{"id":191938,"date":"2006-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006"},"modified":"2014-05-13T17:04:37","modified_gmt":"2014-05-13T11:34:37","slug":"velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDated : 05\/01\/2006\n\n\nCoram :\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\n\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.194 of 2005\n\n\nVelthurai\t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\nvs.\n\n\n1. State, represented by the\n\tInspector of Police,\n   Alangulam Police Station,\n   Tirunelveli District.\n\n2. State, represented by the\n   \tSecretary to Government,\n   Public Law and Order-F Department,\n   Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.\n\n3. The District Magistrate and\n\tDistrict Collector,\n   Tirunelveli District,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n4. The Superintendent,\n   Palayamkottai Central Prison,\n   Tirunelveli District.\n\n5. The Union of India,represented\n\tby Secretary to Government,\n   Ministry of Home Affairs,\n   North Block, New Delhi.\t...\t\tRespondents\n\n\n\n\tThis habeas corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India for the issue of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to\nproduce the petitioner namely Velthurai, S\/o Marthapandi Thevar and now confined\nat Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty\nforthwith by setting aside the detention order dated 07.02.2005 in MHS\nConfidential (NSA) No.2\/2005 on the file of the third respondent.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t..\tDr.G.Krishnamurthy\n\n\n^For Respondents\t..\tMr.P.Jothi,\n1 to 4\t\t\t\tAdditional Public Prosecutor\n\nFor Respondent 5\t..\tMr.Pon Muthuramalingam,\n\t\t\t\tAdditional Standing Counsel\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by<br \/>\nR.BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tTwo points are urged in attacking the order of detention passed<br \/>\nunder the National Security Act 1980.  The first point is that the petitioner,<br \/>\nif at all has to be detained, it can be only under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of<br \/>\n1982.  There is a bar under Section 17 of the said Act, not to pass an order of<br \/>\ndetention, in respect of a goonda, on and after the commencement of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nAct 14 of 1982, under the Central Act.   The second point urged is that the<br \/>\ndetenu has sent a representation to the  Central and State Governments; the<br \/>\nCentral Government has considered and sent a reply, whereas the State Government<br \/>\nhas not replied at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.The detention order in this case is dated 07.02.2005 passed under<br \/>\nSection 3(2) of the Central Act.  The detention order had come to be passed on<br \/>\nthe basis of the alleged involvement of the detenu in the instance that is shown<br \/>\nto have taken place on 28.12.2004, in respect of which a case in Crime<br \/>\nNo.847\/2004 under Sections 341, 302, 307 IPC and Section 25(1) of the Arms Act<br \/>\ncame to be registered on the file of Alangulam Police Station.  Therefore, it is<br \/>\nclear that the detention order had come to be passed on a solitary instance,<br \/>\nwhich according to the detaining authority has the potential to disturb the<br \/>\nmaintenance of the public order.  One of the ground enumerated in sub-section<br \/>\n(2) to Section 3 of the Central Act is that the Central Government or the State<br \/>\nGovernment, as the case may be, if satisfied with respect to any person that<br \/>\nwith a view to preventing him from &#8230;&#8230;.. acting in any manner prejudicial to<br \/>\nthe maintenance of public order, it can detain him.  Section 17 of the State Act<br \/>\nreads as here under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;17.Detention orders against any bootlegger, drug-offender, forest-<br \/>\noffender, goonda, immoral traffic offender, slum-grabber or video pirates to be<br \/>\nmade under this Act and not under National Security Act.&#8211;On  and after the<br \/>\ncommencement of this Act, no order of detention under the National Security Act,<br \/>\n1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980) shall be made by the State Government or any of<br \/>\ntheir officers under that Act in respect of any bootlegger,  drug-offender,<br \/>\nforest-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender, slum-grabber or video pirates<br \/>\nin the State of Tamil Nadu, on the ground of preventing him from acting in any<br \/>\nmanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, where an order of<br \/>\ndetention may be or can be made against such person, under this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that<br \/>\nthe activity relied upon in the grounds of detention would bring the detenu<br \/>\nunder the classification of &#8216;Goonda&#8217; and therefore having regard to the bar<br \/>\ncreated under Section 17 of the State Act referred to above, the detention order<br \/>\nis liable to be quashed since it is without jurisdiction.  In our considered<br \/>\nopinion, there is a fallacy in this argument.  &#8216;Goonda&#8217; is defined under Section<br \/>\n2 of the State Act as here under.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;2(1)(f) &#8220;goonda&#8221; means a person, who either by himself or as a member of<br \/>\nor leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the<br \/>\ncommission of offences, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter<br \/>\nXXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act XIV of 1860);&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore a person to be brought under the category of Goonda should be shown to<br \/>\nbe a person who &#8230;.. habitually commits or attempts to commit &#8230;. offences<br \/>\npunishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode   Therefore the legal requirement to be satisfied to detain a person as a<br \/>\nGoonda under the State Act is that he must be shown to be a person habitually<br \/>\ncommitting &#8230;..  offences punishable  under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or<br \/>\nChapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code and the act on which the detention order<br \/>\nhad come to be passed must have the potential to disturb the maintenance of<br \/>\npublic order.  Therefore, at the risk of repetition, we state that to detain a<br \/>\nperson as a &#8216;Goonda&#8217; under the State Act the said person must be shown to be a<br \/>\nperson habitually committing the offences falling under any of the Chapters<br \/>\nmentioned earlier.  That is not the requirement of the Central Act.  Under the<br \/>\nCentral Act, even one instance is enough and if the detaining authority is<br \/>\nsatisfied that the said instance has the potential to disturb the public order,<br \/>\nit can invoke the provisions of the Central Act.  In other words, the Central<br \/>\nAct do not contemplate a person to be detained under that Act to be a habitual<br \/>\noffender committing offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or<br \/>\nChapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code.  This basic difference in the two<br \/>\nenactments has been totally lost sight of by the learned counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.Under Section 3(2) of the Central Act, the Central Government or<br \/>\nthe State Government is given the power, subject to satisfying the requirement<br \/>\nof the provisions of that Act, to pass a detention order.  Under the State Act<br \/>\nonly the State alone has the power.  Prior to the commencement of the State Act,<br \/>\nthe State has been detaining persons whose activities would be a hindrance to<br \/>\nthe maintenance of public order only under the Central Act.  Thereafter<br \/>\nrealising the importance to have a preventive law of its own in the context of<br \/>\nthe dangerous activities of anti-social elements, the State had enacted Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Act 14\/1982 (the State Act).  The State Act also brought within its purview<br \/>\nvarious class of persons whose activities are likely to hinder the maintenance<br \/>\nof public order.  After coming into force of the State Act, the State wants to<br \/>\nregulate its power  in invoking the Central Act to pass an order of detention,<br \/>\nif it can bring the activities of such a person under the State Act.  Only in<br \/>\nthat context, Section 17 of the Act was brought on the statute book.  A reading<br \/>\nof Section 17 clearly shows that only when an order of detention on a person may<br \/>\nbe or can be made under the State Act, then the State Government shall not<br \/>\nresort to the provisions of the Central Act for the purpose of detaining the<br \/>\nperson.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.Maintenance of public order is the sole object of the State Act<br \/>\nand any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of such public order is sought<br \/>\nto be curtailed by invoking the provisions of the State Act.  But under the<br \/>\nCentral Act, in addition to maintaining public order, other objects are also<br \/>\nthere, namely to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the<br \/>\nsecurity of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the<br \/>\nmaintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.  Section 17 of<br \/>\nthe State Act says, the State Government shall not pass an order of detention<br \/>\nunder the Central Act on and after the commencement of the State Act &#8216;in respect<br \/>\nof&#8217; (emphasis supplied) any bootlegger, &#8230;&#8230;&#8230; on the ground of preventing<br \/>\nhim from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.<br \/>\nThe phrase &#8216;in respect of&#8217; has a meaning.  As per The Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha<br \/>\nAiyer, Reprint 2004, the phrase given its widest meaning, would mean &#8220;relating<br \/>\nto&#8221; or &#8220;with reference to&#8221;.  Therefore, if the phrase &#8216;in respect of&#8217; used in<br \/>\nSection 17 of the State Act is properly understood, then it means that such<br \/>\nrestriction imposed on the State Government to pass a detention order under the<br \/>\nCentral Act should relate to or should be with reference to the classified<br \/>\npersons mentioned therein.  The classifications in the State Act are<br \/>\nBootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic<br \/>\nOffenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates.  Each of those classifications is<br \/>\nwell defined under the Act.  In the case on hand, as per the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention, we are dealing with the case of detention of a Goonda.  The<br \/>\ndefinition &#8216;Goonda&#8217;, we have already referred, is defined to mean a person who<br \/>\nhabitually commits &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  Therefore, unless a  person sought to be detained<br \/>\ncomes under the definition of &#8216;Goonda&#8217;, he cannot be detained under the State<br \/>\nAct.  If we read carefully the last limb of Section 17 of the State Act, it is<br \/>\nclear that only when an order of detention may be or can be made by the State<br \/>\nGovernment or any other officers against such person under the State Act, then<br \/>\nonly they cannot pass an order of detention under the Central Act.  The<br \/>\nexpression &#8216;such person&#8217; means  Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders,<br \/>\nGoondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates.  In other<br \/>\nwords, if the State Government or its officers is not in a position to detain a<br \/>\nperson under the State Act, then it is always open to them to go under the<br \/>\nCentral Act.  In the case on hand the detention order is on only one instance;<br \/>\ntherefore there is absence of habituality and in such circumstances the state<br \/>\nGovernment can not pass a detention order under the State Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.As far as the second point is concerned, the file produced by the<br \/>\nlearned Additional Public Prosecutor would show that the detenu had sent a<br \/>\nrepresentation only to the Government of India and it had been properly<br \/>\nconsidered and disposed off.  Learned counsel appearing for the detenu does not<br \/>\ndispute the said fact, but his grievance is that the detenu&#8217;s representation to<br \/>\nthe State Government had not been considered at all.   The learned Additional<br \/>\nPublic Prosecutor would state that there is no representation at all to the<br \/>\nState Government.  Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show us any<br \/>\nproof of having sent any representation to the State Government.   Therefore, in<br \/>\nthe absence of any proof of having sent a representation to the State<br \/>\nGovernment, the second point raised by the learned counsel for the detenu falls<br \/>\nto the ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.As the two points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nare rejected, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mf\/gb.\n<\/p>\n<p>Copies to<\/p>\n<p>1. The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n   Alangulam Police Station,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n   State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n   Public Law and Order-F Department,<br \/>\n   Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The District Magistrate and<br \/>\n\tDistrict Collector,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli District,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Superintendent,<br \/>\n   Palayamkottai Central Prison,<br \/>\n   Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n   Union of India,<br \/>\n   Ministry of Home Affairs,<br \/>\n   North Block, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.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 Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05\/01\/2006 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.194 of 2005 Velthurai &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Alangulam Police Station, Tirunelveli [&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-191938","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>Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006 - 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\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-13T11:34:37+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\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-13T11:34:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1738,\"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\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-13T11:34:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006 - 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\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-13T11:34:37+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\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-13T11:34:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006"},"wordCount":1738,"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\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006","name":"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-13T11:34:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velthurai-vs-state-on-5-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Velthurai vs State on 5 January, 2006"}]},{"@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\/191938","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=191938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}