{"id":236813,"date":"2010-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-07T22:10:52","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T16:40:52","slug":"mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 04\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD) No.53 of 2008\n\n\nMathi alias Mathiyalagan                 ..    Appellant\n\nvs\n\n\nState,\nrep. by Inspector of Police,\nAriyamangalam Police Station,\nTrichy District\n(Crime No.286\/2003)      \t        ..   Respondent\n\n\nAppeal against the judgment and conviction dated 27.11.2007, by the\nlearned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Special\nCourt for EC Act and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai in C.C.No.336 of 2004.\n\n!For appellant   ... M\/s.S.Deenadhayalan.\n^For respondent  ... Mr.P.Rajendran\n\t\t     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\t\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis memorandum of Criminal Appeal has been brought before this Court by<br \/>\nthe appellant who was the accused in C.C.No.336 of 2004, on the file of the<br \/>\nlearned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for EC Act and<br \/>\nNDPS Act Cases), Pudukkottai, challenging the judgment and conviction dated<br \/>\n27.11.2007 and made in C.C.No.336 of 2004 convicting the appellant under Section<br \/>\n8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act sentencing to undergo 66 days Rigorous<br \/>\nImprisonment and imposing fine of Rs.3,000\/-, in default, to undergo further two<br \/>\nweeks Rigorous Imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. For easy reference the appellant herein may hereinafter be referred to<br \/>\nas accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The facts and circumstances which giving rise to the memorandum of<br \/>\ncriminal appeal may be summarised as briefly as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.1. That on 14.11.2003, when P.W.3 the Sub Inspector of Police attached<br \/>\nto Ariamangalam Police Station was present in his office, had received a<br \/>\ndiscreet information from his informer saying that the accused Mathi @<br \/>\nMathiyalagan had been transporting kanja for the past several days near the<br \/>\nhand-pump located on the northern bank of Uyyakondan canal.  The informer had<br \/>\nalso informed that on 14.11.2003, at about 10.00 a.m, he would be coming along<br \/>\nwith kanja to the said place and if strict vigilance was kept, he would be<br \/>\ncaught hold.  The statement of informer (Ex.P3) was recorded by P.W.3 and after<br \/>\ngetting permission from P.W.4, the Inspector of Police, attached to Ariamangalam<br \/>\nPolice Station, at about 10.30 a.m. P.W.3 along with Head Constable 1044 and<br \/>\nSelection Grade Constable 1634 went to that place and kept vigilance.  While so,<br \/>\na person was coming there.  On identification by the informer, P.W.3 had caught<br \/>\nhold of him and thereafter in the presence of P.W.1 Velayuthamkudi Village<br \/>\nAdministrative Officer and one Agastin, Village menial he had informed the<br \/>\naccused about his right that he might be searched either in the presence of the<br \/>\nSpecial Judge or Government Gazetted Officer.  For that, the accused had replied<br \/>\nthat he might be searched in the presence of the witnesses.  The search<br \/>\ninformation was marked as Ex.P4.  Thereafter, P.W.3 had searched the yellow<br \/>\ncotton bag which was found in the possession of the accused.  During the course<br \/>\nof the search, kanja weighing about 1.100 grms. was found in his possession.<br \/>\nThen, he took two samples weighing about 50 grms each packed and SHO seal was<br \/>\naffixed and at about 11.00 a.m. the contraband was seized in the presence of the<br \/>\nwitnesses and the remaining contraband was also sealed.  At about 12.00 noon,<br \/>\nthe accused was arrested after issuing arrest memo under Ex.P5 and brought to<br \/>\nthe Police Station along with the contraband and thereafter, P.W.3 had<br \/>\nregistered a case in Crime No.286\/2003 which was marked as Ex.P6, under Section<br \/>\n8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. Then, the accused was produced before<br \/>\nP.W.4 &#8211; the Inspector of Police along with the contraband and P.W.3 had also<br \/>\nsubmitted a detailed report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act (Ex.P.7).<br \/>\nThereafter, the P.W.4 took up the investigation, went to the place of<br \/>\noccurrence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he had<br \/>\ngiven a requisition to the Special Judge, requesting to send the samples to the<br \/>\nchemical examination.  On 06.02.2004, he had received the analysis report and he<br \/>\nhad also examined the chemical examiner and the Head Clerk attached to the<br \/>\nSpecial Court. He had also examined P.W.3 and after completion of his<br \/>\ninvestigation, he had laid a final report against the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.2. After the copies of the final report were issued to the accused, the<br \/>\nlearned Special Judge, Pudukkottai had framed a charge under Section 8(c) read<br \/>\nwith 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act against the accused.  When the charges were<br \/>\nexplained and questioned, the accused had pleaded innocent and claimed to be<br \/>\ntried.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.3. In order to establish the case, the prosecuting agency had totally<br \/>\nexamined four witnesses and during the course of their examination, Ex.P1 to<br \/>\nEx.P7 and MOs 1 to 3 were marked.  On a careful appreciation of the testimonies<br \/>\nof the witnesses as well as the documentary evidences, the learned Special Judge<br \/>\nhas proceeded to pronounce the judgment on 27.11.2007, finding the accused<br \/>\nguilty under Section8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act convicting and<br \/>\nsentencing him to undergo RI for 66 days and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000\/-, in<br \/>\ndefault, to undergo another 2 weeks of Rigorous Imprisonment.  It was also<br \/>\nordered that the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused would<br \/>\nbe given set-off under Section 428 of IPC.  Challenging the finding, conviction<br \/>\nand sentence of the Trial Court, the present memorandum of criminal appeal has<br \/>\nbeen filed before this Court by the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the<br \/>\njudgment of the Trial Court is suffered from several infirmities and as such it<br \/>\nhas to be set aside.  During the course of his argument, he has taken this Court<br \/>\nthrough the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and identified several contradictions<br \/>\nand complications which arose during the investigation as well as during the<br \/>\nexamination of the witnesses.  The learned counsel has made stress on the<br \/>\nevidence of P.W.1 and submitted that P.W.1 during the course of his cross-<br \/>\nexamination has admitted that the crime number which is found on M.O.3 was<br \/>\nwritten in the place of occurrence at the time of seizure.  In this regard, he<br \/>\nwould submit that mere writing of crime number on the contraband itself would go<br \/>\nto show that the contraband was not seized and packed at the place of occurrence<br \/>\nand if it was done so, the crime number would not have been written on the<br \/>\nmaterial object M.O.3. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that as<br \/>\nper the evidence given by P.W.3, after the seizure of contraband in the presence<br \/>\nof P.W.1 and the Village menial, he went back to the Police Station and<br \/>\nregistered the First Information Report and then only he could have written the<br \/>\ncrime number on M.O.3.  When such being the case, it is surprise to note as to<br \/>\nhow the crime number came to be in existence when the contraband was seized and<br \/>\npacked. The existence of crime number on M.O.3 at the time of its seizure would<br \/>\ngo to establish that every thing was done only in the Police Station and not in<br \/>\nthe place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Insofar as this case is concerned, no independent witness was examined.<br \/>\nFurther, the presence of P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer along with his<br \/>\nVillage menial in the place of occurrence at the time of arrest and seizure of<br \/>\nthe contraband is suspected.  In Ex.P6, it is stated that the time of receipt of<br \/>\nthe information by P.W.3 is 12.30 p.m. But P.W.3 would state in his evidence<br \/>\nthat on 14.11.2003 at about 10.30 a.m. when he was present in the Police Station<br \/>\nhe had received the discreet information from his informer and that at about<br \/>\n12.30 noon, he had produced the accused along with contraband before P.W.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. While advancing his argument, the learned counsel has made stress on<br \/>\nthe evidence given by the P.W.3 and Ex.P2 Chemical analysis report. In his<br \/>\nevidence P.W.3 would state that when the samples were prepared SHO seal was<br \/>\naffixed even in the presence of the witnesses.  But, whereas in Ex.P2 it does<br \/>\nnot have any reference to show that SHO seal was affixed in the samples which<br \/>\nwere received by the Forensic Sciences Laboratory. The evidence given by P.W.2<br \/>\nchemical examiner would substantiate this fact.  Moreover, the constable who had<br \/>\ntaken the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory had not been examined by<br \/>\nthe prosecuting agency for the reasons best known to them.  In this regard, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the accused would submit that there is one day delay in<br \/>\nreaching contraband to the Court which has not been satisfactorily explained by<br \/>\nthe prosecuting agency.  In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the<br \/>\ndecision reported in 1993 SCC (Cri) 1082 <a href=\"\/doc\/1565332\/\">(Valsala v. State of Kerala)<\/a> wherein it<br \/>\nis observed by the Apex Court that in absence of evidence to show that during<br \/>\nthe long period (of over three months in this case) between the seizure and<br \/>\nproduction in Court, the seized article was in the custody of the Officer-in-<br \/>\nCharge of Police Station and that the same was kept under seal.  It is also<br \/>\nobserved that it was doubtful whether the very article that was seized was sent<br \/>\nto Chemical Examiner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. On coming to the present case on hand, since there is a delay in<br \/>\nreaching the contraband to the Court the non-examination of the Head Constable<br \/>\nwho took the contraband to the Court has created doubt in the case of the<br \/>\nprosecution.  As per the case of the prosecution, the contraband was seized on<br \/>\n14.11.2003, and it appears that it was reached the Court only on 17.11.2003.<br \/>\nThough no specific question was put to the Investigating Officer with regard to<br \/>\nthe delay, it appears explicitly to the Court that it affects the very root of<br \/>\nthe case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused in order to fortify his<br \/>\nargument has also placed reliance upon a decision reported in 2001 Cri. L.J.4602<br \/>\n(Savitri @ Shoobha and others v. State of Chattisgarh). This Court has gone<br \/>\nthrough the judgment delivered by the Trial Court Judge and in the opinion of<br \/>\nthis Court it appears that the Trial Judge has accepted the prosecution case in<br \/>\ntoto without applying his own mind into the contradictions and infirmities<br \/>\narising from the case of the prosecution.  Having given careful consideration to<br \/>\nthe available material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the<br \/>\nprosecuting agency has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused<br \/>\nand therefore, the accused shall necessarily have to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the<br \/>\nTrial Court is set aside and the accused is set at liberty. The fine amount paid<br \/>\nby the accused shall be refunded to him.  The bail bond, if any, executed by him<br \/>\nand on behalf of the accused are cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>srm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Criminal Appeal (MD) No.53 of 2008 Mathi alias Mathiyalagan .. Appellant vs State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Ariyamangalam Police Station, Trichy District (Crime No.286\/2003) .. Respondent [&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-236813","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 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\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-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=\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-07T16:40:52+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\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T16:40:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1727,\"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\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T16:40:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 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":"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 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\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-07T16:40:52+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\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T16:40:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010"},"wordCount":1727,"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\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010","name":"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T16:40:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathi-alias-mathiyalagan-vs-state-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mathi Alias Mathiyalagan vs State on 4 March, 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\/236813","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=236813"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236813\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}