{"id":262888,"date":"2005-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2"},"modified":"2014-06-26T14:02:02","modified_gmt":"2014-06-26T08:32:02","slug":"bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2","title":{"rendered":"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 04\/04\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN  \n\nHabeas Corpus  Petition No.1231 of 2004 \n\nBepari Saleem                                  .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its\n    Secretary to Government\n    Public (SC) Department\n    Fort St. George\n    Chennai 9.\n\n2. The Union of India rep. By its\n   Secretary, Ministry of Finance\n   Department of Revenue\n   (COFEPOSA Unit)  \n   Central Economic Intelligence Bureau\n   Janpath Bhavan, Janpath\n   New Delhi 110 001.\n\n3. The Superintendent of Central Prison\n   Central Prison, Chennai 3.           .. Respondents\n\n                Writ Petition is filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of  the  Constitution\nof India praying of the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.  K.A.  Jabbar\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.  A.  Kandasamy \n                Addl.  Public Prosecutor for R.1&amp;3\n\n                Mrs.  Vanathi Srinivasan\n                Addl.  Central Govt., standing\n                counsel for R2.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(Order of the Court was made by P.  SATHASIVAM,J.,)  <\/p>\n<p>        The  detenu, by name, Bepari Saleem, challenges the impugned detention<br \/>\norder dated  03.09.2004,  detaining  him  under  Section  3  (1)  (i)  of  the<br \/>\nConservation  of  Foreign  Exchange  and  <a href=\"\/doc\/135830564\/\" id=\"a_1\">Smuggling Activities Act<\/a>, 1974, ( in<br \/>\nshort &#8220;<a href=\"\/doc\/135830564\/\" id=\"a_2\">COFEPOSA Act<\/a>&#8220;).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.   Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  as  well   as<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.   Though  several  points have been raised questioning the impugned<br \/>\ndetention order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has  pressed<br \/>\nthe following points at the foremost.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">&#8220;(i)  The  detenu  was  not  supplied  with the copy of the remand order dated<br \/>\n02.09.2004, in the language known to him within  the  prescribed  time.    The<br \/>\nbelated  supply  of the relevant and relied on document vitiates the detention<br \/>\norder; and<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">(ii) The retraction letter dated 27.08.2004  was  neither  considered  by  the<br \/>\ndetaining authority,  nor  the  same was placed before the Advisory Board.  On<br \/>\nthis ground also the detention order is liable to be quashed.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        4.  Coming to the first contention, it is  not  in  dispute  that  the<br \/>\ndetenu was  arrested  on  16.08.2004  and  remanded  till 30.08.2004.  On 30.0<br \/>\n8.2004, since the detenu was not produced, the learned  Magistrate  passed  an<br \/>\norder for  production of the detenu on 13.09.2004.  It is further seen that on<br \/>\n02.09.2004,  the  detenu  was  produced  and  the  remand  was  extended  till<br \/>\n13.09.2004.   It  is  the  grievance of the detenu that though he was supplied<br \/>\nwith the copy of the  order  dated  30.08.2004  both  in  English  and  Telugu<br \/>\nlanguage, the order dated 02.09.2004, by which the learned Magistrate extended<br \/>\nthe remand  till  13.09.2004  has  been  supplied only on 20.10.2004.  In this<br \/>\nregard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner  by  relying  on  the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the case of Ibrahim Ahmad Batti @ Mohd.<br \/>\nAkhtar Hussain @ Kadar Ahmed Wagher @ Iqbal @ Gulam vs.  State of Gujarat  and<br \/>\nothers reported  in  1983 S.C.C.  (Cri) 66, would contend that it is mandatory<br \/>\non the part of the detaining authority  to  serve  copies  of  all  documents,<br \/>\nstatements  and  other  materials  incorporated  in  the  grounds on which the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has relied under <a href=\"\/doc\/1709581\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article 22 (5)<\/a>  of  the  Constitution  of<br \/>\nIndia  read  with  <a href=\"\/doc\/65589060\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section  3(3)<\/a>  of  COFEPOSA  Act  to  the detenu within the<br \/>\nprescribed time.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        5.  The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit  that  since<br \/>\nthe detenu was supplied with the copy of the order dated 30.08.2004, directing<br \/>\nthe  production  of  the  detenu by 13.09.2004 and the copy of the order dated<br \/>\n02.09.2004, extending the r d till 13.09.2004 has also been  supplied  to  the<br \/>\ndetenu on  20.10.2004,  he has not been prejudiced in any way.  It is relevant<br \/>\nto note that in Para 1 (xi) of the grounds of detention it is stated that  the<br \/>\ndetaining  authority  was  aware  of  the  fact  that remand period expired on<br \/>\n30.08.2004 and as no escort was provided on  that  day,  the  detenu  was  not<br \/>\nproduced before  the  Court.    Therefore,  the Additional Chief M etropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate, E.O.  II, Chennai posted the matter on 13.09.2004  for  production<br \/>\nof the detenu.  Later on, the detenu was produced before him on 02.09.2004 and<br \/>\nhis remand  period was extended till 13.09.2004.  As rightly argued, the above<br \/>\nreferred statement makes it clear that the detaining authority  was  conscious<br \/>\nof  the  fact that the detenu was produced before the Magistrate on 02.09.2004<br \/>\nand an order has been passed by the learned Magistrate  extending  the  remand<br \/>\nperiod till 13.09.2004.  In this regard, the following conclusion in para 8 of<br \/>\nthe judgment in Ibrahim Ahmad Batti case (cited supra) is relevant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">&#8220;8.  &#8230;..    It would thus follow that if the grounds together with copies of<br \/>\nall documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the  grounds  by<br \/>\nreference  on  which  the  detaining  authority  has  relied are require to be<br \/>\ncommunicated to the detenu under <a href=\"\/doc\/1709581\/\" id=\"a_5\">Article  22(5)<\/a>  read  with  <a href=\"\/doc\/65589060\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section  3(3)<\/a>  of<br \/>\nCOFEPOSA  within  the prescribed time then not merely the grounds of detention<br \/>\nbut also the copies  of  all  incorporated  documents,  statements  and  other<br \/>\nmaterials  must  be  supplied  to  the detenu in a script or language which he<br \/>\nunderstands and failure to do so would amount  to  a  breach  of  the  mandate<br \/>\ncontained in <a href=\"\/doc\/1709581\/\" id=\"a_7\">Article 22 (5)<\/a> read with <a href=\"\/doc\/65589060\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 3(3)<\/a> of COFEPOSA.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Again in para 10 it is stated,<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;10.   Two  propositions  having  a bearing on the points at issue in the case<br \/>\nbefore us, clearly emerge from the aforesaid resume of decided cases:  (a) all<br \/>\ndocuments, statements and other  materials  incorporated  in  the  grounds  by<br \/>\nreference  and  which  have  influenced the mind of the detaining authority in<br \/>\narriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must  be  furnished  to  the<br \/>\ndetenu  along  with  the  grounds  or  in  any  event not later than five days<br \/>\nordinarily and in the exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded<br \/>\nin writing not later than 1 5 days from the date of his detention, and (b) all<br \/>\nsuch material must be furnished to him  in  a  script  or  language  which  he<br \/>\nunderstands  and failure to do either of the two things would amount to breach<br \/>\nof the two duties cast on the detaining authority under <a href=\"\/doc\/1709581\/\" id=\"a_9\">Article 22 (5)<\/a> of  the<br \/>\nConstitution.  &#8230;.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        6.   It  is  clear  from  the dictum laid down by their Lordships, the<br \/>\nremand extension order dated 02.09.2004, having been relied on and  considered<br \/>\nby  the  detaining authority while passing the order of detention, copy of the<br \/>\nsame must have been furnished to the detenu along with the grounds or  in  any<br \/>\nevent  not  later than 5 days and in the exceptional circumstances for reasons<br \/>\nto be recorded in writing not  later  than  15  days  from  the  date  of  his<br \/>\ndetention.   It is also clear that all such materials must be furnished to him<br \/>\nin the language which he understands and the failure to do either of  the  two<br \/>\nthings  would  amount  to  breach  of  the  two  duties  cast on the detaining<br \/>\nauthority under <a href=\"\/doc\/1709581\/\" id=\"a_10\">Article 22 (5)<\/a> of the Constitution.  In the  case  before  us,<br \/>\nthe  paper  book  supplied  to  the detenu does not contain copy of the remand<br \/>\nextension order dated 02.09.2004 either  in  English  or  in  the  language  (<br \/>\nTelugu) known to the detenu, however the same was supplied both in English and<br \/>\nin Telugu version only on 20.10.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        7.   Though  the  learned  Additional Public Prosecutor contended that<br \/>\ncopy of the order dated 02.09.2004 was subsequently supplied  to  the  detenu,<br \/>\nthe  said  order  having  been  made  a day prior to the detention order dated<br \/>\n03.09.2004 and the same having been relied on by the detaining authority,  and<br \/>\nthe  relied  upon document having been supplied after 38 days, which is beyond<br \/>\nthe prescribed period, in the light of the principles  laid  down  in  Ibrahim<br \/>\nAhmad  Batti  case,  the  detention  order  has to be quashed on the ground of<br \/>\nviolation of safeguards contained in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1709581\/\" id=\"a_11\">Article  22  (5)<\/a>  of  the  Constitution.<br \/>\nSince  we accept the first contention, it is unnecessary for us to go into the<br \/>\nsecond contention.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">                In the light of what is stated above, the  impugned  detention<br \/>\norder  dated  03.09.2004,  is liable to be set aside; accordingly, the same is<br \/>\nset aside and the detenu is directed to  be  set  at  liberty  forthwith  from<br \/>\ncustody unless he is required in connection with any other case or cause.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>kh<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">1.  The Secretary to Government<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPublic (SC) Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George<br \/>\nChennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">2.  The Secretary,<br \/>\nUnion of India<br \/>\nMinistry of Finance<br \/>\nDepartment of Revenue<br \/>\n(COFEPOSA Unit)<br \/>\nCentral Economic Intelligence Bureau<br \/>\nJanpath Bhavan, Janpath<br \/>\nNew Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">3.  The Superintendent of Central Prison<br \/>\nCentral Prison, Chennai 3.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">4.  The District Collector, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">5.  The Public Prosecutor, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">6.  The Joint Secretary to Govt.,<br \/>\nPublic (Law and Order), Dept.,Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 04\/04\/2005 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.1231 of 2004 Bepari Saleem .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The [&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-262888","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>Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005 - 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\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2\" \/>\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=\"2005-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-26T08:32:02+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-26T08:32:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2\"},\"wordCount\":1231,\"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\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2\",\"name\":\"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-26T08:32:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005 - 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\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-26T08:32:02+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-26T08:32:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2"},"wordCount":1231,"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\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2","name":"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-26T08:32:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bepari-saleem-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-its-on-4-april-2005-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bepari Saleem vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its on 4 April, 2005"}]},{"@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\/262888","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=262888"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262888\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}