{"id":189354,"date":"2003-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003"},"modified":"2015-10-27T22:10:36","modified_gmt":"2015-10-27T16:40:36","slug":"v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 21\/08\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12672 OF 2003\nAND\nCRL.M.P.Nos.4321 AND 4322 OF 2003.\n\nV.Jaganathan                           ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nState, by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nCentral Crime Branch,\nEgmore, Chennai.                        ... Respondent\n\n        Criminal Original Petition filed under Section  482  of  the  Code  of\nCriminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.S.Sudarsan\n\nFor respondent :  Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,\n                Govt.Advocate(crl.side)\n\nFor intervener :  Mr.T.L.L.Ramakrishnan\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                The above criminal original petition has been filed praying to<br \/>\nset  aside  the  order  dated  1.4.2003  made  in  Crl.M.P.No.689  of  2003 in<br \/>\nC.C.No.1100 of 1999 to recall the petitioner as P.W.2, which is pending on the<br \/>\nfile of the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  On a perusal of  the  materials  placed  on  record,  upon<br \/>\nhearing  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner,  learned counsel for the<br \/>\ninterver and the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side, it comes to<br \/>\nbe known that the petitioner is the  Director  of  M\/s.Ramaniam  Real  Estates<br \/>\nPrivate  Limited,  Gandhi  Nagar,  Adyar,  Chennai and he is P.W.2 in the said<br \/>\ncase, which is registered on a complaint  lodged  by  one  Mohan  against  his<br \/>\nsister&#8217;s  daughter by name Maragatha Mani along with two other persons for the<br \/>\noffences punishable under Sections 466,471 and 474 IPC.  The petitioner  would<br \/>\nsubmit  that  the  said  Maragathamani  sold  her  lands  along with two cents<br \/>\nbelonging to the said Mohan as  his  power  agent  to  the  customers  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner  and  the  sale deeds were also executed by the said Maragathamani;<br \/>\nthat all of a sudden, after the buildings were constructed,  problems  started<br \/>\nto  galore  and  the  said Mohan issued a lawyer&#8217;s notice on 28.11.1995 to the<br \/>\npetitioner and the said Maragatha Mani stating  that  the  said  Maragathamani<br \/>\nforged  the power of attorney and sold the lands without his consent; that the<br \/>\nsaid notice was replied by  the  petitioner  on  21.12.1995  and  subsequently<br \/>\nanother  notice was also issued by the said Mohan on 5.6.1 997, which was also<br \/>\nreplied by them on 14.6.1997; that in the meantime, the said Mohan, has lodged<br \/>\na complaint  before  the  respondent  herein,  who  issued  a  notice  to  the<br \/>\npetitioner  to  attend  an  enquiry on 15.6 .1996; that on receipt of the said<br \/>\npolice notice under Sections 91 and 160  Cr.P.C.,  he  sent  a  reply  through<br \/>\nregistered  post  on  17.6.1996  narrating all the incidents; that earlier, on<br \/>\n15.2.1996, the complainant received all the relevant papers from his Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The petitioner would further submit that thereafter he was<br \/>\nnot examined and no statement was given by him orally to  anybody  earlier  or<br \/>\nsubsequent  to  17.6.1996,  the  one which he sent in writing; that thereafter<br \/>\nalso, the Inspector of Police sent notices to come to his  Office  for  giving<br \/>\nstatement and on no occasion, he has recorded any statement other than the one<br \/>\ngiven  by  him  in  writing; that thereafter, he received summons in the above<br \/>\nmatter from Court to depose evidence as prosecution witness  and  the  Police,<br \/>\nwho  came  to  serve  the  summons informed him to come and depose what he has<br \/>\ngiven in writing earlier on 17.6.1996; that on various occasions, the case was<br \/>\nadjourned and finally he was examined in chief in January, 2003;  that  during<br \/>\nthe  course of examination, the Public Prosecutor put certain questions, as if<br \/>\nhe stated earlier, which  he  denied  and  thereafter  the  Public  Prosecutor<br \/>\ntreated  him  hostile and sought permission to cross-examine him and the Court<br \/>\ngranted leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   The  petitioner  would   further   submit   that   during<br \/>\ncrossexamination,  the  Public  Prosecutor  showed a statement to him, said to<br \/>\nhave been recorded on 24.1.1996 which  is  factually  incorrect  and  no  such<br \/>\nstatement was given by him on 24.1.1996 and this can be proved beyond doubt by<br \/>\nrecords in the form of police notice sent by the same investigating officer to<br \/>\nhim  subsequently and therefore he deposed that the statement was not given by<br \/>\nhim and denied the same; that the defence counsel also cross-examined  him  on<br \/>\n6.2.2003 and his evidence was closed on 6.2.2003 and the case is adjourned for<br \/>\ninvestigating officer&#8217;s evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   The petitioner would further submit that on 22.4.2003, he<br \/>\nreceived summons from the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate  to  appear  for<br \/>\ncross-examination  on  2.5.203  and to give evidence; that on verification, it<br \/>\nwas found that the said Mohan, on whose complaint, the  case  was  registered,<br \/>\nfiled  a  petition  to  engage  a  Lawyer  to assist the prosecution and filed<br \/>\nCrl.M.P.No.539 of 2003 praying to reopen  the  investigation  and  direct  the<br \/>\nAdditional  Deputy Commissionr of Police to investigate various aspects raised<br \/>\ntherein, seize the original power of attorney from P.W.2 and send the same for<br \/>\nhandwriting expert for his opinion and to file additional charge  sheet  array<br \/>\nthis  petitioner  as  accused  and  Crl.M.P.No.689  of  2003  to  recall  this<br \/>\npetitioner for cross-examination and the learned Magistrate, without notice to<br \/>\nthis petitioner, also conducted the enquiry and dismissed  the  Crl.M.P.No.539<br \/>\nof 2003 and allowed the Crl.M.P.No.689 of 2003, by the order dated 1 .4.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   The  petitioner  would  further  submit  that  the  above<br \/>\npetition is not maintainable and it is a clear abuse of process of  law;  that<br \/>\nthe  above  applications  are filed with a view to harass him by unnecessarily<br \/>\ndragging on to criminal courts and thereby causing mental  agony  and  forcing<br \/>\nhim to come to terms; that he has not adduced evidence that he is possessed of<br \/>\noriginal  power of attorney; that the charge itself is baseless since the very<br \/>\ncase is that the power of attorney is forged and without the original power of<br \/>\nattorney, the alleged forged document, the charges were framed and now  he  is<br \/>\ncompelled  to  produce  a  document  which  is  not  in his custody and depose<br \/>\nevidence on the basis of the statement which is not given by him;  that  after<br \/>\nthe  evidence  is  over  and that too, when the prosecution has treated him as<br \/>\nhostile witness, he is unable to understand as to what sort of  evidence,  the<br \/>\nprosecution is expecting from him as their witness; that there is no scope for<br \/>\nfurther cross-examination according to the sweet wish of the Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nand hence the petition is filed by the counsel assisting the Public Prosecutor<br \/>\njust to harass him by dragging him to criminal courts and made him wait by way<br \/>\nof sadist  satisfaction.    On such grounds, the petitioner would pray for the<br \/>\nrelief extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on  behalf<br \/>\nof  the petitioner would only repeat the facts and circumstances brought forth<br \/>\nin his application with no new fact or circumstance nor any law pertaining  to<br \/>\nthe  subject  argued  and  hence  tracing  the  same is not only going to be a<br \/>\nrepetition of the facts extracted supra but also will be a time consuming  and<br \/>\nwasteful exercise.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.    Though  no  petition  has  been  filed  to  implead  the<br \/>\ndefactocomplainant    as    the    party    to    the    above    proceedings,<br \/>\nMr.T.L.L.Ramakrishnan,  Advocate appeared on behalf of the defacto-complainant<br \/>\nas intervener and resisted the above petition stating that the property of the<br \/>\ndefacto-complainant is sold by forging the documents and hence he has  to  get<br \/>\nit  ascertained as to with whom the original power of attorney is and hence he<br \/>\nhas filed a petition before the Court below under Section 311 Cr.P.C.  and the<\/p>\n<p>same was allowed by the Court below in full consideration  of  the  facts  and<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the  case  and the above petition filed by P.W.2 is without<br \/>\nmerit and would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  On the part of the  learned  Government  Advocate  on  the<br \/>\ncriminal appearing for the prosecution, he would affirm the order of the Court<br \/>\nbelow and would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   In  consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to<br \/>\nthe materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned  counsel  for  all<br \/>\nparties, it could be assessed that the defacto-complainant in the case in hand<br \/>\nhas  filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 3 11 of the Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nto re-call P.W.2 for further  cross-examination  by  the  prosecution  towards<br \/>\nestablishing  the  possession  of  the original power of attorney said to have<br \/>\nbeen parted with by one Maragathamani, the accused therein.  The case  of  the<br \/>\ndefacto-complainant is that the accused Maragatha Mani, who is none other than<br \/>\nhis  sister&#8217;s  daughter,  while  selling her lands in favour of the petitioner<br \/>\nherein, who is a builder to an extent of 13,000 sq.ft., she has also sold  two<br \/>\ncents  of  land  belonging  to the defacto-complainant, which according to the<br \/>\ndefacto-complainant was forging his sig nature in the documents,  which  could<br \/>\nbe  ascertained by causing production of the original power of attorney, which<br \/>\nis said to have been given in favour of the said Maragathamani  and  according<br \/>\nto  the  defacto-complainant,  the said Maragathamani has handed over the said<br \/>\npower of attorney in original to this petitioner\/P.W.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  P.W.1 is  the  defacto-complainant.    According  to  the<br \/>\ndefactocomplainant, regarding the possession of the original power of attorney<br \/>\nsaid to have been given to this petitioner\/P.W.2 by the accused Maragathamani,<br \/>\nno  proper  evidence  has  been  elicited  by  the  prosecution at the time of<br \/>\ncross-examination of P.W.2  as  a  hostile  witness.    On  the  part  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner\/P.W.2,  he  would  firmly  deny not only before this Court but also<br \/>\nduring the time of his  examination  before  the  trial  Court  regarding  the<br \/>\noriginal   power   of  attorney  being  handed  over  with  him  by  the  said<br \/>\nMaragathamani  and  he  has   specifically   mentioned   not   only   in   the<br \/>\nchief-examination  but  also  in  his hostile evidence extracted by the APP in<br \/>\ncross-examination and there is no question of any ambiguity  or  inconsistency<br \/>\nor  doubtful  circumstance  created so far as the petitioner&#8217;s evidence before<br \/>\nthe trial Court regarding the possession of the original power of attorney  by<br \/>\nhim is   concerned.    Therefore,  it  is  not  proper  on  the  part  of  the<br \/>\ndefacto-complainant in seeking to re-examine P.W.2 since absolutely no purpose<br \/>\nis going to be served by such examination of P.W.2 again  since  his  evidence<br \/>\nregarding   the   subject   in   hand,  even  at  the  time  of  his  original<br \/>\ncrossexamination, is definite.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  It is relevant to point out  that  what  statements  have<br \/>\nbeen recorded by the prosecution under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  have been properly<br \/>\nand elaborately elicited in the cross-examination of the petitioner\/ P.W.2 and<br \/>\nthe hostile  witness  P.W.2 would deny them.  Now citing some notice and reply<br \/>\nexchanged by parties and stating that in the said notice, it is indicated that<br \/>\nthe  original  power  of  attorney  was  parted  only  with  this  P.W.2,  the<br \/>\ndefacto-complainant  has  come  forward to file the petition under Section 311<br \/>\nCr.P.C.  before the Court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.  At this juncture, it is essential on  the  part  of  this<br \/>\nCourt  to  go into the question `whether such an application could be filed on<br \/>\nthe part of the defacto-complainant in his individual  capacity,  particularly<br \/>\nin  view  of  the  fact  that P.W.2 is not a party to the proceedings but only<br \/>\nexamined as a witness&#8217; and `whether it is proper on  the  part  of  the  court<br \/>\nbelow   to  have  permitted  the  defacto-complainant  to  file  the  petition<br \/>\nregardless of the fact that the case of the prosecution is  conducted  by  the<br \/>\nState?&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.   The petitioner may be the defacto-complainant, but it is<br \/>\nentirely the State, which has taken up the responsibility  of  projecting  the<br \/>\ncase  of the prosecution and anything the defacto-complainant wants to project<br \/>\nbefore the Court, it should be only through the agency which is projecting his<br \/>\ncase i.e.  the State through the police and the Public  Prosecutor  and  hence<br \/>\naccording to the procedures established by law particularly under Cr.P.C., the<br \/>\ndefacto-complainant  could  only  assist  the prosecution, if permitted by the<br \/>\nCourt and he has absolutely no independent  locus  standi  either  to  file  a<br \/>\npetition  excluding the Public Prosecutor who is prosecuting the case or would<br \/>\nhe have any say with the Court regarding anything that he wants to bring home.<br \/>\nTherefore, entertaining the petition filed by the  defacto-complainant  itself<br \/>\nis  irregular, no mention need be necessary in processing the same and passing<br \/>\norders on such application filed by  the  defactocomplainant  by  himself  and<br \/>\ntherefore  it  is only proper, in the above circumstances, to hold that at the<br \/>\noutset, entertaining the petition  filed  by  the  defacto-complainant  herein<br \/>\nbefore  the trial Court in the manner aforementioned under Section 311 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nitself is improper and not maintainable in law needless to mention  about  the<br \/>\nfate of the enquiry held and the orders passed by the Court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.   No  irregularity or inconsistency has taken place in the<br \/>\nmanner that the subject matter has been dealt with by the APP at the  time  of<br \/>\nthe   examination   of  P.W.2,  which  is  perfect  and  no  inconsistency  or<br \/>\nirregularity writs large so as to entertain the application of  such  sort  in<br \/>\nthe name of re-examination which is out of the scope of the case projected and<br \/>\nfurther    since    the    application    of    that   sort   filed   by   the<br \/>\nintervener\/defacto-complainant cannot be maintained,  this  Court,  for  these<br \/>\nreasons, is left with no choice but to set aside the order passed by the Court<br \/>\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n<p>In result,\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)the above criminal original petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)The order  dated  1.4.2003 made in Crl.M.P.No.689 of 2003 in C.C.  No.1100<br \/>\nof 1999 by the Court of  XI  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Saidapet,  Chennai  is<br \/>\nhereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>                Consequently,  Crl.M.P.Nos.4321  and  4322  of  2003  are also<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\nRao<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate,<br \/>\nSaidapet,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nCentral Crime Branch,<br \/>\nEgmore, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nHigh Court,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/08\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12672 OF 2003 AND CRL.M.P.Nos.4321 AND 4322 OF 2003. V.Jaganathan &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- State, by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. &#8230; Respondent Criminal [&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-189354","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>V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 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\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-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=\"2003-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-27T16:40:36+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-27T16:40:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2198,\"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\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003\",\"name\":\"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-27T16:40:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 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":"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 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\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-27T16:40:36+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-27T16:40:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003"},"wordCount":2198,"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\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003","name":"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-27T16:40:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-jaganathan-vs-state-on-21-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Jaganathan vs State on 21 August, 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\/189354","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=189354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}