{"id":205783,"date":"2007-06-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007"},"modified":"2018-12-16T07:23:45","modified_gmt":"2018-12-16T01:53:45","slug":"pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\t\t\n\n\nDated : 06\/06\/2007\n\n\nCoram:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\n\n\nCriminal Revision Case.No.738 of 2005\n\n\nPappasundaram\t\t\t ... Revision Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nState rep. by\nInspector of Police,\nThiruverumbur Police Station\nThiruverumbur, Trichy District,\nCr.No.1213 of 2001\t\t ... Respondent\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nThis Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 &amp; 401 of\nCriminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment passed by Additional District\nand Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II Trichirappalli in C.A.No.12 of 2005\ndated 31.10.2005 modifying the conviction and sentence imposed to the Revision\npetitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichirappalli in C.C.No.157\nof 2002 dated 20.12.2004.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t: Mr.S.Muthukrishnan\n\n\n^For Respondent\t: Mr.Siva Ayyappan,GA (Crl.Side)\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtNo.II Trichirappalli in<br \/>\nC.A.No.12 of 2005 dated 31.10.2005 modifying the conviction and sentence imposed<br \/>\nto the Revision petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6,<br \/>\nTrichirappalli in C.C.No.157 of 2002 dated 20.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-<br \/>\n\tP.W.1, Thilagavathy, is the resident of Thiruverumbur. P.W.2 Shanmugam is<br \/>\nthe father of P.W.1. P.W.3, Chandra is the wife of P.W.2. Gangaiammal, the<br \/>\ndeceased is the grand mother of P.W.1. P.W.4, Sekar, is the Auto driver of the<br \/>\nauto bearing Registration No.TNX 6645.  They wanted to proceed to Kailash Nagar.<br \/>\nP.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased Gangaiammal were sent by an auto. When the auto was<br \/>\nnearing the Kailash Nagar bus stop, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 1605<br \/>\ndriven by the accused and dashed against the Auto from the backside, thereby<br \/>\nauto was thrown away. The victims were injured. P.W.14 was the conductor of the<br \/>\nbus. The Revision petitioner\/accused is the driver of the bus. After the<br \/>\naccident, both the driver and conductor left the place.  P.W.13, the Sub<br \/>\nInspector who was in-charge of the Thiruverumbur Police Station, received a<br \/>\nmessage from Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited Hospital. He went there and<br \/>\nrecorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.1213 of 2001<br \/>\nunder Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.7, the printed First<br \/>\nInformation Report. Then the investigation taken up by the P.W.15, Selvaraj, the<br \/>\nInspector of Police. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared<br \/>\nEx.P.2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.9, the Rough Sketch in the presence<br \/>\nof  P.W.8,  Murali  and  P.W.9,   Damodharan.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, he seized the Auto bearing Registration No.TNX 6645 and sent it to<br \/>\none Selvaraj, the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection. Further, he conducted<br \/>\ninquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P.10, the Inquest Report in the<br \/>\npresence of witnesses and the body was sent for Post-mortem along with a<br \/>\nrequisition to the Annal Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli.<br \/>\nP.W.11, Karthikeyan, the doctor attached to the said hospital conducted Post-<br \/>\nmortem and has given Ex.P.11, the Post-mortem Certificate, wherein he has opined<br \/>\nthat &#8220;the deceased would appear to have died of Thoracic cage wounds and Head<br \/>\nwounds&#8221;.  Thereafter, P.W.15, recorded the statements of Thilagavathy, Chandra,<br \/>\nSekar, Renukadevan, Thiyagarajan. He arrested the accused and released him on<br \/>\nbail and he also recovered the trip sheet. Further, he recorded the statements<br \/>\nof Rangabashyam and Thirunavukkarasu, the doctors and recorded the statement of<br \/>\nKarthikeyan, the doctor who conducted the Post-mortem and received Ex.P.11, the<br \/>\nPost-mortem Certificate. He also received Ex.P.12, the Motor Vehicle Inspection<br \/>\nReport for the bus and Ex.P.13, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report for the<br \/>\nAuto.  After completion of investigation, he filed a Charge sheet against the<br \/>\naccused under Sections 279, 337 (4 counts) and 304(A) I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15<br \/>\nwere examined, Ex.P.1 to 13 were marked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. On consideration of all the evidence available on record, the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, found the accused guilty<br \/>\nfor an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (4 counts) and  304(A) I.P.C.,<br \/>\nand directed him to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- in default of payment to undergo<br \/>\nsimple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 279<br \/>\nI.P.C, and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.500\/- each in default of payment to<br \/>\nundergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under<br \/>\nSection 337(4 counts) and sentenced him to undergo six months Rigourous<br \/>\nImprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000\/- in default of payment to undergo simple<br \/>\nimprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304(A)<br \/>\nI.P.C.  Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was<br \/>\npreferred before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court<br \/>\nNo.II, Trichirappalli in C.A.No.12 of 2005, where the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict and Sessions Judge modified the conviction and sentence of the the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate.  Challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court,<br \/>\nthis Revision has been filed by the Revision Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The point for determination is:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t   &#8220;Whether the Revision is maintainable?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Point:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe power of the Revisional Court is defined and classified clearly by the<br \/>\nApex Court.  Following the same, this court has limited jurisdiction.  This<br \/>\ncourt can interfere only when the material evidence is overlooked or there is<br \/>\nmiscarriage of jusitice.  It must be shown by the Revision Petitioner that this<br \/>\ncourt can interfere as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) On the fateful day, i.e., 04.12.2001 at 9.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and<br \/>\nthe deceased were travelling in an Auto bearing Registration No.TNX 6645 of<br \/>\nP.W.4 and they were proceeding from Wesr to East. P.W.4 was driving the auto.<br \/>\nWhen the auto was coming near the Kailash Nagar bus stop, the bus driven by the<br \/>\naccused and dashed against the auto, thereby the auto capsized in the accident.<br \/>\nP.W. 1 to 3 sustained injury and Gangaiammal died. The vehicles, viz., the auto<br \/>\nand the bus, were inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and respective<br \/>\nreports were received. Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined by the doctors and<br \/>\nrespective Wound Certificates under Exs.P.3 to 6 were received. No doubt the<br \/>\nvehicle was driven by the accused on that date which was spoken by P.W.14, the<br \/>\nconductor of the bus. His evidence would show that the vehicle was driven by the<br \/>\naccused.  After the accident, both of them left the place. It is clear that the<br \/>\nvehicle was driven by the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there<br \/>\nis no evidence would show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent<br \/>\nmanner. But the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would show that the bus was driven by<br \/>\nthe accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto driven by<br \/>\nP.W.4. The scene of occurrence is the bus stop. Naturally, a bus must come in a<br \/>\nslow speed. But due to the accident, the auto was thrown away from the scene of<br \/>\noccurrence. This is evident from the sketch.  The sketch will exhibit the manner<br \/>\nof accident. Witnesses spoke cogently about the rash and negligent driving of<br \/>\nthe driver of the bus. There is no reason to reject their evidence. Hence the<br \/>\nsubmission of the counsel that the bus was not driven rash and negligently false<br \/>\nto ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner is argued<br \/>\nthat the scene of occurrence is not in Kailash Nagar bus stop and it is away 3<br \/>\nkm  from  the scene<\/p>\n<p>of occurrence as claimed by the prosecution. So the prosecution is bound to<br \/>\nfail. No doubt that P.W.4, the auto driver spoke that the occurrence took place<br \/>\n3 km away from the Kailash Nagar bus stop. A perusal of the Sketch would show<br \/>\nthat near the bus stop, there is north south road which is leading to Kailash<br \/>\nNagar Township. It is the intention of the parties to go to Kailash Nagar 3rd<br \/>\nStreet. If that is the case, they need not to go 3 km away from the bus stop.<br \/>\nNaturally, they have to turn near the bus stop. while being so, the evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.4 that the occurrence took place 3 km away from the bus stop is not correct.<br \/>\nAt this juncture, fairly submitted by the counsel that the auto driver is not in<br \/>\na position to speak about the accident correctly. Even if the auto driver&#8217;s<br \/>\nevidence is rejected, the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 and 12 would show that the<br \/>\nscene of occurrence is the Kailash Nagar bus stop which was confirmed by the<br \/>\nInvestigating Officer and the sketch and the evidence on record would show that<br \/>\nthe accident occurred near the Kailash Nagar bus stop. The bus was driven in a<br \/>\nrash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto from backside. The<br \/>\ninvestigating officer has not taken care to examine the Postmortem doctor.  Now,<br \/>\nthe death and the accident is not disputed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. On careful consideration of evidence, I find that the witnesses are<br \/>\ninjured and one old lady was killed in that accident. Both the Trial Court and<br \/>\nthe Appellate Court after meticulously considering the evidence on record, came<br \/>\nto a conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence. I find there is no<br \/>\nreason to differ with the finding of the courts below and the prosecution prove<br \/>\nthe case satisfactorily.  Hence, the Judgments of both the Courts below are<br \/>\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Accordingly this Revision is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Judicial Magistrare No.6,<br \/>\n   Trichirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n \tFast Track Court No.2<br \/>\n   Trichirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n   Thiruverumbur Police Station<br \/>\n\tThiruverumbur.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n   Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06\/06\/2007 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN Criminal Revision Case.No.738 of 2005 Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision Petitioner Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station Thiruverumbur, Trichy District, Cr.No.1213 of 2001 [&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-205783","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>Pappasundaram ... Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pappasundaram ... Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-16T01:53:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T01:53:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1525,\"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\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Pappasundaram ... Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-16T01:53:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pappasundaram ... Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pappasundaram ... Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-16T01:53:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T01:53:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007"},"wordCount":1525,"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\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007","name":"Pappasundaram ... Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-16T01:53:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pappasundaram-revision-vs-state-rep-by-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pappasundaram &#8230; Revision vs State Rep. By on 6 June, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205783","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=205783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}