{"id":230390,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-20T20:09:24","modified_gmt":"2017-01-20T14:39:24","slug":"thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCrl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2008\nCrl.RC(MD)No.124 of 2008\nand\nCrl.RC(MD)No.125\/2008\n\n\n1.Thambiraj\t\t\t...Petitioner\/A1 in Crl.RC.95\/2008\n2.Palaniappan\t\t\t...Petitioner\/A2 in Crl.RC.124\/2008\n3.S.Sundaram\t\t\t...Petitioner\/A3 in Crl.RC.125\/2008\n\nVs\n\nState by Inspector of Police\nCCIW CID, Karur\t\t\t.... Respondent in all Crl.RCs<\/pre>\n<p>Prayer<\/p>\n<p>These criminal revision petitions are filed against the judgement of<br \/>\nthe learned  Sessions Judge, Karur passed in CA.Nos.47, 48 and 49\/2007 dated<br \/>\n07.11.2007, confirming the judgement dated 21.7.2007  passed in CC.No.401\/2004<br \/>\nby the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Kulithalai.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\t\t\n!For Petitioners   ...\tMr.S.Ramasamy\t\t\n^For Respondent    ...\tMr.L.Murugan, GA\n\n\n:Order\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThese criminal revision petitions are filed by the revision<br \/>\npetitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A3 in CC.No.401\/2007 on the file of the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate II, Kulithalai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  The learned Judicial Magistrate II, Kulithalai in CC.No.401\/2004<br \/>\nby judgement dated 21.7.2007,  convicted and sentenced each of the revision<br \/>\npetitioners\/A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 408 of IPC to undergo three<br \/>\nmonths Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- each, in default to<br \/>\nundergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment and acquitted them from the charges<br \/>\nlevelled under Section 477A of IPC and also acquitted the co-accused\/A4 from all<br \/>\nthe charges levelled under Sections 408 and 477A read with Section 34 of IPC\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. In the appeals preferred by the petitioners\/A1 to A3 in CA.Nos.47<br \/>\nto 49\/2007, the learned  Sessions Judge, Karur by judgement dated 7.11.2007,<br \/>\ndismissed the appeals, confirming the judgement of the trial court. Hence, these<br \/>\ncriminal revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioners\/A1 to<br \/>\nA3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThere are totally four accused and the revision petitioners herein<br \/>\nare A1 to A3. A1 as the Manager, A2 as the Accountant and A3 as the Appraiser<br \/>\nand the other co-accused\/A4 the Ex-President of the Jegathabi Handloom and<br \/>\nWeavers Cooperative Society caused loss to the Society in the manner of shortage<br \/>\nof stocks to the tune of Rs.1,98,334.90\/- in respect of cloths and to the tune<br \/>\nof Rs.62,722.74\/- in respect of threads.  On 2.4.2004, the defacto complainant,<br \/>\nnamely, the Assistant Director of Handloom, Karur gave the complaint to the<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police, CCIWCID, Chennai and the same was forwarded to the<br \/>\nrespondent police, who registered a case on 26.5.2004.  The respondent police<br \/>\nafter investigation, on 16.10.2004, filed the final report against the all the<br \/>\naccused under Sections 408, 477A read with 34 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The case was taken on file in CC.No.401\/2004 by the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate II, Kulithalai and necessary charges were framed. In order<br \/>\nto substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution<br \/>\nexamined, as many as, seven witnesses (PW.1 to PW.7) and also relied on Exs.P1<br \/>\nto P24.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the<br \/>\naccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating<br \/>\ncircumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused<br \/>\ndenied the same as totally false.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either<br \/>\nside and looking into the materials available on record, found the<br \/>\naccused\/revision petitioners\/A1 to A3 guilty and awarded punishments as referred<br \/>\nto above and acquitted the co-accused\/A4 from all the charged levelled against<br \/>\nhim. In the appeals preferred by the revision petitioners, the lower appellate<br \/>\ncourt dismissed the appeals, confirming the judgement of the trial court. Hence,<br \/>\nthese Criminal revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioners\/A1<br \/>\nto A3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on<br \/>\neither side and also perused the material records placed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that<br \/>\nthe case of the Prosecution solely rests on the evidence of PW.5 and originally<br \/>\nan Enquiry Officer, by name, Mohammed Anifa was appointed on 19.6.2001 and he<br \/>\nalso submitted his report. As it was found that the enquiry was not conducted<br \/>\nproperly, PW.5 Viswanathan was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide<br \/>\nNa.Ka.No.1703\/01 dated 22.4.2002.  PW.5 has stated that he commenced the enquiry<br \/>\non 22.4.2002, completed the enquiry on 31.12.2002 and submitted a report. PW.5<br \/>\nhas admitted in his cross examination that the enquiry under Section 81(4) of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (herein after referred to as the Act)<br \/>\nshall be completed within a period of three months from the date of ordering the<br \/>\ninquiry and if such an enquiry is not completed within three months from the<br \/>\ndate of ordering the enquiry, then permission has to be sought for from the next<br \/>\nhigher authority for extension of time. PW.5 has also admitted in his cross<br \/>\nexamination that in this case, the enquiry was not completed within the period<br \/>\nof three months and there was no prior permission obtained by the enquiry<br \/>\nofficer from the authorities concerned seeking for extension of time to complete<br \/>\nthe enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that<br \/>\nthere is no document produced by PW.5 to show that further time of six months<br \/>\nwas given from the date of expiry of three months and therefore, he would<br \/>\ncontend that as per Section 81 of the Act, it is mandatory to complete the<br \/>\nenquiry within three months from the date of ordering the enquiry and if such an<br \/>\nenquiry is not completed, then permission has to be sought for from the next<br \/>\nhigher authority by giving valid reasons. However such extended periods shall<br \/>\nnot exceed six months in the aggregate. In this case, since the enquiry has not<br \/>\nbeen completed within a period of three months and further there is no material<br \/>\nto show that extension of period was sought for and granted by the authority<br \/>\nconcerned, the complaint itself is barred by limitation under Section 81(4) of<br \/>\nthe Act, as the enquiry has not been completed within the stipulated time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. Section 81(4) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act reads<br \/>\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of<br \/>\nordering the inquiry or such further period or period not exceeding three months<br \/>\nat a time as the next higher authority may permit, provided that such extended<br \/>\nperiods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. PW.5 has admitted in his cross examination as under:-<br \/>\n&#8220;22\/4\/2002y; Muk;gpj;J 31\/12\/2002 md;W vdJ tprhuizia Koj;njd;\/ 81MtJ gphptpd; go<br \/>\ntprhuiz mjpfhhpahf epakpf;fg;gl;l njjpapypUe;J K:d;W khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; tprhuizia<br \/>\nKof;f ntz;Lk; vd;why; rhpjhd;\/  mt;thW ,y;yhj gl;rj;jpy; fhy ePl;og;g[ nfl;L<br \/>\ncah;mjpfhhpfSf;F vGjp fhy mtfhrk; bgw ntz;Lk; vdJ tprhuiz mwpf;ifapy; ve;j ve;j<br \/>\nnjjpfspy; fhy ePog;g[ bra;J cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;lJ vd;gjid vdJ mwpf;ifapy;<br \/>\nFwpg;gpltpy;iy@\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. As per the mandatory provision under Section 81(4) of the Act,<br \/>\nin this case, admittedly, the enquiry has not been completed within three months<br \/>\nfrom the date of ordering of the enquiry and it is also seen that there is no<br \/>\nrecords produced by PW.5 to show that he has sought for permission for extension<br \/>\nof another six months time from the next authority to complete the enquiry and<br \/>\nthe same has been granted. In this case, since as per the mandatory provision<br \/>\nunder Section 81(4) of the Act, the enquiry has not been completed within the<br \/>\nperiod of limitation, the complaint itself is barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also drew the<br \/>\nattention of this court to the evidence of PW.5, wherein he has admitted that<br \/>\nthe previous Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry properly and that was<br \/>\nthe reason for appointing PW.5 as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry<br \/>\nunder Section 89 of the Act. However, his evidence clearly disclosed that PW.5<br \/>\nalso did not verify the records properly and he has admitted in his evidence<br \/>\nthat he has not verified the textile and the yarn Stock Registers prior to<br \/>\n25.1.2001. He has also not produced those Stock Registers before the Court and<br \/>\nhe would admit that only on verification of those Registers, the correctness of<br \/>\nthe entries made in Exs.P8 and P17 could be determined. Further, he has not<br \/>\ndenied the suggestion that only because there was no deficiency in the stocks<br \/>\nprior to 25.1.2001, the relevant stock registers have not been shown in the<br \/>\nenquiry report and produced before the court, but only claimed that he has no<br \/>\nknowledge about it. The evidence of PW.5 clearly indicated that prior to<br \/>\n25.1.2001, the records relating to stock registers of yarn and textile have not<br \/>\nbeen verified by the enquiry officer and therefore, no reliance could be placed<br \/>\non the report Ex.P22 filed by PW.5 to fasten the liability on the revision<br \/>\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15.  There is every force in the above contentions raised by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the revision petitioners. The enquiry report submitted by<br \/>\nPW.5 disclosed that no proper verification was made with regard to the stock<br \/>\nregisters and even as per the admission made by PW.5, prior to 25.1.2001 he has<br \/>\nnot verified the stocks relating to yarn and textile to find out as to whether<br \/>\nthere was any deficiency in the stocks prior to 25.1.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16. On an analysis of the entire evidence both oral and documentary,<br \/>\nI am of the considered view that  the courts below have overlooked the said<br \/>\naspects. The mere fact that the petitioners were in charge for certain period<br \/>\nwithout there being any acceptable and cogent evidence that the deficiency<br \/>\noccurred only in the period during which the petitioners\/A1 to A3 were in<br \/>\ncharge,   the petitioners cannot be fastened with criminal   liability and<br \/>\ntherefore, they are liable to be acquitted from all the charges levelled against<br \/>\nthem and the        conviction and sentence imposed on them are liable to be set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17. In the result, these criminal revision petitions are allowed.<br \/>\nThe judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners\/A1<br \/>\nto A3 are set aside and they are acquitted of all the         charges levelled<br \/>\nagainst them.  The bail bond if any executed by the revision petitioners\/A1 to<br \/>\nA3 shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid is ordered to be<br \/>\nrefunded to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)<br \/>\n  Virudhunagar\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Sub Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Virudhunagar West Police Station, Virudhunagar District\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench<br \/>\n  of Madras High Court, Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2008 Crl.RC(MD)No.124 of 2008 and Crl.RC(MD)No.125\/2008 1.Thambiraj &#8230;Petitioner\/A1 in Crl.RC.95\/2008 2.Palaniappan &#8230;Petitioner\/A2 in Crl.RC.124\/2008 3.S.Sundaram &#8230;Petitioner\/A3 in Crl.RC.125\/2008 Vs State by Inspector of [&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-230390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 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\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-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=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-20T14:39:24+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\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-20T14:39:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1682,\"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\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-20T14:39:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 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\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-20T14:39:24+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\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-20T14:39:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":1682,"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\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010","name":"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-20T14:39:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thambiraj-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thambiraj vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230390","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=230390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}