{"id":136931,"date":"2003-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"},"modified":"2018-01-17T19:00:06","modified_gmt":"2018-01-17T13:30:06","slug":"tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  MADRAS\n\nDated: 26\/03\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.  Justice V.S.  SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. KANAGARAJ\n\nH.C.P. No.2153 OF 2002\n\nTmt. Chinnaponnu               ....                         Petitioner\n\n-VS-\n\n1.  State of Tamil Nadu\n    represented by the\n    Secretary to Government\n    Prohibition and Excise Department\n    Chennai  9\n\n2.  District Collector and\n      District Magistrate\n    Kancheepuram District\n    Kancheepuram                .....         Respondents\n\nPetition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying  for  a  Writ  of\nHabeas Corpus as stated in the petition\n\nFor Petitioner ::  Mr.  Swamidoss Manoharan\n\nFor Respondents ::  Mr.  A.  Navaneethakrishnan\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.)<br \/>\n                The writ petition is filed by one Chinnaponnu, challenging the<br \/>\norder  dated  16-8-2002  passed by District Collector and District Magistrate,<br \/>\nKancheepuram   District,   Kancheepuram,   branding   one   Chakkarai    alias<br \/>\nChakkaravarthy  as  goonda  and  directing  his detention under Sec.3 of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug  Offenders,<br \/>\nForest  Offenders,  Goondas,  Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act,<br \/>\n1982 (in short Act 14 of 1982).\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Two adverse cases are shown against the detenu  while  the<br \/>\nground  case  is  based on an incident dated 27-5-2002, which pertained to the<br \/>\nmurder of one Kutty, husband of Tmt.  Mangalam Kutty.  The said Mangalam Kutty<br \/>\nwas the President of the Melamaiyur village panchayat at  the  relevant  time.<br \/>\nIn  the  reasons  it  is  suggested  that  detenu belonged to the group of one<br \/>\nKanitha Sampath, sitting  Member  of  Legislative  Assembly  from  Thirupporur<br \/>\nAssembly constituency and the wife of the deceased Kutty had political rivalry<br \/>\nwith  Kanitha  Sampath  and  this has resulted into the murder of Kutty at the<br \/>\nhands of the henchmen of the said Kanitha Sampath.  As  many  as  six  persons<br \/>\nhave  been  shown  to  be  arrested  on  account  of  the allegation that they<br \/>\nassaulted Kutty with aruval and knives and caused him  injuries  resulting  in<br \/>\nhis death  on  the  spot.  The detaining authority has also relied on the fact<br \/>\nthat Mangalam Kutty had lodged a number of complaints to the concerned  police<br \/>\nstation  because  of the threatening calls and threatening letters directed at<br \/>\nher by the henchmen of her political rival.   It  is  also  pointed  out  that<br \/>\nMangalam  Kutty  was  elected  as  the President of the said village panchayat<br \/>\nunion, defeating the sitting M.L.A., Kanitha Sampath.  The detaining authority<br \/>\nhad come to the conclusion that this murder of  the  husband  of  the  village<br \/>\npanchayat has resulted in the disturbance to the maintenance of public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Learned   counsel  for  the  petitioner,  Mr.    Swamidoss<br \/>\nManoharan firstly pointed out that pages 71, 101, 102, 207, 225, 253, 255, 282<br \/>\nand 49 were illegible and, therefore, the detenu found it  difficult  to  read<br \/>\nthe same.   He, therefore, had sought legible copy of these pages.  He further<br \/>\npoints out that 197, 199, 201, 203, 213, 61, 63, 65 and 55  were  entirely  in<br \/>\nEnglish  and  since  the  detenu did not understand English, he had sought the<br \/>\nTamil translation of these pages.  Learned counsel suggested that though these<br \/>\npages have been given, the Tamil translation of pages  299  and  301  are  not<br \/>\nthere in the booklet.  He, therefore, suggests that this amounts to the denial<br \/>\nof  opportunity  to  make  a  proper  and effective representation against his<br \/>\ndetention.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  We have seen those pages.    They  pertained  to  the  post-mortem<br \/>\nreport, which  is  in English.  There is no doubt that the translation of this<br \/>\npost-mortem report, which graphically describes the injuries on the person  of<br \/>\nthe deceased Kutty has not been supplied.  However, the matters will not stand<br \/>\nconcluded thereby.    It  is trite law now crystallised by the decision of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in PAUNAMMAL v.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1999 SCC Crl.   231)  that<br \/>\nit  is  only  the  denial  on the part of the State to supply the copies of or<br \/>\ntranslation of the relied upon documents,  it  would  clinch  the  issue  in<br \/>\nfavour of the detenu.  The Apex Court has clarified therein that if the detenu<br \/>\naskes  for  only the referred to documents, the non-supply thereof would not<br \/>\nresult in vitiating the detention.  We have seen the grounds very closely but,<br \/>\nwe do not find that this post-mortem report is in any manner  relied  upon  by<br \/>\nthe detaining authority.    At  the most it is a referred document.  In that<br \/>\nview, the contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  a<br \/>\nprejudice  was  caused  to the detenu on account of non-supply can also not be<br \/>\naccepted because the learned  counsel  has  not  been  able  to  show  us  any<br \/>\nprejudice caused  on  account  of  the  non-supply.    Keeping  in mind, the<br \/>\nprinciples laid down by the Apex Court in Paunammal case, cited supra, it will<br \/>\nhave to be held that the contention raised does not deserve acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  Learned counsel then argued  that  there  was  nothing  to<br \/>\nsuggest that this singular incident of murder had resulted in disturbance of<br \/>\npublic order.   Learned counsel contended that it could at the most be held to<br \/>\nbe prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order situation in  the  village.<br \/>\nThe  argument  was  that this was a small hamlet wherein such murder by itself<br \/>\ncannot cause the repulse  so  as  to  disturb  the  public  order.    We  were<br \/>\nextensively taken through the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/575391\/\">PIYUSH<br \/>\nKANTIVAL MEHTA  v.    COMMISSIONER  OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD CITY AND ANOTHER (AIR<\/a><br \/>\n1989 SC 491) and more particularly the observations made in paragraphs 12,  16<br \/>\nand 17  thereof.   There can be no dispute about the law laid down by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt.  However, it cannot be said that the incident of a murder of husband of<br \/>\nthe President of the Village Panchayat was of such a  potency  so  as  not  to<br \/>\ndisturb the  public  order  in the otherwise calm and quiet hamlet.  We cannot<br \/>\nforget that in the grounds the pre-existing enmity between Mangalam Kutty  and<br \/>\nKanitha Sampath is referred to and relied upon.  The murder was as a result of<br \/>\npolitical rivalry  between  Mangalam Kutty and Kanitha Sampath.  The detaining<br \/>\nauthority has also used the earlier complaints made by Mangalam  Kutty  asking<br \/>\nfor the  protection.    He  has  also  referred  to  the threatening calls and<br \/>\nthreatening letters handed out by the  group  of  the  said  Kanitha  Sampath.<br \/>\nUnder  such  circumstances,  it  cannot  be said that a gruesome murder of the<br \/>\nhusband of President of the village panchayat will not cause  ripples  in  the<br \/>\npublic order  of  that  hamlet.    After  all,  if  Melamaiyur  had  a village<br \/>\npanchayat, it cannot be strictly said to be a sleepy hamlet.    We  have  seen<br \/>\neven  the sketch drawn by the Investigating Officer where this gruesome murder<br \/>\ntook place though at night at 10o clock.  It is in  the  vicinity  of  a  few<br \/>\nhouses.   If  the  incident  has  taken  place  on  the backdrop of the fierce<br \/>\npolitical rivalry and of such a person like husband of the  President  of  the<br \/>\nvillage  panchayat,  it  cannot be said that the public order of that area was<br \/>\nnot likely to be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Learned counsel then pointed out that this was a  singular<br \/>\nincident and, therefore, it could not be said that it would disturb the public<br \/>\norder.  In  the recent decision in DARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU<br \/>\n(J.T.  2003 (1) SC 176), the Apex Court went into this question  and  observed<br \/>\nthat  a  solitary  assault  on one individual could not be said to disturb the<br \/>\npublic peace or place the public order in  jeopardy.    In  paragraph  6,  the<br \/>\nSupreme  Court  took  note  of the allegations made against the detenu in that<br \/>\ncase, which was of his robing a person called Kumar in a public  place.    It,<br \/>\ntherefore,  came  to  the  conclusion and recorded a finding that there was no<br \/>\nmaterial on record to show that the reach and the potentiality of the solitary<br \/>\nincident of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or  normal  life<br \/>\nof  the  community in the locality or disturb general peace and tranquility or<br \/>\ncreate a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality.    The  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nlater  on  went  on  to  quash  the  detention  on  the  ground  that  in  the<br \/>\ncircumstances of that case, it could not be said that the act  of  the  detenu<br \/>\nwas sufficient  to  cause  a  disturbance  to  the public order.  However, the<br \/>\nobservations quoted above  provide  a  clue  for  deciding  as  to  whether  a<br \/>\nparticular  act  could  be  held to be sufficient to disturb the public order.<br \/>\nThough in the aforesaid decision, there were no such facts available,  in  our<br \/>\nopinion, the  material  is  available  in  the  present  case.    It cannot be<br \/>\nforgotten that there was a backdrop of a long standing rivalry in between  two<br \/>\ngroups    one  headed  by the wife of the deceased and another by the sitting<br \/>\nMember of the Legislative Assembly.    The  wife  of  the  deceased  has  been<br \/>\nconstantly complaining and seeking protection of the police on the ground that<br \/>\nshe was being given threatening calls and threatening letters.  It cannot also<br \/>\nbe  forgotten  that the person, who lost the life was the husband of President<br \/>\nof village panchayat.  In our opinion, the consideration of this  material  to<br \/>\nbe  sufficient  to cause the disturbance of the public order cannot be said to<br \/>\nbe erroneous, on the part of the detaining authority.  When we see the grounds<br \/>\nclosely, this common thread of long political rivalry and  the  fierce  result<br \/>\nthereof   a murder of the husband of the President of the village panchayat<br \/>\nhave been taken into consideration by the detaining  authority.    We  cannot,<br \/>\ntherefore,  persuade ourselves to accept the contention that this was merely a<br \/>\ndisturbance to the law and order rather than public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Learned counsel tried to urge that the incident had  taken<br \/>\nplace at night and there was nothing to suggest that it took place in presence<br \/>\nof the  villagers.  In fact, the bail application was rejected by the Sessions<br \/>\nJudge on the ground that there was enough evidence available to  suggest  that<br \/>\nthe  detenu with others had taken part in committing the overt act against the<br \/>\nsaid Kutty.  It cannot, therefore, be said that the act on  the  part  of  the<br \/>\ndetenu  in  committing  the assault with deadly weapons and thereby committing<br \/>\nthe murder of Kutty, husband of the President of the village panchayat, can be<br \/>\ndubbed only as disturbing the law and order and not the  public  order.    The<br \/>\ncontention, therefore, must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  Lastly,  Mr.   Swamidoss Manoharan, argued that the detenu<br \/>\nhad sought the copy of the affidavit sworn  by  the  sponsoring  authority  by<br \/>\nwhich  he  placed  the  copy of the order dated 16-8-2002 before the detaining<br \/>\nauthority.  The argument is duel.  Firstly, it is  contended  that  such  copy<br \/>\ncame  to  be surreptitiously pasted in the documents which have been supplied;<br \/>\nalternatively, the argument is that if the copy of the order  dated  16-8-2002<br \/>\nwas  actually  supplied to the detaining authority then, necessarily it had to<br \/>\nbe supplied only by way of an  additional  affidavit  because  all  the  other<br \/>\npapers must have already been supplied to the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   In the first place, there is nothing on record to suggest<br \/>\nthat any  additional  affidavit  was  sworn  and  supplied  to  the  detaining<br \/>\nauthority by the sponsoring authority.  The argument of the learned counsel is<br \/>\nbased  on  the presumption that all the documents and the affidavit came to be<br \/>\nsupplied earlier to 16-8-2002 and on that basis the  order  of  detention  was<br \/>\npassed on 16-8-2002.  It cannot be forgotten that the bail application came to<br \/>\nbe  rejected  by order dated 14-8-2002 and the copy thereof was made available<br \/>\nto the sponsoring authority only on 16-8-2002.  Under such circumstances,  the<br \/>\ncopy could have been supplied to the detaining authority even on 16-8-2002 and<br \/>\nbefore the  detention  order  was passed.  Therefore, this question also pales<br \/>\ninto insignificance.  Learned counsel, however, says that the  said  affidavit<br \/>\nwas not  supplied.   In our opinion that there was such an affidavit is itself<br \/>\nnot established and, therefore, there will be no  question  of  any  prejudice<br \/>\nbeing  caused to the detenu because of the nonsupply of the alleged additional<br \/>\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Lastly, learned counsel relied on the question  of  delay<br \/>\nin consideration  of  the  representation.  The first representation, dated 16\n<\/p>\n<p>-9-2002, made by the  detenu  was  received  by  the  Government  through  the<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board  and  it  came  to be rejected by the Government on 7-10-2002.<br \/>\nThis representation was received  by  the  Government  on  20  -09-2002.    It<br \/>\nimmediately  called  the  parawise remarks on 20-9-2002, which was received by<br \/>\nthe Government only on 30-9-2002.  Thereafter, the file was placed before  the<br \/>\nUnder Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 1-10-2002.  It is to be remembered<br \/>\nthat 21st, 22nd, 28th and 29 th October, 2002 were holidays.  Therefore, there<br \/>\nwas no  question  of  any  delay here.  Ultimately, the Honble Minister dealt<br \/>\nwith the representation and rejected it on 7-10-2002.  If  the  file  was  put<br \/>\nbefore  the  Honble  Minister  on 4-10-2002 and was disposed of on 7-10-2002,<br \/>\nthere was no question of any delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  Learned  counsel,  however,  points  out  that  one  more<br \/>\ndetailed  representation  was  made  by the detenu on 30th September, 2002 and<br \/>\nthat was  not  properly  considered  in  time.    Learned  Additional   Public<br \/>\nProsecutor  drew our attention at the counter wherein the time-table is given.<br \/>\nThis representation was received by the Government  on  4-10-2002.    Parawise<br \/>\nremarks were  called  from the detaining authority on 7 -10-2002.  5th and 6th<br \/>\nOctober were holidays being Saturday and Sunday.  The  remarks  were  received<br \/>\nback by  the Government on 28-10-2002.  The matter was considered by the Under<br \/>\nSecretary and Deputy Secretary  on  30-10-2002  and  31-10-2002  respectively,<br \/>\nwhile it was kept before the Honble Minister on 2-11-2002 and it was rejected<br \/>\non 6-11-2 002.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   Learned  counsel  takes  exception to the period between<br \/>\n7-10-200 2 and 28-10-2002 and secondly between 2-11-2002 and 6-11-2002.  In so<br \/>\nfar as the first spell  is  concerned,  it  is  pointed  out  by  the  learned<br \/>\nAdditional  Public Prosecutor that 12th to 15th, 19th, 20th, 26 th and 27th of<br \/>\nOctober, 2002 were public holidays.    Learned  Additional  Public  Prosecutor<br \/>\nargues that some time would be required because the Government had to call the<br \/>\nparawise remarks  from  the  detaining authority, viz.  District Collector and<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate, Kancheepuram who had to further call the remarks  of  the<br \/>\nsponsoring  authority  and  after receipt of those remarks had to despatch the<br \/>\nsame to the Government.  If, in the whole process, as many as  ten  to  twelve<br \/>\ndays were  public  holidays, there would be no question of any delay.  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel also pointed out that some time would be required  in  the  postoffice<br \/>\nalso.   Therefore,  the  explanation  is  reasonable  and  we are of the clear<br \/>\nopinion that there is no delay in consideration of the  second  representation<br \/>\nalso.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.   In short, we are of the clear view that the petition has<br \/>\nno merits and must be rejected.  It is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n<p>Jai<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government Prohibition<br \/>\nand Excise Department Chennai  9<\/p>\n<p>2.   District  Collector  and  District   Magistrate   Kancheepuram   District<br \/>\nKancheepuram<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 26\/03\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice V. KANAGARAJ H.C.P. No.2153 OF 2002 Tmt. Chinnaponnu &#8230;. Petitioner -VS- 1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the [&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-136931","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>Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 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\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-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=\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-17T13:30:06+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T13:30:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2392,\"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\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-17T13:30:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 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":"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 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\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-17T13:30:06+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T13:30:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"},"wordCount":2392,"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\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","name":"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-17T13:30:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-chinnaponnu-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tmt. Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 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\/136931","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=136931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}