{"id":144123,"date":"2005-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005"},"modified":"2017-04-21T05:43:59","modified_gmt":"2017-04-21T00:13:59","slug":"d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N.Agrawal, A.K. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  480 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nD.S.P., Chennai\t\t     \t\t\t      \n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. Inbasagaran\t\t                              \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/12\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.N.Agrawal & A.K. Mathur\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal  is directed against an order of the Madras High
\nCourt whereby the Single  Bench of the High Court has acquitted
\nthe accused  by its order dated 11th July, 2001 passed in Criminal
\nAppeal No.231\/2000. Hence the present appeal has been filed
\nagainst the order of acquittal by the Deputy Superintendent of
\nPolice, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
\tBrief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal
\nare that the accused-respondent, Mr. K. Inbasagaran was a senior
\nI.A.S. Officer of the Government  of Tamil Nadu  who stood
\ncharged for offence  punishable under Section 13(2) read with
\nSection 13(1)(e) of the   Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988
\n(hereinafter to be referred as an “Act”) and was found guilty,
\nconvicted and sentenced by the learned Special  Judge (XIth
\nAdditional Judge, City Civil Court) at Madras  to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for one year and  also  to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000\/-,
\nin default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for  three months.\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved against this Order, the accused preferred an
\nappeal before the Madras High Court at Chennai and the learned
\nSingle Judge of the Madras High Court acquitted the accused  of
\nthe aforesaid charges.   Hence, the present appeal filed by the
\nState of Tamil Nadu through the Deputy Superintendent of
\nPolice, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused,  Inbasagaran obtained B.E.   Hons. Degree and
\njoined Indian Navy  as an Officer during 1965.  Later on   he
\nentered  the Indian Administrative Service during 1970 and was
\nallotted the Tamil Nadu Cadre.   During 1982 he went to America
\nfor  studies  alongwith  his wife and children.  He worked in
\nvarious capacities under the Government of Tamil Nadu, like
\nManaging Director  of  Tamil Nadu Chemical Products,  Chairman
\nof Tamil Nadu Leather  Corporation and lastly he was  appointed
\nas a Secretary to the  Health Department.  According to
\nprosecution on 13th September, 1993 and on 14th September, 1993
\nthere was a raid by the  Income-tax Authorities in the house of
\nthe accused.  The raid  by Income-tax  Department  yielded  a
\nhuge amount of cash amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs, 7 gold biscuits
\nweighing 819 grams,  $1118  and  certain documents regarding
\npurchase of immovable properties and also  fixed deposit receipts
\nof the Bank for Rs. 25,000\/-  in the name of third parties.   The
\nIncome-tax Authorities registered the case but subsequently
\nthey referred the matter on 15.2.1994  to  the State Government
\nto take departmental  action  against the accused.   The
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu initiated the disciplinary proceedings
\nagainst the accused during February, 1994.  A parallel criminal
\nproceedings was also taken by the Department regarding  the
\nassets  unearthed at the time of raid by the  Income-tax
\nDepartment.  However, the charges against the  accused were
\ndropped  with a warning to the accused in disciplinary proceedings
\nand the criminal case was also  closed on  mistake of facts.   P.W.
\n51 S. Ganapathy Iyer  an Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,
\nChennai Circle-1 (II),  held   an inquiry regarding the huge amount
\nof cash unearthed for the purpose of Income-tax assessment and
\ncame  to the conclusion  that the  said assets belonged to the
\naccused.   On the basis of the  inquiry by PW-51, the criminal
\ncase against the accused was reopened   as per  the Order of the
\nSpecial Judge passed in Crl. M.P. No. 7453\/1996 on 9.12.1996.
\nPW-53 Vishwanathan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, V&AC,
\nChennai City-1, continued investigation  at the instance of the
\nSpecial Judge, Madras. This reopening of the case was
\nchallenged by the  accused-petitioner by filing  Crl. M.P.
\n6812\/1997 before the Madras High Court but it was dismissed by
\nthe Court on 24.2.1998.   After  the permission by the Special
\nJudge to reopen the case, the investigation was taken up by the
\nPW-53, Viswanathan, he issued notice to the  accused, his wife
\nand children to appear before him but they did not appear.
\nAfter closing  of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
\nbefore the Special  Judge that the accused  had  committed
\noffence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the
\nAct on 4.11.1997.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution examined 53 witnesses as PWs  1 to 53 and
\nmarked  & executed  documents as Exs. P.1 to P.185.
\nThe accused denied the charges and  according to the
\naccused the assets  which had been unearthed during the raid by
\nthe  Income tax  department was not his assets but  they were
\nthe  assets of his wife who was running certain companies.
\nAccording to him,  his wife accompanied him  when  he went to
\nAmerica  where she worked in a pharmaceutical company  and also
\nas a clerk in State Bank of India and  she earned salaries and was
\nalso assessed by Income tax Department in America.   At the
\ntime of her return from America,  she brought cash, video
\ncamera and a computer.   Video camera and computer were
\nrevenue earning assets, his wife leased out the video camera for
\nmarriage coverage  and earned  sufficient monies. She had
\nstarted a computer  concern   under the name and style of Tamil
\nNadu Computer Service by incurring a loan of  Rs. 2,00,000\/- by
\nPunjab National Bank.   The computer centre also generated
\nfunds.   It was also stated  that apart from this,  his wife had
\nfloated three concerns one  in the name and style of A.V.J.,
\nMarketing Service, a proprietory concerned of  her own which
\nwas having franchise for sale  of hypo-dermic needles in Tamil
\nNadu and Andhra Pradesh,  another in the  name  and  style of
\nM\/s Southern Rims (P) Ltd. which was manufacturing cycle rims
\nand  another company  in the name of M\/s Silver Shoes (P) Ltd.
\nwhich was manufacturing shoe uppers    It was alleged that she
\nwas Director  of  two companies and  amounts of the two
\ncompanies were in her possession which she kept in her house.
\nOut of $1118, $800 belonged to his wife which she had earned as
\nsalary  in U.S.A. and $ 318 belonged to his son-in-law, S.
\nRajasankar who went to Europe in September, 1988 for which he
\nobtained F.T.S.  of $500 out of which he saved $318.   Regarding
\nthe purchase of immovable properties, he stated that  for the
\npurpose of a factory for M\/s Silver Shoes (P) Limited,  land was
\npurchased  at Vannagaram in the name of Rajasankar who
\nhappened to  be the Managing Director of the company with the
\nfunds of the  company.   Regarding  cash of Rs. 30 lakhs
\nrecovered from his house, it was urged that a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs
\nwas unaccounted money obtained by sale of cycle rims and shoe
\nuppers by the two companies without bill and  that  money
\nbelonged to her companies.  Regarding Rs. 1 lakh,  it was stated
\nthat amount  belonged to PW-46  Girish A. Darvey.\n<\/p>\n
It was submitted that he had no proprietary  control over
\nsum of Rs. 30 lakh seized by the Income-tax  Department as it
\nbelonged to the  unaccounted  money of his wife.   Regarding Rs.
\n19 lakhs deposited in various branches of Punjab National Bank in
\nKarnataka State,  it  was  submitted that all these monies
\nbelonged to the companies owned by his wife and the same was
\ndeposited at the instance of his wife.   The accused justified
\nthese unaccounted money by  examining himself as D.W.13
\nalongwith other  witnesses as D.Ws. 1 t o 12.  including his wife
\nand  had also got the  documents exhibited as D.1 to D.99 to
\nsubstantiate his allegation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  Special Judge discussed the evidence  on record
\nand found that the purchase of  gold biscuits, US dollars and cash
\nrecovered from  the house of the accused belonged the accused
\nand source of money  for the purchase of land also traceable to
\nthe accused.   Learned trial court also found that deposit of Rs.
\n19 lakhs made in various banks in Punjab National Bank at
\nBangalore was that of the accused  and it was deposited in benami
\nnames.  The  learned trial court held that assets worth Rs.
\n54,50,510\/-  was found in the possession of accused and
\naccordingly held  him guilty as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn appeal by accused, learned  Single Judge of the
\nMadras High Court examined the findings as well as the judgment
\nof  the learned trial Court   and came to the conclusion that  the
\nrecovery of sum of Rs. 29 lakhs at the house of the accused was
\nnot  in  exclusive possession  of the accused.   So far as Rs.1 lakh
\nfound on the dining table  is concerned, it belonged to one  Girish
\nDavey who appeared  in the witness box as PW 46 and was
\nrepresentative of pharmaceutical company, Ranbaxy    and the
\nlearned  Single Judge of the High Court also held  that Rs.  1 lakh
\nkept in plastic bag  and  two packets of sweets  found on the
\ndining table at the time of raid,  belonged to Girish  and it does
\nnot belong to the accused.   Learned Single Judge also found that
\nsince the entire money has been admitted by his wife who had
\ncome in witness box  as DW-12 & admitted  that  she  earned this
\nmoney by  selling cycle rims and leather shoe uppers without any
\nbill  and  this money belonged to her and  she had  made a clean
\nbreast before the Income tax authority and thereby she had
\naccepted this  unaccounted money being belonging  to her.
\nTherefore, learned Single Judge held that this  unaccounted
\nmoney did not  belong to the accused.  So far as the recovery of
\nthe $1118  is  concerned, the learned Single Judge  found the
\nexplanation satisfactory and his son-in-law has been found  to be
\nguilty by foreign exchange authorities and fined. Likewise, the
\nlearned Single Judge also found the purchase of gold biscuits by
\nhis wife  has been properly explained and  likewise, the purchase
\nof the property by the wife from her unaccounted money and
\nalso found that the money  belonged to his wife and she has made
\na clean breast   before the Income-tax Officer.  Hence, after
\nhearing both the parties the learned Single Judge acquitted the
\naccused and held that the money was not found from the
\npossession of  the accused  and it was unaccounted  money
\nbelonged  to  his wife who was  dealing with  various business and
\nit was also pointed out that  Income-tax authorities had assessed
\nthe money in her account, it was also held that no unaccounted
\nmoney has been recovered from the exclusive possession of the
\naccused, hence learned Single Judge acquitted the accused.
\nAggrieved against this,  the present appeal was filed  by the
\nState, through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have heard learned counsel for the State as well
\nas  the Respondent-in-person and his counsel.   Learned counsel
\nfor  the State has taken us through  the entire  evidence  and has
\ntried to emphasize that  the plea  taken by the wife of the
\naccused  that the money belonged to her was  with a view to
\nshield her husband  and his wife is only a decoy to protect her
\nhusband.   She has owned the entire money being  the black
\nmoney, from her business.   And she has accepted that all the
\nmoney  which had been recovered from her house, the money
\nwhich has  found deposited in the banks and the  immovable
\nproperties which were  purchased,   was done by her  and she
\nowes the entire responsibility and  she had disclosed to the
\nIncome-tax department.  The  Income-tax department has
\nassessed all this money in her hands  and assessment   order has
\nbeen passed by the Income-tax Officer and in the appeal it has
\nbeen affirmed.    In short, in fact all the  money which has been
\nrecovered at the house of the accused in cash, in kind and the
\ndocuments  of  properties  purchased at various parts in
\nKarnataka and Tamil Nadu  she has owned it.   Therefore, the
\nwife has taken the full responsibility of this black money and
\nowned the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel  for the State  states that the money
\nbelongs to   the accused since he  was  a Secretary to the
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu  in the Medical Health Department
\nand it is alleged that  on the relevant date  Girish Davay  came
\nwith the cash  and sweets which were lying on the  dining table
\nand it was recovered from the dining table.  In fact this money
\nwas brought for gratification to raise the purchase  price of the
\nmedicine,  ‘Fortwin’ which was manufactured by the company of
\nwhich Girish Davey  was one of  the  Senior Representative.
\nLearned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the
\nfollowing decisions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
i.\tAIR 1960 SC 7 [ C.S.D.Swami v. The State ]
\nii.\t(1981) 3 SCC 199 [ State of Maharashtra v.\n<\/p>\n
Wasudeo   Ramchandra Kaidalwar]<\/p>\n
iii.\tAIR 1988 SC 88 [State of Maharashtra v.\n<\/p>\n
Pollonji DarabshawDaruwalla]<\/p>\n
iv.\t(1991) 3 SCC 655 [ K.Veeraswami v. Union of
\nIndia & Ors.<\/a>]<\/p>\n
v.\t(1999) 6  SCC  559 [ P.Nallammal & Anr. V. State
\n                           represented by Inspector of Police]<\/p>\n
 As against this, learned counsel for the respondent as well
\nas the respondent in person have submitted  that the act of
\nrecovery of the money,  the deposits in the bank and purchase of
\nthe property is not disputed but the question is whether it was in
\nthe possession of the accused or not?\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was pointed out that  in fact  all the money
\nbelonged  to  his wife  as she was running three companies and
\nshe had admitted that out of  the unaccounted  sale of rims of
\ncycle    as well as  the leather shoe uppers without bills she
\nearned this huge  wealth and she had owned it.  Therefore,
\nrecovery in this raid  by  Income-tax department cannot  be
\nconsidered to be  from exclusive  possession of the accused.
\nSpecially  when the wife who has come in witness box as DW-12
\nand  accepts  it that she has earned  all  this money by sale of
\ngoods without bill.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent  also submitted that
\nunder Section 132(4)  of the Income-tax Act, the order of the
\nIncome Tax Officer has been confirmed in appeal and all money
\nowned by the wife has been assessed against her.    It was also
\nsubmitted that finding of Income Tax authority and confession
\nof  DW-12  Vijaya Inbasgaran have been accepted.  Therefore, it
\nis a judicial finding and  on the same a criminal prosecution
\ncannot  be lodged.   In support thereof learned counsel  for the
\nrespondent invited out attention in the case of  K.C. Builders
\nand another  Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
\nReported in (2004) 2 SCC 731.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard both the learned counsel at length. The
\nbasic question  that emerges in the present case is whether  the
\naccused could be saddled with all the unaccounted money at his
\nhand or not.  It is the admitted position that both the husband
\nand wife were living together.  The wife was running three
\nconcerns though those concerns were running in loss.  Yet she
\ncould manage to earn black money by selling goods without bills
\nand amassed this wealth without disclosing the  same  to the
\nIncome-tax authority and when the raid was conducted she
\ndisclosed the unaccounted money and accepted herself for being
\nassessed by the Income-tax Department. Therefore, in this
\ncontext,  the question arises whether  the joint possession of the
\npremises by the husband and wife  and the unaccounted money
\nwhich has been recovered from the house could be said to be in
\nexclusive possession of the accused.  There is no two opinion in
\nthe matter that the initial burden  has to be discharged by the
\nprosecution. The prosecution in order to discharge  that burden
\nhas examined the Investigating Officer, P.W.53- Shri
\nViswanathan, D.S.P. (Investigation). P.W.53- Viswanathan has
\ncollected all the materials from various places and he has given
\nthe details of his investigation. He has also supported the
\nrecoveries which have been made by the Income-tax Department.
\nHe in his statement, has also deposed that some money was
\ndeposited at various branches of Punjab National Bank at
\nBangalore and he has examined all the Senior Managers of Punjab
\nNational Bank to show that various amounts were deposited in
\ntheir Banks and the prosecution has also produced them in the
\nwitness box to substantiate their allegation as P.Ws.22, 23, 24,
\n25, 26 and 32. He has also examined the persons against whose
\nnames  those amounts were deposited in  the witness box.  He has
\nalso examined the Income-tax Officer as P.W.14, P.W.44
\nAssistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation) and P.W.51-  S.
\nGanapathy Iyer.  By this evidence the prosecution has established
\nthat the money was recovered at the house of the accused as well
\nas various purchases of immovable properties made by the wife of
\nthe accused.   The prosecution has tried to establish that all the
\nmoneys which had been recovered from the house of the accused,
\nvarious deposits in the Punjab National Bank at various places
\nthrough the influence of the Regional Manager of Punjab National
\nBank and the recovery of the gold ornaments as well as the
\nrecovery of foreign exchange i.e. dollars belong to accused. Thus,
\nthe prosecution has tried to establish that all the moneys
\nbelonged to the accused and after taking sanction, prosecution
\nwas launched against the accused. There is  no two opinion in the
\nmatter that the initial burden lies on the prosecution.  In the
\ncase of C.S.D.Swami v. The State reported in AIR 1960 SC 7,
\nthis Court has taken the view that in Section 5(3) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1947 a complete departure has
\nmade from the criminal jurisprudence still initial  burden lies on
\nthe prosecution and in that context it has been observed as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” Section 5 (3)  does not create a new
\noffence but only lays down a rule of evidence,
\nenabling  the court to raise a presumption of
\nguilt in certain circumstances- a rule which is a
\ncomplete departure from the established
\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that the
\nburden always lies on the prosecution to prove
\nall the ingredients of the offence charged, and
\nthat the burden never shifts on to the accused
\nto disprove the charge framed against him.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the initial burden was on the prosecution to establish
\nwhether  the accused has acquired the property  disproportionate
\nto his  known source of income or not.  But at the same time it
\nhas been held  in a case  of  State of M.P.  Vs.  Awadh Kishore
\nGupta and Others  reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691  that accused
\nhas to account satisfactorily the money received in his hand and
\nsatisfy the court that his explanation was worthy  of acceptance.
\nIn order to substantiate the plea taken by the accused that all
\nthe moneys which had been received belonged to his wife and in
\nsupport thereof he has examined as many as 13 witnesses
\nincluding himself, his wife and his son-in-law. D.W. 12 is the wife
\nof the accused. She has deposed that the entire money belonged
\nto her. She has admitted the raid on her house and she has also
\nadmitted that she has amassed  the wealth by selling cycle rims
\nand leather products  without any bill and out of the money
\namassed by her she had persuaded her husband to deposit the
\nsame at various Banks. She has come forward and admitted  the
\nrecovery of the foreign exchange at her house and she has
\naccounted for the same. She has also admitted the recovery of
\nthe gold ornaments at her house and she has explained that she
\nhas purchased those gold ornaments. She has also submitted that
\nsome real estate was purchased out of self earning as well as the
\nloan from the mother of the son-in-law and some contribution was
\nmade by the son-in-law and the son-in-law has also admitted.
\nLikewise, D.W.8 – her son-in-law, Thiru S.Rajasankar also
\nappeared in the witness box and admitted that he has also saved
\ncertain foreign exchange when he had gone on various visits
\nabroad.  He has also admitted to have carried some money to be
\ndeposited in the Bank.  The accused has also come forward  in the
\nwitness box as D.W.13 and has deposed that all the moneys
\nbelonged to his wife and when he came to know about the
\nunaccounted money at his house, he gave his piece of mind to her.
\nHe has admitted that on one or two occasions money was carried
\nby himself to be deposited  in the account in Punjab National Bank
\nand   some money was also deposited on account of some of the
\nmembers of the family by P.W.8,  S. Rajasankar, son-in-law.
\nTherefore, under these circumstances, the respondent has
\nexplained the possession of unaccounted money.
\n\tNow, in this background, when the accused has come
\nforward with the plea that all the money which has been
\nrecovered from his house and purchase of real estate  or the
\nrecovery of the gold and other deposits  in the Bank,  all have
\nbeen owned by his wife, then in that situation how can all these
\nrecoveries of unaccounted money could be laid in his hands. The
\nquestion is when the accused has provided  satisfactorily
\nexplanation that all the money belonged to his wife and she has
\nowned it and the Income-tax Department has assessed in her
\nhand,  then  in  that  case, whether he could be charged under the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act.  It is true that when there is joint
\npossession between the wife and husband, or father and son and
\nif some of the members of the family are involved in amassing
\nillegal wealth,  then unless there is categorical evidence to
\nbelieve, that this can be read in the hands of the husband or as
\nthe case may be,  it cannot be fastened on the husband or head
\nof family.  It is true that the prosecution in the present case has
\ntried its best to lead the evidence to show that all these moneys
\nbelonged to the accused but when the wife  has fully owned the
\nentire money and the other wealth earned by her by not showing
\nin the Income-tax return and she has accepted the whole
\nresponsibilities, in that case, it is very difficult to hold the
\naccused guilty of the charge. It is very difficult to segregate
\nthat how much of wealth belonged to the husband and how much
\nbelonged to the wife. The prosecution has not been able to  lead
\nevidence to establish that some of the money could be held in the
\nhands of the accused. In case of joint possession it is very
\ndifficult when one of the persons accepted the entire
\nresponsibility. The wife of the accused has not been prosecuted
\nand it is only the husband who has been charged being the public
\nservant.  In view of the explanation given by the husband  and
\nwhen it has been substantiated by the evidence of the wife, the
\nother witnesses who have been produced on behalf of the
\naccused coupled with the fact that  the entire money has been
\ntreated in the hands of the wife and she has owned it and she has
\nbeen assessed by the Income-tax Department, it will not be
\nproper to hold the accused guilty under the prevention of
\nCorruption Act as his explanation appears to be plausible and
\njustifiable. The burden is on the accused to offer plausible
\nexplanation and in the present case, he has satisfactorily
\nexplained that the whole money which has been recovered from
\nhis house does not belong to him and it belonged to his wife.
\nTherefore, he has satisfactorily accounted for the recovery of
\nthe unaccounted money. Since the crucial question in this case
\nwas of the possession and the premises in question was jointly
\nshared by the wife and the husband and the wife having accepted
\nthe entire recovery at her hand, it will not be proper to hold
\nhusband guilty.  Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the
\nopinion that the view taken by the High Court appears to be
\njustified and there are no compelling circumstances to reverse
\nthe order of acquittal.  Hence, we do not find any merit in this
\nappeal and the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005 Author: A Mathur Bench: B.N.Agrawal, A.K. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 480 of 2002 PETITIONER: D.S.P., Chennai RESPONDENT: K. Inbasagaran DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/12\/2005 BENCH: B.N.Agrawal & A.K. Mathur JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T A.K. MATHUR, J. This […]<\/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-144123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nD.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005 - 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\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-21T00:13:59+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-21T00:13:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3941,\"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\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005\",\"name\":\"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-21T00:13:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005 - 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\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-21T00:13:59+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-21T00:13:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005"},"wordCount":3941,"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\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005","name":"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-21T00:13:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-s-p-chennai-vs-k-inbasagaran-on-7-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.S.P., Chennai vs K. Inbasagaran on 7 December, 2005"}]},{"@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\/144123","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=144123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144123\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}