{"id":224116,"date":"2010-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-06-08T16:57:52","modified_gmt":"2014-06-08T11:27:52","slug":"jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/07\/2010\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCriminal Revision Case (MD) No.387 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010\n\n\nJesubalan\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nState Inspector of Police,\nGangaikondan Police Station,\nTirunelveli District.\nCrime No.168\/06\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for\nthe records in Cr.M.P.No.103 of 2010 in S.C.No.266 of 2007, on the file of the\nSessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli and set aside the order dated\n08.04.2010 made in Cr.M.P.No.103 of 2010.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.P.Ramasamy\n^For Respondent\t... Mr.P.Rajendran,\n \t\t    Government Advocate (Crl. side)\n***\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis criminal revision has been filed to call for the records in<br \/>\nCr.M.P.No.103 of 2010 in S.C.No.266 of 2007, on the file of the Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nMahila Court, Tirunelveli and set aside the order dated 08.04.2010 made in<br \/>\nCr.M.P.No.103 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.266 of 2007, on the file of the<br \/>\nMahila Court, Tirunelveli, pending trial, he filed an application in<br \/>\nCr.M.P.No.103 of 2010 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.  In the petition, he has<br \/>\nalleged that P.W.1, the victim girl gave her complaint on 17.11.2006 at 10.00<br \/>\nhours and subsequently on 19.11.2006 First Information Report was registered,<br \/>\nthat the fact was admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.14 Sub Inspector of Police, during<br \/>\nthe course of their cross examination, that P.W.14 had deposed that before<br \/>\nregistering the case he made secret enquiry on the advice of the Inspector of<br \/>\nPolice and on the basis of the information collected by him in the said enquiry,<br \/>\nhe registered the case, that the particulars of information collected by him and<br \/>\nthe persons examined by him are very much essential to prove the defence and to<br \/>\ndisprove the prosecution case also and that in the interest of justice, the<br \/>\ndocuments mentioned in the petition may be sent for to the Court.  The<br \/>\nparticulars of documents to be sent for are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Sl.No.   Particulars of documents                 From whom\n\n1       General diary of Gangaikondan        Inspector of Police, Gangaigondan\n        Police Station for the period        Police Station.\n        from 13.11.2006 to 19.11.2006\n\n2       Daily Diary of Muthu Subramanian,    Muthukrishnan,\n        Sub Inspector of Police,             S\/o. Gurusamy,\n        Gangaigondan for the period          Sub-Inspector of Police,\n        from 13.11.2006 to 19.11.2006        Gangaigondan Police Station.\n\n\n\n3       Daily Diary of Chandrasekaran,       Inspector of Police,\n        then Inspector of Police,            Gangaigondan Police Station.\n        Gangaigondan Police Station for\n        the period from 13.11.2006\n        to 19.11.2006.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t3. In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that after the<br \/>\ntrial commenced, the petition has been filed in a belated stage, that the secret<br \/>\ninformation could not be divulged, that the petitioner has the liberty to seek<br \/>\nthe diary for the period from 17.11.2006 to 19.11.2006 only but the request from<br \/>\n13.11.2006 is not tenable and no reason has been mentioned in the petition for<br \/>\nseeking the document and that the petition may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The learned Judge of the Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, has dismissed the<br \/>\napplication by observing that in view of the petition filed by the respondent on<br \/>\n06.04.2010 stating that the documents required by the petitioner could not be<br \/>\ntraced due to the lapse of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Mr.P.Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would<br \/>\nsubmit that the police is expected to maintain the diaries which are mentioned<br \/>\nin the petition, that under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, the accused has got every<br \/>\nright to send for any document and that the enquiry relating to the registration<br \/>\nof the case would reveal the real state of things.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Contending contra, Mr.P.Rajendran, Government Advocate (Criminal Side),<br \/>\nwould submit that as per Section 172 Cr.P.C., the accused is not entitled to<br \/>\nsend for the records from the police station and hence, the petition has to<br \/>\nfail. Section 172 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of police diaries, which goes<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;172.Diary of proceedings in investigation.-(1) Every police officer<br \/>\nmaking an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his<br \/>\nproceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the<br \/>\ninformation reached him, the time at which he began and closed his<br \/>\ninvestigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the<br \/>\ncircumstances ascertained through his investigation.<br \/>\n\t(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under<br \/>\ninquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the<br \/>\ncase, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such<br \/>\ndiaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are<br \/>\nreferred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made<br \/>\nthem to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of<br \/>\ncontradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145,<br \/>\nas the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The statute requires entry of the events which constitute stages in the<br \/>\ninvestigation which was conducted day by day with reference to the particulars<br \/>\nas to time at which he began and closed his investigation, the places visited by<br \/>\nhim and the circumstances ascertained by him during the investigation. The<br \/>\nprovision enables the Court to send for the diaries for its reference to get<br \/>\nassistance to decide the case.  It does not give any right to the accused to<br \/>\ncall for the diaries. Even if the Court calls for the diaries, it can be<br \/>\nreferred to only by the Court and even at the time, neither the accused nor his<br \/>\ncounsel would refer the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) placed reliance upon a<br \/>\ndecision reported in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1239742\/\">Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P., AIR<\/a> 1995<br \/>\nSupreme Court 1748, wherein Their Lordships have held as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;It can therefore be seen that the right of accused to cross examine the<br \/>\npolice officer with reference to the entries in the General Diary is very much<br \/>\nlimited in extent and even that limited scope arises only when the Court uses<br \/>\nthe entries to contradict the police officer or when the police officer uses it<br \/>\nfor refreshing his memory and that again is subject to the limitations of<br \/>\nSection 145 and 161 of the Evidence Act and for that limited purpose only the<br \/>\naccused in the discretion of the Court may be permitted to peruse the particular<br \/>\nentry and in case if the Court does not use such entries for the purpose of<br \/>\ncontradicting the police officer or if the police officer does not use the same<br \/>\nfor refreshing his memory, then the question of accused getting any right to use<br \/>\nthe entries even to that limited extent does not arise.  The accused person is<br \/>\nnot entitled to require a police officer to refresh his memory during his<br \/>\nexamination in Court by referring to the diary.  At the most the accused can on<br \/>\na reasonable basis seek the Court to look into the diary and do the needful<br \/>\nwithin the limits of Section 172 Cr.P.C.  However, the Court is not bound to<br \/>\ncompel the police witness to look at the diary in order to refresh his memory<br \/>\nnor the accused is entitled to insist that he should do so.  If there is such a<br \/>\nrefusal what inference should be drawn depends on the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\neach case.  Section 172, does not deal with any recording of statements made by<br \/>\nwitnesses and what is intended to be recorded is what the police officer did<br \/>\nnamely the places where he went, the people he visited and what he saw etc. It<br \/>\nis Section 161, Cr.P.C. which provides for recording of such statements.<br \/>\nAssuming that there is failure to keep a diary  as required by Section 172,<br \/>\nCr.P.C. the same cannot have the effect of making the evidence of such police<br \/>\nofficer inadmissible and what inference should be drawn in such a situation<br \/>\ndepends upon the facts of each case.  It is well-settled that the entries of the<br \/>\npolice diary are neither substantive nor corroborating evidence and they cannot<br \/>\nbe used by or against any other witness than the police officer and can only be<br \/>\nused to the limited extent indicated above.  The above stated principles are<br \/>\nreiterated in many decisions rendered by the Courts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. When the law does not permit the accused specifically in Section 172,<br \/>\nthe petitioner could not invoke Section 91 to send for such diaries. The<br \/>\nprovision does not expect a police officer to record and maintain in the police<br \/>\nstation, the events, enquiries and all the particulars which happened earlier to<br \/>\nthe investigation.  All the more, it requires that he should record every stage<br \/>\nin the investigation with particulars.  To put it otherwise, Section 172 does<br \/>\nnot impose a duty on a police officer to record the happenings anterior to the<br \/>\ninvestigation.  Nowhere in the Code it is stated that the police officer has to<br \/>\nrecord with minute details, the events which he comes across before he started<br \/>\nthe investigation.  Sl.No.1 General diary is the one covered by Section 172 of<br \/>\nthe Code. Indisputably  the said diary could not be brought to the Court at the<br \/>\nbehest of the accused. Insofar as the diaries mentioned as Sl.Nos.2 and 3 are<br \/>\nconcerned, they are stated to be the personal diaries of the concerned police<br \/>\nofficers which allegedly contained the particulars which came to their knowledge<br \/>\nearlier than 19.11.2006, when the case was registered. The law does not expect<br \/>\nthe police personnel to maintain the diaries as described in Sl.No.2 and 3.<br \/>\nEven though they do not maintain such diaries, they could not be found fault<br \/>\nwith.  As held by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in the decision mentioned supra, even<br \/>\nif the diaries mentioned in Section 172 Cr.P.C. were not maintained by the<br \/>\npolice officers, there could not have any legal consequences adverse to the<br \/>\nprosecution and no adverse inference could be drawn in this regard. It is the<br \/>\nlaw that they do not contain any substantive or corroborative evidence which<br \/>\nwould assist the Court to decide the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also says that even in the<br \/>\ncounter, the respondent has stated that the petitioner has liberty to seek the<br \/>\ndiary for the period from 17.11.2006 to 19.11.2006.  However, it was reported<br \/>\nbefore the Court on a later occasion that the diaries could not be traced.  In<br \/>\nthis context, the Court cannot direct to send for the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In view of the above said observations and in the light of the<br \/>\nprinciples laid down in the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion that the accused is not entitled to call for the diaries<br \/>\ndescribed in the list of documents in his petition and the order challenged<br \/>\nbefore this Court does not suffer from any infirmity legally or factually, which<br \/>\ndeserves to be confirmed and it is confirmed accordingly. The revision has to<br \/>\nsuffer dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn fine, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>srm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n(Mahila Court),<br \/>\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/07\/2010 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.387 of 2010 and M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 Jesubalan .. Petitioner Vs State Inspector of Police, Gangaikondan Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime [&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-224116","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>Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010 - 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\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-08T11:27:52+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-08T11:27:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1689,\"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\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-08T11:27:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010 - 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\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-08T11:27:52+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-08T11:27:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010"},"wordCount":1689,"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\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010","name":"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-08T11:27:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jesubalan-vs-state-inspector-of-police-on-19-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jesubalan vs State Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/224116","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=224116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}