{"id":160549,"date":"2007-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2"},"modified":"2015-08-20T08:46:46","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T03:16:46","slug":"n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 04\/04\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nCrl.R.C.(MD).No.846 of 2005\nand\nCrl.M.P.(MD).No.6971 of 2005\n\n\nN.M.Thomas\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.Vinodh Kumar\n\n2.The Sub Inspector of Police,\n  Nanguneri Police Station,\n  Nanguneri.\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nPetition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure, to set aside the order dated 27.04.2005 made in Criminal Revision\nNo.15 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli,\nreversing the order dated 18.11.2003 made in Cr.M.P.No.276 of 2003 in C.C.No.236\nof 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.\n\n!For Petitioner : Mr.Sethupathi for\n\t\t  Mr.S.Sivathilakar\n\n^For Respondents: Mr.P.Rajendran\n\t\t  Government Advocate (Crl. Side)\n\t\t  for R2.\n\t\t  Mr.K.N.Thambi for R1.\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Criminal Revision Case is focussed to set aside the order dated<br \/>\n27.04.2004 made in Criminal Revision No.15 of 2005 on the file of the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, whereby the order dated 18.11.2003 made<br \/>\nin Cr.M.P.No.276 of 2003 in C.C.No.236 of 2002 on the file of the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, Nanguneri was reversed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Criminal Revision as stood<br \/>\nexposited from the records would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt so happened that the police registered a case in Cr.No.117 of 2001 for<br \/>\nthe offence punishable under section 420 I.P.C based on the complaint of the<br \/>\nfirst respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The gist and kernel of the case of the prosecution is that the accused<br \/>\nwas working under the first respondent and as an employee under him, he<br \/>\ncollected a sum of Rs.48,000\/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only) on 20.08.1999<br \/>\nfrom one Selvaraj, who was at that time a Supervisor working under the first<br \/>\nrespondent, with the task of taking it to Cochin and handing over to the first<br \/>\nrespondent.  But, the petitioner did not do so;  thereupon, there was a massive<br \/>\nsearch for him and he could not be traced and thereupon, on  21.02.2000, a<br \/>\ncomplaint was lodged with the police who did not take any action.  The<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police was addressed and on his direction, the said case in<br \/>\nCr.No.117 of 2001 was registered.  The police investigated into the matter and<br \/>\nlaid the police report for the offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C<br \/>\nbefore the learned Magistrate concerned.  When the stage has come for framing of<br \/>\ncharges, the petitioner herein, filed Crl.M.P.No.276 of 2003 for discharging<br \/>\nhim;  thereupon, the learned Magistrate after hearing both sides, allowed that<br \/>\napplication and discharged the petitioner\/accused on the main ground that there<br \/>\nwas no clarity in the F.I.R and that there was no reason for altering the penal<br \/>\nSection 420 I.P.C into Section 408 I.P.C and that such criminal case emerged as<br \/>\na counter blast to the complaint filed by the accused as against the first<br \/>\nrespondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate, the defacto complainant preferred a revision as against the said<br \/>\norder before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who set aside the order of<br \/>\nthe learned Magistrate and remitted the case back to the learned Magistrate for<br \/>\nframing charges.  The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that<br \/>\nthere were sufficient facts found set out as per the records and in such a case,<br \/>\nthe learned Magistrate was not justified in simply discharging the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nthis Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the accused on various grounds<br \/>\ninter alia which run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration<br \/>\nthe statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the witnesses and that their<br \/>\nstatements would in no way link the accused with the crime.  The learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge also failed to appreciate that the said criminal<br \/>\ncomplaint was only a counter blast to the said complaint filed under Section 138<br \/>\nof the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would cite the decision of the<br \/>\nHonourable Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1360078\/\">Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and<\/a> another<br \/>\nreported in 1979 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 609 and highlight the fact that even<br \/>\nthough proof beyond all reasonable doubts is not required, there should be<br \/>\nstrong prima facie case for framing charge.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;7. Section 227 of the Code runs thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIf, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents<br \/>\nsubmitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the<br \/>\nprosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient<br \/>\nground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and<br \/>\nrecord his reasons for so doing.\n<\/p>\n<p>The words &#8216;not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused&#8217; clearly<br \/>\nshow that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest<br \/>\nof the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the<br \/>\ncase in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the<br \/>\nprosecution.  In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter<br \/>\ninto the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of<br \/>\nevidence and probabilities which is really his function after the trial starts.<br \/>\nAt the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order<br \/>\nto find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the<br \/>\naccused.  The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the<br \/>\nevidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which<br \/>\nex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so<br \/>\nas to frame a charge against him.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. However, the learned Counsel for the first respondent would cite the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in Hema Mohnot v. State., etc., reported in 2006-2-<br \/>\nL.W.(Crl.) 668.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;13. From the judgments of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court, cited above, it is<br \/>\nclear that the question whether a charge should be framed or not when the Court<br \/>\nis considering under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into account<br \/>\nwhether any case has been made out against the accused which if unrebutted would<br \/>\nwarrant his conviction.  The Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of<br \/>\nsaying that the trial Court has to consider the question as to framing of charge<br \/>\non a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the<br \/>\ninvestigating police officer.  Even a very strong suspicion founded upon<br \/>\nmaterials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion<br \/>\nas to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the  offence<br \/>\nalleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the<br \/>\ncommission of that offence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Absolutely, there is no quarrel with the trite proposition of law that<br \/>\nat the time of framing charge, there should necessarily be strong materials<br \/>\nwhich would enable the Judge to frame charge, even though proof beyond all<br \/>\nreasonable doubts is not required.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this<br \/>\nCourt to the relevant portion of the F.I.R  at page Nos.1 and 2 of the typed set<br \/>\nand certain excerpt from it,  which would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;..  kjpg;g[ U:.48&gt;000\/- bgWkjp fhR Xiy&gt; gzpe;J mDg;g[fpnwd;.  &#8230;.<br \/>\n\t&#8230; mthpd; jtWjyhd eltof;ifapy; mtiu 1999k; Mz;L Mf];l; khjk; ntiyia tpl;L<br \/>\nePf;fpndhk;.  mtiu gzp ePf;fk; bra;jij mwpe;j nky;go egh; rpq;fndhp mYtyfj;jpy;<br \/>\n,Ue;j ifbahg;gk; ,l;l K:d;W fhnrhiyfisa[k; nkYk; U:gha;.48&gt;000\/- k; ehw;gj;J<br \/>\nvl;lhapuk; jpUor; brd;W tpl;lhh;.  ,J Fwpj;J ehd; Vw;fdnt ehd;Fndhp fhty;<br \/>\nepiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;jpUe;njd;. &#8230;..  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Highlighting that particular point, the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner would argue that there is no clarity at all whether the cheques were<br \/>\nissued for Rs.48,000\/- or Rs.48,000\/- was entrusted to that accused in the form<br \/>\nof cash, for which the learned Counsel for the first respondent would clearly<br \/>\nexplain and expound that it was written so in the format column concerned by the<br \/>\nInvestigating Officer and the actual versions in the  complainant are nothing to<br \/>\ndo with it and such an explanation is convincing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. However, in the copy of the F.I.R, it is found as under:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;mjw;F bry;tuh];&gt; thiHf;fha; md;o njhL tpw;w gzj;ij vd;dplk; thq;fpf;<br \/>\nbfhz;L U:.48&gt;000\/- bfhz;L&gt; 20k; njjpna bfhr;rpDf;F bry;tjhf brhy;yp mq;F te;J<br \/>\ntpl;lhnu vd;W vd;dplk; brhd;dhh;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. As such, it is clear that there is no discrepancy in the F.I.R at all<br \/>\nand the learned Magistrate as per the above excerpt, got himself confused with<br \/>\nthe entire case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. The learned Magistrate by setting out the facts as above was of the<br \/>\nwrong opinion as though a sum of Rs.48,000\/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only)<br \/>\nin the form of three cheques was involved and even he misdirected  himself by<br \/>\nassuming as though there was nothing to show as to how Section 420 I.P.C was<br \/>\naltered into Section 408 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly looked into these<br \/>\naspects and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The perusal of the F.I.R concerned and the relevant statements under<br \/>\nSection 161 Cr.P.C which also form part of the records, would ex facie and prima<br \/>\nfacie show that one Selvaraj entrusted a sum of Rs.48,000\/- to the accused for<br \/>\nbeing handed over to the first respondent and that amount was not handed over by<br \/>\nthe accused to the first respondent.  In such a case, necessarily, these facts<br \/>\nshould be delved deep into and during trial alone, the truth will come to lime<br \/>\nlight.  Relating to the plea of counter blast, I would like to observe that due<br \/>\nto time lag only, no complaint can be thrown away as counter blast.  However, I<br \/>\ndo not express any opinion regarding the truth or otherwise of the matter.  The<br \/>\npetitioner is at liberty to put forth all his defence during cross-examination<br \/>\nand with open mind, the trial Court is expected to arrive at a conclusion after<br \/>\nhearing both sides while disposing of this matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made an<br \/>\nextempore representation that a time frame may be fixed for the disposal of this<br \/>\nmatter.  There is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner and accordingly, the matter shall be disposed of within a<br \/>\nperiod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision petition is closed.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected Crl.M.P(MD).No.6971 of 2005 is also closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Sub Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Nanguneri Police Station,<br \/>\n  Nanguneri.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Additional Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Nanguneri.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/04\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.(MD).No.846 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.6971 of 2005 N.M.Thomas &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1.Vinodh Kumar 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Nanguneri. &#8230; Respondents Prayer Petition filed under [&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-160549","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>N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-20T03:16:46+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T03:16:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":1755,\"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\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2\",\"name\":\"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T03:16:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-20T03:16:46+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T03:16:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2"},"wordCount":1755,"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\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2","name":"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T03:16:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-m-thomas-vs-vinodh-kumar-on-4-april-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.M.Thomas vs Vinodh Kumar on 4 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/160549","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=160549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160549\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}