{"id":51365,"date":"2002-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002"},"modified":"2018-10-11T13:08:26","modified_gmt":"2018-10-11T07:38:26","slug":"v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/09\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n\nCriminal R.C. No. 1499 of 2002\n\nV. Krishnan                                    ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nState, rep. by\nCentral Bureau of Investigation\nChennai                                         ... Respondent\n\n\n        Revision under Section 397  &amp;  401  of  Cr.P.C.    to  set  aside  the\nproceedings  of the court below passed by the Additional Special Judge for CBI\ncases, Chennai in Crl.MP No.  13 of 2002 in C.C.  No.  3  of  1999  as  stated\ntherein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.  Karthik\n\nFor Respondent :       Mr.  N.Ranganathan, Special Public\n                        Prosecutor, CBI Cases\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  petitioner  has filed the above revision seeking to set aside the<br \/>\norder passed by the Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai in  Crl.MP<br \/>\nNo.  13 of 2002 in C.C.  No.  3 of 1999 dismissing the application filed under<br \/>\nSection 91 of Cr.P.C.  to summon documents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      Heard both  sides.   The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.<br \/>\nNo.  3 of 1999 for the offence under Section 120-B r\/w.    Section  409,  420,<br \/>\n477-A  IPC  and  Section  13  (2)  r\/w  Section  13  (1)  (d) of Prevention of<br \/>\nCorruption Act, 1988 on the file of  th  nal  Special  Judge  for  CBI  Cases,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  petitioner  has  filed an application under Section 91 of<br \/>\nCr.P.C.  to  summon  the  document  namely  &#8220;Note  to  Chairman  and  Managing<br \/>\nDirector&#8217;  dated  01-06-1998  regarding  the  meeting  of  the Chief Vigilance<br \/>\nCommittee (CVC) on 29-05-1998 to discuss the prosecution  case  by  the  Chief<br \/>\nVigilance Officer.   The said petition was dismissed by the trial court, hence<br \/>\nthis revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Mr.  Karthik, learned counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitted that the document summoned is vital to demolish the evidence of PW1,<br \/>\nwho  has  accorded  sanction;  that  the  trial  court  failed to see that the<br \/>\nsanction is a sacrosanct act, which was accorded without application  of  mind<br \/>\nby  PW1;  that denial of suggestion by PW1 pertaining to the document is not a<br \/>\nsufficient reason for dismissing the application; that the respondent\/CBI  has<br \/>\nnot  pleaded that production of the said document would cause breach of public<br \/>\ninterest; that the document is not a privilege document  and  that  the  court<br \/>\nbelow  erroneously  dismissed  the application misconstruing the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      Mr.  Renganathan, learned Special Public  Prosecutor  for  CBI<br \/>\ncases  appearing  for  the  respondent argued that the note sheet sought to be<br \/>\nsummoned are privileged and confidential document, which cannot  be  summoned;<br \/>\nthat PW1 is neither the author of the document nor receipt of it as such he is<br \/>\nnot  competent  to  speak about the same; that the document is a communication<br \/>\nbetween two officers, which  is  nothing  but  an  official  communication  as<br \/>\ndefined  under  Section  124  of  Indian  Evidence  Act  as  such it cannot be<br \/>\ncompelled to be produced and prayed for dismissal of the revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The trial court,  after  hearing  both  sides  held  that  the<br \/>\ndocument  in  dispute  is  an  official  communication  between  the officials<br \/>\nconcerned, hence it is privileged document and it cannot  be  summoned.    The<br \/>\ntrial  court  further found that though the prosecution has not clearly stated<br \/>\nin their counter as to in what manner the public interest would be affected by<br \/>\ndisclosure of the document, however held that the document is confidential  in<br \/>\nnature as  defined  under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act.  The learned<br \/>\nSpecial Judge has also  relied  on  a  decision  reported  by  this  Court  in<br \/>\n2001-2-Law Weekly (Criminal) Page  643  (K.    Sivanandam Vs.  State, rep.  by<br \/>\nInspect  or  of  Police,  Special  Police  Establishment  Central  Bureau   of<br \/>\nInvestigation   Anti-corruption  Branch,  Chennai  \u2013  6)  in  support  of  his<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      Now,  we  look  into  the  relevant  provisions  of   Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure Code and Indian Evidence Act:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 91 of Cr.P.C.  &#8211; Summons to Produce document or other thing:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)     Whenever  any  Court  or  any  officer  in  charge of a police station<br \/>\nconsiders that the production of any document or other thing is  necessary  or<br \/>\ndesirable  for  the  purposes  of  any  investigation, inquiry, trial or other<br \/>\nproceedings under this code by or before such Court or Officer, such Court may<br \/>\nissue a summon, or such officer a  written  order,  to  the  person  in  whose<br \/>\npossession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to<br \/>\nattend  and  produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the<br \/>\nsummons or order.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)     Any person required under this Section merely to produce a document or<br \/>\nother thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes<br \/>\nsuch document or thing to be  produced  instead  of  attending  personally  to<br \/>\nproduce the same.\n<\/p>\n<pre>(3)     Nothing in this Section shall be deemed-\n\n        (a)     to  affect  Sections  123  and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act,\n<\/pre>\n<p>1872, or the Bankers, Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or<\/p>\n<p>        (b)     to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document  or<br \/>\nany parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Sections 123 &amp; 124 of Indian Evidence Act:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        123.    Evidence as to affairs of State \u2013 No one shall be permitted to<br \/>\ngive  any  evidence  derived from unpublished official records relating to any<br \/>\naffairs of State, except with the permission of the Officer at the head of the<br \/>\nDepartment concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he  thinks<br \/>\nfit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        124.    Official communications \u2013 No public officer shall be compelled<br \/>\nto  disclose  communications  made  to  him  in  official  confidence, when he<br \/>\nconsiders that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      Section 91 of Cr.P.C.  confers a wide discretion on the  Court<br \/>\nto  order  production  of  documents,  but  the discretion has to be exercised<br \/>\njudicially.  The power can be exercised by the  Court  at  any  stage  at  the<br \/>\nrequest  of  any  party  including  the accused, but can be done only when the<br \/>\ncourt, on consideration of all the fa cts and  circumstance,  finds  that  the<br \/>\nproduction  of  the  document or thing called for is necessary or desirable in<br \/>\nthe interest of justice and have some  relation  to  or  connection  with  the<br \/>\nsubject matter  of trial.  The court shall satisfy itself whether the document<br \/>\nor thing is necessary for a trial even though the  application  filed  by  the<br \/>\nparty  does  not  disclose  the  grounds  as  to why production of the same is<br \/>\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      It is well settled that summoning of the  document  is  purely<br \/>\ndiscretionary of  the  court.   The section does not give an absolute right to<br \/>\nthe accused  to  summon  all  documents.    If  only  when  the  court  on   a<br \/>\nconsideration of the facts and circumstance of the case, finds that production<br \/>\nof  the  document is necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial, it shall<br \/>\nsummon the same, but not otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     In Sub-section 3 of Section 91 of Cr.P.C.   it  is  stated  in<br \/>\nunequivocal terms that nothing shall be demed to affect Section 123 and 124 of<br \/>\nthe  Evidence Act or the banks, books, evidence Act 1891 or apply to a letter,<br \/>\npostcard, telegram or other document or any  parcel  in  the  custody  of  the<br \/>\npostal or telegraph authority.  Section 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act can be<br \/>\nunderstood as mutually exclusive, but they do overlap.  The difference between<br \/>\nthe  two  is  Section  123  applies  only to evidence derived from unpublished<br \/>\nofficial records relating to any affairs of the  state;  whereas  Section  124<br \/>\napplies to communication made in official confidence where such communications<br \/>\nare  in writing or not and whether they relate to any business of the state or<br \/>\nnot.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     Any communication made between two public officers in official<br \/>\nconfidence for which privilege is claimed and when it&#8217;s production is objected<br \/>\nto on the ground that it would be detrimental  to  the  public  interest,  the<br \/>\nCourt shall  desist from compelling its production.  As rightly pointed out by<br \/>\nthe trial court, the pr  osecution  has  not  canvassed  in  clear  terms  the<br \/>\nprejudice to  public  interest.   In this case, the communication made between<br \/>\nthe respective officers relates to  the  opinion  expressed  and  an  official<br \/>\ndecision  is  reached  in  the  course  of  determination  of  the question of<br \/>\naccording sanction for which privilege was claimed.  It is open to the  public<br \/>\nauthority  that  the  privilege  can  be  claimed in the interest of efficient<br \/>\nadministration and proper functioning of public service though adequately  not<br \/>\nbring out the involvement of public interest consequent upon the disclosure of<br \/>\nthe document.   I rely upon a decision reported in AIR 1977 SC 2201 ( State of<br \/>\nOrissa and others Vs.  Jagannath Jona etc.,) wherein in  Para-3  it  was  held<br \/>\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;3.     We  would like to observe that the view which the High Court has taken<br \/>\nin regard to the disclosure of the particular notings is principally based  on<br \/>\nthe  inadequacy of the affidavits filed on behalf of the Government of Orissa.<br \/>\nThe High Court has summarised the effect of  the  various  decisions  of  this<br \/>\nCourt  which  have a direct bearing on the question of privilege and we are in<br \/>\nno doubt that it would not have rejected the State&#8217;s  claim  of  privilege  in<br \/>\nregard  to  departmental  notings  contained in official files, except for the<br \/>\nfact that the affidavits filed on behalf of the Government did not  adequately<br \/>\nbring out the involvement of public interest consequent upon the disclosure of<br \/>\nthe notings.    The judgment of the High Court has therefore to be confined to<br \/>\nthe particular facts of the case and cannot be based as a precedent  in  other<br \/>\ncases  for  calling  upon  the  Government  to produce confidential notings in<br \/>\nofficial files, if the disclosure  thereof  is  calculated  to  impair  public<br \/>\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Therefore, I am of the view that the document sought to be summoned is<br \/>\na privilege document.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     Now,  we  look into the aspect whether the document impinge on<br \/>\nthe question of guilt or innocence of the accused.  In a particular case,  the<br \/>\nguilt  or  innocence of an accused depended on the production of a document in<br \/>\nrespect of which privilege is claimed, the Court could overrule the  claim  of<br \/>\nprivilege.   Whereas, in the case on hand, the document sought for is relating<br \/>\nto sanction accorded for prosecution, which do not relate to the  question  of<br \/>\nguilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused,  in  other words not relate to alleged<br \/>\ncharges.  I seek guidance  from  a  decision  of  the  Hon&#8217;ble  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nreported in  AIR  1973  SC  2  751  (Kishan  Narain Vs.  State of Maharashtra)<br \/>\nwherein in Para-7 it was held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;7.     It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to  consider<br \/>\nthe  scope  of  the powers of the court to examine the documents in respect of<br \/>\nwhich privilege is claimed under Sections 123, 124 and  125  of  the  Evidence<br \/>\nAct.   Nor do we think that the English decisions on the point would be wholly<br \/>\napt in the circumstances of this country.    In  England,  the  law  regarding<br \/>\nevidence is wholly Judge-made law but in this country the duty of the Judge is<br \/>\nto  interpret  the  provisions  of  the Evidence Act in its application to the<br \/>\nparticular circumstances of a case.  Whether if in  any  particular  case  the<br \/>\nguilt  or  innocence of an accused depended on the production of a document in<br \/>\nrespect of which privilege is claimed the court could overrule  the  claim  of<br \/>\nprivilege is  not  a  question which we need consider.  That question does not<br \/>\narise in this case.  The documents in respect of which privilege is claimed in<br \/>\nthis case do not impinge on the question of guilt or innocence of the accused.<br \/>\nThey do not relate to what happened on the 13th and 14th of August 1964.    We<br \/>\ndo not, therefore, feel it is necessary to consider the decisions in Conway V.<br \/>\nRimmer, (1968) 1 All ER 874 and Marks Vs.  Beyfus, (1890) 25 QBD 494.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  court  below  has  rightly  rejected  the claim of the petitioner<br \/>\nherein on that ground also.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.     The order passed by the learned trial Judge is well considered<br \/>\nin appreciation of the provisions of law and I do not find any infirmity.  The<br \/>\nrevision is therefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>25-09-2002<br \/>\nrsh<br \/>\nIndex :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Additional Special Judge<br \/>\nfor CBI Cases<br \/>\nChennai<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Central Bureau of Investigation<br \/>\nChennai<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nHigh Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/09\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN Criminal R.C. No. 1499 of 2002 V. Krishnan &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- State, rep. by Central Bureau of Investigation Chennai &#8230; Respondent Revision under Section 397 &amp; 401 [&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-51365","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. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002 - 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-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-11T07:38:26+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=\"10 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-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-11T07:38:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1878,\"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-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002\",\"name\":\"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-11T07:38:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002 - 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-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-11T07:38:26+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-11T07:38:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002"},"wordCount":1878,"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-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002","name":"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-11T07:38:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-krishnan-vs-state-on-25-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. Krishnan vs State on 25 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/51365","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=51365"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51365\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51365"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51365"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51365"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}