{"id":171751,"date":"2007-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-06-04T08:57:13","modified_gmt":"2017-06-04T03:27:13","slug":"state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 29\/01\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR\n\nCriminal Appeal No.302 of 1999\n\nState by\nFood Inspector\nMadurai Corporation,\nMadurai.\nRep.by Public Prosecutor\nHigh Court, Madras.\t\t..  Appellant\n\nvs.\n\nThambidurai\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\t\tAppeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of\nacquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam in S.T.C.No.842\/97\ndated 27.10.1998.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t: Mr.P.Rajendran\n\t\t\t  Govt.Advocate\n\n^For respondent\t\t: Mr.Balasubramanian\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Criminal Appeal is filed against the  Judgment dated 27.10.1998 in<br \/>\nS.T.C.No.842 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam in and<br \/>\nby which the learned Judicial Magistrate after analysing the evidence, found<br \/>\nthat the accused is not guilty for the offence under Section 7(i) and<br \/>\n16(i)(a)(1) read with 2(1a)(a)(m) rule 5 of PFA Act and acquitted him under<br \/>\nSection 248(1)Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tP.W.1-Food Inspector of Madurai Corporation.  As per Government orders<br \/>\n1753\/17.7.1975, 1861\/6.6.1956, 571\/15\/4\/1991 and 299\/10.5.1995 P.W.1 was<br \/>\nauthorised to take food sample under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.1. On 23.12.11996 at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.1 along with his assistant<br \/>\nwent to shop No.13, in the name of Lakshmi Karthika store situated at First<br \/>\nStreet, Kanpalayam for the purpose of  taking samples meant for sale for public<br \/>\nAnalyst.  The accused being the owner of the shop was doing business.  P.W.1<br \/>\nintroduced himself as Food Inspector and informed his proposal for taking sample<br \/>\nof ground nut oil meant for sale.  He  purchased 750 grams of ground nut oil for<br \/>\nRs.26.25\/- and obtained a cash receipt for the same.  Ex.P.3 is the cash<br \/>\nreceipt.  Ex.P.10 is the Government order. Ex.P.4 is the Form 6.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.2. Thereafter, he divided the sample into three equal parts and put the<br \/>\nsame in three empty glass bottles corked the same as per the rules and affixed<br \/>\nhis signature and also obtained signature of the accused over it.   He also<br \/>\nobtained statement from the accused.  Ex.P.5 is the statement of the accused.<br \/>\nHe also gave a copy of the report and obtained acknowledgment from the accused.<br \/>\nEx.P.6 is the acknowledgment.  Then, he affixed specimen seal impression in form<br \/>\nVII and sent a copy of the same along with a sample bottle for public analyst.<br \/>\nEx. P.8 is the form VII. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the report.   He also informed<br \/>\nabout the taking of sample to the local Health authority. Ex.P.9 is the<br \/>\ninformation given to the local Health authority.  He sent a sample bottle to the<br \/>\npublic analyst through Southern roadways lorry service.  Ex.P.10 is the lorry<br \/>\nreceipt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.3. Thereafter, he sent a copy of form VII containing specimen seal<br \/>\nimpression along with lorry receipt to the public analyst.  Ex.P.11 is the<br \/>\npostal receipt. Ex.P.12 is the acknowledgment.  Ex.P.13 is the white paper<br \/>\ncontaining specimen seal impression.  He sent remaining two sample bottles along<br \/>\nwith form VII to the local authority and obtained acknowledgment for the same.<br \/>\nEx.P.14 is the acknowledgment.  He also received analysis report under Form III.<br \/>\nEx.P.15 is the Form III.  He found that the sample subjected for analysis was<br \/>\nadultered, not fit for human consumption.   Therefore,  he filed a complaint<br \/>\nagainst the accused under the Act.  Thereafter, he sent a  notice to the accused<br \/>\nunder Section 13 (2) of the Act along with form III and obtained acknowledgment<br \/>\nfor the same. Ex. P.17 is the notice.  Ex.P.18 is the acknowledgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Petitioner examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.1 to 18 to prove the guilty<br \/>\nact of the accused.  No oral and documentary evidence let in on the side of the<br \/>\naccused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.  The trial Court after analysing the evidence found that the accused<br \/>\nwas not guilty for the charges and acquitted him accordingly.  Against which,<br \/>\nthe present appeal has been filed by the state on the following grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta). The Court below in acquitting the accused on the ground that the<br \/>\nsubject matter of oil not stirred before taking the sample.  The oil is not<br \/>\nhomogeneous mixture like milk, therefore stirring of oil is not necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb) By reading of Rule 19 and 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration<br \/>\nRules 1955 it clearly show that &#8220;Preservatives need not be added to Edible<br \/>\nsamples at the time of taking sample by Food Inspector for the purpose of<br \/>\nanalysis.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tc) The trial Court ought to have seen that &#8220;Rule 59 of Prevention of Food<br \/>\nAdulteration Rules prescribes that list of antioxidants that can be added to<br \/>\nEdible Oils and Fats by the manufacturers so as to increase the shelf life of<br \/>\nsuch oils and fats&#8221;and the non adding of antioxidants is not fatal to the<br \/>\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\td) The trial Court erroneously held that Section 10(7) of Prevention of<br \/>\nFood Adulteration Act had not been complied with.  So much so, the trial Court<br \/>\nerroneously held that the sanction was accorded due to non application of mind<br \/>\nby the local Health authority. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court in<br \/>\nacquitting the accused is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Heard Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant and Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Government Advocate reiterated the contention raised in the<br \/>\ngrounds of appeal and submitted that the finding of the trial Court is liable to<br \/>\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel for the respondent\/accused contended that the trial<br \/>\nCourt analysed the evidence in depth and after taking note of the settled<br \/>\nposition of law of this Court and the Apex Court acquitted the accused and<br \/>\ntherefore the finding of the trial Court is not liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Upon hearing the rival claims, the points for consideration are as to<br \/>\nwhether\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1. the non application of mind while according sanction is fatal to the<br \/>\nprosecution?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. the sample oil, subject matter of the case requires adding preservative<br \/>\nunder Rule 19 and 20 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. the Food Inspector has complied with the conditions of Sections 10,7<br \/>\nand 20 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act before while taking sample.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. the finding of the trial Court in acquitting the accused is in order?\n<\/p>\n<p>9. POINTS 1 and 4<br \/>\n\tThe facts on record would show that the Local Health Authority has granted<br \/>\nsanction without analysing the materials placed before him. The learned<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate has submitted that the sanction of prosecution without<br \/>\napplying mind by the competent authority will not be fatal to the prosecution,<br \/>\nas such act is curable.  He also relied on the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1026107\/\">PUSHPALATHA AND<br \/>\nOTHERS v. R.LAKSHMI, FOOD INSPECTOR, COIMBATORE<\/a> (1993 Madras Law Journal Reports<br \/>\n(Criminal) page 708) in support of his claim.  I have gone through the said<br \/>\nruling.  In fact this ruling is against the submission of the learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate.   The principle laid down in the said ruling reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;14. A conjoined reading of Sec.20(1) of the prevention of Food<br \/>\nAdulteration Act would clearly envisage that the duty of the Local Health<br \/>\nAuthority or the competent authority in according its sanction for prosecution<br \/>\nwould not amount to or cannot be taken as an empty formality but however, it was<br \/>\nclearly and demonstrably made out by the Courts of Law in this country that the<br \/>\nintention of the legislature in providing for the competent authority to<br \/>\nsanction to launch the prosecution for offences under the Act, to be exercised<br \/>\nwith due care and caution, which would mean, that they should go into all the<br \/>\nmaterials and records placed by the Sanitary Inspector pertaining to the<br \/>\nrelevant facts constituting the offences and then only, on being satisfied with<br \/>\nthe materials underlying the records, prima facie atleast, the competent<br \/>\nauthority has to record its sanction and it cannot be taken that it has to<br \/>\naccord its sanction so mechanically without applying its mind and this process,<br \/>\nhas been in built in the above section for the simple object that vexatious<br \/>\nlaunching of the prosecution is to be avoided at any cost and that was the one<br \/>\nand only reason, the according of sanction under Section 20(1) of the Act has<br \/>\nbeen provided in the enactment.  Thus, it is the well settled judicial view,<br \/>\nthat the Local Health Authority while according its sanction to its sanitary<br \/>\nInspector or any other person to launch the prosecution against any person, must<br \/>\napply its mind to all the relevant materials and papers placed before it and on<br \/>\nbeing satisfied with the prima facie against the person against whom the offence<br \/>\nis alleged, then for the reasons expressly to be stated, he must accord the<br \/>\nsanction for prosecution.  Otherwise, it goes without saying, that the sanction<br \/>\naccorded is bad in law and not in compliance with the legal mandate inbuilt in<br \/>\nthe above section. I have carefully perused the so-called sanction accorded by<br \/>\nthe Health Officer and Local Health Authority on 4.7.1986 in six words &#8211;<br \/>\nsentence as above stated.   The so- called sanction does not even visualise any<br \/>\nperusal of the records produced before him, nor even the competent authority has<br \/>\nsatisfied with the prima facie materials available in the records placed before<br \/>\nhim in according the sanction.   In the light of the above legal laches pointed<br \/>\nout by the learned counsel Mr.Gopinathan, I am fully satisfied to hold, that the<br \/>\nsanction accorded in this case, is bad in law and is clearly in the teeth of<br \/>\nSection 20(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and accordingly, no<br \/>\nprosecution can be launched.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In fact, this Court followed the legal ratios enunciated in the following<br \/>\nrulings and laid down the above principles of law:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8221; A.K.Roya v. State of Pubjab, (1986) 4 S.C.C. 326; 1986 S.C.C. (Crl) 443<br \/>\n; (1986) 3 F.A.C.66 (1986) 2 A.P.L.J. (S.C.) 34; 1986 Crl.L.J. 2097; A.I.R. 1986<br \/>\nS.C.2160 Chunni Lal v. State, 1974, Crl. L.J. 13 by a single Judge of the<br \/>\nAllahabad High Court State v. Appuswami, 1980 L.W.(Crl.) 196 (a ruling of this<br \/>\nCourt) Ramandhal Srivabhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat , (1991) 1 E.F.R. 547 (<br \/>\na ruling of the Gujarat High Court), Shyam Lal v. State (1991) 2 E.F.R. 277 ( a<br \/>\nruling of the Delhi High Court), Adda Kasivisweswara Rao v. State of A.P.(1991)<br \/>\n2 E.F.R. 416)&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In fact, the trial Court has taken note of the guidelines of this Court and Apex<br \/>\nCourt and rightly came to the conclusion that sanctioning prosecution due to non<br \/>\napplication of mind by the sanctioning authority is fatal to the prosecution and<br \/>\naccordingly, acquitted the accused.  The finding of the trial Court is in order<br \/>\nand does not require any interference. Hence, these points are answered<br \/>\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Points 2 and 3<br \/>\n\tThe subject matter of the commodity is one of the groundnut oil.  It is<br \/>\nthe specific case of the prosecution that adding preservative to the groundnut<br \/>\noil while taking sample by the Food Inspector does not warrant under Rule 19 and<br \/>\n20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as the preservative was added to<br \/>\nedible oils by the manufacturer himself to increase the shelf life of such oils<br \/>\nand fats and therefore the finding of the trial Court in acquitting the accused<br \/>\non the ground that the preservative to sample oil was not added by relying on<br \/>\nthe decision reported in 1993 M.W. Crl. Page 55 cannot sustain.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.1. In view of the finding rendered at Points 1 and 4, I am of the view<br \/>\nthat consideration of these points does not arise for consideration. Hence these<br \/>\npoints are answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In the result, appeal fails and the same is dismissed.  Parties have<br \/>\nto bear their cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nPeriyakulam<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29\/01\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR Criminal Appeal No.302 of 1999 State by Food Inspector Madurai Corporation, Madurai. Rep.by Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. .. Appellant vs. Thambidurai .. Respondent Appeal under Section 378 [&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-171751","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 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\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-04T03:27:13+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=\"10 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-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T03:27:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1848,\"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-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007\",\"name\":\"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T03:27:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 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\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-04T03:27:13+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T03:27:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007"},"wordCount":1848,"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-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007","name":"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T03:27:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-thambidurai-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State By vs Thambidurai on 29 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/171751","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=171751"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171751\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}