{"id":53850,"date":"1979-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-11-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979"},"modified":"2019-01-15T16:00:49","modified_gmt":"2019-01-15T10:30:49","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 538, \t\t 1980 SCR (2)\t 59<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. KRISHNAMURTHY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/11\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  538\t\t  1980 SCR  (2)\t 59\n 1980 SCC  (1) 167\n\n\nACT:\n     Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954),\nSs. 2(1)  (a) &\t 16 (1)\t (a) (i)-Scope of-Gingelly oil mixed\nwith 15\t per cent groundnut oil-Sold or offered for sale for\nexternal use-Whether  sale of  an article  of food  which is\nadulterated.\n     Words &  phrases-`Food'-`Sale'-meaning of-Prevention of\nFood Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss, 2(v), 2(xiii).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The prosecution alleged that gingelly oil mixed with 15\nper cent  of groundnut\toil was\t sold as gingelly oil by the\nrespondent  to\tthe  Food  Inspector.  The  defence  of\t the\nrespondent was\tthat he\t kept the oil in his shop to be sold\nnot for consumption but for external use.\n     The Trial\tMagistrate did\tnot accept  the defence\t and\nconvicted the  respondent under\t section 16 (1) (a) (i) read\nwith section 2(1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration\nAct, 1954  and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till the\nrising of  the court and to pay fine. On appeal the Sessions\nJudge, accepted\t the defence  of the respondent and being of\nthe view  that the  respondent could not be convicted unless\nit was\testablished that  the sale  of gingelly\t oil was for\nhuman consumption,  acquitted him  of the  charge. The\tHigh\nCourt confirmed the order of acquittal.\n     In the  appeal to\tthis Court,  on the question whether\nthe sale  of adulterated  gingelly  oil\t which\tis  sold  or\noffered for  sale for external use, is sale of an article of\nfood which is adulterated.\n^\n     HELD : 1. The sale of gingelly oil mixed with groundnut\noil is\tpunishable under  section 16(1)\t (a) (i)  read\twith\nsection 2(1)  (a) notwithstanding  the fact  that the seller\nhad expressly  stated at  the  time  of\t sale  that  it\t was\nintended for external use only. [66 E]\n     2. According to the definition of \"food\" in S. 2(v) for\nthe purposes  of the  Act, any article used as food or drink\nfor human  consumption\tand  any  article  which  ordinarily\nenters into  or is used in the consumption or preparation of\nhuman food  is \"food\".\tIt  is\tnot  necessary\tthat  it  is\nintended for  human consumption\t or for preparation of human\nfood.  It  is  also  irrelevant\t that  it  is  described  or\nexhibited as  intended for  some other\tuse. It is enough if\nthe  article   is  generally  or  commonly  used  for  human\nconsumption or in the preparation of human food. [63 A-B]\n     3. To  prevent the exploitation and self-destruction of\npoor, ignorant\tand illiterate\tpersons\t the  definition  of\n\"food\" is  couched in such terms as not to take into account\nwhether an article is intended for human consumption or not.\nIn order  to be\t \"food\" for  the purposes  of  the  Act,  an\narticle need not be \"fit\" for\n60\n     human  consumption;   it  need   not  be  described  or\nexhibited as  intended for human consumption; it may even be\notherwise described  or\t exhibited;  it\t need  not  even  be\nnecessarily intended  for human consumption; it is enough if\nit is generally or commonly used for human consumption or in\nthe preparation of human food. [63 D-E]\n     4. Gingelly  oil, mixed  or not  with groundnut  oil or\nsome other oil, whether described or exhibited as an article\nof food\t for human consumption or as an article for external\nuse only  is \"food\"  within the\t meaning of  the  definition\ncontained in s. 2(v) of the Act. [63 G]\n     Andhra Pradesh  Grain &  Seed Merchants' Association v.\nUnion of  India<\/a> [1971] 1 SCR 166; Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State\nof Maharashtra<\/a> [1976] 2 SCC 99 explained.\n     5. The  definition of \"sale\" is designedly wide. A real\nsale as\t well as  an `embryonic'  sale (like  agreement\t for\nsale, offer  for sale,\texposure for  sale,  possession\t for\nsale, attempt  at sale)\t are sales  for the  purposes of the\nAct. The  sale may  be for  cash or  credit  or\t by  way  of\nexchange, or  it may  be by  wholesale or retail. Thus every\nkind, manner and method of sale are covered. The sale may be\n\"for human consumption or use, or for analysis\". [65 F-G]\n     6. A sale \"for analysis\" can never be a sale \"for human\nconsumption\" but it is nonetheless a sale within the meaning\nof the\tdefinition.  It\t is  an\t unqualified  sale  for\t the\npurposes of  the Act.  To insist  that an  article sold\t for\nanalysis  should   have\t been  offered\tfor  sale  or  human\nconsumption would  frustrate the  very object  of the Act. A\nperson selling\tan adulterated\tsample to  a Food  Inspector\ncould invariably  inform him  that  it\twas  not  for  human\nconsumption and\t thereby insure\t himself against prosecution\nfor selling  adulterated food.\tIf sale\t for analysis  is an\nunqualified sale  for the  purposes of\tthe Act, there is no\nreason why  other sales\t of the\t same article  should not be\nsales for the purposes of the Act. [66 B-C]\n     Mangaldas v.  State of  Maharashtra, AIR  1966  SC\t 128\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION :\t Criminal Appeal No.
\n236 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 18-1-1972\t of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 896\/70.\n<\/p>\n
     A. V. Rangam for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     A. T. M. Sampath for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. Gingelly  oil mixed  with  15%  of
\ngroundnut oil  was sold as gingelly oil by the respondent to
\nthe Food  Inspector, Thanjavur\tMunicipality. The defence of
\nthe respondent\twas that  he kept  the oil in his shop to be
\nsold, not  for human consumption, but, for external use. The
\nTrial Magistrate  did not  accept the  defence. He convicted
\nhim under s. 16(1) (a) (i) read with s. 2(1) (a) of the Food
\nAdulteration Act  and sentenced\t him to\t suffer imprisonment
\ntill
\n61<\/span>
\nthe rising  of the  Court and  to pay  a fine of Rs. 200. On
\nappeal, the  learned Sessions  Judge accepted the defence of
\nthe respondent and acquitted him to the charge. According to
\nthe learned  Sessions Judge,  the respondent  could  not  be
\nconvected unless  it was  established that  the sale  of the
\ngingelly oil  was for  human consumption. The State of Tamil
\nNadu preferred\tan appeal to the Madras High Court. The High
\nCourt confirmed\t the order  of acquittal. The State of Tamil
\nNadu has  filed this  appeal by special leave of this Court.
\nThe learned  counsel for  the State  of Tamil  Nadu made  it
\nclear to  us at\t the hearing that the State was not anxious,
\nat this\t distance of time (the occurrence was on 26-5-69) to
\nsecure a conviction, but was anxious that the legal position
\nshould be clarified. We accordingly proceed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 16(1)  (a) (i) as it stood at the relevant time
\nwas as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
     “16. (1) If any person-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)   whether by  himself or by any other person on his
\n\t  behalf imports  into\tIndia  or  manufactures\t for
\n\t  sale, or  stores, sells or distributes any article
\n\t  of food-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)   which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of
\n\t  which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority
\n\t  in the interest of public health;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  xx\t\t  xx\t\t xx\t       xx
\n     he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be
\n     liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable
\n     with imprisonment\tfor a  term which  shall not be less
\n     than six  months but which may extend to six years, and
\n     with fine\twhich shall  not be  less than\tone thousand
\n     rupees:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  if the  offence is  under sub-clause (i) of clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) and  is with  respect to\tan article  of\tfood
\n\t  which\t is  adulterated  under\t sub-clause  (1)  of
\n\t  clause (i)  of section  2 or misbranded under sub-
\n\t  clause (k) of clause (ix) of that section; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) if the  offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a), the  court may,\tfor any adequate and special
\n\t  reasons to  be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
\n\t  sentence of  imprisonment for\t a term of less than
\n\t  six months  or of  fine of  less than one thousand
\n\t  rupees or of both impri-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
62<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  sonment for  a term  of less\tthan six  months and
\n\t  fine of less than one thousand rupees.”
\n     Section 7 is also relevant and it was as follows:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “7. No  person shall  himself or  by any  person on his
\nbehalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute-\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  any adulterated food;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) any misbranded food;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iii) any\t article of  food for  the sale\t of which  a
\n\t  licence is  prescribed, except  in accordance with
\n\t  the conditions of the licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) any article  of food\tthe sale of which is for the
\n\t  time\tbeing\tprohibited  by\t the  Food  (Health)
\n\t  Authority in the interest of public health; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v)  any article  of food in contravention of any other
\n\t  provision  of\t  this\tAct  or\t of  any  rule\tmade
\n\t  thereunder.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “Food” is\tdefined by  s. 2(v) as meaning “any article”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs
\nand water and includes-\n<\/p>\n
     “(a) any article  which ordinarily\t enters into,  or is
\n\t  used in  the composition  or preparation  of human
\n\t  food, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  any flavouring matter or condiments.”
\n     “Sale” is defined by s. 2(xiii) as follows:-
\n     “Sale” with  its  grammatical  variations\tand  cognate
\n     expressions, means\t the sale  of any  article of  food,
\n     whether for cash or on credit or by way of exchange and
\n     whether by\t wholesale or  retail, for human consumption
\n     or use,  or for analysis, and includes an agreement for
\n     sale, an  offer for  sale, the  exposing  for  sale  or
\n     having in\tpossession for sale of any such article, and
\n     includes also an attempt to sell any such article;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 16(1)(a)(i)  read\twith  s.7(i)  prohibits\t and
\npenalises  the\t sale  of  any\tarticle\t of  food  which  is
\nadulterated   or    misbranded\t etc.\tThe   question\t for
\nconsideration is  whether the  sale of\tadulterated gingelly
\noil which  is sold  or offered\tfor sale for external use is
\nsale of\t an article  of food which is adulterated. This must
\ndepend upon the definitions of “sale” and “food” in the Act.\n<\/p>\n
63<\/span><\/p>\n
     According to  the definition  of “food”  which we\thave
\nextracted above,  for the  purposes of\tthe Act, any article
\nused as\t food or drink for human consumption and any article
\nwhich ordinarily  enters into  or is used in the composition
\nor preparation\tof human food is “food”. It is not necessary
\nthat it is intended for human consumption or for preparation
\nof human food. It is also irrelevant that it is described or
\nexhibited as  intended for  some other\tuse. It is enough if
\nthe  article   is  generally  or  commonly  used  for  human
\nconsumption or\tin the\tpreparation of\thuman  food.  It  is
\nnotorious  that\t  there\t are,  unfortunately,  in  our\tvast
\ncountry, large\tsegments of  population, who, living as they
\ndo, far\t beneath ordinary  subsistence level,  are ready  to
\nconsume that  which may\t otherwise be thought as not fit for
\nhuman consumption.  In order to keep body and soul together,
\nthey are  often tempted\t to buy\t and use  as food,  articles
\nwhich are  adulterated and  even unfit for human consumption
\nbut which are sold at inviting prices, under the pretence or
\nwithout pretence  that they  are intended  to  be  used\t for
\npurposes other\tthan human consumption. It is to prevent the
\nexploitation and  self-destruction of  these poor,  ignorant
\nand illiterate\tpersons that  the definition  of  “food”  is
\ncouched in such terms as not to take into account whether an
\narticle is  intended for  human consumption or not. In order
\nto be  “food” for  the purposes\t of the Act, an article need
\nnot be “fit” for human consumption; it need not be described
\nor exhibited  as intended for human consumption; it may even
\nbe otherwise  described or  exhibited; it  need not  even be
\nnecessarily intended  for human consumption; it is enough if
\nit is generally or commonly used for human consumption or in
\nthe preparation of human food. Where an article is generally
\nor commonly  not  used\tfor  human  consumption\t or  in\t the
\npreparation of\thuman  food  but  for  some  other  purpose,
\nnotwithstanding that  it may  be capable  of being  used, on
\nrare occasions,\t for human consumption or in the preparation
\nof human  food, it  may be  said, depending on the facts and
\ncircumstances of  the case, that it is not “food”. In such a
\ncase  the   question  whether\tit  is\tintended  for  human
\nconsumption or\tin the\tpreparation of human food may become
\nmaterial. But where the article is one which is generally or
\ncommonly used for human consumption or in the preparation of
\nhuman food, there can be no question but that the article is
\n“food”. Gingelly  oil, mixed  or not  with groundnut  oil or
\nsome other oil, whether described or exhibited as an article
\nof food\t for human consumption or as an article for external
\nuse only  is “food”  within the\t meaning of  the  definition
\ncontained in s. 2(v) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Most of  the High\tCourts appear  to have so understood
\nthe meaning of the word “food”, though there appears to have
\nbeen some
\n64<\/span>
\nconfusion  because   of\t a   misunderstanding\tof   certain
\nobservations of\t this Court  in Andhra\tPradesh Grain & Seed
\nMerchants’ Association\tv. Union  of India<\/a>(1)  and Shah Ashu
\nJaiwant v. State of Maharastra(2).\n<\/p>\n
     In the first case it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We are  again unable\t to accept the argument that
\n     under the\tAct even when an article is purchased not as
\n     an article\t of food,  but for use otherwise, the vendor
\n     will be  deemed guilty  if the article does not conform
\n     to the  prescribed standards,  or is  as an  article of
\n     food  adulterated\tor  misbranded.\t Counsel  said\tthat
\n     coconut oil is used in the State of Kerala as a cooking
\n     medium, and  sale of  adulterated coconut\toil  may  in
\n     Kerala be an offence under s. 16, but in other parts of
\n     the country  where coconut oil is not used as a cooking
\n     medium and\t is used  as a\tcomponent of hair oil or for
\n     other purposes,  it amounts to imposing an unreasonable
\n     restriction to  penalise the  vendor who  sells coconut
\n     oil knowing  that the  purchaser is  not buying it as a
\n     cooking medium. But there are no article which are used
\n     as food  only in  one part,  and are not at all used as
\n     food in  another part  of the country. Even coconut oil
\n     is used  as a cooking medium by certain sections of the
\n     people in\tparts of  India other  than Kerala.  In\t any
\n     event it  is always open to a person selling an article
\n     capable of\t being used as an article of food as well as
\n     for other\tpurpose to  inform the\tpurchaser  by  clear
\n     notice  that  the\tarticle\t sold  or  supplied  is\t not
\n     intended to  be used  as an  article of  food. What  is
\n     penalised by  s. 16(1)  is importation  manufacture for
\n     sale, or  storage, sale  or distribution of any article
\n     of food.  If what\tis imported  manufactured or stored,
\n     sold  or\tdistributed  is\t not  an  article  of  food,
\n     evidently s. 16 can have no application.”\n<\/p>\n
     In the second case it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Hence, where\t Section  7  prohibits\tmanufacture,
\n     sale or  storage or  distribution of  certain types  of
\n     “food”, it\t necessarily denotes  articles intended\t for
\n     human consumption\tas food.  It becomes the duty of the
\n     prosecution to  prove that\t the article  which  is\t the
\n     subject-matter of\tan offence  is ordinarily  used\t for
\n     human consumption as food whenever reason-\n<\/p>\n
65<\/span><\/p>\n
     able doubts  arise on this question. It is self-evident
\n     that certain  articles, such  as  milk,  or  bread,  or
\n     butter, or\t foodgrains are\t means for human consumption
\n     as food.  These are  matters of common knowledge. Other
\n     articles  may   be\t presumed  to  be  meant  for  human
\n     consumption from  representations made  about  them  or
\n     from circumstances in which they are offered for sale.”
\n     The seeming  confusion created  by the  observations in
\nthe two cases will disappear if they are properly understood
\nin the\tcontext in  which they\twere made. In the first case
\nthe Court  was\tconsidering  the  argument  based  upon\t the
\nsupposition that  there might  be articles which were “food”
\nsomewhere and not “food” elsewhere. The Court first remarked
\nthat there  were no articles which were used as food only in
\none part,  and were  not at all used as food in another part
\nof the\tcountry. In  such  an  unlikely\t event,\t the  person
\nselling the  article could  inform the\tpurchaser  that\t the
\narticle sold was not meant to be used as an article of food.
\nIf prosecuted  he could\t establish that in that area what he
\nsold was  not an  article of  food at all. That was all that
\nwas observed.  If the  expression “food” is understood as we
\nhave explained\tearlier, there\twould be no occasion for any
\nconfusion.\n<\/p>\n
     The observations  in the second case are in accord with
\nwhat we\t have said.  The Court merely observed that if there
\nwas any\t doubt in  a particular\t case whether an article was
\nordinarily used\t for human  consumption\t in  order  to\tfall
\nwithin the  definition of “food”, the prosecution would have
\nto prove the same
\n     That gingelly  oil, however  described or exhibited, is
\nan article  of food  is not  an end  of our problem. We have
\nfurther to  investigate the  definition of  “sale”. Now, the
\ndefinition is  designedly wide. It seems a real sale as well
\nas an  ’embryonic’ sale\t (like agreement for sale, offer for
\nsale, exposure\tfor sale,  possession for  sale, attempt  at
\nsale) are sales for the purposes of the Act. The sale may be
\nfor cash or credit or by way of exchange. The sale may be by
\nwhole-sale or  retail. Thus every kind, manner and method of
\nsale are  covered. Finally,  the  sale\tmay  be\t “for  human
\nconsumption or\tuse, or for analysis”. In the context, these
\nwords can  only mean  ‘whether for  human consumption or for
\nany other  purpose (including  analysis)’. The\tobject is to
\nemphasise that\twhatever be  the purpose of the sale it is a
\nsale for the purposes of the Act, just as the words “whether
\nby wholesale or retail” or “whether for cash or credit or by
\nway of\texchange” are  intended\t to  emphasise\tthat  it  is
\nimmaterial for the
\n66<\/span>
\npurposes of  the Act  what manner  and\tmethod\tof  sale  is
\nadopted. To  give any other interpretation to the definition
\nof “sale” would be to exclude from the ambit of the Act that
\nwhich  has  been  included  by\tthe  definition\t of  “food”.
\nFurther, a  sale “for  analysis” can  never be\ta sale\t“for
\nhuman consumption”  but it  is nonetheless a sale within the
\nmeaning of the definition. It is an unqualified sale for the
\npurposes of  the Act.  To insist  that an  article sold\t for
\nanalysis  should  have\tbeen  offered  for  sale  for  human
\nconsumption would  frustrate the  very object  of the Act. A
\nperson selling\tan adulterated\tsample to  a Food  Inspector
\ncould invariably  inform him  that  it\twas  not  for  human
\nconsumption and\t thereby insure\t himself against prosecution
\nfor selling  adulterated food.\tIf sale\t for analysis  is an
\nunqualified sale  for the  purposes of\tthe Act, there is no
\nreason why  other sales\t of the\t same article  should not be
\nsales for the purposes of the Act. The question may be asked
\nwhy sale  for analysis\tshould be specially mentioned if all
\nmanner of  sales are  included in the definition. It is only
\nto prevent  the argument  that sale  for analysis  is not  a
\nconsensual sale\t and hence  no sale,  an argument  which was
\nadvanced  and\trejected   in\tMangaldas   vs.\t  State\t  of
\nMaharashtra(1).\n<\/p>\n
     We are  therefore of  the\topinion\t that  the  sale  of
\ngingelly oil mixed with groundnut oil is punishable under s.
\n16(1)(a)(i) read  with s.2(1)(a)  notwithstanding  the\tfact
\nthat the  seller had  expressly stated\tat the\ttime of sale
\nthat it\t was intended  for external use only. We declare the
\nillegal position  as indicated in the earlier paragraphs but
\nwe refrain  from passing  any further  order in\t the  appeal
\nwhich we accordingly dismiss. We have not referred to any of
\nthe  decisions\t of  the  various  High\t Courts\t which\twere
\nconsidered by  us and  all of  which, we  may add, have been
\nstudiously  collected\tand   scrupulously   considered\t  by
\nMadhusudana Rao,  J. in\t Public Prosecutor  v. Rama  Chandra
\nRaju(2).\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n67<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 538, 1980 SCR (2) 59 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT: R. KRISHNAMURTHY DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/11\/1979 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) […]<\/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-53850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-15T10:30:49+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=\"17 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-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T10:30:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979\"},\"wordCount\":2543,\"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-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T10:30:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-15T10:30:49+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979","datePublished":"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T10:30:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979"},"wordCount":2543,"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-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-11-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T10:30:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-r-krishnamurthy-on-15-november-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Krishnamurthy on 15 November, 1979"}]},{"@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\/53850","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=53850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}