{"id":164898,"date":"2011-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-27T15:03:38","modified_gmt":"2016-04-27T09:33:38","slug":"state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 04\/11\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCriminal Revision Case(MD)No.224 of 2011\nand\nCriminal Revision Case(MD)No.226 of 2011\n\nState rep by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nVigilance and Anti Corruption,\nTirunelveli.\n[Cr.No.07\/2005]\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t    [in both Crl.R.Cs.]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.K.P. Jai Xavier\n2.D.Karuppasamy\n3.M.Jaya Ganapathy\t\t\t\t\t\n4.H.S.Surianarayanan\n5.M.Venkatachalapathy\n6.P.Chellappa\n7.C.Jose Louis\t\t\t\t... Respondents<\/pre>\n
    {R4 to R7 impleaded suo-motu\t    [in Crl.R.C.224\/2011]\n      as per the order of this Court\n      dated 23.06.2011}\n\nS.Sreenivasamoorthy\t\t\t... Respondent\n \t\t\t\t\t    [in Crl.R.C.226\/2011]\n\nPRAYER\n\n<\/pre>\n
Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, to set aside the common order of discharging all the
\nrespondents passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli in
\nC.M.P.Nos.2604 of 2010 and 2276 of 2010 in Special Case No.02 of 2010 dated
\n27.12.2010.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner    ... Mr. P. Kandasamy\n[in both Crl.R.Cs.]    Government Advocate [Crl.side]\n^For Respondents   ... in Crl.R.C.No.224 of 2011\n\t\t        Mr. S. Shanmugavelayudham\n\t\t        Senior Counsel for\n\t\t        M\/s.T. Kokilavane [for R1 to R3]\n \t\t        Mr.R. Anand [for R4 to R7]\n\t\t        in Crl.R.C.No.226 fo 2011\n \t\t\tMr. P.T.S.Narendravasan\n\t\t\t\n:COMMON ORDER\n\n<\/pre>\n
\t1. The petition filed by the respondents\/accused 1 to 3 for discharging
\nthem from the case in brief is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(a) The petitioners 1 to 3 are the accused 1 to 3, were working as
\nExecutive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer
\nrespectively in the Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation during the relevant
\nperiod to this case and one Tr.R.Raghunathan, who was working as City Engineer
\nin the said Corporation who is in superior rank to the Executive Engineer and
\nhis subordinates in the Said Corporation, He is the head of the Engineering
\nSection in the said Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(b)  In the police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the
\nInspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli had levelled
\ncharges for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. against
\nall the eight accused and a charge for the offence punishable under section
\n13(2) r\/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A3,
\nthat All the charges levelled are found to have been based merely on surmises
\nand conjectures and are found to be absolutely groundless, that even if the
\nallegations in the police report are taken at their face value, they do not make
\nout the ingredients of the offences for which charges have been levelled
\ntherein, that the charges under Section 468 and 471 I.P.C.,are found to be the
\noutcome of gross misconception of law and facts and that neither the allegations
\ncontained in the police report nor in the statement of witnesses nor in the
\nother documents relied on by the prosecution make out the ingredients of the
\noffence of forgery as defined under Section 463 and 464 I.P.C.,which is a sine
\nqua non for attracting Sec.468 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(c) There is absolutely no scope for a charge for the offence of
\n“forgery for purpose of cheating” punishable u\/s 468 I.P.C which is just an
\naggravated form of forgery, that even if all the mens rea and overt acts for the
\noffence punishable u\/s 468 I.P.C are presumed to be true, they do not make out
\nthe ingredients of the said offence and that the charge u\/s 468 and 478 I.P.C
\nare found to have been levelled not only without any basis but also quite
\ncontrary to the facts ex-facie available in the documents relied upon the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(d) The fundamental allegation upon which the prosecution has found its
\nentire case is that A6 and A7 recorded false measurements in the Measurement
\nBooks as if earth and gravel had been filled in layers of 15 cm thick (each
\nlayer 15 cm thick) watered and consolidated layer by layer but without actually
\ndoing this work as found in the Measurement Books, that this fundamental
\nallegation itself stands disproved by Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of
\nMr.R.Regunathan, formerly City Engineer, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation,
\nwho found to have stated that he supervised the Tirunelveli New Bus-Stand works
\nfrom 15.10.2001 onwards, that in the same statement he further stated as
\nfollows: “nkw;go xg;ge;jf;fhuu; xt;bthU 15 br.kPl;lUf;Fk; gtu; nuhyiu
\ngad;gLj;jp\/ jz;zPu; moj;J\/ ,Wf;fk; bra;Jjhd; nkw;go gs;sk; epug;g[k; ntiyia
\nbra;jhu;.”  This situation of facts unmistakably reveals that the
\nmeasurements\/entries recorded by A6 and A7 are not false one.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(e) The technical report dated 2.8.2004 of witness No.22 Mr.A.Rampal
\nSingh does not improve in any manner the above said position of the prosecution
\ncase, that this report is nothing but a self-serving evidence generated for the
\npurpose, that the Technical Report, being hit by sec.162 Cr.P.C., would be
\ntotally inadmissible in evidence during trial.  The said Rampal Singh, being not
\nan expert, his statement or report would not fall under the category of
\n“expert’s evidence or expert’s opinion.”, that it is realised from his report
\nthat he has not carried out any test for ascertaining the percentage of
\ncompaction attained by the filled up earth, that Mr.A.Rampal Singh has not
\nstated anywhere either in his report or in his statement as to on what
\nscientific basis he excepted, that he has stated in his report that the
\nmeasurements taken during his site inspection and verification during July 2004
\ntally with the measurements recorded in the Measurement Books during 2001 and
\nrelied on for payments, that the fact that there was no variation in the depth
\nof earth filling even after 3 . years of its formation indicates that the filled
\nup the earth has not sunk even a centimetre in the course of this 3 . years and
\nthat despite this, the investigating agency for reasons best known to it has
\nfailed to take any effort to ascertain the percentage of compaction attained by
\nthe filled up earth by any scientific methods and to bring before the Court the
\noutcome of such efforts to support its case.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(f) It is significant to note that Mr. Rampaul Singh has not stated in
\nhis report that the compaction made is far below the required compaction, that
\nhe has also not stated that the filled up earth has sunk at any place in the
\nentire extent of 19 acres of filled up area in the Bus Stand, that the entire
\nBus Stand having 19 acres of area till 2004, that is even after the elapse of 3
\n. years from its formation, is a sufficient proof that the filled up earth has
\nattained full and complete compaction, that the New Bus Stand was put into
\noperation from March 2003, then onwards more than 750 buses get in and out of
\nthe bus stand every day; the bus stand receives a large flow of water; heavy
\nrains have sunk into the filled up earth after its formation, that inspite of
\nall these factors the filled up earth has not sunk at any place till today and
\nthat if it has sunk at any place, the investigating agency which after a long
\nand inordinate delay has filed its final report only in February 2010, would not
\nhave failed to bring such events into evidence to support.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(g) In the police report, “forgery” is alleged to have been committed
\nfor the purpose of cheating and ultimately “cheating” and “criminal misconduct
\nby public servants” are alleged to have been accomplished by “using as genuine
\nthe forged documents”, “cheating” and “criminal misconduct by public servants”
\nbeing consequential offences and therefore, as things stand, if forgery goes,
\nthe consequential offences of “using as genuine the forged documents”
\n“cheating”, and “criminal misconduct by public servants” cannot stand as they
\nare intimately connected with each other, that if all the mens rea and overt act
\nalleged in the police report against A1 to A3 in support of the charge for the
\noffence punishable u\/s 13(2) r\/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 are presumed
\nto be true, they do not make out the ingredients of the said offences and that
\nA1 to A3 are public servants, previous sanction of the Government of Tamilnadu
\nu\/s.197(1) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory for a prosecution against them for the
\nalleged offences u\/s 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.(h) It is settled law that charge for an offence can be framed against
\nan accused only when the available materials arouse a strong and not a mere
\nsuspicion as to the commission of that offence as well as the involvement of the
\naccused therein, that even in cases, where two views are possible, it is settled
\nlaw that the view favourable to the accused has to be followed, that the
\ncriminal prosecution instituted against A1 to A3 in this case is wanting in
\nbona-fide and is frivolous, vexatious and rather oppressive.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(a) The  materials in the form of oral as well as documentary evidences
\nare sufficient to establish the charges levelled against the accused, that it is
\nnot correct to say that the allegations in the police report do not make out
\nthe ingredients of the offences, that there is sufficient materials to make out
\nthe charges against the accused even as per the averments stated in the police
\nreport, that the available materials submitted along with the 173 Cr.P.C. report
\nare sufficient to frame charges u\/s.468 and 471 I.P.C., that the allegations
\ncontained in the police report and in the statement of witnesses and the
\ndocuments i.e., the measurements books and other documents relating to the
\ncontract work done in the new bus stand would show that the entries made in
\nrelation with the measurements of works done stage by stage in the measurement
\nbooks are false, due to this act the accused are liable for making false
\ndocuments, so the ingredients of the offence forgery as defined in Section 363
\nis made out.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(b) It is not correct to say that the allegations in the entire
\nprosecution records would not bring the case of making false documents which
\namounts to forgery,  that after the criminal conspiracy entered into between the
\naccused A1 to A8, false entries were made in the measurement books based upon
\nthe bills were prepared, passed and the amount as per the calculations made as
\nif the works were done was disbursed to A8 the contractor, that the averments
\nwhether the ingredients of the offences u\/s 468 and 471 are made out or not can
\nbe decided only after recording of the evidence and after the analysis of the
\ncontents of the documents alleged to have been forged after let them in evidence
\nby marking as exhibits on the side of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(c) Witness No.21 Mr.A. Raghunathan’s statement would show that he never
\ncheck measured the work done and there is no records to show that watering and
\nconsolidation work in the filled up layer of each 15 cm thickness were done by
\nthe contractor, in this circumstances the presumption is he never supervised the
\nwork by his personal inspections on the spot during the execution of the work
\nand so his version spoken in his statement that “nkw;go xg;ge;jf;fhuu; xt;bthU
\n15 br.kPl;lUf;Fk; gtu; nuhyiu gad;gLj;jp\/ jz;zPu; moj;J\/ ,Wf;fk; bra;Jjhd;
\nnkw;go gs;sk; epug;g[k; ntiyia bra;jhu;.” cannot be taken into account and it is
\nto be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(d) Witness No.22 Tr.A. Rampaul Singh is an Executive Engineer belongs
\nto P.W.D., at the relevant point of  time worked as Executive Engineer in the
\nDirectorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai on deputation, that when
\nthere is a technical expert available in the Headquarters of DVAC itself, it is
\nnot necessary to address the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Chennai, to nominate some
\nother officer for his assistance in technical matters during the investigation
\nof a case, that whether the technical report of Witness No.22 Tr.A.Rampaul Singh
\nhas stated while testing upon the earth by making pits he found the earth is
\nvery loose can be removable even by fingers itself without applying much force
\nand that in these circumstances to ascertain the compaction, it is not necessary
\nto test the earth with scientific methods.  The non mentioning of the fact by
\nMr.Rampaul sing that there are 2 or 3 different coloured layers of earth visible
\non the vertical surface of the trial pits and what scientific basis he expected
\nare not at all a ground to suspect his report.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(e) The case of the prosecution is that the work was not done as per the
\nconditions of the contract so the earth has not sunk in the course of this 3 .
\nyears wold not establish the fact watering and compaction were done during the
\nexecution of the work, that the report would show that there is no sunk of earth
\nin the filling area where he made tests in the trial pits in 2 or 3 places, that
\nthere is sufficient materials to prove that the measurements \/ entries recorded
\nin the measurement books are false and relied on that payments were made to the
\ncontractor by the Tirunelveli, City Municipal Corporation, that according to the
\npolice report it reveals that for getting pecuniary advantages the accused A1 to
\nA7 committed violations in relation to the entry of the actual measurements of
\nthe works done in the Measurement Book the false measurements entered in the
\nMeasurement Book and relied upon the bills were prepared and money for the work
\nis disbursed to the contractor  and for that  the said act, the accused are
\nliable for falsification of accounts for the purpose of cheating.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(f) There is sufficient evidence to show that the accused A1 to A3 has
\ncommitted an offence punishable u\/s 13(2) r\/2 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act 1988, that due to the several act done by the accused A1 to A3
\nfor wrongful gain it can be presumed that the acts were done in order to get
\npecuniary advantages for themselves, that a charge of criminal conspiracy u\/s
\n120(B) strong suspicion regarding the commission of the offence is sufficient,
\nmeeting of minds in relation to the act to be done can be presumed from the
\ncircumstances in which the offence is committed, that the Non-mentioning of the
\nprovisions sec.197(1) which envisaged  power to accord sanction in the sanction
\norder is only an omission, that it is mentioned in the Sanction Order in
\nG.O.Ms.No.253 dated 21.12.2009 that the Governor of Tamilnadu hereby accord
\nsanction for the prosecution of  Tr. K.P.Jai Xavier, formerly Executive Engineer
\nnow City Engieer and Tr.G.Karuppasamy, Assistant Executive Engineer, Tirunelveli
\nMunicipal Corporation of the said offences by a cour to competent jurisdiction
\nwhich would show that sanction was granted for the prosecution of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.(g) Available materials are more than sufficient to frame charges
\nagainst the accused as per the provisions of law mentioned in the police report,
\nthat it is not correct to state that the prosecution is initiated against the
\naccused is not in a bona fide manner, that the power to discharge an accused in
\na criminal case taken on file by the court on a police report should exercised
\nvery sparingly and that to in the rarest of rare cases and that the petition
\nfiled on behalf of the accused to discharge is devoid of merits and therefore it
\nis liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t3. (a) In support of point of law urged in Para 7 touching Section 464
\nI.P.C.the petitioners rely on\n<\/p>\n
1.State v. Parasram<\/a> [AIR 1965 Rajasthan 9]\n<\/p>\n
2.Md.Ibrahim & Ors v. State of Bihar & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
[2009 SAR (Crl.) 961 (Supreme Court)]<\/p>\n
3.Guru Bipin Singh v. Chontham Manihar Singh & Anr<\/a>
\n[1997 Crl.L.J. 724]<\/p>\n
\t3.(b) In support of the contention urged in Paras 25 & 26, the petitioner
\nrely on\n<\/p>\n
1.Gowri Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar
\n[AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3517]<\/p>\n
2.Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar & Anr.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
[AiR 2000 Supreme Court 3187]<\/p>\n
3.Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan & Ors.
\n[1998 Crl.L.J.1242]<\/p>\n
\t3.(c) The tenor of the counter filed by the prosecution triggers an
\napprehension in the minds of the petitioners that the police report in this case
\nhas been filed neither with a mere intention of carrying the law into effect nor
\nin furtherence of justice but with an ill-will of harassing the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.(d) As regards the principles of to be kept in view while considering
\nwhther there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused the
\npetitioners invite the attention of this Court to the following decisions of the
\nSupreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
i.Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr<\/a>
\n[1979 Crl.LJ 154 (Supreme Court)]<\/p>\n
ii.Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharastra
\n[AIR 2002 Supreme Court 564]<\/p>\n
iii.A.Mohemed v. State
\n[2006 (2) L.W.Crl. 752 (Madras High Court)]<\/p>\n
iv.Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors v.Shitui H Chanchani & Anr.
\n[1998 Crl.L.J.4091 (Supreme Court)]<\/p>\n
\t4. After hearing both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nTirunelveli has allowed both the applications, discharging the petitioners and
\nalso the accused who had not filed discharge petition, from the case.  Hence,
\nthe State has preferred these revisions.\n<\/p>\n
5. Point for Consideration:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe following are the gist of the charge against the accused:\n<\/p>\n
\tSome irregularities and malpractice done in executon of the construction
\nwork of the new bus stand at Veinthankulam in Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
\nDistrict during 2000 to 2004.  On a verification by way of the detailed enquiry,
\nit came to light that A1 to A3 in collusion with A4 to A7, private individuals
\nand representatives of M\/s. Consulting Engineering Services Ltd., Chennai and A8
\ncontractor [Sreepathy Associates, Erode] who executed the work, caused wrongful
\nloss to the Government to the tune of Rs.19,83,374.73.\n<\/p>\n
6. Point:\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Accused 1 to 3 were working as Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive
\nEngineer and Junior Engineer respectively in Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation.
\n8th accused is Managing Partner of the Contractor firm viz., Sreepathy
\nAssociates, Erode, who had taken the contract for formation of the bus stand. A4
\nto A7 are the employees of private Engineering Consultancy.  It is the
\nallegation that A1 to A3 were entrusted with the duty of supervising the works,
\nthat A3 has recorded the measurements in the Measurement Book and A1 and A2 have
\nsigned in the Measurement Books for having checked the measurements recorded by
\nA3.  It is stated  that they entered into a criminal conspiracy with A4 to A7
\nwho are the employees of A8 consultancy, to do an illegal act to commit the
\noffence of cheating of public fund by illegal means, by preparing false
\ndocuments using them as genuine, in order to get pecuniary advantage for
\nthemselves and thus conspired together for such purpose and hence liable to be
\npunished under Section 120(B) I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. They are further alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy,
\nfraudulently and dishonestly to cause wrongful loss to Tirunelveli Municipal
\nCorporation, A6 and A7 recorded false measurement\/entries in the Measurement
\nBook as if the earth and gravel had been filled in layer of 15 cm thick (each
\nlayer) watered and consolidated layer by layer but without actually doing the
\nwork as found in the Measurement Book. By making false entries in the
\nMeasurement Books, they have caused a pecuniary loss of Rs.7,24,574\/- to the
\nsaid Corporation and thereby they are liable to be punished for the offences of
\ncheating and forgery punishable under Section 420 and 468 I.P.C. respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. In the course of the same transaction, A1 to A8 with the dishonest
\nintention, used forged Measurement Books and the bills and caused the bills for
\nRs.7,24,574\/- sanctioned and hence they are punishable under Section 471 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In the course of the same transaction A1 to A3 being public servants
\nby corrupt and illegal means and by abusing their official position, dishonestly
\nand fraudulently did several acts at every stage in committing the offence of
\nforgery and cheating in order to get pecuniary advantage for themselves and
\nthereby they have committed the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under
\nSection 13(2) r\/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. It is the first and foremost contention of the revision petitioner
\nthat the work was not done as per the specification contained in the contract
\nthat when the earth was filled in the site  for every 15 cm, the layer should be
\nas per the percentage of compaction, that without carrying out the contract by
\nactually performing the work, all the accused conspired together, made false
\nentries into the measurement books and got the bills sanctioned for
\nRs.7,24,574\/- and hence they have caused monetary loss to the Tirunelveli
\nMunicipal Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution placed much reliance
\nupon the Super Check Report of one A.Rampal Singh, who was examined under
\nSection 161(3) Cr.P.C. as 22nd witness in this case.  The total extent of site
\nfor the formation of bus stand is 19 acres in Veithankulam village in
\nTirunelveli near Palayamkottai.  The said witness has taken up certain tests to
\nascertain the quality of the work performed by the 8th accused.  He made two
\npits in different places in the site and observed in his report as follows:\n<\/p>\n
5.1\tPit No.1: The size of the first pit is 2.45 m x 1.50 m x 3.40 m (Depth).
\nThe initial level of the ground at this location before filling is 98.305 m as
\nper page 13 of level filed book No.1\/2000.  The final level of the ground at
\nthis location after filling is 101.590 m as per page 25 of level filed book
\nNo.5\/2002.  So the depth of earth filling at this location is 3.285 m
\n(i.e.101.590 m _ 98.305 m).  It is observed that there is no variation in the
\ndepth of earth filling at this location.  But it is noticed that the earth
\nfilling to the depth of 3.285 m has not been laid in 15 centimetre layers.  As
\nper the specifications the earth filling to this depth of 3.285 metre has to be
\ndone in not less than 22 layers of 15 centimetre thick earth.  But at site the
\nentire filling has been done in three layer only.  So it may be concluded that
\nthe work has not been carried out as per agreement to the required
\nspecifications.\n<\/p>\n
5.2\tPit No.2:  The size of the second pit is 1.65 m x 1.50 m x 1.55 (depth).
\nThe initial level of the ground at this location before filling is 99.505 m as
\nper page 45 of level filed book No.1\/2000.  The final level of the ground at
\nthis location after filling is 100.970 m as per page 57 of level filed book
\nNo.5\/2002.  So  the depth of earth filling at his location is 1.465 m (i.e.
\n100.970 m – 99.505m).  it observed that there is no variation in the depth of
\nearth filling.  But it is noticed that the earth filling to the depth of 1.465 m
\nhas not been laid in 15 centimetre layers.  As per the specifications the earth
\nfilling to this depth has to be done in not less than ten layers of 15
\ncentimetre thick earth.  But at site the entire filling has been done in two
\nlayers only.  Also in two places in this pit the filled up earth is very loose
\nand the earth is removable even by fingers itself with out applying much force.
\nSo it may be concluded that the work has not been carried out as per agreement
\nto the required specifications.\n<\/p>\n
5.3. \tAs per trial pits analysis it is deserved that the compaction made with
\ntwo or three layers will be for below the required compaction of 95%  Due to the
\nlow compaction the filed up earth will sink in due course of time causing
\ndamages to the works such as roads.  Pavements, bus bays, platforms, passenger
\nshed and other structures etc., provided over this filled up earth and thus
\nincurring frequent expenditure on repair and maintenance works.  So it is opined
\nthat the entire amounts paid for refilling under agreement item No.33 may be
\nconsidered as a loss to the Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The witness is of the opinion that the earth filling to the depth is
\nnot as per specification in both the test pits and as per the measurement and
\nthat the filling of the depth in Pit No.1 should consist not less than 22 layers
\nof 15 centimetre thick earth.  But he could see only two layers.  As per his
\nopinion even the above said layers were below the required compaction of 95%.
\nHe has also expressed his view that if such compaction was done it would lead to
\nsink in due course in various parts of the bus stand which are to be used for
\nvarious purposes viz., pavements, bus bays, platforms, passenger shed and other
\nstructures etc.,<\/p>\n
\t14. The witness inspected the site on 14.7.2004.  The actual work was done
\nin the site in the year 2004. Even after three years, nobody is  able to find
\nout damage nor sinking in the site.  In this case, charge sheet was laid in 2010
\nand at that time also there was no damage etc., in the site.  Hence, it could
\nnot be stated that the work was not upto the specifications.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The witness has also observed that in two places in Pit No.2, the
\nearth was very loose and the same is removable even by fingers itself without
\napplying much force.  It is not so in Pit No.1.  Witness No.22 was an Executive
\nEngineer at the relevant period who was deputed to the Directorate of Vigilance
\nand Anti Corruption, Chennai, and was working as full time officer at the head
\nquarters of the investigating agency at Chennai.  It is contended by the
\nrespondents’ side that usual practice of the investigating officers addressing
\nthe Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, Chennai for nominating a
\nsuitable officer of his choice for inspecting the site  is deviated.  It is also
\nargued that he is not an expert  and he is not competent to offer any opinion,
\nbesides contending that for ascertaining the compaction, no scientific
\nexamination was adopted by him.  Apart from physical verification of  number of
\nlayers available in the site the witnesses also tested the quality of the
\ncompaction by utilising the fingers.  Certainly, there could be a scientific
\ntest for ascertaining the quality of the components or materials used for
\nfilling up the earth.  Such scientific method of approach was not adopted by the
\nwitness.  Ascertaining the quality of compaction by fingers is not at all a
\nscientific method and it is doubtful whether the same would help the prosecution
\nin sustaining the charge.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. As far as the number of layers expected to be contained in the earth
\nfilling is concerned, the Court below has expressed the opinion that the
\ncompaction was not made in 2001 and January 2002 and hence it is remote to
\nexpect the every layer of 15 cm could be  distinguished. The said opinion
\nappears to be reasonable.  It is also observed in the order challenged that the
\nsand would have been obtained from various quarries and the colour of the layers
\nmay look different.  It is also proper observation.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Whether the report of opinion of the witnesses could be supported by
\nother materials at the time of trial is another point to be borne in mind.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Witness No.21 is one R.Regunathan who was working as Superintending
\nEngineer in the office of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai.
\nDuring the relevant period he was serving as  City Engineer in the Tirunelveli
\nMunicipal Corporation from 26.9.2001 to 4.6.2003.  He had to inspect the works
\nwhich would cost more than Rs.10 lakhs.  In his statement recorded under Section
\n161 (3) Cr.P.C., he has stated that from 15.10.2001 onwards he was supervising
\nthe new bus stand formation work, that the contractor made the earth filling by
\nspreading water and used power roller and made compaction for every layer of 15
\ncms, of course there is no record to show the same.  Witness No.21 was the City
\nEngineer of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation.  He is of the opinion that A8 has
\ncarried out the work as per specification. His statement turns contra to that of
\nwitness No.22.  But the prosecution relies upon the statement of report of
\nwitness No.22.  There could be no justification to ignore the statement of
\nWitness No.21 as to the compaction for the layer of every 15 cms.   At the time
\nof trial there would be every possibility for the Court to place reliance upon
\nthe words spoken to by witness No.21.  Hence, there could be no forgery nor
\ncheating on the part of the accused.  The other consequential  offences of using
\nforged documents as a genuine one and criminal misconduct by the accused would
\nnot arise. The version of witness No.21 indicates that the work was done as per
\nthe specifications contained in the contract.  The Court may also record a
\nfinding to that effect.  There would be no ground for ignoring nor discarding
\nhis evidence.  Hence there is no scope for making false entries nor forging the
\ndocuments.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. In the light of the above said observation, this Court is of the
\nconsidered view that there is no sufficient materials to frame charges against
\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. It is further contended by the accused side that necessary sanction
\nunder Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. is wanting, since A1 to A3 are public servants.
\nBut the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration of Water Supply (ME-4)
\nDepartment, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-9 has given a statement that after
\napplying his mind and satisfying himself he accorded sanction for prosecution of
\nA1 and A2.  Hence the contention that proper sanction has not obtained has no
\nlegs to stand.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)  would rely upon a Full
\nBench decision of the Supreme Court in 2005 SCC (Crl.) 415 [State of Orissa v.
\nDebendra Nath Panthi<\/a>] in which it is held that the  law is that at the time of
\nframing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any
\nmaterial, that no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grants the
\naccused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of
\ncharge and that the said right is granted only at the stage of trial. The
\nobservations are as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“18. \t…\t…\t…\t… \tThe accused would be entitled to produce
\nmaterials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the
\ncharge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused.
\nThat has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred
\nyears now. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submssions
\nof the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means
\nhearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the
\nprosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression
\n‘hearing the submissions of the accused’ cannot mean opportunity to file
\nmaterial to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At
\nthe state of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be
\nconfined to the material produced by the police.”\n<\/p>\n
By this decision, earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi
\nAdministration<\/a> [(1996) 9 SCC 766 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104] was overruled.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.S. Shanmugavelayutham appearing for A1
\nto A3 would place reliance upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court and this
\nCourt for supporting his contention.\n<\/p>\n
(i) As to Discharge of Accused:\n<\/p>\n
\t23. As far as the discharge of the accused from the case is concerned, the
\nSupreme Court has expressed its view in AIR 1979 SC 366 = 1979 Crl.L.J.154
\n[Union of India v.Prafulla Kumar Samal and another] that if two views are
\nequally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before
\nhim while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the
\naccused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.  In the
\ncase on hand, in the presence of the statement of witness No.21, the Court has
\ngot reasonable suspicion over the statement of witness No.22.  Hence, discharge
\nof the accused is proper.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. The view expressed in Prafulla Kumar Samal’s case (supra) has been re-
\nstated by the Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 564 [Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of
\nMaharashtra<\/a>].  It is also observed that  the Judge cannot act merely as a post
\noffice or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
\nprobabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents
\nproduced before the Court  but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros
\nand cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. The decision in  Prafulla Kumar Samal’s case (supra) has also been
\nfollowed by this Court in 2006(2) L.W.Crl.752 [A. Mohammed v. State rep. By The
\nDeputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCB Madras.]<\/p>\n
(ii) as regards Forgery and using of Forged Documents as
\n      genuine:\n<\/p>\n
\t26. In AIR 1965 RAJASTHAN  9 [State v. Parasram<\/a>] it is held that where the
\nprosecution case is not one of subsequent alteration of the document but is
\nessentially one of making initial incorrect and unauthorised entries in the
\nrevenue record the marking of such entries cannot be said to constitute the
\nmaking of false document under Section 464 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In 1997 Crl.L.J. 724 [Guru Bipin Sing v. Chongtham Manihar Sincgh and<\/a>
\nanother] the Apex Court has observed that if forgery goes, cheating cannot
\nstand.  So, the complaint does not make out out a case under any of the three
\nSections, namely 420, 465 and 468.  It may be pointed out that 468 is intimately
\nconnected with 420 and 465 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in 2009 SAR CRL.961
\n[Md. Ibrahim & Ors v. State of Bihar & Anr.]<\/p>\n
(iii) As to the appreciation of expert evidence:\n<\/p>\n
\t29. This Court in 2010 (3) M.L.J. (Crl.) 625 [K. Sulochana v. State rep.
\nBy Inspector of Police ] has held that it is not desirable to impose a
\nconviction solely on the evidence of expert without corroborative evidence
\neither direct or circumstantial.  In this decision the Court has followed the
\nfollowing decisions of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t1. 1996 SCC (Crl.) 792
\n     \t    [S.Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. ]<\/p>\n
\t2. 1977 (2) SCC 210: 1977 SCC (Cri.) 313
\n    \t    [Magan Bihari Lal v.State of Punjab]<\/p>\n
\t3. AIR 1957 SC 381 : 1957 Crl LJ 559
\n\t    [Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.,]<\/p>\n
\t4. AIR  1963 SC 1728
\n\t    [Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohdn. Isa,<\/a>]<\/p>\n
\t5. AIR 1964 SC 529
\n\t   [Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee<\/a>]<\/p>\n
\t6. AIR 1967 SC 1326 : 1967 (2) Andh LT 38
\n\t    [Fakruddin v. State of M.P., ]<\/p>\n
\t30. The same opinion has been rendered by this Court earlier in 2003
\nM.L.J.Crl.217 [K.Dhanasekaran v. State by Inspector of Police, C.B.,C.I.D.,
\nErode].\n<\/p>\n
(iv) with respect to conviction of non appealing accused:\n<\/p>\n
\t31. In this case, A1 to A3  and A8 have filed petitions for discharge and
\nthe Court below has discharged them and also the other non petitioning accused
\nviz., A4 to A7.  It is legally permissible.  The learned Senior Counsel for
\nrespondents has cited the decisions of the Supreme Court for this proposition.
\nIt is held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1988 SC 345 [Hari Nath v. State of U.P.]
\nthat the conviction and sentence of non-appealing accused cannot be sustained
\nas the findings are inter-dependant and inextricably integrated.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in its decision JT 1992 (6) S.C.85
\n[Kameshwar Sing & Ram Babu Singh and others v. State of Bihar] has held that
\nwhen other accused are granted benefit of doubt, the non-appealing co-accused
\nare also entitled for the same grant and consequential acquittal.  The same view
\nhas been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in 1999 (1) L.W. Crl.11
\n[Sobitharaj \/6others v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari
\nDistrict.].\n<\/p>\n
\t33. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that not only at the time of
\ntrial such benefit will go to the accused but also at the time of interlocutory
\nproceedings, such as, quashing of criminal proceedings against the accused or
\nseeking for discharge from the case. In 1998 Crl.L.J.4091 (1) [Ashok Chaturvedi
\nand others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and<\/a> another] the Supreme Court while quashing
\nthe private complaint laid against accused persons, it was also also quashed the
\ncriminal proceedings against other accused, who did not prefer special leave
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. Following the above said decisions, this Court is of the view that
\neven though A4 to A7 accused have not preferred application for discharge they
\nare entitled to get the benefit when other co-accused are receiving the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. Mr. R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the accused 4 to 7 would
\ncite the decision of  Prafulla Kumar Samal’s case supra, in which the Supreme
\nCourt has formulated the Guidelines and principles in the matter of discharge of
\nthe accused from a case followed by Courts. They are as follows:-
\n\t“10.Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the
\nfollowing principles emerge:\n<\/p>\n
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under
\nsection 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence
\nfor the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
\nthe accused has been made out:\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against
\nthe accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully
\njustified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the
\nfacts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal
\napplication. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the
\nJudge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to
\nsome suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully
\nwithin his right to discharge the accused.\n<\/p>\n
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge
\nwhich under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely
\nas a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the
\nbroad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the
\ndocuments produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case
\nand so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving
\nenquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
\nconducting a trial.”\n<\/p>\n
\t36. A conspectus of the materials available in this case in the light of
\nthe illuminating judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is concluded
\nthat the accused are entitled to discharge from the case.  This Court does not
\nfind any valid ground to disturb the findings of the court below.  The order of
\nthe lower Court is not suffering from any infirmity, legally or factually.  It
\nhas to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. These revision petitions
\nsuffer dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ggs<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nTirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/11\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Criminal Revision Case(MD)No.224 of 2011 and Criminal Revision Case(MD)No.226 of 2011 State rep by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tirunelveli. [Cr.No.07\/2005] … Petitioner […]<\/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-164898","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011 - 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\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-27T09:33:38+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=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T09:33:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":6372,\"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\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011\",\"name\":\"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-27T09:33:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011 - 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\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-27T09:33:38+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":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T09:33:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011"},"wordCount":6372,"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\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011","name":"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-27T09:33:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-rep-by-vs-k-p-jai-xavier-on-4-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Rep By vs K.P. Jai Xavier on 4 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/164898","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=164898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164898\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}