{"id":143322,"date":"2010-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-19T15:29:55","modified_gmt":"2016-01-19T09:59:55","slug":"ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, … on 25 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, … on 25 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, H.L. Dattu<\/div>\n
                                              1\n\n\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 909-910 OF 2003\n\n  RAVICHANDRAN                                      ...APPELLANT\n\n                              VERSUS\n\n  STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS           ...RESPONDENT\n\n\n                                   WITH\n\n                CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 805-806 OF 2003\n\n                CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 807-808 OF 2003\n\n                CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 911-912 OF 2003\n\n               CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1515-1516 OF 2003\n\n                                  AND\n\n               CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1527-1528 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
1. All these appeals involve similar and connected facts.   Since, the<\/p>\n
  legal issues that arise for our consideration are also similar, we<\/p>\n
  proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment<\/p>\n
  and order.\n<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
2. Before we delve into the facts of the case, it would be appropriate for<\/p>\n
  us to deal with the miscellaneous applications that have been filed in<\/p>\n
  this Court and also the statement of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
  appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003.<\/p>\n
3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6391 to 6394 of 2010 in<\/p>\n
  Criminal    Appeal    Nos.   1515-1516     of   2003    and    Criminal<\/p>\n
  Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6396-6399 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
  Nos. 1527-1528 of 2003 are applications filed by the legal<\/p>\n
  representatives of the accused No. 1 namely, Kumaraguru seeking<\/p>\n
  for substitution of their names in place of the deceased appellant-<\/p>\n
  accused No. 1.     During the pendency of the appeals in this Court,<\/p>\n
  appellant-accused No. 1 died on 9th April, 2007.           The present<\/p>\n
  applications have therefore been filed by his legal representatives<\/p>\n
  seeking for substitution of their names in place of the deceased<\/p>\n
  appellant accused No. 1.      In support of the aforesaid prayer, the<\/p>\n
  legal representatives of the deceased appellant-accused No. 1 have<\/p>\n
  relied upon the provisions of Section 394 of the Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
  Code, 1973.      For the reasons stated in the said applications, the<\/p>\n
  applications are allowed.    The names of the applicants who are the<\/p>\n
  legal representatives of the deceased-appellant accused No. 1 are,
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
  thus, allowed to be brought on record.    The said applications stand<\/p>\n
  disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the appeals in this<\/p>\n
  Court, accused No. 3 namely, Tamizhselvan who was the owner of<\/p>\n
  shop No. 18 had died.      In that view of the matter, so far as the<\/p>\n
  appeals against accused No. 3 are concerned, i.e. Criminal Appeal<\/p>\n
  Nos. 805-806 of 2003, they stand abated.       The same are dismissed,<\/p>\n
  accordingly.   The owner of shop No. 30, Kandasamy, accused No. 3<\/p>\n
  in the first appeal has not filed any appeal in this Court against the<\/p>\n
  order of conviction and sentence passed against him.       It has been<\/p>\n
  stated that he has served out the sentence awarded to him.<\/p>\n
5. Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of the present appeals,<\/p>\n
  are that the appellants herein were charged under the provisions of<\/p>\n
  Section 120-B, Section 420 read with Section 120B, Section 477A<\/p>\n
  read with Section 120B IPC and under Section 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the<\/p>\n
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in SLP. C.C. No. 1 of 1985. In<\/p>\n
  C.C. No. 3 of 1985, charges were framed against the appellants<\/p>\n
  herein under clause 4(a) of the Pondicherry Essential Commodities<\/p>\n
  (Display of Stocks, Price and Maintenance of Accounts) Order, 1975<\/p>\n
  read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
  The case of the prosecution is that the appellants herein, i.e.,<\/p>\n
  accused Nos. 1 and 2 prepared the permit for issuance of palmolein<\/p>\n
  oil and the counter foil thereof was retained in the office.    Both the<\/p>\n
  aforesaid permits and the counter foil were in the handwriting of<\/p>\n
  accused No. 2 which are also initialed and signed by A1 and A2.<\/p>\n
  Subsequently, however, in the permit it was detected that there was<\/p>\n
  interpolation and forgery in respect of shop No. 30.       One of such<\/p>\n
  permits indicates that the palmolein oil was meant to be issued in<\/p>\n
  favour of Shop No. 38.         The counter foil retained in the office<\/p>\n
  indicates that it was meant to be issued and was in fact issued in<\/p>\n
  favour of shop No. 38 but in the permit, it was detected later on that<\/p>\n
  the same was converted and interpolated as shop No. 30.         Delivery<\/p>\n
  of the palmolein oil was also taken on behalf of shop No. 30.<\/p>\n
6. In view of the aforesaid interpolation and forgery in the said<\/p>\n
  documents, two separate cases were registered under the aforesaid<\/p>\n
  provisions. After submission of the charge-sheet, trial was conducted<\/p>\n
  and a number of witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 to P.W. 19 were examined and<\/p>\n
  several documents were also placed on record which were marked as<\/p>\n
  Exhibits P1 to P57.\n<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
7.   All the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code<\/p>\n
     of Criminal Procedure and on conclusion of the trial, the trial<\/p>\n
     Court, in Spl. C.C. No. 1 of 1985, convicted all the accused<\/p>\n
     persons namely A1-A3 for an offence under Section 120B IPC<\/p>\n
     and     sentenced     each   to       undergo   three   years   rigorous<\/p>\n
     imprisonment and also convicted them under Section 420 read<\/p>\n
     with Section 120B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo<\/p>\n
     three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.<\/p>\n
     500\/-    each,   in   default     to    undergo   one   month    simple<\/p>\n
     imprisonment.          The accused persons were further also<\/p>\n
     convicted under Section 477A read with Section 120B IPC and<\/p>\n
     sentenced each to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.<\/p>\n
     Ravichandran, A2 and A1 were also convicted under Section<\/p>\n
     5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
     Act, 1947 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced each to<\/p>\n
     undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a<\/p>\n
     fine of Rs. 500\/- each,               in default to undergo      simple<\/p>\n
     imprisonment for one month. Kandasamy A3 was convicted<\/p>\n
     under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
     Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced<\/p>\n
     to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
     of Rs. 500\/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for<\/p>\n
     one month.         All the sentences were directed to run<\/p>\n
     concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   With respect to Spl. C.C. No. 3 of 1985, accused Nos. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
     were convicted under clause 4(a) of the Pondicherry Essential<\/p>\n
     Commodities (Display of Stock, Prices and Maintenance of<\/p>\n
     Accounts) Order 1975 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the<\/p>\n
     Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 109 of<\/p>\n
     I.P.C. and sentenced each to undergo R.I. for 6 months.<\/p>\n
     Accused No. 3 was convicted under clause 4(a) of the<\/p>\n
     Pondicherry Essential Commodities (Display of Stocks, Prices<\/p>\n
     and Maintenance of Accounts) Order 1975 read with Section<\/p>\n
     7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and he was<\/p>\n
     sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.   Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the<\/p>\n
     trial Court, the appellants preferred four separate appeals. Two<\/p>\n
     appeals being C.A. Nos. 181 and 184 of 1994 were filed by<\/p>\n
     accused No. 1. The other two appeals being C.A. Nos. 220 and<\/p>\n
     222 of 1994 were filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 jointly.     The
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
      High Court by its judgment and order dated 31.12.2003<\/p>\n
      dismissed all the appeals.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction<\/p>\n
      and sentences, the appellants before us filed the appeals which<\/p>\n
      were entertained.   All the appeals have been listed for hearing<\/p>\n
      and we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
      parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   Counsel for the appellants have submitted before us that the<\/p>\n
      judgments are required to be set aside as none of the accused<\/p>\n
      persons could be said to be guilty of the offences alleged<\/p>\n
      against them.    It is pointed out that although the aforesaid<\/p>\n
      permit as also the counter foil were prepared by accused No. 2<\/p>\n
      and were signed by both the accused no. 2 and accused No. 1,<\/p>\n
      yet there is no conclusive proof that the interpolation and<\/p>\n
      forgery was done by both the accused persons.       It was also<\/p>\n
      pointed out during the course of arguments by the learned<\/p>\n
      counsel appearing for the appellants that so far as accused No.<\/p>\n
      3 is concerned, he died during the pendency of the present<\/p>\n
      appeals and he did not file any appeal himself before the Court.<\/p>\n
      So far as accused No. 4 is concerned, counsel appearing on his
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
      behalf has drawn our attention to the fact that although he is<\/p>\n
      the brother of A3 there is no evidence to show that he in fact<\/p>\n
      knew that the aforesaid permit which was delivered by him in<\/p>\n
      the office of the Federation was in any manner interpolated or<\/p>\n
      forged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   Mr. P.P. Malhotra, the Additional Solicitor General of India<\/p>\n
      appearing for the respondent-CBI tried to contend that it is the<\/p>\n
      concurrent finding of facts of the two Courts below and<\/p>\n
      therefore, the findings should not and cannot be interfered<\/p>\n
      with by this Court.   He also submitted that the findings on<\/p>\n
      record fully prove and establish the guilt of the two accused<\/p>\n
      persons and that there is enough material on record to show<\/p>\n
      that the documents in question were forged at least with the<\/p>\n
      knowledge and consent of the accused persons and therefore,<\/p>\n
      the conviction and sentences passed against them are legal<\/p>\n
      and valid.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   In the light of the aforesaid submissions, we have considered<\/p>\n
      the entire record of the case. We have carefully scrutinised the<\/p>\n
      evidence adduced in the present cases. After going through the<\/p>\n
      same, we are of the considered opinion that there is no
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
      evidence on record to indicate any link to prove and establish<\/p>\n
      that the interpolation and forgery was done by any of the<\/p>\n
      accused persons namely, A1, A2 or A4.        Only because A4 is<\/p>\n
      the brother of A3 does not in any manner prove and establish<\/p>\n
      that he had knowledge that the permit was interpolated when<\/p>\n
      he had presented it before the office of the Federation.<\/p>\n
14.   In order to prove that the interpolation and the forgery was<\/p>\n
      done by A1 and A2, the prosecution has led evidence of P.W. 3<\/p>\n
      and P.W. 6 who have stated that they knew the handwriting,<\/p>\n
      signatures, initials and mode of writing the figures of A1 and<\/p>\n
      A2. Before we deal with the testimony of P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 on<\/p>\n
      the point of handwriting, signatures, initials of the accused<\/p>\n
      persons, we wish to refer to two judgments of this Court. In<\/p>\n
      Rahim Khan Vs. Khurshid Ahmed and Others [(1974) 2 SCC<\/p>\n
      660], this Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “39. There is also oral evidence identifying the
\n        signature of the returned candidate on Exhibits P3
\n        and PW 11\/1, particularly in the deposition of Habib,
\n        PW 23. He has not spoken to his familiarity with the
\n        handwriting of the appellant. Opinion evidence is
\n        hearsay and becomes relevant only if the condition
\n        laid down in Section 47 of the Evidence Act is first
\n        proved. There is some conflict of judicial opinion on
\n        this matter, but we need not resolve it here, because,
\n        although there is close resemblance between the
\n        signature of Rahim Khan on admitted documents and
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
        that in Exhibits P3 and PW 11\/1, we do not wish to
\n        hazard a conclusion based on dubious evidence or lay
\n        comparison of signatures by Courts. In these
\n        circumstances, we have to search for other evidence, if
\n        any, in proof of circulation of the printed handbills by
\n        the returned candidate, or with his consent.”<\/p>\n
In Murari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1980 SC 531], this<\/p>\n
Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule
\n        of law, nor any rule of prudence which has
\n        crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of
\n        a handwriting expert must never be acted upon,
\n        unless substantially corroborated. But, having due
\n        regard to the imperfect nature of the science of
\n        identification of handwriting, the approach, as we
\n        indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons
\n        for the opinion must be carefully probed and
\n        examined. All other relevant evidence must be
\n        considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may
\n        be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion
\n        are convincing and there is no reliable evidence
\n        throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an
\n        handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be
\n        any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate
\n        analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial
\n        weight. We have said so much          because this is an
\n        argument frequently met with in subordinate courts
\n        and sentences torn out of context from the judgments
\n        of this Court are often flaunted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.   P.W. 6 stated in his examination-in-chief that he knew the<\/p>\n
      accused persons, viz., A1 to A3 and that A2 was working in<\/p>\n
      Civil Supplies Inspector’s Office in the rank of UDC and that he<\/p>\n
      had earlier worked with him in the Finance Department. P.W.
\n                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
      6 has however, nowhere stated in the examination-in-chief that<\/p>\n
      the present instance of interpolation or forgery was in the hand<\/p>\n
      of A2.   In the cross-examination, P.W. 6 stated that although<\/p>\n
      he had worked along with A2 in the Finance Department, but<\/p>\n
      he was working in a different Section of the Department. He<\/p>\n
      has clearly stated that he was working in the Budget Section<\/p>\n
      called F1 whereas A2 was working in the Motor Conveyance<\/p>\n
      Section called F2 Section.    It has also been brought to our<\/p>\n
      notice that in the cross-examination, it was said that the files<\/p>\n
      dealt by A2 and F2 Section in the Finance Department never<\/p>\n
      came to the F1 Section where P.W. 6 was working. Therefore,<\/p>\n
      in our considered opinion the interpolation as also the initials<\/p>\n
      appended thereto have not been proved and established to be<\/p>\n
      in the hand of A2 and A1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion<\/p>\n
      that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and<\/p>\n
      establish that the alleged interpolation and forgery was done by<\/p>\n
      either A1, A2 or A4.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.   As earlier noted by us, Criminal Appeal Nos. 805-806 of 2003<\/p>\n
      stand abated. We allow all the other appeals and set aside the
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
      orders of conviction and sentences passed against each of the<\/p>\n
      accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.   The bail bonds stand discharged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     ……………………………………..J.
\n                                     [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA]<\/p>\n
                                     ……………………………………..J.
\n                                     [H.L. DATTU]<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI
\nMARCH 25, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, … on 25 March, 2010 Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, H.L. Dattu 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 909-910 OF 2003 RAVICHANDRAN …APPELLANT VERSUS STATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS …RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 805-806 OF […]<\/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-143322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRavichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, ... on 25 March, 2010 - 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\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-19T09:59:55+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, … on 25 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-19T09:59:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2201,\"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\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-19T09:59:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, … on 25 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, ... on 25 March, 2010 - 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\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-19T09:59:55+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, … on 25 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-19T09:59:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010"},"wordCount":2201,"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\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010","name":"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-19T09:59:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravichandran-vs-state-by-dy-superin-of-police-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravichandran vs State By Dy. Superin. Of Police, … on 25 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/143322","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=143322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}