{"id":2520,"date":"2002-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002"},"modified":"2016-11-13T02:55:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-12T21:25:53","slug":"palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 14\/11\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE. MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN\n\nCRL.R.C.NO.1908 of 2002\nAND\nCRL.M.P.NO.11018 of 2002\n\n1. Palanisamy @ Palani\n2. Subramani\n3. Narayanappa\n4. Raja @ Rajappa\n5. Naga @ Nagaraj\n6. Senthil @ Senthilkumar               ....   Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\nState rep. By\nInspector of Police,\nThali Police\nDharmapuri District                     .... Respondent\n\n        Revision filed under Sec.392 read with 401 Cr.P.C.  against the  Order\npassed  in  Crl.M.P.No.1334\/2002  dated  5.9.2002  on  the  file  of  District\nMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thenkanikottai.\n\n!For petitioners :      Mr.K.  Gandhikumar\n\n^For respondent :       Mr.O.  Srinath\n                        Govt.  Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This revision has been  directed  against  the  Order  passed  by  the<br \/>\nDistrict  Munsif-cum-Judicial  Magistrate,  Thenkanikottai  in  Crl.M.P.No.133<br \/>\n4\/2002, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the bail application filed by<br \/>\nthe petitioners under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The petitioners are accused in Cr.No.121\/2002 on the  file<br \/>\nof the  Inspector  of  Police,  Thali  Police  Station.  They were remanded to<br \/>\ncustody for offences punishable under Secs.147, 148 and 302 IPC and  Sec.25(A)<br \/>\nof the  Indian  Arms  Act.    Investigation was completed and final report was<br \/>\nfiled on 26.8.2002, but the  learned  Magistrate  returned  the  final  report<br \/>\nremarking  that  the prosecution under the Arms Act requires sanction from the<br \/>\nauthorities concerned.  The petitioners  filed  a  petition  under  Sec.167(2)<br \/>\nCr.P.C  on  28.8.2002  requesting  the  Court  to  release them on bail, since<br \/>\ninvestigation was not concluded within a period of 90 days as per Sec.167  (2)<br \/>\nCr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that<br \/>\nthe learned Magistrate is wrong in dismissing the petition since on  the  date<br \/>\nwhen  the  petition  was  filed,  no charge sheet was filed on the file of the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate concerned.  In support of his contention he also relies  on<br \/>\na ruling  of  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1994 Crl.L.J.  257 in<br \/>\nthe case of M.C.  Venkatareddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the learned<br \/>\nJudge has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In the instant cases, while the petitioners in Crl.P.341\/93 are  remanded  to<br \/>\njudicial custody on 30.9.1992 and the period of 90 days expired on 28.12.1992,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  in  Crl.P.No.559\/93  was  remanded  to  judicial  custody  on<br \/>\n29.10.1992 and the period of 90 days expired on 26 .1.1993.   The  application<br \/>\nwas  filed  by the accused to release them on bail since the period of 90 days<br \/>\nexpired and there is no police report before the Court and the Magistrate  has<br \/>\nfailed to  take  cognizance  of  the  cases.    The  same  was rejected by the<br \/>\nMagistrate on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled for bail  under<br \/>\nSec.167(2) Crl.    P.C  because  the  SHO  (Station  House Officer), filed the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet already within 90 days  on  28.12.1992  and  that  the  same  was<br \/>\nreturned to  comply the objections.  From this, it is crystal clear that there<br \/>\nwas no police report on record of the court and even on its own  showing,  the<br \/>\nprosecution  has  not  filed  the  report  conforming  to  the requirements of<br \/>\nSections 173(2) and 173(5) and as such the same was returned.  Inasmuch as the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet was not in conformity with the procedure established by  law  and<br \/>\nas  the  same was returned, the action of the Magistrate in returning the same<br \/>\nwas only administrative in nature and not judicial and the Magistrate was  not<br \/>\ncompetent  to take cognizance of the offence as the charge-sheet was not filed<br \/>\nas contemplated under law and was not there on record  within  the  stipulated<br \/>\ntime of  90  days.  It is not sufficient for the prosecution to just file some<br \/>\nsort of police report not conforming to the provisions of Sections 173(2 ) and<br \/>\n173(5) Cr.P.C and then play fraud not only on the  statute  but  also  on  the<br \/>\nConstitution.   This  kind  of tactics by the police to water down and nullify<br \/>\nthe constitutional and statutory guarantees  cannot  be  countenanced  and  in<br \/>\nfact,  the Courts should keep a strict vigil on this kind of unscrupulous acts<br \/>\nof officers to get over the constitutional and statutory mandate of  filing  a<br \/>\ncharge-sheet  within  the  stipulated time under the guise of filing defective<br \/>\ncharge-sheet and then knowing fully well that it will be returned.    Until  a<br \/>\ncharge-sheet  with  all  specifications enumerated under Sec.173(2) Cr.P.C and<br \/>\naccompaniments under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C is filed into  the  court  and  the<br \/>\ncourt  scrutinises  it  on  its  administrative  side to satisfy that all such<br \/>\ndocuments are in order and unless the court takes it on record and keeps it on<br \/>\nits file for examination for taking cognizance or not, it cannot be said  that<br \/>\na  police  report (charge-sheet) is filed as contemplated under Section 173(2)<br \/>\nCr.P.C.  Once the police report is filed, it should be capable of  examination<br \/>\nfor  the  purpose  of judicial determination to take cognizance of the offence<br \/>\nand to proceed further into Chapter XVI Cr.P.C  and  any  act  short  of  that<br \/>\ncannot be construed as &#8220;taking cognizance&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   That  was  a case where the charge sheet was returned for want of<br \/>\nmaterial papers contemplated under Sec.173(5) Cr.P.C.  That is why the learned<br \/>\nJudge (as he then was) has held that it is not sufficient for the  prosecution<br \/>\nto  just  file  some sort of police report not conforming to the provisions of<br \/>\nSections 173(2) and 173(5) Cr.P.C and play fraud not only on the  statute  but<br \/>\nalso on  the  Constitution.    This  kind of tactics by the police officer was<br \/>\ndeprecated.  But in this case, charge sheet was not returned for want  of  any<br \/>\nmaterial papers contemplated under Sec.173(5) Cr.P.C.  The Magistrate chose to<br \/>\nreturn  the charge sheet on the ground of absence of sanction to prosecute the<br \/>\npetitioners under the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  It is relevant to note that the documents referred to under  Sec.1<br \/>\n73(5) have  been  submitted  to  the  Court.  It cannot be said that obtaining<br \/>\nsanction from the authorities concerned is part of investigation.  Sanction is<br \/>\nrequired only to enable the Court to take cognizance  of  the  offence.    The<br \/>\nCourt may take cognizance of the offence after the sanction order was produced<br \/>\nbefore  the  Court,  but  the  moment the final report is filed along with the<br \/>\ndocuments that may be relied on by the prosecution, then investigation will be<br \/>\ndeemed to have been completed.  Taking cognizance is entirely  different  from<br \/>\ncompleting investigation.   Completing investigation and filing a final report<br \/>\nis the duty of the Investigating Agency, but taking cognizance of the  offence<br \/>\nis the  power of the Court.  Suppose the Court does not take cognizance of the<br \/>\noffence for some more time even after filing of the final report, the  accused<br \/>\nconcerned cannot claim their indefeasible right under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C.  What<br \/>\nis contemplated under Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C is that the Magistrate concerned has n<br \/>\no  powers to order detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days or 60<br \/>\ndays as the case may be.  If investigation is concluded within the  prescribed<br \/>\nperiod, no right accrues to the accused concerned to be released on bail under<br \/>\nthe proviso to Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Of course the learned Magistrate may not be right in returning the<br \/>\ncharge sheet for want of sanction order to prosecute the petitioners under the<br \/>\nArms Act.    He  could  have  kept the charge sheet on the file and could have<br \/>\ndirected the investigating officer to file the sanction order so as to  enable<br \/>\nhim to  take  cognizance  of  the  offence.  Sec.1 97 Cr.P.C only says that no<br \/>\nCourt shall take cognizance of offence except with the  previous  sanction  of<br \/>\nthe Government  concerned.  May be it is the duty of the Investigating Officer<br \/>\nor the Prosecuting Agency to obtain proper sanction and file the  same  before<br \/>\nthe  Court  to enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence, but it<br \/>\ndoes not entitle the Magistrate concerned to return the charge sheet.  At  any<br \/>\ncost,  non  filing  of  the  sanction  order  does  not make the investigation<br \/>\nincomplete.  Once a final report has been filed  with  all  the  documents  on<br \/>\nwhich  the  prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to<br \/>\nhave been completed.  After completing investigation and  submitting  a  final<br \/>\nreport  to  the  Court, the Investigating Officer can send a copy of the final<br \/>\nreport  along  with  the  evidence  collected  and  other  materials  to   the<br \/>\nsanctioning authority to enable the sanctioning authority to apply his mind to<br \/>\naccord sanction.   According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority<br \/>\nwho is not connected with the investigation at all.  In case  the  sanctioning<br \/>\nauthority  takes some time to accord sanction, that does not vitiate the final<br \/>\nreport filed by the investigating agency before the Court.  It is relevant  to<br \/>\nnote  that  Sec.197  Cr.P.C  occurs in Chapter XIV which deals with conditions<br \/>\nrequisite for initiation of proceedings.  Sec.173 Cr.P.C does not speak  about<br \/>\nthe sanction  order  at all.  Sec.167 also speaks only about investigation and<br \/>\nnot about cognizance by the Magistrate.  Therefore, once a  final  report  has<br \/>\nbeen  filed,  that  is  the  proof of completion of investigation and if final<br \/>\nreport is filed within the period of 90 days from the initial date  of  remand<br \/>\nof  accused  concerned,  he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be<br \/>\nreleased on bail for want of filing of sanction order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Sec.173 (5) Cr.P.C of course requires all  the  documents  or  the<br \/>\nrelevant  extracts  there  of  on  which  the  prosecution proposes to rely to<br \/>\naccompany the final report.  Sanction  order  cannot  be  brought  within  the<br \/>\ncategory  of  those documents contemplated under clause (5) to Sec.173 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nAccording sanction is altogether a  different  act  to  be  performed  by  the<br \/>\nGovernment concerned under Sec.197 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the ruling<br \/>\ncited  by  the learned counsel for the petitioners will not apply to the facts<br \/>\nof the present case and the petitioners are not entitled  to  be  released  on<br \/>\nbail  under  Sec.167(2)  Cr.P.C,  since the final report has been filed by the<br \/>\nInvestigating Agency on 26.8.2002 itself before the  prescribed  period  while<br \/>\nthe bail application was received by the Magistrate only on 28.8.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Therefore,  the  revision  stands  dismissed.    Consequently, the<br \/>\nconnected Crl.M.P.11018\/2002 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>14-11-2002<\/p>\n<p>sr<br \/>\nIndex:Yes<br \/>\nWeb site:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nThenkanikottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14\/11\/2002 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE. MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN CRL.R.C.NO.1908 of 2002 AND CRL.M.P.NO.11018 of 2002 1. Palanisamy @ Palani 2. Subramani 3. Narayanappa 4. Raja @ Rajappa 5. Naga @ Nagaraj 6. Senthil @ [&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-2520","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>Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002 - 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\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-12T21:25:53+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\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T21:25:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1617,\"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\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002\",\"name\":\"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-12T21:25:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002 - 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\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-12T21:25:53+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\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T21:25:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002"},"wordCount":1617,"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\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002","name":"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-12T21:25:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palanisamy-palani-vs-state-rep-by-on-14-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Palanisamy @ Palani vs State Rep. By on 14 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/2520","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=2520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}