{"id":197521,"date":"2001-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001"},"modified":"2016-06-25T02:14:39","modified_gmt":"2016-06-24T20:44:39","slug":"k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001","title":{"rendered":"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of … on 31 July, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of … on 31 July, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: S N Variava<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Variava<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 759  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nK. PONNUSWAMY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMILNADU BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/07\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas & S.N. Variava\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
[WITH Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1622\/2001)]<\/p>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S. N. VARIAVA, J.\n<\/p>\n
These SLPs are filed against the Judgment dated 12th April, 2001.
\nWhen these SLPs were called out Mr. Ramamurthy, Senior Counsel for the
\nState of Tamil Nadu, prayed for an adjournment of four weeks.  He
\nsubmitted that,\t as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted by the impugned
\nJudgment, the State was going to prefer an Appeal against the same
\nJudgment.  Mr. Rao opposed the Application on the ground that the
\nPetitioner was in jail.\t He submitted that if the State wanted an adjournment,
\nfor such a long period, then the Petitioner should be released on bail.\t  We,
\ntherefore, felt that the best course to follow would be to hear these SLPs
\ntoday. When the State files its Appeal it can be heard separately.
\nAccordingly leave is granted
\nHeard parties.\n<\/p>\n
By these Appeals the Appellant is challenging his conviction under
\nSection 13 (1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Brief facts leading to these Appeals are as follows:
\nThe Appellant was elected as a member of Legislative Assembly from
\nMarungapuri constituency in June 1991.\tHe became the Deputy Speaker of
\nthe Legislative Assembly on 3rd July, 1991. He was Minister of Education to
\nthe Government of Tamil Nadu from 17th May, 1993 to 9th May, 1996.  For
\nthe sake of convenience this period from 17th May, 1993 to 9th May, 1996
\nwill hereinafter be referred to as the check period.\n<\/p>\n
Before the Appellant came to the political arena he was employed as a
\nLecturer in the Government Arts College.  It has been shown that in 1973
\nthe Appellant had taken a crop loan from the Bank of India for a sum of Rs.
\n13,000\/-.  That amount had not been repaid by the Appellant.  Ultimately a
\nSuit came to be filed and the amount had to be collected in execution of
\ndecree in that Suit.  In 1985 the Appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.
\n5,000\/- from R. Palanivelu (P.W.16) who was also working as a Lecturer
\nalong with him.\t  For this loan the Appellant had executed a promissory
\nnote.\tThe financial condition of the Appellant was such that he was unable
\nto repay the loan.  Ultimately a Suit had to be filed against him and a decree
\ncame to be passed.  Even after passing of the Decree the amount was not
\nrepaid.\t The Decree had to be executed.\t  The decreetal amount had to be
\nrecovered from the salary of the Appellant.  This clearly shows that before
\nhe became a Minister the Appellant’s financial condition was very weak.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt this stage, it must be mentioned that Accused No. 2 is the wife of
\nthe Appellant.\t Accused No. 3 is his daughter. Accused No. 2 was and is
\nmerely a house-wife.  She admittedly had only a small agricultural income
\nand no other source of income.\tAdmittedly Accused No. 3 was a student
\nbefore and during the check period.  She had no source of income.
\nAccused No. 4 is the son of the brother of the Appellant.  Accused
\nNo. 5 is the brother of the Appellant.\t Accused No. 6 is the Chartered
\nAccountant who had submitted income tax and wealth tax returns of the
\nAccused Nos. 2 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
The case of the prosecution was that during the check period the
\nAccused No. 1 acquired,\t in his name and in the names of Accused Nos. 2 to
\n5,  pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources
\nof income.  The prosecution examined as many as 65 witnesses and got 297
\nexhibit marks.\t The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence lead, acquitted
\nAccused No. 6.\tHowever, Accused No. 1 (i.e. the Appellant) was convicted
\nunder Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act.\t  Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were convicted under Section 109
\nI.P.C. and also under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act.\tThe Trial Court , after convicting the
\nAccused, directed consfication of the pecuniary resources and properties to
\nthe extant of Rs. 77,49,337.77.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant and Accused Nos. 2 to 5  filed Criminal Appeals before the
\nHigh Court against the convistion as well as against the Order confiscating
\nthe pecuniary resources and properties.\t The High Court disposed of these
\nAppeals by the impugned Judgment dated 12th April, 2001.  The High Court
\nacquitted Accused Nos. 2 to 5 but confirmed the conviction of the Appellant.
\nThe High Court held that as it had acquitted Accused Nos. 4 and 5 the assets
\nstanding in their names had to be excluded from the Order of confiscation.
\nThe High Court, however, maintained the order of confiscation in respect of
\nthe assets of the Appellant and his wife and daughter.\t As against this
\nportion of the Order the wife and daughter of the Appellant have also filed
\nSLP (Crl.) Nos. 1867 and 2343 of 2001.\t Those were also listed on Board
\nalong with these Appeals.  We have delinked those SLPs.\n<\/p>\n
As stated above, the charge against the Appellant is that whilst he was
\nholding the office as Minister of Education, Government of Tamil Nadu i.e.
\nduring the check period he abused his position as a public servant and
\nacquired and possessed pecuniary resources and properties in his name and
\nin the names of Accused Nos. 2 to 5 disproportionate to his known sources
\nof income to the extent of  Rs. 77,49,337.77.\n<\/p>\n
Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public
\nservant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct.-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\t\txxx\txxx\txxx<\/p>\n
(b)\t\txxx\txxx\txxx<\/p>\n
(c)\t\txxx\txxx\txxx<\/p>\n
(d)\t\txxx\txxx\txxx<\/p>\n
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has,
\nat any time during the period of his office, been in
\npossession for which the public servant cannot
\nsatisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property
\ndisproportionate to his known sources of income.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tAny public servant who commits criminal misconduct
\nshall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
\nbe not less than one year but which may extend to seven years
\nand shall also be liable to fine.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus under Section 13(1)(e) if either the public servant or any person on his
\nbehalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office,
\nbeen in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his
\nknown sources of income the public servant would have committed
\nmisconduct unless he can satisfactorily account.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs stated above, the Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 5 on the
\nfooting that the prosecution has established that between them assets
\ndisproportionate to the known sources of income (to the extent of Rs.
\n77,49,337.77) had been proved.\t That there were large assets has not been
\nseriously disputed.   Of course there is a dispute as to the exact amount.
\nThis is set out later.\tWhat has however been disputed is that these are assets
\nin the name of the Appellant i.e. that Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are holding these
\nassets on behalf of  the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court asked the parties to give a break up of the assets in
\nthe names of each of the accused.  On such break up it was found that so far
\nas the Appellant was concerned, in his own name, there were no pecuniary
\nresources or assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
\nHowever, it was found that assets standing in the name of his wife i.e.
\nAccused No. 2 were, according to the prosecution in a sum of Rs.
\n35,23,396\/- and according to the defence in a sum of Rs. 29,00,067\/-.  The
\nassets standing in the name of his daughter i.e. Accused No. 3, according to
\nthe prosecution were in the sum of Rs. 11,14,772\/- whereas according to the
\ndefence they were in the sum of Rs. 11,26,283\/-.  The assets in the name of
\nAccused No. 4, according to the prosecution as well as the defence were in
\nregion of Rs. 18,55,308\/-.  The assets in the name of Accused No. 5,
\naccording to the prosecution were in the region of Rs, 13,16,158\/-, whereas
\naccording to the defence they were in the region of Rs. 10,01,079\/-.
\nWhether the assets are as claimed by the defence or the prosecution is not
\nmaterial for purposes of these Appeals. Even if the figures are,  as claimed
\nby the defence, they are still quite large.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court then holds  that the prosecution had not proved or
\nshown whether Accused Nos. 4 and 5 had any independent source of income
\nof their own.  The High Court concludes that the prosecution by failing to
\nconduct an investigation into the individual income of Accused Nos. 4 and 5
\nhad failed to prove that the assets standing in the names of Accused Nos. 4
\nand 5 did not belong to them.  The High Court held that it could not,
\ntherefore, be held that Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were holding assets only on
\nbehalf of Accused No. 1.  On this basis the High Court acquits Accused Nos.
\n4 and 5.  As we have been told that the State is likely to file an Appeal
\nagainst acquittal of Accused Nos. 4 and 5 we make no comments on this
\naspect.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccused No. 2 was only a house-wife and Accused No. 3 was only a
\nstudent before and during the check period. Accused No. 3 being a student
\nhad no source of income except some very small agricultural income.  It is
\nproved and admitted that the only source of income of Accused No. 2 is
\nagricultural income from 5.45 acres of dry lands amounting to Rs, 82,880\/-
\nand interest on saving in bank account amounting to Rs. 16,376\/-.  It is
\nproved\tthat prior to the check period Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had no
\nsubstantial income or property.\t Even according to the defence version,
\nAccused No. 2 got assets amounting to Rs. 29,00,067\/- and Accused No. 3
\ngot assets amounting to Rs. 11,14,772\/-.  According to Accused Nos. 2 and 3
\nthe income is supposed to have been gifted to both of them by Accused No.\n<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
\tThe Trial Court and the High Court have dealt in detail with the
\nevidance led by the prosecution to show the existence of the income and the
\npurchase of properties. We are not setting out the entire evidance as in our
\nview the following evidance would suffice to show that the prosecution has
\nproved beyond a reasonable doubt that Accused 2 and 3 derived the income
\nand properties during the check period.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution has led the evidance of PW10, the District Registrar,
\nTrichy who proved that Accused No. 2 purchased a house site  in her name
\non 10th August, 1984 for a sum of Rs. 3,23,000\/-.  She purchased another
\nproperty, from Mr. Selvaraj, on 7th November, 1994 for a sum of Rs.
\n2,50,000\/-.  A third property was purchased by her, from one R. Vijay
\nLakshmi,  on 25th February, 1995 for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000\/-.  In her
\nstatement under Section 313 all these purchases are admitted.  The only
\nexplanation is that these were purchased from gift cheques received from
\nAccused No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution has led the evidence of the Manager, Karur Vyasya
\nBank, Main Branch, Trichy. He has produced the ledger of the bank relating
\nto the saving bank accounts standing in the name of Accused No. 2.   The
\ncomputer print out has been marked  as Ex. P.E.5.  It is shown that  an
\namount of Rs. 10,00,000\/-, as per pay in slips, Exs. P.40 and 41, had been
\ndeposited in the  year 1993-94. Further an amount of Rs. 5,00,000\/- was
\ndeposited as per pay in slip Ex. P.65. On 3.3.1995 another Rs. 5,00,000\/-
\nwas deposited through pay in slip Ex. P.66.  On the same day, yet another
\namount of Rs. 5,00,000\/- was deposited as per pay in slip Ex. P.67.   One
\nmonth earlier i.e. on 2.2.1995 an amount of Rs. 5,00,000\/- was paid into the
\naccount through pay in slip Ex. P. 68.\tThus an\t amount of Rs. 20,00,000\/-
\nhas been deposited into the account of Accused No. 2 within a period of not
\neven 40 days i.e. 25.1.1995 to 3.3.1995.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution has examined P.W.6, Manager of Andhra Bank,
\nTrichy.\t His evidence shows that locker Nos. 122 and 32 were kept by
\nAccused Nos. 2 and 4 jointly.  These lockers were opened in presence of
\nP.W. 23, the then Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by the
\nDeputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance on 2.9.1996 at about 2.30 p.m.
\nTotally, there were 37 items of jewels and Ex. P 114. Search list was
\nprepared  and signed by P.W.23 and PW 6.    PW 34 the proprietor of Devi
\nJewellers, Trichy states that Accused No. 2 purchased jewels through cash
\nbills Ex. P. 202 to 214.  The various dates of purchases are 16.12.1993,
\n24.1.1994, 28.1.1994, 18.3.1994, 31.3.1994, 28.7.1994, 28.11.1994,
\n26.12.1994, 10.2.1995, 28.2.1995, 20.3.1995 and 31.3.1995.    Even as per
\nthe worksheet submitted by the defence, the total value of the jewels
\npurchased by Accused No. 2 from M\/s. Devi Jewellers is Rs. 8,88,086\/-.
\nFurther, PW 50, the accountant of Combatore Jewellers has deposed
\nthat Accused No. 2 purchased jewels worth Rs. 84,250\/- on 15.3.1995.  The
\ncarbon copy of\tbill was marked as Ex.P.265.  On the same day, jewels were
\npurchased for Rs. 18,000\/- as per Ex. P. 266.  According to the witness on
\n25.3.1995, jewels for a value of Rs. 1,46,000\/- were purchased as per Ex.
\nP267, cash bill.  Even as per worksheet filed by the defence from 15.3.1995
\nto 25.3.1995 jewels were purchased from PW 50 Combatore Jewellers for
\nRs. 3,08,250\/-.\t When the above said evidence of PW 34 and PW 50 was put
\nto A2 during the course of questioning her under Section 313 Cr.P.C. she
\nadmitted the above said purchase but failed to explain through what income
\nshe purchased those jewels. She only stated at the end of her examination
\nthat she purchased movable and immovable out of the gift cheques received
\nby her through Accused No. 4.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution has also led the evidence of P.W.10, District
\nRegistrar Trichy.  This witness proved that on 25th November, 1990 Accused
\nNo. 3 purchased property under Sale Deed Ex. P.69.   Accused No. 3 also
\npurchased another property on 24th November, 1994 under Sale Deed Ex.
\nP.71.\tThe above properties were of the value of Rs. 1,90,000\/- and Rs.
\n1,95,000\/-.  It must be noted that Accused No. 2 had also purchased other
\nproperties from the very same party.   Thus the daughter of the Appellant
\n(i.e. Accused No. 3) was merely a student and had no source of income had
\npurchased properties, paid for the stamp duty and other costs.\t When this
\nfact was put to her Accused No. 3 she admitted that the purchases were
\nmade in her name.  But she failed to explain the source of income from
\nwhich the properties were purchased.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution has, through the evidence of T. Ramachandran
\n(P.W.5), i.e. the Manager of Karur Vysya Bank, Main Branch, Trichy, also
\nproved that Accused No. 3 had Saving Bank A\/c in that bank.   The
\ncomputer print out of the ledger was marked as Ex. P.34.  In that an amount
\nof Rs. 5,00,000\/- was deposited on 24th November, 1994 through pay in slip
\nExs. P.35 and P.36.    When this fact was put to her in her examination under
\nSection 313 she admitted the accounts but said that she did not know
\nanything about it.   Even with regard to the lockers standing in her name she
\nstated that she knew nothing about it.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution has thus proved beyond reasonable doubt that
\nsubstantial wealth was acquired by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 during the check
\nperiod.\t The only explanation given for the acquisition of this wealth was
\nthat it had been gifted to them by Accused No. 4.   Both the Trial Court and
\nthe High Court have disbelieved the story of gift and concluded that these
\nwere in fact the properties held by these persons on behalf of Accused No. 1.
\nOn this basis Accused No. 1 had been convicted.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Rao has seriously assailed the Judgments of the Trial Court and
\nthe High Court.\t He submitted that it has been established in the High Court
\nthat Accused No. 1 himself did not have any pecuniary resources or
\nproperties disproportionate to his known sources of income.  He submitted
\nthat the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the properties standing
\nin the names of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were held by them on behalf of
\nAccused No. 1.\t He submitted that it was for the prosecution to prove
\nbeyond reasonable doubt and by means of legal evidence that these were
\nBenami properties of Accused No. 1.   Mr. Rao submitted that Accused No.
\n4 had been acquitted by the High Court on the ground that the prosecution
\nhas not investigated into his personal source of income.  He submitted that,
\ntherefore, it could not be presumed that Accused No. 4 had no personal
\nsource of income.  He submitted that Accused No. 4 was the nephew of the
\nAppellant and, therefore, out of love and affection he had gifted the
\nproperties to Accused Nos. 2 and 3.  He submitted that it was the
\nprosecution to establish by legal and cogent evidence that the gifts were not
\ngenuine and that these were not the properties of Accused Nos. 2 and 3.\t He
\nsubmitted that as the prosecution had miserably failed to discharge the
\nburden and prove that the properties were held benami by Accused 2 and 3
\non behalf of Accused 1 neither the Trial Court nor the High Court could
\nhave convicted Accused No. 1 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section
\n13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his submission Mr. Rao relied upon the authority of this
\nCourt in the case of Krishnanand v. State of M.P. reported in (1977) 1 SCC\n<\/p>\n
816.  In this case this Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular
\ntransaction is benami and the appellant owner is not the real
\nowner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this
\nburden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence
\nof a definite character which would either directly prove the
\nfact of benami or establish circumstance unerringly and
\nreasonable raising an inference of that fact.  The essence of
\nbenami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such
\nintention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily
\npierced through.  But such difficulties do not relieve the person
\nasserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that
\nrests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjecture or
\nsurmises as a substitute for proof.   It is not enough merely to
\nshow circumstances which might create suspicion, because the
\ncourt cannot decide on the basis of suspicion.\t It has to act on
\nlegal grounds established by evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
There can be no dispute with the legal proposition. However, let us
\nsee what is meant by “Proved”.\tSection 3 of the Evidence Act defines
\n“Proved” as follows:\n<\/p>\n
” “Proved”.- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering
\nthe matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or
\nconsiders its existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
\nunder the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
\nsupposition that it exists.”\n<\/p>\n
Further, Section 114 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“114.  Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The
\nCourt may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks
\nlikely to have happened regard being had to the common course
\nof natural events human conduct and public and private
\nbusiness, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus the fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before
\nit, the Court believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a
\nprudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act
\nupon the supposition that it exits.  In coming to its belief the Court may
\npresume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened having
\nregard to the natural course of event, human conduct and public and private
\nbusiness, in relation to the facts of each case.\n<\/p>\n
\tNow, let us see the facts of this case.\t The prosecution has established
\nbeyond a reasonable doubt, that prior to the check period Accused Nos. 1, 2
\nand 3 had no real source of income, except some meager incomes, i.e.
\nAccused No. 1 only earned a small salary as a Lecturer and Accused Nos. 2
\nhad small agricultural and other income.   Accused No. 3 being a student had
\nno real source of income.  Prior to the check period the financial condition of
\nthe family was such that Accused No. 1 could not even repay his small
\ndebts. The creditors had to recover their amounts by filing suits and
\nexecuting decrees. We are presuming that Accused No. 4 had independent
\nincome. However prior to the check period Accused No. 4 had not been
\nafflicted by any love and affection and had not made any gifts to any
\nmember of the family of the Accused No. 1.    Prior to the check period
\nAccused No 4 did not even extend help to pay off the  small debts of
\nAccused No. 1 even after the decrees had been passed against Accused No.\n<\/p>\n
1.   Yet suddenly, during the check period, i.e. when Accused No. 1 is a
\nMinister, Accused No. 4 donates large sums of money to Accused Nos. 2
\nand 3.\tThe natural presumption, considering the common course of natural
\nevents and human conduct is that Accused No. 1 would have used his
\nnephew\tAccused No. 4 to transfer his (Accused No 1s) monies to Accused
\nNos. 2 and 3. This is the supposition which  any prudent man under these
\ncircumstances would act upon considering the natural course of events.\tThe
\nTrial Court and the High Court thus rightly took this as proved by legal
\nevidence.  The prosecution having established by legal evidence that the
\nmonies were transferred by Accused 1 to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 through
\nAccused No. 4 and that these were monies of Accused No. 1 in the hands of
\nAccused Nos. 2 and 3, it was for the Appellant to satisfactorily account for
\nthe gifts. He could have done so by showing that even before the check
\nperiod Accused No. 4 had made gifts of substantial amounts. It\thas not been
\nclaimed by Accused 2 and\/or 3 and\/or 4 that before the check period also
\nAccused No. 4 had made any such gifts. It is also not their case that after the
\ncheck period gifts were made. Thus the Trial Court and the High Court were
\nright in not believing the case of gifts supposedly made out of a sudden brust
\nof love and affection.\tBoth the Trial Court and the High Court were right in
\nconvicting Appellant. As we are told that the State is going to file an appeal
\nagainst the acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 we are not making any
\ncomments thereon.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn our view, there is no infirmity in the Order of the High Court so far
\nas the conviction of Apellant is concerned.\tWe see no reason to interfere.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly these Criminal Appeals stand dismissed.  There will be
\nno Order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(K. T. THOMAS)<\/p>\n
(S. N. VARIAVA)<\/p>\n
July 31, 2001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of … on 31 July, 2001 Author: S N Variava Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Variava CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 759 of 2001 PETITIONER: K. PONNUSWAMY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMILNADU BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/07\/2001 BENCH: K.T. Thomas & S.N. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-24T20:44:39+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of … on 31 July, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T20:44:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3789,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001\",\"name\":\"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T20:44:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of … on 31 July, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-24T20:44:39+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of … on 31 July, 2001","datePublished":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T20:44:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001"},"wordCount":3789,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001","name":"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of ... on 31 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T20:44:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ponnuswamy-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-by-inspector-of-on-31-july-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Ponnuswamy vs State Of Tamilnadu By Inspector Of … on 31 July, 2001"}]},{"@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\/197521","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=197521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}