{"id":248039,"date":"2003-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003"},"modified":"2017-02-02T18:52:36","modified_gmt":"2017-02-02T13:22:36","slug":"g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 20\/11\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nCRL OP. No.1005 of 2002\nCRL OP. NOS. 1006 to 1009 of 2002\nand\nCrl.M.P.Nos.550 to 554 of 2002\n\n\nG.Udayakumar                                   ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nState of Tamil Nadu,\nrep. by Dr.G.Aldurai,\nAssistant Medical Officer\n(Plantations),\nUdagamandalam,\nNilgiris.                                       ... Respondent<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        Criminal Original Petition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1679850\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section  482<\/a>  of  the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">For petitioner :  M\/s.  Ram and Ram.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">For respondents :  Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,<br \/>\n                Govt.Advocate(Crl.side).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n<p>                The petitioner who is the  accused  in  S.T.R.Nos.5349,  5350,<br \/>\n5351,  53  52  sand  5353  of  2000,  on  the file of the Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nCoonoor, has filed the above Criminal Original Petitions, praying to quash the<br \/>\nsaid proceedings, on the ground that as per the provisions of the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nPlantation  Labour  Act,  1951  and  Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules, 1955,<br \/>\nevery employer of plantations which employ 1000 or more workers shall  provide<br \/>\nthe  medical  facilities  with own garden hospital, plantations employing more<br \/>\nthan 200 workers  but  less  then  1000  workers  shall  provide  the  medical<br \/>\nfacilities  with  combined  garden  hospital  and  own dispensary, plantations<br \/>\nemploying 200 or less  workers  shall  provide  the  medical  facilities  with<br \/>\ndispensary  either  individually  or  in  groups with necessary equipments and<br \/>\narrangements for visiting doctors and the  employers  shall  ensure  that  the<br \/>\ndoctor visits the dispensary at least thrice a week; that each garden hospital<br \/>\nshall  be  under  a  qualified  medical  practitioner assisted by at least one<br \/>\ntrained nurse, one trained maternity assistant, a  qualified  pharmacist,  one<br \/>\nman and one woman Nursing Orderly, one toti and one sweeper; that the services<br \/>\nof the staff shall be readily available during all hours, provided that in the<br \/>\ncase  of  doctors,  nurses,  maternity  assistants and pharmacists employed in<br \/>\nplantation at  the  commencement  of  these  rules,  the  Chief  Inspector  of<br \/>\nPlantations  may  in  consultation with the Director of Medical Services grant<br \/>\nexemption from possessing the qualifications prescribed for them; that as  far<br \/>\nas  the  petitioner  herein  is  concerned,  he  is  named  as  an employer of<br \/>\nBillimalai Estates, ( five estates,  in  all)  which  have  workers,  all  put<br \/>\ntogether,  far  less than 200, and hence, as per the rules it requires to have<br \/>\nonly a dispensary, that too, either individually or in groups; that  the  only<br \/>\nobligation  is  that  there  should  be  a  visiting  doctor,  who  visits the<br \/>\ndispensary thrice a week; that in addition to rule, the  Government  of  Tamil<br \/>\nNadu  had  issued  a  notification,  which  requires that a qualified nurse or<br \/>\npharmacist is also required to be appointed in the dispensary; that as noticed<br \/>\nin the Notification, the petitioners plantation  has  a  Staff  Nurse  and  a<br \/>\nvisiting  Medical Officer who visits the dispensary thrice a week; that on the<br \/>\nother hand the respondent\/complainant without adverting to the facts that  the<br \/>\nplantation  of  the  petitioners  are  covered  by the Classification of Rule<br \/>\n21(1), proceeded to presume that the employer has violated the  provisions  of<br \/>\nRule 21(2) of Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules; that the plantation in which<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  is  an  employer  has only 43 workers; that in the absence of<br \/>\nbasic material to show the need to have a Garden Hospital or a combined Garden<br \/>\nHospital, the allegation against the petitioner is without substance and hence<br \/>\nhe would pray to quash the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        2.  One more ground raised on the part of the petitioner is that under<br \/>\nSection  39  of  Chapter  VII  of  the  Tamil  Nadu Plantation Labour Act, the<br \/>\ncomplaint should have been preferred  by  the  Chief  Inspector  or  with  the<br \/>\nprevious  sanction, in writing, of the Chief Inspector of Plantations, but the<br \/>\npresent prosecution has been instituted at the behest of the Chief  Inspector,<br \/>\nbefore  according  sanction  to  prosecute  the  petitioner;  that  the  Chief<br \/>\nInspector of Plantations has not identified  the  basic  requirements  of  the<br \/>\nRules  alleged  to have been violated by the petitioner\/employer; that without<br \/>\nadverting to the basic facts and not looking into  the  Government  Order  and<br \/>\nwithout  considering  the approved medical scheme applicable to the Billimalai<br \/>\nEstate, the sanction had been accorded; that the sanctioning authority had not<br \/>\napplied his mind  before  according  his  sanction  and  hence,  the  sanction<br \/>\naccorded and prosecution initiated have not only caused incurable prejudice to<br \/>\nthe petitioner, but also against the provisions of the Act and hence the above<br \/>\nproceedings are liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        3.   Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioner and the learned<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate on the (Crl.side) appearing on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        4.  During arguments, learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner  would pose a question to the effect that whether the Section 10(2)<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Act and Rules would apply to the facts  of<br \/>\nthe  case,  is  the  point for determination; that if there are more than 1000<br \/>\nworkers, they should have Garden Hospital; that if the workers are  less  than<br \/>\n1000 but more than 200 they must have a dispensary and if the workers are less<br \/>\nthan  200,  a dispensary either individually or in group with accessories a nd<br \/>\nequipments must be maintained;  that  so  far  as  the  petitioner  estate  is<br \/>\nconcerned,  there  are  only  one  or  two  workers  that is below the minimum<br \/>\nrequired strength for  having  the  above  facilities;  that  the  sanctioning<br \/>\nauthority  should  have  looked  into  the  show  cause  notice  issued by the<br \/>\nAssistant Medical Officer, Garden Division says that no  Pharmacist  has  been<br \/>\nappointed  in the estate and therefore, it violated the provisions of the Act;<br \/>\nthat the requirement of Pharmacist for the petitioner estate  does  not  arise<br \/>\nregarding  the  facts  of  the  case;  that Section 39 of the Act contemplates<br \/>\nsanctioning by the Chief Inspector, but even though sanction has been obtained<br \/>\nin the instant case, it says that  they  have  to  concede  the  notifications<br \/>\nwhereas the sanction has been accorded without application of mind and it is a<br \/>\nfit case  that  the  prosecution  cannot be maintained.  On such arguments the<br \/>\nlearned counsel would seek to quash the above  proceedings  initiated  by  the<br \/>\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">                5.   In  reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent would submit that the case in hand  comes  under  category  No.III;<br \/>\nthat  the  nurses  are  unqualified  hands;  that the Pharmacist is a must and<br \/>\nnecessary as per Rule 21(b) column (2); that a doctor has to visit the  clinic<br \/>\nweekly twice, but if they want to be exempted from affording such facility, in<br \/>\nsuch  event  they must get permission from the Chief Inspector of Plantations.<br \/>\nOn such grounds the learned counsel would seek dismissal of the above Criminal<br \/>\nOriginal Petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        6.  In consideration of  the  facts  pleaded,  having  regard  to  the<br \/>\nmaterials  placed  on  record  and  upon  hearing  the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner and the respondent as well, what could be assessed by this Court is<br \/>\nthat the above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by  the  petitioner<br \/>\nwho is  the accused in the case registered in S.T.R.  Nos.5349 to 5353 of 2000<br \/>\nrespectively   seeking   to   quash   the   proceedings   initiated   by   the<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainant for the commission of offences punishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/437150\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section<br \/>\n10(1)<\/a> r\/w Rule 21(2) of the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Act and Rules pending<br \/>\non the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        7.   The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an employer<br \/>\nas defined under Section 2(e) of the Plantation Labour Act for  plantation  in<br \/>\nBillimalai  Estates;  that  the plantation was inspected by the complainant on<br \/>\n26.3.2000 at about 1.45 p.m.; that a Pharmacist as well as the  assistants  as<br \/>\nrequired  under  <a href=\"\/doc\/978569\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section  10<\/a>  r\/w 21(2) of the Plantation Labour Act and Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Plantation Labour Rules were not available; that hence,  on  28.6.2000  a<br \/>\nshow  cause notice was issued to the employer, the petitioner herein enclosing<br \/>\nwith Annexure A; that thereafter  on  13.12.2000  the  prosecution  obtained<br \/>\nprevious  sanction from the Chief Inspector of Plantations in Annexure C and<br \/>\nthe complaint was filed against the  petitioner  for  the  offence  punishable<br \/>\nunder  <a href=\"\/doc\/437150\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section  10(1)<\/a> r\/w 21(2) of the Tamil Nadu Plantation Act and Rules for<br \/>\nthe lapses noted during inspection.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        8.  On the part of the petitioner\/accused, he would  come  forward  to<br \/>\nplead  that  the  Billimalai  Estate  group  had  only  one or two workers and<br \/>\ntherefore, it could not be brought under the purview of the Act and Rules  and<br \/>\ntherefore,  it  requested  the  Government  to  approve  the  scheme  for  its<br \/>\ndispensary to comply with the requirement of the Rule and law;  that  obliging<br \/>\nthe  request,  the  Government passes G.O.Ms.No.2718 dated 24.12.1986; that in<br \/>\nall the five managements\/estates put together have employed one or two workers<br \/>\nonly and therefore, they maintained a group coverable dispensary with a  staff<br \/>\nnurse  and  a  visiting Medical Officer to visit the dispensary thrice a week;<br \/>\nthat while so, entire  proceedings  initiated  by  the  prosecution  is  under<br \/>\nmisconception  of  law  and  abuse  of  the process of the Court and hence the<br \/>\nproceedings become liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        9.  A close study had with the materials placed on  record  as  above,<br \/>\nwould  only reveal that the case of the petitioner entirely rests on facts and<br \/>\nit is up to the trial Court to go into all these factual position of the  case<br \/>\nby  examining the witnesses and verifying documents marked and no legality has<br \/>\nbeen questioned so as to afford jurisdiction for this Court to interfere  with<br \/>\nand  therefore, in cases of such nature, it is always desirable for a thorough<br \/>\ntrial to be held into the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  with  due<br \/>\nopportunity  for  the  parties to be heard and therefore, it is not up to this<br \/>\nCourt to cause its interference,  particularly  when  no  legal  infirmity  or<br \/>\ninconsistency  has  occurred  nor  any  violation of natural justice has taken<br \/>\nplace which have been complained on the part of the petitioner and  therefore,<br \/>\nin  these circumstances the only conclusion that this Court could arrive at is<br \/>\nto dismiss all the above Criminal Original Petitions and hence  the  following<br \/>\norder:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        In result,\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        (i)  all the above Criminal Original Petitions 1005 to 1009 of 2002 do<br \/>\nnot merit acceptance and they become only  liable  to  be  dismissed  and  are<br \/>\ndismissed accordingly;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">        (ii) consequently,   Crl.M.P.Nos.    550  to  554  of  2002  are  also<br \/>\ndismissed;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">        (iii) however, the trial Court  is  directed  to  expedite  the  trial<br \/>\nprocedure  so  as to deliver the judgment on merits and in accordance with law<br \/>\nin a time bound manner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>gr.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">To<\/p>\n<p>The Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/11\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ CRL OP. No.1005 of 2002 CRL OP. NOS. 1006 to 1009 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.Nos.550 to 554 of 2002 G.Udayakumar &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- State of Tamil Nadu, [&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-248039","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>G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003 - 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\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-02T13:22:36+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\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T13:22:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1674,\"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\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003\",\"name\":\"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T13:22:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003 - 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\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-02T13:22:36+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\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T13:22:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003"},"wordCount":1674,"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\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003","name":"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T13:22:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-udayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Udayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 November, 2003"}]},{"@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\/248039","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=248039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}