{"id":132662,"date":"2003-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003"},"modified":"2018-01-28T20:43:58","modified_gmt":"2018-01-28T15:13:58","slug":"ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 17\/02\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.PACKIARAJ\n\nCRL.R.C.No.509 of 2000\n\nRamalingam                                     .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState represented by Station\nHouse Officer, Grand Bazaar\nPolice Station, Pondicherry.                            .. Respondent.\n\n\nFor Petitioner: Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar\n\nFor Respondent: Mr.A.P.Suryaprakasam\n                 Additional PP (Pondy)\n\n\nPrayer:  Revision against  the  judgment  of  the  Principal  Sessions  Judge,\nPondicherry  in  Crl.Appeal  N.10  of  1998  dated  30.11.1999, confirming the\njudgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry in  STR  No.578  \/93  dated\n17.2.98 convicting the petitioner under\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        On  being  aggrieved  by  the  conviction  and sentence imposed by the<br \/>\nlearned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry,  dated  30.11.1999,  confirming<br \/>\nthe  judgment  passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry in<br \/>\nSTR.No.578\/93 dated 17.2.98,  sentencing  the  petitioner  herein  to  undergo<br \/>\nimprisonment  till  rising  of  the  Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/-, in<br \/>\ndefault to undergo simple imprisonment, for an offence under Section 182  IPC,<br \/>\nthe present revision has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  brief  facts of the prosecution case is that Ramalingam, the<br \/>\nrespondent herein lodged a First Information  Report  with  the  Inspector  of<br \/>\nPolice  PCR  Cell  on  15.12.1993 at about 5.00 p.m stating that one Sekar and<br \/>\nRadhakrishnan  abused  him  by  using  his  caste  name  which  attracted  the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act.  The matter was investigated<br \/>\nand found to be false.  On coming to know that the complaint given by the said<br \/>\nRamalingam is false, the Inspector of Police, PCR Wing filed a petition before<br \/>\nthe  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Pondicherry  and  sought  for permission to<br \/>\nregister a case for an  offence  under  Section  182  IPC,  against  the  said<br \/>\nRamalingam.   But  the learned Magistrate dismissing the said application said<br \/>\nthat no such permission is needed.  But however he has observed to the  effect<br \/>\nthat  he  shall  after  obtaining permission from the Superintendent of Police<br \/>\nmake a complaint before the police officer having jurisdiction to  investigate<br \/>\nthe offence  committed within the limits of such police station.  Accordingly,<br \/>\nthe Inspector  sought  permission  from  the  Superintendent  of  Police,  who<br \/>\napparently is said to have given permission and on the basis of which he filed<br \/>\na  complaint  before  the  Inspector  of  Police, Grand Bazaar police Station,<br \/>\nPondicherry, who investigated the matter and  has  filed  the  present  charge<br \/>\nsheet, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        On  15-2-93  at  about  17.00 hrs, the accused Ramalingam gave a First<br \/>\nInformation  Report  to  the  Inspector  of  Police,  PCR  Cell,   Pondicherry<br \/>\ncomplaining  that  one  Sekar  and  Radhakrishnan abused him on the grounds of<br \/>\nuntouchability and requested the Police of Civil Rights Act  knowing  that  it<br \/>\nwas  false complaint intending thereby that the Inspector of Police, PCR Cell,<br \/>\nPondicherry would use his lawful power to the annoyance of the said Sekar  and<br \/>\nRadhakrishnan,  thereby  the  accused  Ramalingam  appear to have committed an<br \/>\noffence punishable under Section 18 2 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Hence the charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                Sd\/-(A.KANDANATHAN)<br \/>\nSub-Inspector of Police<br \/>\n                                Grand Bazar Police Station<br \/>\n                                        Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The accused contested the trial  and  as  he  was  found  guilty,  was<br \/>\npunished as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision<br \/>\nquestions the maintainability of the very prosecution case itself, in view  of<br \/>\nSection 195  Cr.P.C.    He  also  took me through the relevant portions of the<br \/>\nSection, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        195.  Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public  servants<br \/>\nfor  offences  against  public  justice and for offences relating to documents<br \/>\ngiven in evidence  (1) No Court shall take cognizance &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a) (i) of any offence punishable  under  Section  172  to  188  (both<br \/>\ninclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, or &#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>        195(2)  Where  a  complaint  has  been  made by a public servant under<br \/>\nclause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which  he  is  administratively<br \/>\nsubordinate  may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such<br \/>\norder to the Court; and upon its receipt by the court, no further  proceedings<br \/>\nshall be taken on the complaint:\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the Inspector of Police<br \/>\nPCR who found that the complaint given to him by the accused to be as  follows<br \/>\nought  to  have  filed  a  complaint  before  the concerned Magistrate and the<br \/>\nMagistrate ought to have taken cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C<\/p>\n<p>        5.  But curiously in this case what he has done is that he  has  filed<br \/>\nan  application  before  the  Magistrate asking permission to register a crime<br \/>\nagainst the accused for an offence under  Section  182  IPC,  which  also  was<br \/>\nnegatived.  Thereafter he had approached the Superintendent of Police, who has<br \/>\ngiven  him  permission  to  do so and in stead of he giving a complaint to the<br \/>\nCourt, had filed the First Information Report  to  the  Inspector  of  Police,<br \/>\nGrand  Bazaar  Police  Station  who  registered  it as Crime No.408 of 1993 on<br \/>\n01.06.1993 at about 06.30 p.m and investigated the matter and filed the charge<br \/>\nsheet.  According to the learned counsel the said procedure has no sanction of<br \/>\nlaw and the Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report is illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor  argued  that<br \/>\nit  is  on the observation given by the learned Magistrate to the Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice, PCR Cell sought permission to register a case against the accused  for<br \/>\nan  offence  under  Section  182  IPC  that  he  shall  get the consent of the<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police and filed a complaint with the Inspector  of  Police,<br \/>\nPCR had done so and therefore, the prosecution is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   I  am  afraid  that  I  am  at a loss to understand as to how the<br \/>\nargument of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is  acceptable.    Since  the<br \/>\nobservation  of  the  learned Magistrate cannot supercede or run contra to the<br \/>\nspecific provisions of Cr.P.C.  Section 195 Cr.P.C clearly mandates  that  the<br \/>\nconcerned Public servant to whom a police complaint has been lodged can either<br \/>\nhimself  lay  a  complaint before the Court or his superior officer can file a<br \/>\ncomplaint before the Court.  He cannot be asked to give a complaint before any<br \/>\npolice officer to investigate the matter and file the charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  In support of this, the learned counsel for the  petitioner  would<br \/>\nplace before me a decision of the Apex Court reported in Daulat Ram Vs.  State<br \/>\nof Punjab  (1962  (2)  Crl.L.J.    286),  wherein  the facts are more are less<br \/>\nidentical to that of the present one.  In the said case a complaint was  given<br \/>\nto  the  Tahsildar,  who  found the complaint to be false and the Tahsildar in<br \/>\nstead of filing a complaint to the Court had filed  a  complaint  against  the<br \/>\nappellant to the police officer and he in turn had filed a charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  The Apex Court in the said situation has held as follows:<br \/>\n        It  was  therefore  incumbent,  if the prosecution was to be launched,<br \/>\nthat the complaint in writing should be made by the Tahsildar  as  the  public<br \/>\nservant concerned  in  this  case.    On the other hand what we find is that a<br \/>\ncomplaint by the Tahsildar was not filed at all, but a charge sheet was put in<br \/>\nby the Station House Officer.  The learned counsel for  the  State  Government<br \/>\ntries  to  support  the action by submitting that S.195 had been complied with<br \/>\ninasmuch as when the  allegations  had  been  disproved,  the  letter  of  the<br \/>\nSuperintendent  of Police was forwarded to the Tahsildar and he asked for a &#8220;a<br \/>\ncalender&#8221;(sic).  This paper was filed along with the charge sheet  and  it  is<br \/>\nstated that this satisfies the requirements of S.195.  In our opinion, this is<br \/>\nnot a  due  compliance  with the provisions of that section.  What the section<br \/>\ncontemplates is that the complaint must be in writing by  the  public  servant<br \/>\nconcerned and there is no such compliance in the present case.  The cognizance<br \/>\nof  the  case was therefore wrongly assumed by the court without the complaint<br \/>\nin writing of the public servant namely the Tahsildar in this case.  The trial<br \/>\nwas  thus  without  jurisdiction  ab  initio  and  the  conviction  cannot  be<br \/>\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   Therefore,  in  terms  of  Section 195 Cr.P.C, it is that Public<br \/>\nservant or his superior officer who should give a complaint before  the  Court<br \/>\nto take cognizance.  Therefore, a police officer of a different police station<br \/>\nbefore  whom  the  PCR  Inspector has given a report, filing a charge sheet is<br \/>\nillegal  and  consequently,  the  entire  proceedings  are  illegal  and   the<br \/>\nconviction and sentence has to be necessarily set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In the  result, the revision is allowed.  Fine amount, if any,<br \/>\npaid shall be directed to be refunded to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Csh<br \/>\nIndex:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Station House Officer,<br \/>\nGrand Bazaar Police Station, Pondicherry.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17\/02\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.PACKIARAJ CRL.R.C.No.509 of 2000 Ramalingam .. Petitioner. -Vs- State represented by Station House Officer, Grand Bazaar Police Station, Pondicherry. .. Respondent. For Petitioner: Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar For Respondent: Mr.A.P.Suryaprakasam Additional [&hellip;]<\/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-132662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-28T15:13:58+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T15:13:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1356,\"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\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T15:13:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 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":"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-28T15:13:58+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T15:13:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003"},"wordCount":1356,"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\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003","name":"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T15:13:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-vs-state-represented-by-station-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramalingam vs State Represented By Station on 17 February, 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\/132662","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=132662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}