{"id":161474,"date":"2006-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006"},"modified":"2014-11-10T17:18:24","modified_gmt":"2014-11-10T11:48:24","slug":"muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated:20\/02\/2006\n\nCoram:\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.65  of 2006\n\nMuthumani                                       .. Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1. The Inspector of Police\n   R.7 K.K. Nagar Police Station\n   Chennai.\n\n2. Sundar                                       .. Respondents\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.\n!For petitioner :  Mr.  V.  Parthiban\n^For respondents :  Mr.  Abudukumar Rajarathinam\n                                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.side) for R1\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        (Order of the Court was made by P.  SATHASIVAM,J.)<br \/>\n                The petitioner, mother of the detenue Manonmani, has filed<br \/>\nthis petition for production of her daughter before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the said<br \/>\nManonmani, appeared before us.  According to her, she is a major.  Her date of<br \/>\nbirth being 10.03.1986.  She also informed us that on 22.12.2005, she married<br \/>\non Sathish of Vellore and from that date onwards she is living with him.  We<br \/>\nalso enquired her parents and they are agreeable to take back her daughter<br \/>\nalone.  In the light of the information that she being a major; married to one<br \/>\nSathish on 22.12.2005 and living together for last two months, we are not<br \/>\ninclined to accede to the request of the petitioner.  Inasmuch as the detenue<br \/>\nbeing a major and has married the said Sathish, it is for her to decide her<br \/>\nfuture.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Learned Government Advocate informs this Court that the<br \/>\nsecond respondent Sunder, has nothing to do with the detenue.  The above<br \/>\nstatement is hereby recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In the light of the above information, we hold that the<br \/>\ndetenue is not under the illegal detention of anyone.  Accordingly, no further<br \/>\nadjudication is required in this petition and the same is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<br \/>\nkh<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Inspector of Police<br \/>\nR.7 K.K.  Nagar Police Station<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>?In the High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/p>\n<p>%Dated:   17\/02\/2006<\/p>\n<p>*Coram:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Honourable Mr. Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU<\/p>\n<p>+Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.386 of 2003<\/p>\n<p>A.R.Bhoopathi                                          ..Petitioner<\/p>\n<p>vs<\/p>\n<p>1. The State Election Commissioner<br \/>\n   through its Election Commissioner,<br \/>\n   Tamil Nadu, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The District Election Officer-cum-\n<\/p>\n<p>   District Collector,<br \/>\n   Coimbatore District,<br \/>\n   Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Returning Officer-cum-\n<\/p>\n<p>   Block Development Officer,<br \/>\n   Sulur Panchayat Union,<br \/>\n   Sulur.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n4. A.K.Palanichamy\n\n5. A.V.Anbarasu                                 ..Respondents\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia, against the Order dated 20.12.2002 made in E.O.P.No.181 of 2001 on  the<br \/>\nfile of Principal District Court, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>!For Petitioner :  Mr.A.V.Arun<\/p>\n<p>^For Respondents :  No appearance for R1, R2 and R5<br \/>\n                        Mr.V.Subbarayan for R3<br \/>\n                                Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram for R4<\/p>\n<p>:ORDER<\/p>\n<p>        Civil  revision  petition arises against the order dated 20.12.2002 in<br \/>\ndismissing the election original petition filed by the revision petitioner, by<br \/>\nthe Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Revision petitioner filed the election petition (i) to declare the<br \/>\nelection for the President of Arasur Village Panchayat held on  18.10.2001  as<br \/>\nnull  and void; (ii) to hold the declaration of the Election authorities dated<br \/>\n21.10.2001 announcing the 4th respondent as elected candidate in the  election<br \/>\nfor  the  President  of the Arasur Village Panchayat on 18.10.2001 as null and<br \/>\nvoid; and (iii) to pass an order for re-election for the President  of  Arasur<br \/>\nVillage Panchayat, on the ground that the 4th respondent was disqualified from<br \/>\ncontesting the election that was held on 18.10.01.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  According to the revision petitioner, the disqualification was the<br \/>\nconviction  and  sentence  passed against the 4th respondent on 20.02 .2001 by<br \/>\nthe Assistant Sessions Court in S.C.No.44 of 1999 for offences under  sections<br \/>\n148 and 427 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The  election petition was filed on 05.11.2001.  On appeal against<br \/>\nthe conviction  and  sentence  passed  by  the  Assistant  Sessions  Judge  of<br \/>\nThiruppur,  the  Appellate  Court,  namely,  the II Additional Sessions Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore, has set aside the conviction and sentence on 11.0 9.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The District Court, by virtue of its order dated  20.12.2002  held<br \/>\nthat  the order of setting the conviction and sentence aside will take back to<br \/>\nthe original date of conviction, namely, 20.02.2001 and therefore, it may  not<br \/>\namount  to  a  disqualification  on  the  subsequent date of election, namely,<br \/>\n18.10.2001.  The District Court further held that the offences under  sections<br \/>\n147  and  427  IPC reported against the 4th respondent may not come within the<br \/>\nmeaning of moral delinquency, since this could have happened even if  a  party<br \/>\nagitated for his protection of right, whether it is lawful or unlawful.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   Regarding the second aspect of moral delinquency, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the revision petitioner drew my attention to the following meaning of term<br \/>\n&#8220;Moral Turpitude&#8221; as found in VENKATARAMIYA&#8217;s LAW LEXICON.<br \/>\n&#8220;The term &#8220;moral turpitude&#8221; has generally been taken to mean to be  a  conduct<br \/>\ncontrary  to  justice,  honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a<br \/>\nman owes to a fellow man or to society in general&#8230;&#8230;it is clear that  if  a<br \/>\nmember  of  the  Police Force is guilty of having been found drunk at a public<br \/>\nplace or to have become habituated to liquor and  if  he  is  convicted  by  a<br \/>\ncriminal  court,  then  his  conviction  should  be  held  as  involving moral<br \/>\nturpitude-Durga Singh ..vs..  State of Punjab, A.I.R.1957 Pubjab  97  at  page<br \/>\n98&#8243;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   According  to  Webster&#8217;s  Dictionary  meaning  it  is  &#8220;an act or<br \/>\nbehaviour  that  gravely  violates  the  moral  sentiment  or  accepted  moral<br \/>\nstandards of community&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   In  the book &#8220;Words and Phrases Legally Defined&#8221; Vol.III, 2nd Ed.<br \/>\nat page 294, by Saunders, it has been  observed  under  the  heading  &#8221;  Moral<br \/>\nturpitude&#8221; by the Court in Canada as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;I  find very little merit in the applicant&#8217;s claim that the admitted offences<br \/>\nof issuing false cheques and being the operator of worthless cheques  are  not<br \/>\ncrimes of  moral  turpitude.  These acts of baseness in the duties which a man<br \/>\nowes to his fellowmen &#8230;.  I agree entirely with the American decisions  that<br \/>\nthe  words  &#8220;moral&#8221; preceding the word &#8220;turpitude&#8221; adds nothing to it, it is a<br \/>\npleonasm which has been used only for the sake of emphasis&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  At page 1200 of the book &#8220;Corpus  Juris  Secundum&#8221;,  Vol.I  VIIIth<br \/>\nEd.it  is stated, &#8220;moral turpitude&#8221; is defined as quality of a crime involving<br \/>\ngrave infringement of the moral sentiment of the  community  as  distinguished<br \/>\nfrom statutory mala prohibita.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   The  learned  Judge of the Allahabad High Court, A.P.SRIVASTAVA,<br \/>\nJ., in Mangali ..vs..  Chhakki Lal (A.I.R.1963 All.527)  was  of  the  opinion<br \/>\nthat  all  offences  could  not be taken as &#8220;involving moral turpitude&#8221; and if<br \/>\nthat be  taken,  the  Legislature  would  have,  instead  of  using  the  word<br \/>\n&#8220;involving  moral  turpitude&#8221; would have simply used the word &#8220;involving in an<br \/>\noffence&#8221;.  The tests, according to him, are as follows:<br \/>\n(1) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the  moral<br \/>\nconscience of society in general;\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one; and<br \/>\n(3)  whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could<br \/>\nbe considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to  be  looked<br \/>\ndown upon  by the society.&#8221;-Risal Singh ..vs..  Chandgi Ram, A.I.R.1966 Punjab<br \/>\n393 at page 393-94&#8243;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  It was also submitted  that  offence  under  Prohibition  Act  in<br \/>\nconsumption of liquor was held as touching the moral delinquency and therefore<br \/>\namounted to  disqualification.    Consumption of liquor does not occur in this<br \/>\ncase.  What was described in this case of moral delinquency was in respect  of<br \/>\noffences under  sections 148 and 427 IPC.  Section 148 IPC deals with rioting,<br \/>\narmed with deadly weapon and section  427  IPC  deals  with  mischief  causing<br \/>\ndamage to  property.  The term &#8216; morality&#8217; was governed by Vedic and Religious<br \/>\nRules; whereas offences are described in Indian Penal Code.  Even smoking  may<br \/>\nbe  considered  as immoral by Religious Rules; but they may not be offences of<br \/>\npresent law with certain exceptions.  Murder  and  theft  were  prohibited  as<br \/>\nimmoral in  the  above Rules of Religion.  But fighting without hurting, as in<br \/>\nthis case, and causing damage at the time of fighting was nowhere described as<br \/>\nimmoral.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  Learned counsel appearing for the revision  petitioner  also  did<br \/>\nnot  cite  any incident or precedent to show that quarrel and fighting between<br \/>\ntwo groups is immoral.  Therefore, I concur with  the  finding  given  by  the<br \/>\nlearned District Judge that the offences under sections 1 48 and 427 IPC., may<br \/>\nnot involve &#8220;moral delinquency&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  Coming to the aspect of conviction setting aside by the appellate<br \/>\nCourt  may  take  back  to the original date of conviction, the District Court<br \/>\nrelied upon a case law in B.R.Katur ..vs..  State of Tamil Nadu ((2001) 7  SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>231),  which  followed  the  principle  laid  in  Vidya  Charan  Shukla ..vs..<br \/>\nPurshottam Lal Kaushik (AIR 1981 SC 547).\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.  But that has been overruled in a later Supreme Court case  in  K.<br \/>\nPrabhakaran ..vs..    P.Jayarajan  ((2005)1 SCC 754, wherein the following was<br \/>\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The factum of pendency of an appeal  against  conviction  is  irrelevant  and<br \/>\ninconsequential.   So also a subsequent decision in appeal or revision setting<br \/>\naside the conviction or sentence or reduction in sentence would not  have  the<br \/>\neffect  of  wiping out the disqualification which did exist on the focal point<br \/>\ndates referred to hereinabove.  The decisive dates are the  date  of  election<br \/>\nand  the  date  of  scrutiny  of nomination and not the date of judgment in an<br \/>\nelection petition or in appeal thereagainst&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.  Therefore, it becomes clear that the order passed in the criminal<br \/>\nappeal setting aside the conviction and sentence at a later point of time  may<br \/>\nnot take back to the original date of conviction.  The conviction and sentence<br \/>\nis construed  to  be  continued till it was set aside.  Even the suspension of<br \/>\nsentence may not erase it and the effect of which is to keep it  in  abeyance.<br \/>\nTherefore,  on  the  date  of  election, namely, 18.10.2001 the conviction and<br \/>\nsentence dated  20.02.200  1  continued  and  that  will  make  it  subsisting<br \/>\nconviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.   Even  though  the  conviction  was  subsisting  on  the  date of<br \/>\nelection, it may not amount to moral delinquency for  the  reasons  aforesaid.<br \/>\nTherefore, the order of District Judge holds good.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.   For  the reasons stated above, the Civil revision petition fails<br \/>\nand is dismissed .\n<\/p>\n<p>Index   :  Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>gl<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Principal District Judge,<br \/>\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:20\/02\/2006 Coram: The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR Habeas Corpus Petition No.65 of 2006 Muthumani .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Inspector of Police R.7 K.K. Nagar Police [&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-161474","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>Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006 - 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\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-10T11:48:24+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T11:48:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1584,\"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\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-10T11:48:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006 - 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\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-10T11:48:24+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T11:48:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006"},"wordCount":1584,"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\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006","name":"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-10T11:48:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthumani-vs-the-inspector-of-police-on-20-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muthumani vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/161474","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=161474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}