{"id":228976,"date":"2009-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-24T21:15:45","modified_gmt":"2017-07-24T15:45:45","slug":"p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :  17\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD)No.9783 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008\n\n1.P.Robert Immanuel\n2.M\/s.Robert Immanuel Stall,\n  No.13\/51, Kuil Nindrar Street,\n  Alwarthirunagari,\n  Thoothukudi District.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nVs\n\nThe State Rep.by\nThe Food Inspector,\nAlwarthirunagari Town Panchayat,\nAt Government Primary Health Cetre,\nThenthirupperai,\nThoothukudi District.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPRAYER\n\tCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to\ncall for the entire records in S.T.C.No.1641 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial\nMagistrate, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioners\t...  Mr.R.Anand\n^For Respondent  \t...  Mr.P.Rajendran, G.A.(Crl.side)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in
\nS.T.C.No.1641 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
\nSrivaikundam, Thoothukudi District and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The brief facts of the case is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for
\nthe alleged offence committed under Sections 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) and 16(1)(c) read
\nwith 7(ii)(v), 14(A)2(ix)(k) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and
\nRule 24, 42(zzz)(1)&(12) & 32(e)(f)(i) & 50(1) of Prevention of Food
\nAdulteration Act, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
   3.On 21.01.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. the respondent inspected the shop owned
\nby the first petitioner and the first petitioner said to have possessed cool
\ndrinks in the name and style of “Santhi Carbonated Beverage (Ginger)”.  The
\nrespondent have purchased 9 bottles for a sum of Rs.48\/- and thereafter, issued
\na receipt and then took sample from the said bottles and subsequently, sent the
\nsame to the Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, Madurai.  According to the
\nrespondent, the Public Analyst had opined that the samples are misbranded as it
\nis not labelled in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24(zzz)(1) & (12) of
\nRule 42 and 32(e)(f) &(i) of the Act and after obtaining sanction, a case has
\nbeen registered.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The petition is filed for quashing of the charges on the following
\ngrounds:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)that the petitioner was not given opportunity to test the second sample and
\nthe respondent has not handed over the second sample to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)that the respondent has not named the manufacturer of the said Beverage.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)that the details of misbranding is not stated.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the grounds.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government
\nAdvocate (Crl.side) for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a
\ndelay in launching prosecution which is vitiated and the valuable right of the
\naccused to have a second sample for analysis is also lost and therefore, the
\nproceedings is liable to be quashed. He relied on  2002(1) LW (Crl.) 201  in
\nwhich this Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“H.N.:- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Ss.13(2) and 9-A and Criminal P.C.,
\nS.482-Delay in launching prosecution by 9 month to obtain written consent from
\nthe authority concerned – Higher authority had directed complainant to launch
\nprosecution within 7 working days – Valuable right of accused to have the other
\nportion of the sample analysed by the Control Food Laboratory being lost,
\nprosecution is liable to be quashed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Sections
\n16(1)(a)(i)(ii) and 16(1)(c) read with 7(ii)(v), 14(A)2(ix)(k) of Prevention of
\nFood Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 24, 42(zzz)(1)&(12) & 32(e)(f)(i) & 50(1)
\nof Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955.\t It is the admitted case of the
\nprosecution that the sample, which was taken, was not adulterated but it was
\nfound to be misbranded.  In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the
\nrespondent\/complainant it is stated that the sample of beverage is not labelled
\nin accordance with the requirements of Rules 24, 32(e)(f)&(i) and 42(zzz)(i)(12)
\nof Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and the sample said to have been
\nmisbranded regarding violation of the Rules 24, 32(e)(f)(i) 42 (zzz)(i)(12) and
\n50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.When the sample is found to be adulterated, it will attract the
\nprovisions of Section 13(2) of the Act.  Therefore, the above referred judgment
\nrelied on by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
\nHowever, the petitioner is charged for offence of misbranding the food items.
\nRule 24 contemplates that the extraneous addition of colouring matter to be
\nmentioned on the label i.e. the label should contain \t“(i)contains permitted
\nnature colours or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)contains permitted synthetic food colours or\n<\/p>\n
(iii)contains permitted natural and synthetic food colours\n<\/p>\n
(iv)contains permitted natural and synthetic colours”\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 32(e)says the label should exhibit
\n“a distinctive batch number or lot number or code number, either in numerical or
\nalphabets or in combination, the numerical or alphabets or their combination,
\nrepresenting batch number or lot number or code number being preceded by the
\nwords “Batch No.”, or “Batch, or Lot No.”, or “Lot” or any distinguishing
\nprefix:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that in case of canned food, the batch number may be given at the
\nbottom, or on the laid of the container, but the words “Batch No.” given at the
\nbottom or on the laid, shall appear on the body of the container'”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Rule 32(i) contemplates that the label should contain the month and
\nyear in capital letters up to which the product is best for consumption, in the
\nfollowing manner, namely:\n<\/p>\n
“BEST BEFORE ……. MONTH AND YEAR
\nOR
\nBEST BEFORE ……. MONTHS FROM PACKAGING
\nOR
\nBEST BEFORE ……. MONTHS FROM MANUFACTURER
\nOR
\nBEST BEFORE UPTO MONTH AND YEAR …\n<\/p>\n
OR
\nBEST BEFORE WITHIN … MONTHS FROM
\nTHE DATE OF PACKAGING \/ MANUFACTURE
\n……….”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Rule 42(zzz)(i) relates to mentioning the contents of permitted and
\nartificial sweetener mentioned in the table given in (Rule 47, and an
\nadvertisement for such food) shall carry the following label, namely-
\n“(i)This ……(Name of food) contains…..(Name of artificial sweetner)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Not recommended for children\n<\/p>\n
(iii)(a)Quantity of sugar added ……gm\/100 gm\n<\/p>\n
(b)No sugar added in the product\n<\/p>\n
(iv)Not for Phenylketoneurics (If Aspertame is added)”\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 7(ii)(v) deals with offence and
\nSection 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) deals with
\n“Penalties-(1)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), if any person –\n<\/p>\n
(a)whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India
\nor manufactures for sales, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food –\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)which is adultered within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia)
\nof section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of clause (ix) of that section or
\nthe sale of which is prohibited under any provision of this Act or any rule made
\nthereunder or by an order of the Good (Health) Authority;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)other than an article of food referred to in sub-clause(i), in
\ncontravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made
\nthereunder;”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Section 14(A) deals with non disclosing of manufacturers name.  The
\nsaid section reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“14-A Vendor to disclose the name, etc., of the person from whom the article of
\nfood was purchased – Every vendor of an article of food shall, if so required,
\ndisclose to the Food Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the
\nperson from whom he purchased the article of food.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Admittedly, 200ml beverage bottle of ginger was taken for sample and
\nthe respondent\/Food Inspector has not mentioned anything about the label in his
\nreport. The   misbranding of label does not require any Public Analyst opinion.
\nThe Food Inspector who had occasion to deal with the impugned beverage bottle
\ndid not mention anything about the misbranding of label or contravention of the
\nRules 24, 32 and 42.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The said private complainant has only relied on the Public Analyst
\nreport for misbranding of the label.  As stated earlier misbranding of label
\ndoes not require Public Analyst opinion and the Food Inspector, who had drawn
\nsamples had not mentioned anything about the label of beverage bottles. It is
\npertinent to note that the beverage is not adulterated but did not contain those
\nparticulars as stated earlier which are contemplated under Rules 24, 32 and\n<\/p>\n
42.The petitioner is a petty vendor who sold a beverage of local made. The
\nmanufacturer could not be found by the respondent but the vendor has been
\nproceeded for offences of misbranding as the label of the bottle did not contain
\nso many particulars. In my considered view, the petitioner is  not liable to be
\nprosecuted as the respondent Food Inspector who had the occasion to see the
\nbeverage bottles did not mention anything about the misbranding and it does not
\nrequire the opinion of the Public Analyst.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.In such event, if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, it is
\nnothing but abuse of process of law, which has to be interfered with by
\nexercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.Hence, the impugned proceedings is quashed and accordingly, the
\npetition is allowed.  Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.\n<\/p>\n
nbj<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Food Inspector,
\n  Alwarthirunagari Town Panchayat,
\n  At Government Primary Health Cetre,
\n  Thenthirupperai,
\n  Thoothukudi District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
\n  Srivaikundam,
\n  Thoothukudi District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9783 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 1.P.Robert Immanuel 2.M\/s.Robert Immanuel Stall, No.13\/51, Kuil Nindrar Street, Alwarthirunagari, Thoothukudi District. … Petitioners Vs The […]<\/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-228976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009 - 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\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-24T15:45:45+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\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-24T15:45:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1434,\"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\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009\",\"name\":\"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-24T15:45:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009 - 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\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-24T15:45:45+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\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-24T15:45:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009"},"wordCount":1434,"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\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009","name":"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-24T15:45:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-robert-immanuel-vs-the-state-rep-by-on-17-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Robert Immanuel vs The State Rep.By on 17 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/228976","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=228976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228976\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}