{"id":272327,"date":"2003-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003"},"modified":"2017-04-25T09:31:31","modified_gmt":"2017-04-25T04:01:31","slug":"chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  MADRAS\n\nDated: 19\/09\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM\n\nH.C.P. No.2576 OF 2002\n\n\nChandran\n(lodged in Central Prison, Vellore\nT.P.D.A. No.4235)                               ...     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The District Magistrate and\n    District Collector\n    Thiruvannamalai District at\n    Thiruvannamalai\n\n2.  State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by\n    the Secretary to Government\n    Prohibition and Excise Department\n    St. George Fort\n    Madras                                      ...       Respondents\n\nPetition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Art.226<\/a> of the Constitution, praying for a\nWrit of Habeas Corpus as stated in the petition\n\nFor Petitioner         ::  Mr.  T.R.  Radhakrishnan\n\nFor Respondents ::  Mr.  A.  Navaneethakrishnan\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">(Order of the Court was made by V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.)<\/p>\n<p>                The order dated 15-10-2002, passed by the District  Magistrate<br \/>\nand  District  Collector, Thiruvannamalai District at Thiruvannamalai, dubbing<br \/>\none Chandran, son of Kannan, as bootlegger and directing his  detention  under<br \/>\nSec.3(1)  of  the  <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_1\">Tamil  Nadu  Act<\/a>  14  of 1982, is in challenge in this writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                2.  The detenu herein is involved in as many as  four  adverse<br \/>\ncases  under  the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, two of which have been committed<br \/>\nin 2001 and the other two in 2002.  He was also caught while selling poisonous<br \/>\nliquor, mixed with atropine, on 30-9-2002 and it is on that basis  that  Crime<br \/>\nNo.485 of 2002 was registered against him under the relevant provisions of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                3.   The  first  contention  of  Shri  Radhakrishnan,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner, is that the pre-detention representation  made  by<br \/>\nthe detenus wife Bogavathy has not been considered by the detaining authority<br \/>\nand that representation has also not been referred to.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        3.1.   Learned  Additional Public Prosecutor, however, points out that<br \/>\nthat representation was rejected and, therefore,  there  was  no  question  of<br \/>\nagain considering the same in the grounds or in the detention order.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        3.2.   The  contention  of the learned Public Prosecutor is absolutely<br \/>\ncorrect.  The first contention is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">                4.  Secondly the learned counsel for the petitioner points out<br \/>\nthat  the  representation   dated   23-11-2002   has   not   been   considered<br \/>\nexpeditiously.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        4.1.   By  way  of reply, learned Additional Public Prosecutor files a<br \/>\nlist of dates which suggests that the representation, which  was  received  by<br \/>\nthe  Government  on  25th  November,  2002  and the very next day remarks were<br \/>\ncalled for.  As many as three days were taken by the Sponsoring Authority  and<br \/>\nthe Detaining  Authority  to  finalise  those  remarks.  Besides, between 28th<br \/>\nNovember and 9th December,  there  were  four  holidays.    Ultimately,  these<br \/>\nremarks  were  received by the Government on 9th December and on the very next<br \/>\nday, they were worked upon by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary and<br \/>\nthe Honble Minister saw them on 12th December and rejected them on 16th.   In<br \/>\nbetween these  dates also, there were two holidays.  Ultimtely, the intimation<br \/>\nof the rejection of the representation was given on 19th itself.   The  second<br \/>\ncontention is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">                5.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  then  invited out<br \/>\nattention at the grounds and more particularly the portion  in  paragraph  (e)<br \/>\nwhere it is stated that the Doctor had suggested that the symptoms experienced<br \/>\nby  Sekar  are  usually  seen in cases like poisoning with atropine and he has<br \/>\nfurther stated that if a person consumed the arrack mixed with atropine (fatal<br \/>\ndose) a dose of 6.0 mgms per 100 ml.  it may even cause death  depending  upon<br \/>\nthe  quantity  of  such  arrack  consumed  with  reference to the individuals<br \/>\nphysical capacity and constitution.  Learned counsel says that at page  21  in<br \/>\nthe Doctors statement, this is not to be seen.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        5.1.   We  have gone through the statement carefully and find that the<br \/>\nconclusion drawn by the detaining authority and the  report  of  the  Doctors<br \/>\nstatement is  also covered by the said statement.  The complaint that there is<br \/>\nnothing is also incorrect.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">                6.  Learned counsel then pointed out that the portion of pages<br \/>\n12 and 25 of the paper-book are in English and their Tamil versions  were  not<br \/>\nsupplied to  the  detenu at all though the detenu specifically asked for.  The<br \/>\ndocument at page 12, which is in English, is a warrant form, which  is  not  a<br \/>\nrelied upon  document.    What was relied upon was the order by the Magistrate<br \/>\nordering the remand.  Therefore, even if the document is in English  and  its<br \/>\ntranslation  was  not  supplied,  it  cannot bring any cloud on the detention.<br \/>\nSame is the situation in respect of the document at Page 25.    They  are  the<br \/>\nreceipts for  the  fine  paid by the detenu in his earlier convictions.  It is<br \/>\ntrite law that these documents, which are in prescribed  form,  would  not  be<br \/>\nrequired to  be  translated and supplied to the detenu.  Again, these receipts<br \/>\nof the fine paid cannot be said to be and  are  really  not  the  relied  upon<br \/>\ndocuments.   They  are  merely  referred  to  documents in the statement while<br \/>\nstating the convictions against the detenu.   Therefore,  there  would  be  no<br \/>\nprejudice caused by non-supply.  This contention is also rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">                7.   Lastly,  learned counsel for the petitioner says that the<br \/>\nintimation to him regarding the sitting of the Advisory Board was given to him<br \/>\nonly on 31-10-2002 at  about  4.00  p.m.    and  the  sitting  took  place  on<br \/>\n5-11-2002.   He  says  that  he  could  not have intimated his kith and kin to<br \/>\nremain present or to represent  on  his  behalf  before  the  Advisory  Board.<br \/>\nLearned  counsel  says  that  this would be a short intimation particularly in<br \/>\nview of the fact that the next day was Friday and there was no possibility  of<br \/>\nhis  meeting  of  the  relatives  because  the visit-days are only Tuesday and<br \/>\nThursday.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        7.1.  Learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that the  detenu<br \/>\ncould have  given  the  intimation by post.  This is besides the fact that the<br \/>\ndetenu has not sought for any adjournment before the Advisory Board though the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board specifically asked about it.  Under  the  circumstances,  there<br \/>\nwill  be  no  question of the detenu suffering any prejudice on account of the<br \/>\nalleged short notice of five days.  In our opinion, the notice  of  five  days<br \/>\nwas sufficient enough during which time, the petitioner could have prepared.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">                8.   No  other  point was urged by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">                9.  In short, we find that the  writ  petition  is  devoid  of<br \/>\nmerits.  It is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">Internet :  Yes<br \/>\nJai<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">1.  The District Magistrate and<br \/>\nDistrict Collector<br \/>\nThiruvannamalai District at<br \/>\nThiruvannamalai<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">2.  State of Tamil Nadu, rep.  by<br \/>\nthe Secretary to Government<br \/>\nProhibition and Excise Department<br \/>\nSt.  George Fort<br \/>\nMadras<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">3.  The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nHigh Court<br \/>\nMadras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19\/09\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM H.C.P. No.2576 OF 2002 Chandran (lodged in Central Prison, Vellore T.P.D.A. No.4235) &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District [&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-272327","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>Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-25T04:01:31+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-25T04:01:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":975,\"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\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003\",\"name\":\"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-25T04:01:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-25T04:01:31+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-25T04:01:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003"},"wordCount":975,"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\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003","name":"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-25T04:01:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-19-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandran vs The District Magistrate And on 19 September, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272327","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=272327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}