{"id":41563,"date":"2004-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004"},"modified":"2016-10-03T19:15:56","modified_gmt":"2016-10-03T13:45:56","slug":"r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\n\nDATED: 08\/10\/2004  \n\n\nCORAM   \n\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA         \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM              \n\n\nH.C.P.NO.521 OF 2004   \n\n\nR. Rajkumar \nS\/o. Ramasamy                   ..  Petitioner\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu\n   Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt.,\n   Public (SC) Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Madras 600 009.\n\n\n2. The Union of India,\n   Rep. by the Secretary to Govt.,\n   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\n\n3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,\n   Central Prison, Trichy 3.            ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for\nthe issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.\n\n\nFor Petitioner : Mr.M.M.K. Alifudeen\n                  for Mr.C.T. Subbiah\n\n\nFor Respondents 1-3    : Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam  \n                          Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)\n\n\nFor Respondent-2        : Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan\n                          ACGSC\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P.K. MISRA, J <\/p>\n
        This  Habeas  Corpus  Petition  has  been  filed by the detenu himself
\nchallenging the order of preventive detention dated  23.12.2003  passed  under
\nSection  3(1)(i)  of  the  Conservation  of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
\nSmuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), hereinafter  referred
\nto as COFEPOSA.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Petitioner is a Srilankan national.  The order  of  detention  was
\nserved on  24.12.2003 along with the grounds of detention.  In the grounds, it
\nis indicated that the detenu was intercepted by the custom officials belonging
\nto the Department of Revenue Intelligence.  When questioned  about  possession
\nof  any  foreign  currency  and  declaration  thereof,  the detenu answered in
\nnegative.  On a search of the detenu person, it was found that he was carrying
\n5250 Srilankan Rupees and 23 US  Dollars  in  his  pocket.    Thereafter,  the
\nofficers  of  Department  of  Revenue  Intelligence checked the baggage of the
\ndetenu and it was found that foreign currencies (46,350 US Dollars)  had  been
\nkept  concealed  in  a cavity between two layers of the carton, wherein Godrej
\nhair dye had been packed.   The  detenu  gave  a  statement  that  the  carton
\ncontaining  Godrej hair dye had been handed over by one Vijayakumar of Mannadi
\nat Chennai with an instruction to handover to one Udayan of Srilanka  and  the
\ndetenu  would  be paid at the rate of Rs.250\/- (in Srilankan currency) per kg.
\nby the aforesaid Udayan at the time of delivery of the goods.  It was  further
\nstated by the petitioner that he did not know about the concealment of Dollars
\nin such carton and had he known, he would not have committed the offence.  The
\ndetenu  after  being  arrested  on  13.12.2003,  on the basis of the aforesaid
\nincident, was produced  before  the  Judicial  Magistrate-1,  Trichy  and  was
\nremanded.   Subsequently,  the  preventive order of detention dated 23.12.2003
\nwas passed.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  On the basis of the  aforesaid  factual  background,  the  learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the specific stand of
\nthe  petitioner  in his statement before the custom officials at the time when
\nhe was apprehended, there was no basis for  passing  an  order  of  preventive
\ndetention,  as  there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had
\nknowledge about  the  concealment  of  the  foreign  currency  in  the  carton
\ncontaining Godrej hair dye and, since the petitioner was innocent, no order of
\npreventive  detention  should  have  been  passed,  and there was no basis for
\npassing such  an  order.    The  petitioner  has  further  submitted  in  this
\nconnection   that   the  custom  officials  should  have  verified  about  the
\nexplanation given by the  petitioner,  by  questioning  Vijayakumar,  who  had
\nhanded over the carton containing Godrej hair dye.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  aforesaid  contention  raised on behalf of the petitioner is
\nresisted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for  the  respondents  1
\nand 3.   It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that as apparent
\nfrom  the  grounds  of  detention,  the  petitioner  had  visited  India  very
\nfrequently  in  the  past and on the basis of the passport dated 28.8.2003, he
\nhad visited at least nine times within a short span of  hardly  three  months,
\nand  on  the  basis of such previous conduct and on the basis of the statement
\nmade by the petitioner before the custom officials,  the  detaining  authority
\ncame  to  the  subjective  satisfaction that the petitioner was required to be
\nkept under preventive detention and there is no reason to interfere  with  the
\ndiscretionary  order  passed  by  the  detaining  authority  on  the  basis of
\nsubjective satisfaction by taking into account the relevant factors.    It  is
\nalso  pointed  out  by  the  learned  counsel  that  as  a matter of fact, the
\npetitioner had merely given the name of Vijayakumar of Mannadi without  giving
\nany details about the actual address and even without giving any contact phone
\nnumber,  which  itself  is  a  suspicious circumstance to discount the plea of
\ninnocence of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  It is of course true that the detaining authority has relied  upon
\nthe  confessional  statement  made  by  the  petitioner  himself  and  in such
\nstatement, the petitioner had given  explanation  that  the  carton  had  been
\nhanded  over  by  one Vijayakumar of Mannadi at Chennai and the petitioner was
\nnot aware of the concealment of the foreign currency.   There  is  no  dispute
\nthat the carton containing concealed foreign currency was being carried by the
\npetitioner as  a  registered  baggage.  The detaining authority had considered
\nthe statement of the petitioner  and  in  the  background  of  the  facts,  as
\nrevealed, had come to a subjective satisfaction.  At that stage, the detaining
\nauthority was not required to come to a definite conclusion of the culpability
\nof the person concerned on the basis of any detailed enquiry in the matter nor
\nwas required  to  weigh the pros and cons in an objective manner.  Even though
\nthere may be possibility of some truth in the  explanation  furnished  by  the
\ndetenu,  which  may  be  accepted  in a Court of law in a regular trial of the
\ncriminal case, the subjective conclusion of the detaining authority cannot  be
\ncharacterised   as   unfounded  or  fully  without  basis  so  as  to  warrant
\ninterference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India.
\nIf  the  subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is one which could
\nhave been arrived at on the basis of the materials on record, the  High  Court
\nis  not  empowered  to  interfere  with  such order merely on the footing that
\npossibly a different view can be taken in  the  matter  in  a  regular  trial.
\nSince  the  High Court does not sit as an appellate authority in such matters,
\nkeeping in view the limited scope of interference in such matters, we  do  not
\nthink that the conclusion of the detaining authority can be said to be without
\nany basis, requiring any interference by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of
\nthe Supreme  Court  in  2002(2)  CTC  178 (CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN v.  STATE OF
\nTAMIL NADU AND OTHERS) and<\/a> has contended that in view of the  clear  statement
\nmade  by  the  detenu himself, the detaining authority should have applied his
\nmind carefully to the various facts and circumstances, particularly, regarding
\nthe explanation to the effect that the carton had  been  handed  over  by  one
\nVijayakumar of Mannady.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   We  have  carefully perused the aforesaid decision of the Supreme
\nCourt, particularly the  observations  made  by  Raju,  J  in  the  concurring
\nopinion,  on  which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner.  While considering the relevant circumstances, it was observed
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
        6.  …  So far as the facts on record in this case are concerned,  it
\nis  seen that a stand has been taken for the petitioner, at any rate, from the
\ntime of filing the bail application on 18.4.2001, that the baggage in question
\ndid not belong to him, that the earlier statement obtained was  under  threat,
\ncoercion  and  undue  influence and that those baggage did not contain any tag
\nalso to connect the same with him.  That apart the specific  stand  taken  for
\nthe  petitioner is also that the baggage containing the goods in question were
\nin name of one Babu with his ticket number and address and no action could  be
\ntaken  against  him  before  recording  a finding properly and deciding on the
\nbasis of any concrete material the ownership of the disputed baggage.  All the
\nmore so when the Department itself has been after the said person also and the
\nmatter has not reached to any final conclusion.  As  for  the  grievance  that
\nthese  relevant  materials  have  not  been  adverted  to or considered by the
\nDetaining Authority before ordering the detention of the  petitioner,  in  the
\ncounter  affidavit  filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Detaining Authority,
\nit  is  admitted  that  investigation  is  still  pending  to  ascertain   the
\ninvolvement  and  role  of  the  other  person  but  that  may  not  have  any
\nsignificance or relevance in the teeth  of  the  admission  contained  in  the
\nconfessional  statement  of  the petitioner and that at any rate the Detaining
\nAuthority was very much aware of those facts when the order of detention  came
\nto be passed.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  We do not think that the facts and  circumstances  of  the
\npresent case are of any perceptible resemblance to the facts and circumstances
\nof the case decided by the Supreme Court.  In the said case, there was a basic
\ndispute  regarding the fact as to whether the baggage was under the possession
\nof the detenu.  In the present case, it  is  not  at  all  disputed  that  the
\nbaggage  in  question was being transported by the detenu, but he has come out
\nwith a specific plea that he had no knowledge regarding the concealment of the
\nforeign currency in such baggage.  If the specific address and\/or the  contact
\ntelephone number of Vijayakumar would have been indicated by the petitioner in
\nhis  statement  made  before the custom officials, may be one could have found
\nfault with the custom officials for not directing their investigation  further
\non the  said  aspect.    In the present case, in the grounds of detention, the
\ndetaining authority has indicated the fact that the petitioner even if  claims
\nthat  he  had  earlier  been  engaged  in  the  same  manner  by the very same
\nVijayakumar, yet he has not furnished any  concrete  address  of  Vijayakumar.
\nEven  in  a Court of law, in a regular trial, the petitioner would be required
\nto discharge the onus in view of the specific provision contained  in  Section
\n135A  of  the Customs Act regarding the fact as to whether he had knowledge or
\notherwise regarding the foreign currency.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the person
\nin question had visited the foreign country merely on two occasions,  whereas,
\nin the present case, the petitioner had visited India on nine occasions within
\na very  short  span  of  a  few  months.    The  possibility of the petitioner
\naccepting goods for transportation on payment of  some  commission  is  indeed<\/p>\n
very remote,  unless  there  is sufficient contact between the two.  The least
\none could have e xpected is furnishing of address of such  person,  from  whom
\nthe petitioner claims to have received the goods.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   In  view  of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
\npresent case, we do not think that the ratio of the decision  of  the  Supreme
\nCourt in 2002(2) CTC 178 (cited above) can be made applicable.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   Learned  counsel  for  the petitioner has then contended
\nthat admittedly the passport of the petitioner has been impounded and  in  the
\nabsence  of a passport, there is no possibility at all of the petitioner, even
\nif released on bail, committing any  similar  offence  in  future.    For  the
\naforesaid  purpose,  he  has  placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme
\nCourt reported in 2002 (83) ECC 281 (SC) (RAJESH GULATI v.  GOVT.  OF  NCT  OF
\nDELHI & ANOTHER).  In the<\/a> aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had observed :-\n<\/p>\n
         15.    In other words according to the detaining authority the prime
\nmover for the smuggling activity was the proprietor of M\/s.B.D.  Denim.    The
\nappellant at  the worst was a pawn in the hands of another.  The likelihood of
\nthe appellant indulging in smuggling activities by the appellant  was  in  any
\ncase  effectively  foreclosed  by the retention of his passport by the customs
\ndepartment.  The detaining authority noted that the appellants  passport  was
\nwith  the  customs  department  and  yet he said but you are likely to travel
\nclandestinely for the purpose of smuggling.  Now none  of  the  instances  of
\nsmuggling  by the appellant as stated in the impugned detention order describe
\nthe appellant as having travelled  without  a  passport  for  the  purpose  of
\nsmuggling.   The  conclusion  that  despite  the  absence  of his passport the
\nappellant could or would be able to continue his activities  is  based  on  no
\nmaterial  but  was  a  piece  of pure speculation on the part of the detaining
\nauthority.  These findings are sufficient to invalidate the impugned detention
\norder…\n<\/p>\n
                12.  As apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph  in
\nthe  said  case,  the  detaining  authority  had concluded that the detenu was
\nlikely to travel clandestinely for  the  purpose  of  smuggling  and  in  that
\ncontext, the Supreme Court observed that in none of the instances of smuggling
\nof  the  detenu  it  had been stated in the impugned order that the detenu had
\ntravelled without a passport for the purpose of smuggling, and therefore,  the
\nSupreme Court observed The conclusion that despite the absence of his passport
\nthe appellant could or would be able to continue his activities is based on no
\nmaterial  but  was  a  piece  of pure speculation on the part of the detaining
\nauthority.  Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that  the  detenu  in  the
\npresent case  is  merely a pawn in the hands of another.  We do not think that
\nin the facts and circumstances of the present  case,  the  aforesaid  decision
\nwould be applicable.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  On the other hand, as rightly contended  by  the  learned
\ncounsel  for  the  State, the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in 2003
\nSCC (Cri) 1463 (SITTHI ZURAINA BEGUM  v.    UNION  OF  INDIA  AND  OTHERS)<\/a>  is
\nsquarely applicable.    In  the  aforesaid  case,  the earlier decision of the
\nSupreme Court was distinguished and it would be apt to quote from the judgment
\nitself :\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Lastly, it is urged on behalf  of  the  detenu  that  a  solitary
\ninstance  without any propensity to evade duty should not be made a ground for
\ndetention and particularly when his passport had been seized on the  same  day
\nof  his arrest, there is no chance of his committing further acts of smuggling
\nfor which he has now been detained.  In  this  context,  the  learned  counsel
\nplaced reliance on the decision in Rajesh Gulati V.  Govt.  of NCT of Delhi<\/a> to
\ncontend  that retention or cancellation of passport will cripple the smuggling
\nactivity inasmuch as there is no material to show that even in the absence  of
\na  passport he would be able to continue the activities in respect of which he
\nis detained; that such an attempt would be  merely  speculative  based  on  no
\nmaterial.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The stand of the Department is that whether there can be detention
\non  a  solitary  instance  would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
\ncase, on the magnitude of the case and other attendant circumstances.  In  the
\npresent  case,  it  is stated that the detenus passport disclosed that he had
\nmade several trips abroad and he was not a man of such affluence as to make so
\nmany trips out of the country unless they be in the context  of  his  business
\nactivities.  Therefore, considering the number of trips he had made out of the
\ncountry,  the volume of goods seized now and the prima facie misdeclaration of
\nvalue, an inference can be drawn that the detenu was part of a bigger  network
\nin  bringing  the  goods  for  commercial  distribution  inside the country by
\navoiding the payment of duty.  In this background, absence  of  passport  will
\nnot  be  a  handicap  to  the detenu for his activities in the present case in
\nwhich the fact situation is different from the one available in Rajesh  Gulati
\ncase.   Nor  can  we confine the meaning of the word smuggling only to going
\nout of the country and coming back with goods which are contraband or to evade
\nduty but may encourage such activities as well by dealing in such goods.<\/p>\n
                14.  In our opinion, the latter decision of the Supreme  Court
\nis more applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  The last and somewhat inevitable contention raised by the
\nlearned  counsel  for  the petitioner is the alleged delay in consideration of
\nthe representation of  the  petitioner.    It  is  contended  that  a  written
\nrepresentation dated 31.3.2004 had been prepared by the counsel for the detenu
\nand  the  same had been sent to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchy,
\nalong with the counsels covering letter dated 3 1.3.2004, requesting the jail
\nauthorities to send the representation to  the  appropriate  authorities,  but
\nthose  representations  were  not under active and continuous consideration of
\nthe authorities and there had been delay in consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf  of  the  second
\nrespondent, it has been indicated that the representation was forwarded by the
\nSuperintendent,  Central  Prison,  Tiruchy by letter dated 6.4.2004, which was
\nreceived in the COFEPOSA Unit of Ministry of Finance, Department  of  Revenue,
\nNew  Delhi  on  12.4.2004  and  parawise  comments  were  called  for from the
\nsponsoring authority, namely the Additional Director General, DRI, Chennai  on
\n12.4.2004.   In  the  meantime,  comments  of  the sponsoring authority on the
\nrepresentation was received in the COFEPOSA Unit of Ministry of Finance on the
\nevening of 13.4.2004.  14th April, 2004 was a holiday and the  documents  were
\nplaced before the Under Secretary on 15.4.2004, who processed the case and put
\nup the file to the Joint Secretary on the very same day, who in turn submitted
\nthe file  to  the  Special  Secretary  and  Director General.  Ultimately, the
\nrepresentation was considered carefully and rejected on 15.4.2004  itself  and
\nthe detenu was communicated vide Memorandum dated 15.4.200 4.\n<\/p>\n
                17.   The stand taken by the second respondent is also clearly
\nindicated in paragraph  11  of  the  counter  affidavit  filed  by  the  first
\nrespondent.   In  view of the above, it cannot be said that there has been any
\nundue delay in consideration of the representation of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find  any  merit  in
\nthis habeas corpus petition, which is according rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes
\ndpk <\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The State of Tamil Nadu
\nRep.  by the Secretary to the Govt.,
\nPublic (SC) Department,
\nFort St.  George,
\nMadras 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Union of India,
\nRep.  by the Secretary to Govt.,
\nMinistry of Finance,
\nDepartment of Revenue,
\n(COFEPOSA Unit),
\nCentral Economic Intelligence Bureau,
\nJanpath Bhavan, Janpath,
\nNew Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent of Central Prison,
\nCentral Prison, Trichy 3.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM H.C.P.NO.521 OF 2004 R. Rajkumar S\/o. Ramasamy .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu […]<\/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-41563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-03T13:45:56+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T13:45:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2950,\"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\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004\",\"name\":\"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T13:45:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 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":"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-03T13:45:56+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T13:45:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004"},"wordCount":2950,"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\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004","name":"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T13:45:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-rajkumar-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 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\/41563","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=41563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}