food Inspector came there and purchased the sample
\nand that at the time of the sale the Food Inspector was told
\nthat the gingelly oil was not meant to be used as an article
\nof food but was meant for “oil bath”.\n<\/p>\n
     At the trial a request was made by the respondents that
\nanother part  of the  sample which  had been produced by the
\nFood Inspector\tin the\tCourt might be sent to the Director,
\nCentral Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for analysis. It was sent
\nas desired. The sample was analysed by the Director, Central
\nFood Laboratory,  Calcutta on February 6. 1970. According to
\nhis report  the gingelly  oil contained\t 6.2% of  Free Fatty
\nAcid and was, therefore, adulterated.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned District Magistrate, Madurai acquitted both
\nthe respondents\t observing that\t the  Free  Fatty  Acid\t had
\nincreased from\t5.1% to\t 6.2% between  November 11, 1969 and
\nFebruary 6, 1970 and it was, therefore, likely that the Free
\nFatty Acid content in the oil might have similarly increased
\nbetween November  1, 1969  when the  sample  was  taken\t and
\nNovember 11,  1969, when  the sample  was  analysed  by\t the
\nPublic\tAnalyst,   Madras.  On\tthat  ground,  the  District
\nMagistrate held\t that it  was not  possible to\tsay that the
\nprosecution had established that on the date when the sample
\nwas taken  the Free  Fatty Acid\t content of the oil exceeded
\n3%. The\t State preferred  an appeal to the Madras High Court
\nagainst the order of acquittal. The High Court confirmed the
\norder of  acquittal for the same reason as that given by the
\nDistrict Magistrate.  The State\t has filed this appeal after
\nobtaining special  leave of  this Court under Art 136 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Under Sec.\t 2(i)(L) (before  it was amended in 1976) of
\nthe Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an article of
\nfood is\t deemed to  be adulterated “if the quality of purity
\nof the\tarticle falls  below the  prescribed standard or its
\nconstituents are  present in  quantities which are in excess
\nof the prescribed limits of variability”.\n<\/p>\n
     Paragraph A.17.11\tof Appendix  ‘B’ to  the Rules\tmade
\nunder the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes the
\nstandard in  the case  of Til  oil (Gingelly or seasame oil)
\nand to the extent relevant it reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  [“A.17.11.-Til oil  (Gingelly or sesame oil) means
\n     the oil  expressed from  clean and\t sound seeds  of Til
\n     (Sesamum indicum),\t black, brown,\twhite, or  mixed. It
\n     shall be clear, free
\n777<\/span>
\n     from rancidity,  suspended\t or  other  foreign  matter,
\n     separated\twater,\t added\t colouring   or\t  flavouring
\n     substances, or  mineral oil.  It shall  conform to\t the
\n     following standards:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) Butyro-rafractometer reading at 40oC\t.. 58.0 to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   61<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) Saponification value\t\t\t.. 188 to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   193<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) Iodine value\t\t\t\t.. 105 to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   115<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d) Unsaponifiable\t matter\t\t    .. Not more than
\n\t\t\t\t\t     1.5 per cent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e) Free fatty acid as Oleic acid.\t  .. Not more than
\n\t\t\t\t\t     3.0 per cent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f) Bellier test(Turbidity temperature- Not more than
\n\t Acetic acid method).\t\t     22oC).] .]”\n<\/p>\n
     Now, a sample of food purchased by a Food Inspector has
\nto be  divided by  him into  3 parts and each part has to be
\nmarked, sealed\tand fastened  separately. Before the Act was
\namended in  1976, one part was to be delivered to the person
\nfrom whom  the sample was taken, another part was to be sent
\nfor analysis to the Public Analyst and the third part was to
\nbe retained with the Food Inspector to be produced by him in
\ncase legal  proceedings were taken or it became necessary to
\nsend it\t for analysis  to the  Director of  the Central Food
\nLaboratory. The\t Public Analyst\t was required  to deliver  a
\nreport of  the result  of his  analysis and  this report was
\nordinarily the\tfoundation of  the prosecution\tby the\tFood
\nInspector. After  the institution  of the  prosecution,\t the
\naccused was given the right to request the Court to send the
\nthird part  of the  sample retained by the Food Inspector to
\nthe Director, Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. The
\nDirector, Central  Food Laboratory  was required  to send to
\nthe  Court  a  certificate  specifying\tthe  result  of\t his
\nanalysis and  the certificate  of the Director, Central Food
\nLaboratory,  thereupon,\t  superseded  the  Public  Analyst’s
\nreport. The  Public Analyst’s  report, if  not superseded by
\nthe Certificate of the Director. Central Food Laboratory and
\nthe Certificate\t of the\t Director, Central  Food  Laboratory
\nmight be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any
\nproceeding under  the Act  with\t this  difference  that\t the
\ncertificate of\tthe Director, Central Food Laboratory was to
\nbe  final  and\tconclusive  evidence  of  the  facts  stated
\ntherein.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  present case  the certificate  of the  Director
\nshowed that  the sample\t of gingelly  oil contained  6.2% of
\nFree Fatty  Acid whereas  the permissible limit was 3% only.
\nWe are\tnot concerned with the Public Analyst’s report since
\nthat has been superseded by the certificate of the Director,
\nCentral Food Laboratory, and the latter certificate has been
\nmade conclusive\t evidence of  the facts mentioned in it. The
\nsample, it must therefore be found, was adulterated.\n<\/p>\n
778<\/span><\/p>\n
     The sample,  as we\t mentioned  earlier,  was  taken  on
\nNovember 1,  1969, the analysis by the Public Analyst was on
\nNovember 11,  1969 and the analysis by the Director, Central
\nFood  Laboratory  was  on  February  6,\t 1970.\tThe  learned
\nDistrict Magistrate and the High Court thought that although
\nthe Free Fatty Acid content in that part of the sample which
\nwas sent  to the  Director, Central Food Laboratory was 6.2%
\non the\tdate when the Director analysed the oil it could not
\nbe said\t to have  been established that on the date when the
\nsample was  taken by  the Food Inspector the Free Fatty Acid
\ncontent exceeded 3%. According to them it could well be that
\nthe Free Fatty Acid content increased due to natural causes.
\nWe are\tunable to  agree with  the lower  Courts.  There  is
\nnothing in  the evidence,  nor has anything been shown to us
\nfrom any  scientific work  which would suggest that the Free
\nFatty Acid content would so rapidly increase in the space of
\nabout three months that what was less than 3% on November 1,
\n1969, when  the\t sample\t was  taken  increased\tto  6.2%  by
\nFebruary 6,  1970, when\t the  sample  was  analysed  by\t the
\nCentral Food  Laboratory. On  the  other  hand\tin  the\t New
\nEncyclopaedia Britannica  Volume 13  (pages 526-527)  it  is
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Fats can  be heated\tto between  200o  and  250oC
\n     without undergoing significant changes provided contact
\n     with air  or oxygen  is avoided..\tOn exposure  to air,
\n     oils and  fats gradually  undergo certain\tchanges. The
\n     drying oils absorb oxygen (dry) and polymerize readily;
\n     thin  layers  form\t a  skin  or  protective  film.\t The
\n     semidrying oils  absorb oxygen more slowly and are less
\n     useful as\tpaint  oils.  Still,  sufficient  oxygen  is
\n     absorbed in  time to  produce distinct  thickening\t and
\n     some  film\t formation.  Oxidation\tof  the\t drying\t and
\n     semidrying oils  is accelerated  by spreading  the\t oil
\n     over a  large surface.  On greasy\tcloths, for example,
\n     oxygen  absorption\t  may  proceed\t so   rapidly\tthat
\n     spontaneous combustion  ensues. The  nondrying oils, of
\n     which olive  oil is  typical, do not oxidize readily on
\n     exposure  to   air,  although  changes  do\t take  place
\n     gradually, including slow hydroysis (splitting to fatty
\n     acids and glycerol) and subsequent oxidation. This slow
\n     oxidation\tcauses\t a  disagreeable   smell  and  taste
\n     described by the term rancidity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
779<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  The chemical\treactions involved  in oil oxidation
\n     have been\tstudied\t widely,  when\toils  and  fats\t are
\n     exposed to\t air, little change takes place for a period
\n     of time  that varies from oil to oil depending upon the
\n     amount and\t type of  unsaturation and  the\t content  of
\n     natural antioxidants.  During this\t so-called induction
\n     period, there is virtually no change in either odour or
\n     chemistry of  the oil  because of the protective effect
\n     of\t  natural   antioxidants,   especially\t tocopherol.
\n     Gradually, the  effectiveness of  the  anti-oxidant  is
\n     overcome and there is an accelerating rate of oxidation
\n     of unsaturated  acids, called autoxidation. Chemically,
\n     the   first   identifiable\t  oxidation   products\t are
\n     hydroperoxides. These  break down\tinto a large variety
\n     of low-molecular-weight  aldehydes,  esters,  alcohols,
\n     ketones, acids, and hydrocarbons, some of which possess
\n     the  pungent,  disagreeable  odours  characteristic  of
\n     rancid fats.  In soyabean\toil exposed  to air  to\t the
\n     point of  incipient rancidity,  more than 100 different
\n     oxidation products\t have been  identified. Natural oils
\n     such  as\tcoconut\t oil,\twith  very   low  levels  of
\n     unsaturation, are very stable to flavour deterioration,
\n     but the  more highly  unsaturated oils such as soyabean
\n     oil or  safflower oil  lose their flavour more quickly.
\n     Sesame oil\t is unique  in its flavour stability because
\n     of\t the   presence\t of   several  natural\tantioxidants
\n     (sesamin, sesamolin,  sesamol). Synthetic\tantioxidants
\n     such as propyl gallate, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA),
\n     and butylated  hydroxytoluene (BHT)  have been  used to
\n     retard the\t onset of rancidity and increase the storage
\n     life of edible fats”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Gingelly (Til  or seasame)  oil we  may mention\t is  a\tsemi
\ndrying\toil.   From  the   extract  from  the  Encyclopaedia
\nBritannica it  is only\tafter prolonged\t exposure to air and
\nlight that there may be some discernible chemical changes in
\ngingelly (til  or seasame)  oil. In  fact it is mentioned in
\nthe Encyclopaedia  Britannica that  seasame oil is unique in
\nits flavour  stability because\tof the\tpresence of  several
\nnatural antioxidants.  There is nothing to indicate that the
\nsamples were not packed as required by the rules. The report
\nof the Public Analyst mentions “The sample has been received
\nproperly sealed,  to be air and moisture tight and packed in
\nthick paper to be proof against access to light. Under these
\nconditions the Free Fatty Acid content of oils
\n780<\/span>
\nremains unchanged  for several\tmonths”. The  certificate of
\nthe Director,  Central Food  Laboratory mentions  “The seals
\nwere intact”.  We are,\ttherefore, clearly  of opinion\tthat
\nthere  was  no\tjustification  for  the\t conclusion  of\t the
\nDistrict Magistrate  and the  High Court that the Free Fatty
\nAcid content  of the  oil on  the date\twhen the  sample was
\ntaken might  have been\tless  than  3%\tand  therefore,\t not
\nadulterated. We\t set aside  the judgments  of  the  District
\nMagistrate  and\t the  High  Court  and\tconvict\t the  second
\nrespondent under  Sec. 16(1)(a)(i)  read with  sec. 7(i) and
\n2(i) (L)  of the  Prevention of\t Food Adulteration  Act\t and
\nsentence him  to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo
\nsimple imprisonment  for a  period  of\ttwo  weeks.  We\t are
\nimposing  a   nominal  sentence\t  having   regard   to\t the
\ncircumstance that we are interfering with a concurrent order
\nof acquittal more than ten years after the commission of the
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
N.K.A.\n<\/p>\n
781<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 175, 1981 SCR (1) 774 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT: S.SHANUMUGHAM CHETTIAR & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1980 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980\" \/>\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=\"1980-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-15T13:00:03+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T13:00:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980\"},\"wordCount\":2047,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T13:00:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-15T13:00:03+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980","datePublished":"1980-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T13:00:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980"},"wordCount":2047,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T13:00:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-s-shanumugham-chettiar-anr-on-22-september-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Shanumugham Chettiar & Anr on 22 September, 1980"}]},{"@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\/122868","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=122868"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122868\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}