{"id":266046,"date":"2009-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-19T16:22:00","modified_gmt":"2015-10-19T10:52:00","slug":"v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.340 of 2009\n\nV.Dhanapakiyam\t\t\t\t..\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu\n  rep. by\n  Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,\n  Fort St.George,\n  Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Commissioner of Police,\n  Madurai City.\n\n3.The Superintendent of Prison,\n  Madurai Central Prison,\n  Madurai.\n\n4.The Secretary,\n  Advisory Board,\n  32, Rajaji Salai,\n  Singaraveler Maligai,\n  Chennai Collectorate,\n  Chennai.\t \t\t\t..\tRespondents\n\n\tHabeas Corpus Petition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of\nIndia calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of\nRespondent No.2 in Detention Order No.30\/BDFGISSV\/2009 dated 28.04.2009 and\nquash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the\ndetenu by name Senthil @ Senthil Kumar, Son of Vellaiyathevar, aged about 28\nyears detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at\nliberty forthwith.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Alagumani\n^For Respondents... Mr.N.Senthur Pandian,\n\t            Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J.)<br \/>\n\tThe petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who was detained under Section<br \/>\n3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-<br \/>\noffenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand Offenders,<br \/>\nSlum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_1\">(Tamil Nadu Act<\/a> 14 of 1982), by<br \/>\nbranding him as a &#8216;GOONDA&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2. There are three adverse cases and one ground case as against the<br \/>\ndetenu. The first adverse case was in Crime No.288 of 2007 on the file of N-5<br \/>\nSouth Gate (Crime) Police Station registered under <a href=\"\/doc\/1873755\/\" id=\"a_2\">Sections 457<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/839778\/\" id=\"a_3\">380<\/a> IPC. The<br \/>\nsecond adverse case was in Crime No.326 of 2009 on the file of C-3 S.S. Colony<br \/>\n(Crime) Police Station registered under <a href=\"\/doc\/1873755\/\" id=\"a_4\">Sections 457<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/839778\/\" id=\"a_5\">380<\/a> IPC. The third<br \/>\nadverse case was in Crime No.327 of 2009 on the file of C-3 S.S. Colony (Crime)<br \/>\nPolice Station registered under <a href=\"\/doc\/1873755\/\" id=\"a_6\">Sections 457<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/839778\/\" id=\"a_7\">380<\/a> IPC. The ground case was<br \/>\nregistered under <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_8\">Sections 392<\/a> r\/w 397 and 506(ii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1569253\/\" id=\"a_9\">IPC<\/a> in Crime No.330 of 2009 on<br \/>\nthe file of C3 SS Colony (Crime) Police Station. In the ground case, the detenu<br \/>\nwas arrested on 22.03.2009 and sent to judicial custody on the same day.<br \/>\nThereafter, his remand period was extended upto 30.04.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the detention order on<br \/>\nthree grounds, firstly, the solitary instance of law and order problem in the<br \/>\nground case will not be a ground to come to the conclusion that the detenu is<br \/>\nhabitually committing crime; secondly, copies of remand extension orders in the<br \/>\nground case as well as the second adverse case and third adverse case for the<br \/>\nperiod from 03.04.2009 to 17.04.2009 were not furnished to the detenu; thirdly,<br \/>\nthere was a delay in considering the representation of the detenu.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t4. The detenu was arrested in the ground case on 22.03.2009 and he was<br \/>\ncharged under <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_10\">Sections 392<\/a> r\/w 397 and 506(ii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1569253\/\" id=\"a_11\">IPC<\/a>. Only in the ground case, he<br \/>\nwas charged under <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_12\">Sections 392<\/a> r\/w 397 and 506(ii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1569253\/\" id=\"a_13\">IPC<\/a>. Therefore, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1775206\/\" id=\"a_14\">Mannar @ Ezhilarasan @ Suresh @ Arif v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a>, (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl)<br \/>\n318 and submitted that from one single transaction though consisting of several<br \/>\nacts, a habit cannot be attributed to a person and the stand taken by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority that the detenu is habitually committing crime and acted in<br \/>\na manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order cannot be sustained.  In<br \/>\nthe above decision, the decisions reported in AIR 2003 SC 971 in the case of<br \/>\nDarpan Kumar Sharma alias <a href=\"\/doc\/1753534\/\" id=\"a_15\">Dharban Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> and (2004)<br \/>\nMLJ (Crl.) 306 in the case of Mala v. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and<br \/>\nExcise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 374<br \/>\nin the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1597979\/\" id=\"a_16\">R.Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a>, were relied upon.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t5. As per the decision in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1775206\/\" id=\"a_17\">Mannar @ Ezhilarasan @ Suresh @ Arif<br \/>\nv. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> cited supra, it is clear that solitary act cannot be a<br \/>\nground to hold that the detenu is an habitual offender.  As far as the present<br \/>\ncase is concerned, only in the ground case the detenu was arrested under <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_18\">Section<br \/>\n392<\/a> r\/w 397 and 506(ii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1569253\/\" id=\"a_19\">IPC<\/a> and therefore only in the ground case, there was law<br \/>\nand order problem. Relying on the above decision of this Court, we are of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that solitary instance cannot be a ground to hold that the<br \/>\ndetenu is an habitual offender and therefore, on this ground, the detention<br \/>\norder passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t6. The second ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the<br \/>\ndetenu was not given the remand extension orders in the ground case as well as<br \/>\nthe second adverse case and third adverse case for  the period from 03.04.2009<br \/>\nto 17.04.2009. In 2007(5) CTC 657, a Full Bench of this Court has pointed out<br \/>\nthat non-furnishing of relied-on copies of documents to the detenu, in spite of<br \/>\nthe request of the detenu, would vitiate the order of detention.  In this case,<br \/>\nthese documents were not furnished. In the light of the above decision, it is<br \/>\nclear that non-furnishing of the remand extension orders for the period from<br \/>\n03.04.2009 to 17.04.2009 which was relied on by the Detaining Authority, to the<br \/>\ndetenu, would vitiate the order of detention.  On this ground also, the<br \/>\ndetention order is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t7. The third ground relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is that<br \/>\nthere was delay in considering the representation of the detenu.  In the<br \/>\nproforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is stated<br \/>\nthat the file was submitted on 26.05.2009; Under Secretary dealt with on<br \/>\n26.05.2009; Additional Secretary dealt with on 26.05.2009; Minister for PWD and<br \/>\nLaw dealt with the representation on 27.05.2009; rejection letter prepared on<br \/>\n01.06.2009; rejection letter sent to the detenu on 03.06.2009 and rejection<br \/>\nletter served to the detenu on 05.06.2009.  Though the file was submitted on<br \/>\n26.05.2009, the letter to the detenu was sent only on 03.06.2009. For this, the<br \/>\nlearned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is only a reasonable<br \/>\ndelay.  27.05.2009, 28.05.2009 and 29.05.2009 are working days and 30.05.2009<br \/>\nand 31.05.2009 are holidays.  The letter was prepared on 01.06.2009 and it was<br \/>\nsent only on 03.06.2009 and received on 05.06.2009.  A perusal of the columns 13<br \/>\nto 16 of the proforma would show that there was delay in considering the<br \/>\nrepresentation of the detenu.  The delay was also not explained properly with<br \/>\nreason. Therefore, we are of the view that on this ground also, the detention<br \/>\norder is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t8. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view this H.C.P is<br \/>\nliable to be allowed and accordingly it is allowed and the order of detention in<br \/>\nNo.30\/BDFGISSV\/2009 dated 28.04.2009 passed by the second respondent is set<br \/>\naside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is<br \/>\nrequired in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">KM<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">1.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,<br \/>\n  Fort St.George,<br \/>\n  Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">2.The Commissioner of Police,<br \/>\n  Madurai City.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">3.The Superintendent of Prison,<br \/>\n  Madurai Central Prison,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">4.The Secretary,<br \/>\n  Advisory Board,<br \/>\n  32, Rajaji Salai,<br \/>\n  Singaraveler Maligai,<br \/>\n  Chennai Collectorate,<br \/>\n  Chennai.\t \t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN H.C.P.(MD) No.340 of 2009 V.Dhanapakiyam .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government 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-266046","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>V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009 - 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\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-19T10:52:00+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T10:52:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1032,\"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\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009\",\"name\":\"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T10:52:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009 - 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\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-19T10:52:00+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T10:52:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009"},"wordCount":1032,"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\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009","name":"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T10:52:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-dhanapakiyam-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Dhanapakiyam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/266046","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=266046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}