{"id":128155,"date":"2000-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000"},"modified":"2016-04-28T16:33:51","modified_gmt":"2016-04-28T11:03:51","slug":"arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector … on 8 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector … on 8 March, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, M.B. Shah<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (crl.) 438  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nARIVAZHAGAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/03\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Thomas J.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    Has the accused a right to examine a myriad of witnesses
\nand  has the court any power to prune down the list of\tsuch
\nwitnesses?   Such  a  question\t arose\twhen  the  appellant
\nsubmitted  a list of 267 witnesses for the defence when\t the
\ntrial  reached that stage.  The trial Court was not disposed
\nto  allow  him to examine all the persons mentioned  in\t the
\nlist  and  directed him to limit the number to\tthe  minimum
\nnecessary.   As the appellant was not willing to reduce\t the
\nnumber\tof  witnesses he approached the High court  to\thelp
\nhim.   But the advantage he got from the High court was only
\nmarginal  and  it did not satisfy him.\tHence, he filed\t the
\nSpecial\t Leave\tPetition.  After hearing Shri Sushil  Kumar,
\nlearned\t senior\t counsel for the appellant we felt that\t the
\nappeal\tcan  be disposed of without the aid of arguments  of
\nthe respondents and so we did not issue notice to them.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t factual  background in which the situation  reached
\nthe  above  stage  is the following:   Appellant  and  three
\npersons\t are now being arraigned before the Special Court at
\nChennai\t for  facing a charge for the offence under  Section
\n13(1)\u00a9\tof the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for  short
\nthe  PC\t Act)  read with Section 109 of the  Indian  Penal
\nCode.\tProsecution  examined  a   number  of  witnesses  by
\nsummoning  41  persons.\t  When the case\t reached  the  stage
\nenvisaged  in  Section\t243(1)\tof   the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure  (for\t short\tthe Code) he submitted a  list\tof
\ndefence\t witnesses.   As we mentioned earlier the number  of
\nwitnesses shown in the list was so much that even a marathon
\nlegal  proceeding  would  not be sufficient to\texhaust\t the
\nentire list.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Special  Judge\t made  a scrutiny of  the  list\t and
\ndissected the names into four divisions.  The first division
\nconsisted  of  names  shown  as No.  1\tto  8.\t The  second
\ndivision  consisted  of names shown as No.  9 to 117 in\t the
\nlist.\tThe third division consisted of name figuring in the
\nlist  as No.  118 to 177.  The fourth division consisted  of
\nnames of 178 to 267 witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    The Special Judge permitted persons shown as Nos.  4 and
\n8  in  the  first division to be examined as he\t found\tthem
\nalone  in  the said division as necessary witnesses and\t the
\nothers\twere  found unnecessary for the purpose\t of  defence
\nplea.\tRegarding  the\tsecond division\t the  Special  Judge
\nstated thus:\n<\/p>\n
    Witness  Nos.9  to 117 have been cited as witnesses\t to
\nspeak  about  the masonry works, wood works, painting  works
\netc.   Instead\tof examining the huge number  of  witnesses,
\nexamination  of one or two engineers will be sufficient\t and
\nit would save the time also.\n<\/p>\n
    About  the third division learned Special Judge observed
\nthat  since  all of them were cited only to speak about\t the
\nagriculture  and  business  income  of\tthe  accused   the
\nappellant  can\tadvisedly confine to ten witnesses  in\tthat
\ndivision.   Regarding the last division in the list  learned
\nspecial judge observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
    List  of  witness  Nos.178\tto 267 have  been  cited  as
\nwitnesses to speak about the loans, gifts, etc.\t Such a huge
\nlist  may  not\tbe necessary in view of Section 134  of\t the
\nIndian Evidence Act.  However, the accused could examine any
\n10 witnesses from them.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned  single  judge of the High Court felt that\tfrom
\nthe first division mentioned above the appellant can examine
\nwitnesses shown as Nos.\t 6 and 7 also and from the remaining
\ndivisions  the\tappellant can choose ten more persons.\t The
\npetition  filed\t in  the High Court was disposed of  in\t the
\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Special court is directed to permit the petitioner
\nto  examine witnesses 1,4 to 7 and also 10 more witnesses in
\nthe  list  of  witnesses  118 to 267,  in  addition  to\t the
\nwitnesses  already  permitted to be examined.  The order  of
\nthe Special Court is modified as stated above.\tThe criminal
\nrevision case is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel contended that
\nonce  the trial court has proceeded from the stage envisaged
\nin  sub-section\t (1) of Section 243 and passed over  to\t the
\nnext  stage contemplated in sub-section (2) he has no  power
\nto  sift  and  select witnesses from the list  submitted  by
\naccused.   We  may  record, in fairness\t to  learned  senior
\ncounsel, that he candidly conceded that no accused can claim
\na  right  to examine any number of witnesses on the  defence
\nside.\tThis was stated by the learned counsel when we asked
\nhim  hypothetically- whether the accused can file a list of
\nten  thousand names as witnesses and ask the court to permit
\nhim to examine all of them.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 5(1) of the P.C.  Act requires the Special Judge
\nto follow the procedure prescribed by the court for trial of
\nwarrant\t cases\tby  magistrates.  Chapter XIX  of  the\tCode
\ncontains the provisions for such trial and Section 243 falls
\nwithin\tthe said chapter.  (The corresponding provisions  in
\nthe  old  Criminal Procedure Code were sub-sections  (8)  to
\n(10)  of Section 251-A.) It is not disputed before us that a
\ncourt  has  the\t power to refuse to summon any person  as  a
\nwitness\t on any of the three different grounds:\t (1) If\t any
\nwitness\t is  cited for the purpose of vexation;\t (2) If\t any
\nwitness\t is cited for causing delay;  (3) If any witness  is
\ncited  for  defeating the ends of justice.  In fact  Section
\n243(2) of the Code incorporates such powers of the court.\n<\/p>\n
    In the present case it was the ground of delay which the
\nSpecial\t Judge\tcountenanced as the ground for pruning\tdown
\nthe  massive  list of witnesses presented by the  appellant.
\nNo  doubt  the\ttime  which  would  consume  for  completely
\nexamining all the 267 witnesses on the defence side would be
\nunimaginably  long if a court is compelled by law to exhaust
\nsuch  a whopping list in its full swing.  The criminal trial
\nwould  only  limp  badly and procrastination  would  be\t the
\ninevitable consequence.\t Normally no court would mind if the
\nlist  contains\tonly  a handful of names because  the  court
\nwould not then bother much about the delay factor.  But when
\nthe  list  contains such a crowd of names of  witnesses\t the
\ncourt  will  certainly make a serious exercise to  ascertain
\nwhether\t examination of all those witnesses is necessary  in
\nthe   interest\tof  justice  even  at  the  risk   of\tsuch
\nprocrastination.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri   Sushul  Kumar,  learned   senior  counsel   first
\ncontended  that the position envisaged in Section 243(1)  of
\nthe  Code without the interjection of Section 22 of the\t P.C
\nAct  has  a  different perception, and therefore,  once\t the
\ncourt  decided\tto  call upon the accused to  enter  on\t his
\ndefence\t there is no discretion vested with the trial  judge
\nto  vivisect the list for the purpose of eliminating certain
\nnames therefrom.  In order to understand the said contention
\nwe  would  extract Section 243 in its virgin form as  it  is
\nincorporated in the Code.\n<\/p>\n
243. Evidence for defence. –\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon
\nhis  defence  and produce his evidence;\t and if the  accused
\nputs  in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it
\nwith the record.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t If  the  accused,  after he had  entered  upon\t his
\ndefence,  applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for
\ncompelling  the attendance of any witness for the purpose of
\nexamination  or cross-examination, or the production of\t any
\ndocument  or  other thing, the Magistrate shall\t issue\tsuch
\nprocess\t unless he considers that such application should be
\nrefused\t on  the ground that it is made for the\t purpose  of
\nvexation  or delay or for defeating the ends of justice\t and
\nsuch ground shall be recorded by him in writing.\n<\/p>\n
    Provided  that,  when the accused has cross-examined  or
\nhad  the  opportunity of cross-examining any witness  before
\nentering  on  his  defence, the attendance of  such  witness
\nshall  not  be\tcompelled  under this  section,\t unless\t the
\nMagistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
    Section  22 of the P.C.  Act has amended sub-section (1)
\nof  Section 243 of the Code in its application to the  trial
\nof offences under the P.C.  Act.  When Section 243(1) of the
\nCode  is re-read with the aforesaid changes it would run  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
    The\t accused shall then be required to give in  writing
\nat  once or within such time as the court may allow, a\tlist
\nof  persons  (if  any) whom he proposes to  examine  as\t his
\nwitnesses and of the documents (if any) on which he proposes
\nto  rely, and he shall then be called upon to enter upon his
\ndefence and produce his evidence, and if the accused puts in
\nany  written statement the magistrate shall file it with the
\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n
\t The  position\tof an accused who is involved  in  a
\nunder  the P.C.\t Act is trial more cumbered than an  accused
\nin  other  cases due to legislative curbs.  One of  them  is
\nenvisaged  in Section 22 of the P.C.  Act.  The court is not
\nobliged to direct an accused involved under the P.C.  Act to
\nenter  upon  his  defence until the Special  Court  has\t the
\noccasion  to see the list of his witnesses and also the list
\nof  his\t documents to be adduced in evidence on the  defence
\nside.\tAn  accused in other cases has to be called upon  to
\nenter  on  his\tdefence\t irrespective of  whether  he  would
\npropose to adduce defence evidence because it is a choice to
\nbe exercised by him only after he is called upon to enter on
\nhis defence.  But the accused under P.C.  Act need be called
\nupon  to enter on his defence only after the trial judge has
\noccasion to peruse the names of the witnesses as well as the
\npurpose\t of  examination of each one of them, and  also\t the
\nnature\tof the documents which he proposed to adduce as\t his
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis  context it would be pertinent to\texamine\t the
\npurpose\t behind it for the Parliament to make the  aforesaid
\nchange\tas  for\t the accused who gets involved\tin  offences
\nunder  the  P.C.   Act.\t A glance at the  short\t legislative
\nhistory on this aspect would reveal the purpose when Section
\n7-A  was introduced in the erstwhile P.C.  Act by Act 40  of
\n1964.\tThat section is pari materia with Section 22 of P.C.
\nAct of 1988.  Section 7-A was intended to be absorbed in the
\ncorresponding  provision  (Section  251-A) of the  old\tCode
\nwhenever the trial was for offences under P.C.\tAct of 1947.
\nBut  it\t must  be  remembered that  Parliament\tenacted\t the
\npresent\t Code in the year 1973 and even then the legislature
\ndid  not  incorporate the wording in Section 7-A of the\t old
\nP.C.   Act of 1947 in Section 243(1) of the Code but allowed
\nthat  provision to be read in consonance with the  different
\nprocedure  prescribed for offences under the erstwhile\tP.C.
\nAct.   Now  in\tthe P.C.  Act of 1988 also  the\t legislature
\nretained  those\t alterations  as  indicated  in\t Section  22
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
    Act\t 40 of 1964, through which Section 7A was introduced
\nin  the erstwhile P.C.\tAct, was passed by the Parliament on
\nthe  basis  of\tBill  No.67\/64.\t It  was  mentioned  in\t the
\nStatement  of  Objects and Reasons of the said\tBill,  inter
\nalia, thus:\n<\/p>\n
    The Committee on Prevention of Corruption was appointed
\nin  1962 to review the problem of corruption and to  suggest
\nmeasures  to  combat  it.  The Committee  has  made  various
\nsuggestions  for  dealing  with the problem and\t has,  inter
\nalia,  recommended  certain  changes in the  law  to  ensure
\nspeedy\ttrial  of cases of bribery, corruption and  criminal
\nmisconduct,  and  to make the law otherwise more  effective.
\nThe  Bill  is  intended\t to give effect\t to  such  of  these
\nrecommendations that have been accepted.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  thus  noticeable that one of  the  main  objects
\nsought\tto  be achieved through insertion of Section 7A\t was
\nspeedy\t trial\tfor  cases  relating   to  the\tproblem\t  of
\ncorruption.   When  we read Section 22 of the PC  Act  which
\nrequires  a particular procedure to be followed relating  to
\nthe  filing  of\t list  of witnesses and\t documents  for\t the
\ndefence,  it  must  be borne in mind  that  the\t legislative
\nintent\tfor the aforesaid change in the procedure is  mainly
\nfor achieving expeditiousness of the trial.  It is true that
\nthe concept of speedy trial must apply to all trials, but in
\nthe trials for offences relating to corruption the pace must
\nbe  accelerated\t with greater momentum due to a\t variety  of
\nreasons.   Parliament  expressed  grave\t  concern  over\t the
\nrampant\t ever-growing corruption among public servants which
\nhas  been  a  major  cause for\tthe  demoralisation  of\t the
\nsociety.   When corrupt public servants are booked they\t try
\nto take advantage of the delay proned procedural trammels of
\nour  legal  system by keeping the penal consequences at\t bay
\nfor a considerable time.  It was this reality which impelled
\nthe Parliament to chalk out measures to curb procrastinating
\nprocedural clues.  Section 22 of the P.C.  Act is one of the
\nmeasures  evolved to curtail the delay in corruption  cases.
\nSo  the\t construction  of  Section 243(1)  of  the  Code  as
\ntelescoped  by\tSection 22 of the PC Act must be  consistent
\nwith the aforesaid legislative intent.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t purpose  of  furnishing  a list  of  witnesses\t and
\ndocuments  to the Court before the accused is called upon to
\nenter  on his defence is to afford an occasion to the  court
\nto  peruse  the list.  On such perusal, if the\tcourt  feels
\nthat  examination of at least some of the persons  mentioned
\nin  the list is quite unnecessary to prove the defence\tplea
\nand  the  time\twhich  would be needed\tfor  completing\t the
\nexamination   of  such\twitnesses   would  only\t result\t  in
\nprocrastination,  it is the duty of the court to short\tlist
\nsuch  witnesses.   We may also add that if the\tcourt  feels
\nthat the list is intended only to delay the proceedings, the
\ncourt  is well within its powers to disallow even the  whole
\nof it.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned senior counsel made an endeavour to find support
\nto  his contention from the decision of a Constitution Bench
\nof  this  Court\t in Ronald Wood Mathams vs.  State  of\tWest
\nBengal<\/a> [1955 SCR 216].\tIn that case an accused filed a list
\nof  15 witnesses to be examined for the defence.  Though the
\ntrial  court issued summons to those witnesses whose summons
\ndid not return served, and the court passed an order that no
\nfurther process need be issued to those witnesses.  The case
\nended  in  conviction  of  the\taccused\t and  hence  it\t was
\ncontended  before  the Supreme Court that the trial  of\t the
\nappellants had been vitiated by reason of the fact that they
\nhad no reasonable opportunity to examine their witnesses and
\nthat their convictions were accordingly bad.  The finding of
\nthe  Supreme Court in this regard was that it is  essential
\nthat rules of procedure designed to ensure justice should be
\nscrupulously followed and courts should be jealous in saying
\nthat  there  is no breach of them. There is nothing in\tthe
\ndecision  to help the appellant to have an interpretation in
\nconsonance with his contention.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthis case, the High Court as per the impugned  order
\nhas  further enlarged the number of witnesses to be examined
\non  the\t defence  side.\t  As it\t is,  the  appellant  cannot
\ncomplain  now that he did not get the opportunity to  adduce
\nhis  evidence.\tAt any rate, we do not think it necessary to
\ninterfere  with the impugned orders as the pruning  exercise
\nundertaken  by the trial court and the High Court was within
\nthe limits permitted by law.\n<\/p>\n
    Nevertheless,  we  would  add    after  the\t  appellant
\ncompletes his evidence in accordance with the permission now
\ngranted\t as  per  the  impugned orders, it is  open  to\t the
\nappellant to convince the trial court that some more persons
\nneed  be  examined  in\tthe  interest  of  justice,  if\t the
\nappellant  then thinks that such a course is necessary.\t The
\ntrial  court will then decide whether it is essential for  a
\njust  decision of the case to examine more witnesses on\t the
\ndefence\t side.\t If the Court is so satisfied,\tthe  Special
\nJudge  can  permit the appellant to examine such  additional
\nwitnesses the examination of whom he considers essential for
\na  just\t decision of the case or he can exercise the  powers
\nenvisaged  in  Section\t311 of the Code in respect  of\tsuch
\nwitnesses.   We cannot, at present, oversee the situation as
\nto how the trial court could then reach such a satisfaction.
\nHence  we  leave it to the trial court to do the needful  at
\nthe appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n
    With the above observations we dispose of the appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector … on 8 March, 2000 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T. Thomas, M.B. Shah CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 438 of 2000 PETITIONER: ARIVAZHAGAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/03\/2000 BENCH: K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah JUDGMENT: Thomas J. L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J […]<\/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-128155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nArivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector ... on 8 March, 2000 - 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\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector ... on 8 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-28T11:03:51+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector … on 8 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T11:03:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2745,\"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\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000\",\"name\":\"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector ... on 8 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T11:03:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector … on 8 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector ... on 8 March, 2000 - 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\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector ... on 8 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-28T11:03:51+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector … on 8 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T11:03:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000"},"wordCount":2745,"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\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000","name":"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector ... on 8 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T11:03:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arivazhagan-vs-state-represented-by-inspector-on-8-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector … on 8 March, 2000"}]},{"@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\/128155","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=128155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128155\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}