{"id":174286,"date":"2007-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007"},"modified":"2018-01-25T22:42:39","modified_gmt":"2018-01-25T17:12:39","slug":"s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 04\/09\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nCriminal Revision Case No.442 of 2007\nCriminal Revision Case No.443 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2007\n\n\nS.J.Gayes\t\t\t... \tPetitioner in\nboth the cases\nVs\n\n\nThe State represented by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nKulasekarapattinam,\nTuticorin District.\t\t... \tRespondent in\n\t\t\t\t\tboth the cases\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nRevisions filed under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure, to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District\nMunsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5081 of 2003 and\n5082 of 2003 in C.C.Nos.169 of 2003 and 170 of 2003 dated 09.04.2007\nrespectively.\n\n\n!For Petitioner \t\t...\tMr.C.S.Krishnamurthy for\n\t\t\t\t\tMr.C.S.Lenin\n\n^For Respondent \t\t...\tMr.Siva.Ayyappan\n\t\t\t\t\tGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side)\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThese Criminal Revision Cases are focussed to get set aside the orders<br \/>\npassed by the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nTiruchendur, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5081 of 2003 and 5082 of 2003 in C.C.Nos.169 of 2003<br \/>\nand 170 of 2003 dated 09.04.2007 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Today, the affidavit of G.Jeyaprakash, son of the petitioner herein,<br \/>\nwho happens to be the second accused in this case, has been filed by the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The facts giving rise to the filing of these criminal revision cases as<br \/>\nfound set out in the records produced by the petitioner, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner herein happened to be the owner of the factory namely Joice<br \/>\nIce Factory which enjoys the facility of two electric service connections<br \/>\nbearing Nos.163 and 81 respectively.  It so happened that the petitioner herein<br \/>\nsettled the said factory along with those two service connections in favour of<br \/>\nhis son namely G.Jeyaprakash vide registered Gift Deed dated 18.02.2002.  The<br \/>\nElectricity Department who was in receipt of the requisition concerned, after<br \/>\ncomplying with the formalities effected name transfer and thereby Jeyaprakash,<br \/>\nbecame the service holder relating to the Service connection No.81.  However,<br \/>\nfor the reasons best known to the Electricity Board, such similar name transfer<br \/>\nrelating to service connection No.163 did not take place.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Per contra, the case of the prosecution is that during surprise<br \/>\ninspection, the officials unearthed the fact that there was theft of electricity<br \/>\nby making use of the aforesaid two service connections in that factory and<br \/>\naccordingly, they filed the aforesaid two cases arraying the father and the son<br \/>\nas accused in both the cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the method and manner in<br \/>\nwhich the petitioner has been roped in this case, he filed the petitions for<br \/>\ndischarge on the main ground that after the execution of the aforesaid<br \/>\nsettlement deed and even before that, his son Jeyaprakash was alone having the<br \/>\neffective possession, management and control over the Ice factory and the<br \/>\nservice connections.  At the time of effecting name transfer also, the officials<br \/>\nlooked into that and found that there was no theft of electricity.  However,<br \/>\nsubsequently, the Electricity Department turned turtle and had a volte face and<br \/>\nthey came forward with two cases as though there were theft of electricity.<br \/>\nPutting forth the aforesaid contentions, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.5081<br \/>\nof 2003 and 5082 of 2003 respectively, in those respective cases praying for<br \/>\ndischarge.  But, the learned Magistrate concerned in his separate orders,<br \/>\ndiscussed the points and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be<br \/>\ndischarged as only during the trial, the facts could be gone into and ultimate<br \/>\ndecision could be arrived at.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Being aggrieved by, such orders of the learned Magistrate, these<br \/>\ncriminal revision cases are focussed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. At the hearing, this Court raised a query as to what would be the<br \/>\nposition if the prosecution would be able to prove that there was theft of<br \/>\nelectricity spreading over a  period even anterior to the settlement deed, for<br \/>\nwhich the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the<br \/>\nprosecution side, they had not set out any such details relating to the period<br \/>\nduring which theft occurred.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Be that as it may, the prosecution should not be made to fall between<br \/>\nthe stools.  If at all, any such theft is proved in the normal course either the<br \/>\npetitioner or his son Jeyaprakash or both must be held responsible.  Jeyaprakash<br \/>\nis not before this Court in his very name, but on the other hand, Gayes is the<br \/>\npetitioner in both the Criminal Revision Cases.  If Gayes by merely contending<br \/>\nthat he had not been under the control of the factory as well as the service<br \/>\nconnections, gets exoneration, then naturally he cannot be convicted for the<br \/>\ntheft of electricity at the later stage by the trial Court.  If Jeyaprakash<br \/>\ncontends that he had nothing to do with the factory at any time and the<br \/>\nsettlement is not acted upon either wholly or partly and ultimately, if it is<br \/>\nfound that it was only Gayes, who is  responsible either partly or fully, then<br \/>\nthe Criminal Court will not be able to convict Gayes, as he might not be before<br \/>\nit in view of getting exoneration as per this order.  In order to avert the<br \/>\nimpasse, Jeyaprakash is called upon to file such affidavit detailing and<br \/>\ndelineating, expressing and expatiating that relating to the factory management<br \/>\nas well as the control over the electricity connections, he is solely<br \/>\nresponsible and in paragraph No.3 of his affidavit, he candidly averred thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;3.I state that my father is the President of the &#8220;Tuticorin District<br \/>\nCountry Boat Fishermen Community Association&#8221; from the year 2001.  Since he is<br \/>\nbusy with the association activities and welfare of the members of the above<br \/>\nassociation, he has no time to look after the Ice factory business.  Hence, he<br \/>\nhas settled the property in favour of me.  I state that even before the above<br \/>\nsettlement I have been in management looking after the affairs of the factory.<br \/>\nIn the event of theft is proved in service connection No.81 and 163, I shall<br \/>\ntake the responsibility on behalf of my father and he is no way connected with<br \/>\nthe affairs of the Ice factory.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the wake of categorical undertaking given by Jeyaprakash before<br \/>\nthis Court, I am of the considered opinion that Gayes could be exonerated for<br \/>\nthe following reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe settlement deed is dated 18.02.2002 and the name transfer was effected<br \/>\nas aforesaid vide order dated 15.03.2002 by the Executive Engineer,<br \/>\nTiruchendure, after necessary inspection and scrutiny relating to service<br \/>\nconnection No.81.  As such, it is crystal clear that relating to service<br \/>\nconnection No.81, Jeyaprakash is squarely responsible even if any theft of<br \/>\nelectricity is proved.  However, it appears, relating to service connection<br \/>\nNo.163, no such name transfer was effected.  I could see no rhyme or reason on<br \/>\nthe part of the Electricity Department in contending that such name transfer was<br \/>\nleft out.  While effecting the name transfer relating to service connection<br \/>\nNo.81, they ought to have effected such name transfer also relating to service<br \/>\nconnection No.163.  Furthermore, the facts remain that Jeyaprakash happened to<br \/>\nbe the son of Gayes and he comes forward with the categorical stand that it is<br \/>\nhe who has been in-charge of the factory and the electricity connections both<br \/>\nbefore and after the emergence of settlement deed and in such a case, the<br \/>\nprosecution would not be the loser.  In the event of proving that there was<br \/>\ntheft of electricity, the criminal court will be able to convict Jeyaprakash for<br \/>\nthe theft of electricity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in Saifee Golden Jubilee Rolling Mills, M\/s. v. State by Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice reported in 1989 L.W.(Crl.) 228.   An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;5.It is then contended that the accused 5 to 7 who are the partners of<br \/>\nthe fourth accused-firm, M\/s.Usha Agarwal are not also liable since there is no<br \/>\nallegation that these partners were in actual management of the affairs of the<br \/>\nfourth accused-firm.  In the statement recorded from Ramalingam, there is a<br \/>\nreference to Mr.M.K.Agarwal, the fifth accused being the partner in management<br \/>\nof the affairs of the factory.  But, there is nothing to show the actual part<br \/>\nplayed by him, in the pilfering of electric energy.  His very statement<br \/>\ndisclosed that one Selvaraj, who is arraigned as the 8th accused, who was the<br \/>\nsupervisor of the company, is responsible for the inter-changing of C.T.Terminal<br \/>\nconnections detected at the time of the inspection, and that the partners are<br \/>\nthe beneficiaries of the criminal act done by the said Selvaraj.  It is obvious,<br \/>\ntherefore, that the mischief has been done by the said Selvaraj.  The partners<br \/>\ncannot be held liable in the absence of any allegation of any part played by<br \/>\nthem in this criminal adventure.  The prosecution cannot, therefore, proceed<br \/>\nagainst the accused 5 to 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.  In the result, the petition is allowed in part, the proceedings in<br \/>\nC.C.No.543 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nPonneri, is quashed so far as the accused 2, 3 and 5 to 7 are concerned.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The aforesaid decision of this Court suits the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nhighlighted in this case and accordingly, the same should be adhered to.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Hence, in these circumstances, discharging Gayes would not in any way<br \/>\naffect the prosecution and in the meantime, it would augment the dispensation of<br \/>\njustice and accordingly, the order in Crl.M.P.Nos.5081 of 2003 and 5082 of 2003<br \/>\nin C.C.Nos.169 of 2003 and 170 of 2003 dated 09.04.2007, passed by the learned<br \/>\nPrincipal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, are set aside<br \/>\nand the Gayes is discharged from both the cases and the affidavit of Jeyaprakash<br \/>\nshall form part and parcel of the records and a copy of it or similar affidavit<br \/>\nshall also be filed before the learned Magistrate by Jeyaprakash.  Accordingly,<br \/>\nboth the criminal Revision Cases are allowed.  Consequently, connected<br \/>\nMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Kulasekarapattinam,<br \/>\n  Tuticorin District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Principal District Munsif cum<br \/>\n  Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Tiruchendur.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/09\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Criminal Revision Case No.442 of 2007 Criminal Revision Case No.443 of 2007 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 S.J.Gayes &#8230; Petitioner in both the cases Vs [&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-174286","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>S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 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\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-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=\"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-25T17:12:39+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\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T17:12:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1545,\"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\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007\",\"name\":\"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T17:12:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 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\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-25T17:12:39+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\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T17:12:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007"},"wordCount":1545,"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\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007","name":"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T17:12:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-j-gayes-vs-the-state-represented-by-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.J.Gayes vs The State Represented By on 4 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174286","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=174286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}