{"id":28228,"date":"2004-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004"},"modified":"2015-01-26T04:34:02","modified_gmt":"2015-01-25T23:04:02","slug":"state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  701 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of T.N. &amp; Anr. \n\nRESPONDENT:\nKethiyan Perumal\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/10\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; C.K. THAKKER\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>[With Crl. A. No.702 of 1999]<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese two appeals involve identical issues.  The impugned<br \/>\njudgment in Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1999 has its foundation on the<br \/>\njudgment impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1999.   Therefore, the<br \/>\nfactual position involved in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1999 is<br \/>\ndescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe State of Tamil Nadu and District Magistrate &amp; Collector,<br \/>\nVellore District (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;detaining authority&#8217;)<br \/>\ncall in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench<br \/>\nof the Madras High Court quashing the order of detention dated<br \/>\n29.3.1988 passed by the Detaining Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA Habeas Corpus Petition was filed by the wife of Kethiyan<br \/>\nPerumal (hereinafter described as &#8220;the detenu&#8221;) who was detained under<br \/>\nSection 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of<br \/>\nBoot leggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and<br \/>\nSlum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short the &#8216;Act&#8217;).  The High Court allowed<br \/>\nthe Habeas Corpus Petition primarily on the ground that the Detaining<br \/>\nAuthority took into consideration extraneous matters while recording<br \/>\nthe finding about unlawful activities of the detenu or that it was<br \/>\nhighly dangerous to the public order. The High Court distinguished the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1383215\/\">Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nand Anr. (AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 165) which was relied upon by the detaining<br \/>\nauthority. Primary stand of the writ petitioner (present respondent)<br \/>\nbefore the High Court was that though reference was made to Forest<br \/>\nOfficer&#8217;s report and the same virtually provided the foundation of the<br \/>\ndetention, yet there was no mention therein that activities of the<br \/>\ndetenu has been highly dangerous to public order. The State resisted<br \/>\nthe petition on the stand that in an identical matter reference was<br \/>\nmade to the said Forest Officer&#8217;s report. This Court in Mrs. U.<br \/>\nVijayalakshmi&#8217;s case (Supra) dealt with the matter in detail and upheld<br \/>\nthe detention.  Reliance was placed on Section 5A of the Act to contend<br \/>\nthat the grounds are separable and even if one ground indicated in the<br \/>\norder of detention fails, on the residual grounds also a detention can<br \/>\nbe maintained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court found that though the decision in Mrs. U.<br \/>\nVijayalakshmi&#8217;s case (supra) was with reference to the same report of<br \/>\nthe Forest Officer, yet points which were presently urged were not<br \/>\ntaken before the High Court in the earlier case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tStand of the appellants is that the High Court accepted the<br \/>\nprayer of the detenu on the ground that the Forest Officer&#8217;s report did<br \/>\nnot specifically refer to the alleged unlawful activities aspect or<br \/>\nthat the impugned acts were highly dangerous to public order. It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that the conclusion is factually incorrect. It was pointed<br \/>\nout that there was a confession of respondent No. 1 where there was<br \/>\nclear admission about the unlawful activities. In any event the effect<br \/>\nof Section 5A of the Act has not been kept in view by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of<br \/>\nservice of notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court did not take note of the fact that the factual<br \/>\ndistinction sought to be brought about by the detenu is not<br \/>\nsupportable.  In both Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi&#8217;s case (supra) and the<br \/>\npresent case the Forest Officer&#8217;s report was common. Effect of the<br \/>\nconfessional statement and the background facts have not been taken<br \/>\nnote of.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before we go to the legal aspects involved it would be necessary<br \/>\nto sort out confusion entertained by the High Court. Interference was<br \/>\ndone with the order of detention primarily on the ground that the<br \/>\nForest officer&#8217;s report did not anywhere indicate about the effect on<br \/>\npublic order aspect. In fact, it clearly mentions that activities of<br \/>\nthe detenu prejudicially affected public order. It was specifically<br \/>\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The human life is dependent on water, clean<br \/>\nair and healthy agriculture for providing food.<br \/>\nDestruction of sandalwood trees in Vellore District<br \/>\nwill seriously affect the availability of these<br \/>\nessential things and cause threat to public life at<br \/>\nlarge due to destruction of Natural Forest Eco-<br \/>\nsystem.\n<\/p>\n<p>Hence I feel that we should stop by all means<br \/>\nthe indiscriminate felling of trees in Vellore<br \/>\nDistrict in the interest of public because the<br \/>\necological system is affected in a manner prejudicial<br \/>\nto the public order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The factual mistake, committed by the High Court by observing<br \/>\nthat there was no mention regarding activities being highly dangerous<br \/>\nto public order, is not sustainable, in view of the details indicated<br \/>\nand clear mention. It was categorically stated that the destruction of<br \/>\necological system would be highly dangerous to public order.  In any<br \/>\nevent the effect of Section 5A of the Act cannot be lost sight of. The<br \/>\nHigh Court was clearly in error in holding that decision in Mrs. U.<br \/>\nVijayalakshmi&#8217;s case (supra) was distinguishable. The decision in Mrs.<br \/>\nU. Vijayalakshmi&#8217;s case (supra) clearly applies to the facts of the<br \/>\ncase. It is to be noted that in D. Vijayalakshmi case (supra) this<br \/>\ncourt categorically held that in view of Section 5A of the Act an<br \/>\nextraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of the<br \/>\ndetention order as Section 5A was introduced precisely to take care of<br \/>\nsuch a situation. This Court, inter alia, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The second contention is based on the facts stated<br \/>\nin paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. It is manifest<br \/>\nfrom the facts stated in paragraph 4 of the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention that the emphasis is twofold: (1) that to profit<br \/>\nfrom the high price fetched by sandal wood in the open<br \/>\nmarket, illicit felling of sandal wood trees is on the<br \/>\nincrease, thereby causing widespread danger to the<br \/>\necological system and loss of revenue to Government and (2)<br \/>\nthat the huge money falling into the hands of tribals makes<br \/>\nthem susceptible to drinking and gambling, thereby<br \/>\nconverting the poor and innocent tribals into anti-socials.<br \/>\nSo far as the first aspect is concerned we find from the<br \/>\ngrounds of detention that the detenu was involved in two<br \/>\nsimilar cases in the past and the impugned order of<br \/>\ndetention was passed after he was found to have indulged in<br \/>\nsimilar activity on 1st May, 1992.  As is clear from the<br \/>\nexplanation to Section 2(a)extracted earlier, widespread<br \/>\ndanger to the ecological system must be deemed to affect<br \/>\npublic order adversely within the meaning of that<br \/>\nexpression in Section 2(a) of the Act.  Counsel submitted<br \/>\nthat although it is asserted in paragraph 4 of the grounds<br \/>\nof detention that the illicit cutting and removal of sandal<br \/>\nwood trees from the reserved forest area causes widespread<br \/>\ndanger to the ecological system and disturbs the delicate<br \/>\nequilibrium thereof, there is nothing on record to show<br \/>\nthat this assertion is well founded.  We are afraid we<br \/>\ncannot accept this submission made by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the detenu.  It is manifest from paragraph 4 of the<br \/>\ngrounds of detention that this view was founded on the<br \/>\nopinion of the District Forest Officer, Vellore.  Once it<br \/>\nis found that the ground of detention is one recognized by<br \/>\nsub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, it is not for this<br \/>\nCourt to probe into the correctness of the alleged facts<br \/>\nsince this Court has a limited role in the matter of<br \/>\nexamining the validity of the detention order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Counsel for the detenu next contended that the second<br \/>\naspect of paragraph 4 shows that extraneous considerations<br \/>\nweighed with the detaining authority in passing the<br \/>\nimpugned detention order.  He submitted that it is too<br \/>\nremote to think that tribals resort to drinking, gambling<br \/>\nand turn anti-socials merely because some extra money falls<br \/>\ninto their hands.  Assuming without deciding that this<br \/>\ncontention is well founded, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nSection 5A of the Act takes care of it.  Even if we were to<br \/>\nhold that this ground is extraneous or irrelevant, that<br \/>\nwould not affect the validity of the detention order as<br \/>\nSection 5A was introduced precisely to take care of such a<br \/>\nsituation.  We, therefore, do not see any merit in the<br \/>\nsecond contention also.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1999 involves<br \/>\nidentical issues.\n<\/p>\n<p>On both aspects factual as well as legal, in both the appeals,<br \/>\nthe High Court&#8217;s judgments are not sustainable and are, therefore, set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>The residual question is whether it would be appropriate to<br \/>\ndirect the respondent in each case to surrender for serving remaining<br \/>\nperiod of detention in view of passage of time.  As was noticed in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/382059\/\">Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors.<\/a> (2000 (3) SCC 409), it<br \/>\nis for the appropriate State to consider whether the impact of the<br \/>\nacts, which led to the order of detention still survives and whether it<br \/>\nwould be desirable to send back the detenu for serving remainder<br \/>\nperiod of detention. Necessary order in this regard shall be passed<br \/>\nwithin two months by the appellant  State.  Passage of time in all<br \/>\ncases cannot be a ground not to send the detenu to serve remainder of<br \/>\nthe period of detention.  It all depends on the facts of the act and<br \/>\nthe continuance or otherwise of the effect of the objectionable acts.<br \/>\nThe State shall consider whether there still exists a proximate<br \/>\ntemporal nexus between the period of detention indicated in the order<br \/>\nby which the detenu was required  to  be  detained  and  the date when<br \/>\nthe detenu is <\/p>\n<p>required to be detained pursuant to the appellate order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals are allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 701 of 1999 PETITIONER: State of T.N. &amp; Anr. RESPONDENT: Kethiyan Perumal DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/10\/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; C.K. THAKKER JUDGMENT: J U D G [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004 - 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\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-25T23:04:02+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T23:04:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1611,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T23:04:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004 - 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\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-25T23:04:02+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T23:04:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004"},"wordCount":1611,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004","name":"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T23:04:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-t-n-anr-vs-kethiyan-perumal-on-11-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of T.N. &amp; Anr vs Kethiyan Perumal on 11 October, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/28228","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=28228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28228\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}