{"id":249992,"date":"2006-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006"},"modified":"2016-12-01T12:14:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-01T06:44:19","slug":"pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 27\/02\/2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR\n\nH.C.P. No.1193 of 2005\n\n\nPushpa                         ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by the Secretary to Government,\n   Prohibition and Excise Department,\n   Fort St. George, Secretariat,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Commissioner of Police,\n   Greater Chennai,\n   Egmore, Chennai-8.           ... Respondents\n\n        Petition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a>  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  the\nissuance  of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records leading to\nthe detention of the petitioner's son namely Joseph S\/o  Arogiyaraj,  detained\nunder  Act  14\/82  vide  detention  order  dated 22.06.2005 on the file of the\nsecond respondent herein made in Memo No.298\/ BDFGISV\/2005, quash the same and\nconsequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and  person  of\nthe  said  detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the\nCentral Prsion Chennai.\n\n\n!For Petitioner :Mr.M.Rajavelu\n\n^For Respondents :Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu by  name  Joseph,  who<br \/>\nwas  detained as a &#8216;Goonda&#8217; as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of<br \/>\nDangerous  Activities  of  Bootleggers,  Drug  Offenders,  Forest   Offenders,<br \/>\nGoondas,  Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_1\">(Tamil Nadu Act<\/a> 14 of 1982) by the impugned detention order dated  22.06.2005,<br \/>\nchallenges the same in this Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.   Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  as well as learned<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.  At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,  by<br \/>\ndrawing  our  attention  to  paragraph  4  of  the grounds of detention, would<br \/>\ncontend that the detaining authority has noted that the detenu Joseph  was  in<br \/>\nremand  in  C4  Thuraipakkam Police Station in Crime Nos.385\/2005 and 387\/2005<br \/>\nand that he has not moved any bail petition so far.  In  the  absence  of  any<br \/>\nmaterial  that  the  remand  of the detenu in respect of Crime No.385\/2005 was<br \/>\nsubsequently extended, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining  authority<br \/>\ncannot  be  accepted  and  on this ground, he prays that the impugned order is<br \/>\nliable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        4.  A perusal of the paper book supplied to the detenu shows that<br \/>\nthough by an order dated 27.05.2005, the remand of  the  detenu  was  extended<br \/>\ntill  10.06.2005  in  respect  of Crime No.385\/2005, there is no further order<br \/>\nextending his remand in Crime No.385\/2005 available in  the  materials  placed<br \/>\nbefore the detaining authority.  No doubt, Crime No.387 of 2005 relates to the<br \/>\nadverse  case  and  there  is  an  order  by  the learned Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nAlandur, extending his remand in that case till 24.06.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        5.  With regard to the said contention, learned  Government  Advocate,<br \/>\nby  drawing  our  attention  to the Special Report (undated) of the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority, contended that inasmuch as the said report contains a reference  to<br \/>\nthe  remand extension even in respect of Crime No.385\/2005, the same was taken<br \/>\nnote of by the detaining authority and the order of detention was passed.   In<br \/>\nother  words,  according  to  the  learned  Government  Advocate,  the details<br \/>\nfurnished in the said<\/p>\n<p>special report are sufficient for awareness relating  to  the  remand  of  the<br \/>\ndetenu on  the date of passing of the detention order.  The learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate has also heavily relied on the affidavit of the sponsoring  authority<br \/>\ndated 18.06.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        6.   Before going into the Special Report, it is our duty to point out<br \/>\nthat the affidavit of the sponsoring authority dated 18.06.2005 refers to  the<br \/>\nextension  of  the  remand  of  the detenu in respect of Crime No.387\/2005 and<br \/>\nthere is absolutely no whisper about the remand  in  Crime  No.385\/2005.    By<br \/>\npointing  out  that,  based  on the information furnished in the report of the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority, the detaining authority, after satisfying  himself,  can<br \/>\nvery well  pass an order of detention.  The learned Government Advocate relied<br \/>\non the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.10.1999 passed in  HCP<br \/>\nNo.610 of 1999.  Though a similar contention was raised by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor  the petitioner in that case, the reasonings of the detaining authority in<br \/>\npara 14 has to be taken note of.  It is seen  from  that  paragraph  that  the<br \/>\nrequisition  for  remand  was  made  by  the  sponsoring  authority, which was<br \/>\navailable at page 50 of the booklet and the special report was  filed  by  the<br \/>\nsponsoring  authority  which  was available at page 52, wherein it was clearly<br \/>\nstated that the detenu was arrested  on  14.2.1999  and  produced  before  the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate  on 15.2.1999 and had been in remand till 01.03.1999.  The<br \/>\nDivision Bench, after noting the above details, came to  the  conclusion  that<br \/>\neven  though  the  remand  order  was  not before the detaining authority, the<br \/>\ninformation with regard to the remand of the detenu was available  before  the<br \/>\ndetaining  authority  for  arriving  at  the  subjective satisfaction that the<br \/>\ndetenu was in custody and as such, there was no substance in the contention of<br \/>\nthe learned Government Advocate.  Though in our case, in the  undated  special<br \/>\nreport,  there  is  a  reference  of  extension  of remand in respect of Crime<br \/>\nNo.385\/2005 as well as 387\/2005, as  pointed  out  in  para  14  of  the  said<br \/>\ndecision,  there  is  no  material  in  our  case  to  show that the detaining<br \/>\nauthority had made a requisition for remand.  On the other hand, in  the  case<br \/>\nbefore  the  Division  Bench,  the  above referred to paragraph shows that the<br \/>\nrequisition for remand had been made by the sponsoring authority and the  same<br \/>\nwas available  at  page 50 of the booklet.  Taking note of the said aspect and<br \/>\nthe details furnished in the special report, the Division bench concluded that<br \/>\nthose materials are sufficient for the detaining authority to take a decision.<br \/>\nIn the light of the said factual aspect, we are of the  view  that  the  anove<br \/>\ndecision is not helpful to the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        7.   In the next decision relied on by the learned Government Advocate<br \/>\nreported   in   1994   (2)   Law   Weekly    (Criminal)    618    (IRUDHI    @<br \/>\nIRUDAYANATHAN\/C.S.JAYAPAL VS.   STATE  OF TAMIL NADU REP.  BY THE COMMISSIONER<br \/>\nAND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT,  FORT  ST<br \/>\nGOERGE,  MADRAS-9),  a  Division  Bench,  in para 12, after referring to Abdul<br \/>\nSathar Ibrahim Manik&#8217;s case (AIR 1991 S.C.  2261), has held that awareness  of<br \/>\nthe  detaining  authority about the fact of remand of the detenu need not have<br \/>\nto be based only on the remand order, for such awareness can arise  out  of  a<\/p>\n<p>remand  warrant  or  an  affidavit of the sponsoring authority or similar such<br \/>\nmaterial affirming the basic fact of remand of the detenu concerned on the day<br \/>\nwhen the impugned order of detention stood passed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        8.  In the light of the above observation of the above said  decision,<br \/>\nlet us  consider  whether  those aspects have been satisfied in our case.  The<br \/>\nbooklet placed before us does not contain the remand warrant.   No  doubt  the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority  has  filed  an affidavit.  On going through the same, we<br \/>\nhave already observed that even the  affidavit  of  the  sponsoring  authority<br \/>\nspeaks  only about Crime No.387\/2005 and there is no reference at all to Crime<br \/>\nNo.385\/2005.  Accordingly, except the special report, no  other  material  has<br \/>\nbeen placed  before the detaining authority.  Even though there is a reference<br \/>\nto Crime No.385\/2005 in the special report, it is not known what prevented the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority in supplying the remand extension  order  in  respect  of<br \/>\nCrime No.385\/2005.    In  such circumstances, we are of the view that even the<br \/>\nsaid decision is not helpful to the stand  taken  by  the  learned  Government<br \/>\nAdvocate.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        9.   On  the  other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nhas brought to our notice the decision of another Division Bench  reported  in<br \/>\n1994 (1)  Law  Weekly  (Criminal) 266 (BALARAMAN VS.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.<br \/>\nBY THE SECRETARY,  PROHIBITION  AND  EXCISE  DEPARTMENT,  FORT  ST.    GEORGE,<br \/>\nMADRAS-9  AND  ANOTHER)  wherein  the  Division Bench has observed that in the<br \/>\nabsence of an order of extension of remand by the  Judicial  Magistrate,  mere<br \/>\nreference  in  the  affidavit  is not sufficient and finding that there was no<br \/>\nmaterial before the detaining authority with reference to  the  relevant  fact<br \/>\nthat  the  detenu  was  in  remand on the date of passing the detention order,<br \/>\nquashed the same.  This  decision  is  helpful  to  the  stand  taken  by  the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        10.   The  learned  Government  Advocate has also pressed into service<br \/>\nanother order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 03.01.2000 passed in HCP<br \/>\nNo.483 of 1999.  Hereagain, in paragraph 4,  the  Division  Bench  has  merely<br \/>\nstated  that the fact of remanding the accused in both the ground case and the<br \/>\nadverse case was noted in the booklet.  From the said decision, we are  unable<br \/>\nto  understand  whether  the  remand order relating to the ground case and the<br \/>\nadverse case have been placed before the detaining authority.  In the  absence<br \/>\nof such details, we are of the view that the said decision is also not helpful<br \/>\nto the stand taken by the learned Government Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        11.   Finally,  the  learned  Government Advocate pressed into service<br \/>\nanother order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 26.06.2000 passed in HCP<br \/>\nNo.1798 of 1999.  Before the Division Bench a similar contention was raised to<br \/>\nthe effect that except the special report, there was no material on record  to<br \/>\nshow  that  the  detenu  was in remand on the date of passing of the detention<br \/>\norder.  After perusing the booklet furnished to the detenu, the Division Bench<br \/>\nnoted that page 70 of the booklet contains the special report dated 14.9.1999.<br \/>\nWe have also noted that in our case the special report contains the details in<br \/>\nrespect of the remand of the detenu from 9.9.1999 till  23.9.1999.    It  also<br \/>\nrefers to  the  earlier  details  of  the  remand.  In the same paragraph, the<br \/>\nDivision Bench has referred to  the  sponsoring  authority&#8217;s  affidavit  dated<br \/>\n21.09.1999.   By  referring to all the details, including the affidavit of the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority, the Division Bench  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the<br \/>\nremand  extension  order  had come into existence before the date on which the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority  has  sworn  to  the  affidavit  and  rejected  the  said<br \/>\ncontention raised  by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  For the sake of<br \/>\nrepetition, we mention that in our  case,  the  affidavit  of  the  sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority  does  not  refer  to  the  remand extension order relating to Crime<br \/>\nNo.385\/2005.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        12.  On the other hand, in the above referred to decision, among other<br \/>\nmaterials, the Division Bench had taken note of the  sworn  statement  in  the<br \/>\nform  of  the affidavit by the sponsoring authority about the remand extension<br \/>\norder passed by the Magistrate.    In  the  absence  of  such  an  information<br \/>\nrelating  to Crime No.385\/2005 in the form of an affidavit in our case, we are<br \/>\nof the view that the said decision is also not applicable to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        13.  In the light of what is stated above, in view of  the  fact  that<br \/>\nthere  is no material to show that the detenu was in remand even in respect of<br \/>\nCrime No.385\/2005, despite the said fact having been noted in paragraph  4  of<br \/>\nthe  grounds  of detention, we are satisfied that the contention raised by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner is well  founded.    On  this  ground,  the<br \/>\nimpugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        14.   Accordingly,  the  Habeas  Corpus  Petition  is  allowed and the<br \/>\nimpugned order of detention is set aside.  The detenu is directed to be set at<br \/>\nliberty forthwith from custody unless he is required in  some  other  case  or<br \/>\ncause.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<br \/>\nraa<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">2.  The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nProhibition and Excise Department, Fort St.  George, Chennai 600 0 09.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">3.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai<br \/>\n        (In duplicate for communication to detenu)<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">4.  The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)<br \/>\n        Fort St.  George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">5.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 27\/02\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR H.C.P. No.1193 of 2005 Pushpa &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, [&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-249992","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>Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006 - 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\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-01T06:44:19+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T06:44:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1791,\"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\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T06:44:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006 - 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\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-01T06:44:19+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T06:44:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006"},"wordCount":1791,"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\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006","name":"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T06:44:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpa-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/249992","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=249992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}