{"id":188019,"date":"2003-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003"},"modified":"2017-06-05T22:26:22","modified_gmt":"2017-06-05T16:56:22","slug":"state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 08\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nCRL. APPEAL NO.828 OF 1996\n\nState by\nPublic Prosecutor\nHigh Court, Madras                                      ..  Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nTmt. Ramadevi                                          ..  Respondent\n\n        This appeal is preferred under Section 378 of  Cr.P.C.    against  the\njudgment  dated  28.4.1995 in C.C.No.36 of 1992 on the file of the learned VII\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Madras.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan,\n                Govt.  Advocate, (Crl.  Side)\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.A.Balaguru\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This is an appeal by the State challenging the judgment  of  acquittal<br \/>\nby the  the  learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras made in C.  C.No.36<br \/>\nof 1992 wherein  the  respondent\/accused  stood  charged  and  tried  for  the<br \/>\noffences  under  Sections  12 &amp; 13(2) r\/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption<br \/>\nAct, 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal<br \/>\ncan be stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        P.W.1 Natarajan, Joint Transport Commissioner (i\/c), Madras-5 accorded<br \/>\nsanction under Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1 988 for the<br \/>\nprosecution of the respondent Tmt.   Ramadevi  Jalasundaram  for  the  alleged<br \/>\noffences  under  Sections  7,  13(2)  r\/w  13(1)(d)  and  12  of Prevention of<br \/>\nCorruption Act, 1988 under Ex.P1.  P.W.2 Kuppusamy asked  the  accused  for  a<br \/>\npermit in  respect  of  his auto rickshaw.  At that time, the accused directed<br \/>\nP.W.2 to get a certificate from a notary public  regarding  his  name.    When<br \/>\nP.W.2 produced the said certificate on 4.9.1991, the accused demanded a sum of<br \/>\nRs.200\/- as  bribe.    Thereafter  P.W.2  not willing to give bribe decided to<br \/>\nreport the same to the concerned authorities.  Accordingly, P.W.2  gave  Ex.P4<br \/>\nreport on  5.9.1991,  on  the basis of which, the concerned D.S.P.  called the<br \/>\nInspector by name Jagannathan and two others by name Munitsha and  Mohan,  and<br \/>\nintroduced them  to  P.W.2.  P.W.2 handed over the currency notes amounting to<br \/>\nRs.200\/- to the said Inspector.    The  required  test  was  conducted.    The<br \/>\nInspector handed over the said currency notes to P.W.2 and told him to give it<br \/>\nto the  accused  on  demand.  When P.W.2 went to Regional Transport Office and<br \/>\nmet the accused, the accused again  demanded  bribe.    P.W.2  gave  the  said<br \/>\ncurrency  notes to the accused and the accused received the same on 5.9.91 and<br \/>\nput the bribe money in her black colour hand bag.   Besides  that,  she  asked<br \/>\nP.W.2 to  give  bribe  to one Karunanidhi.  Immediately P.W.2 went outside and<br \/>\ngave signal to the vigilance authorities.  The Inspector asked P.W.2 to  stand<br \/>\noutside.   When, the Inspector enquired the accused as to whether she received<br \/>\nthe bribe, she accepted the same.  Then, he conducted a test and it was proved<br \/>\npositive.  Then the Inspector examined the bag of the accused, and the accused<br \/>\ngave acceptable reasons for the remaining moneys available in the bag.  Hence,<br \/>\nhe handed over the bag with remaining amounts  to  the  accused.    Then,  the<br \/>\naccused  was  told to take the said currency notes, and the Inspector compared<br \/>\nthe same with the particulars available with  him  and  found  correct.    The<br \/>\nInspector  recovered  a  small  purse  and obtained the affidavit of P.W.2 and<br \/>\nrecords pertaining to P.W.2.  A mahazar was prepared in that regard and  P.W.3<br \/>\nMunsifshah signed  in the same.  Then the Inspector made a search in the house<br \/>\nof the accused, and no material was found.  P.W.5 Sundarrajan  gave  a  report<br \/>\nunder Ex.P.11.    P.W.6  Narasimhan,  who  was  working as R.T.O, narrated the<br \/>\nincident.  P.W.7 Savarimuthu, was present at the time of the said test.  P.W.9<br \/>\nJagannathan, Inspector, received Ex.P4 report, investigated the same, examined<br \/>\nthe witnesses and recorded their statements.  The case in Crime  No.8\/AC\/93\/AC<br \/>\nwas handed over to P.W.10, Subramaniam for further investigation.  He enquired<br \/>\nP.W.9 and  the  accused  and  recorded their statements.  On completion of the<br \/>\ninvestigation, P.W.10 filed a charge sheet on  1.4.1992  against  the  accused<br \/>\nafter getting sanction.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   In  order  to  prove  its  case,  the prosecution has examined 10<br \/>\nwitnesses and marked 14 exhibits and 6 material objects.  After  the  evidence<br \/>\nof  the  prosecution  was  over,  the  accused  was questioned under S.31 3 of<br \/>\nCr.P.C.  as to the incriminating circumstances found in the  evidence  of  the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses,  and the accused denied the same as false.  On the side<br \/>\nof the defence, D.W.1 was examined.  After considering the  rival  submissions<br \/>\nand  scrutiny  of  the  available  materials,  the  trial  Court acquitted the<br \/>\nrespondent\/accused, which is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit  that<br \/>\nthe  lower Court was wrong in holding that P.W.1 was not a competent person to<br \/>\ngive sanction to prosecute the respondent; that it is pertinent to  note  that<br \/>\nP.W.1,  who accorded sanction to prosecute the accused, was a competent person<br \/>\nby virtue of his position as Joint Commissioner; that according to  P.W.1,  he<br \/>\nhad  additional  charge as Joint Commissioner with all rights available to the<br \/>\nJoint Commissioner, and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got  to  be<br \/>\nset  aside  and  the  respondent\/accused  be  convicted  of the charges framed<br \/>\nagainst her.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Countering to the above contentions of the appellant&#8217;s  side,  the<br \/>\nlearned Counsel appearing for the respondent\/accused would urge that the lower<br \/>\nCourt  only  on  proper  appreciation  of  the entire evidence has come to the<br \/>\nconclusion that P.W.1 was incompetent to accord sanction for prosecution; that<br \/>\nin the instant case, the authority who appointed  the  respondent  namely  the<br \/>\nCommissioner,  has  not  given sanction to prosecute her; that the lower Court<br \/>\nhas rightly acquitted the accused, and hence, the judgment of the lower  Court<br \/>\nhas got to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   This  Court  has  considered the rival submissions and has made a<br \/>\nthorough scrutiny of the materials available.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The lower Court has acquitted the accused only on the ground  that<br \/>\nthe  authority who granted the sanction was not competent to do so, and hence,<br \/>\nthe prosecution cannot be said to be, in the eye of law, a  valid  one.    The<br \/>\nCourt below has found that there was a demand and receipt of bribe as required<br \/>\nunder the  provisions  of the Prevention of Corruption Act.  From the evidence<br \/>\nadduced by the prosecution,  it  would  be  clear  that  P.W.1,  who  accorded<br \/>\nsanction  at  the time when it was sought for, was not the Joint Commissioner.<br \/>\nBut, according to him, he was a Joint  Commissioner  in-charge.    As  rightly<br \/>\npointed  out  by  the learned Counsel for the respondent\/accused, though P.W.1<br \/>\nstated so in his evidence, no documentary evidence or material was  placed  in<br \/>\nthe hands  of  the  lower Court to accept the same.  It is not in dispute that<br \/>\nthe respondent was appointed by the Commissioner of the Transport  Department.<br \/>\nIn  the  absence of any material to hold that the sanctioning authority at the<br \/>\nrelevant time, was the Joint Commissioner incharge  or  he  was  competent  to<br \/>\ndismiss  the  respondent, the contention of the State that he was competent to<br \/>\naccord sanction cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of the<br \/>\nApex Court reported in  2000  SUPREME  COURT  CASES  (CRI)  687  (RAM  KRISHAN<br \/>\nPRAJAPATI VS.  STATE OF U.P.), wherein it has been held thus:<br \/>\n&#8220;8.   The  position  is now clear that even though the District Magistrate was<br \/>\nalso an appointing authority, as the appellant was in fact  appointed  by  the<br \/>\nCommissioner,   who  is  admittedly  a  higher  authority  than  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate, the Commissioner  is  the  appointing  authority  so  far  as  the<br \/>\nappellant is concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   If  that be so, the appellant is entitled to contend that the sanction to<br \/>\nprosecute him in this case should have been passed by the Commissioner and not<br \/>\nby the District Magistrate.  The sanction issued by the District Magistrate is<br \/>\nnot a sanction in the eye of law as the  said  authority  was  incompetent  to<br \/>\naccord sanction for prosecution under the Act concerning the appellant.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe  said  decision  of  the  Apex Court is squarely applicable to the present<br \/>\nfacts of the case.  Applying the said principles laid down by the Apex  Court,<br \/>\nthe  Court is of the considered view that in order to accept the contention of<br \/>\nthe State that sanction was accorded by a competent person namely  P.W.1,  who<br \/>\naccording  to him was the Joint Commissioner, no documentary proof or material<br \/>\nwas placed in the hands of the Court below, and hence, the  sanction  accorded<br \/>\nby  P.W.1  is  not  a  sanction in the eye of law, since he was incompetent to<br \/>\naccord   sanction   for   prosecution   under   the   Act    concerning    the<br \/>\nrespondent\/accused.   Therefore,  without  any hesitation, on that ground, the<br \/>\nCourt has to necessarily agree with the findings recorded by the lower  Court.<br \/>\nThe  judgment  of  the  lower  Court  acquitting  the  accused  has  got to be<br \/>\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  In the result,  this  criminal  appeal  fails,  and  the  same  is<br \/>\ndismissed, confirming the judgment of the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) The VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras,<br \/>\nThro&#8217; The Principal Sessions Judge, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>3) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>4) Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan, Government Advocate<br \/>\n(Crl.  Side), High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>5) The D.I.G.  of Police, Chennai 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM CRL. APPEAL NO.828 OF 1996 State by Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras .. Appellant -Vs- Tmt. Ramadevi .. Respondent This appeal is preferred under Section 378 of [&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-188019","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>State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003 - 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-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-05T16:56:22+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\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T16:56:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1458,\"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-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003\",\"name\":\"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T16:56:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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 By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003 - 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-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-05T16:56:22+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\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T16:56:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003"},"wordCount":1458,"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-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003","name":"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T16:56:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-vs-tmt-ramadevi-on-8-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State By vs Tmt. Ramadevi on 8 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/188019","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=188019"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188019\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188019"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188019"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188019"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}