{"id":55313,"date":"2007-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007"},"modified":"2018-06-10T04:48:24","modified_gmt":"2018-06-09T23:18:24","slug":"a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 05\/01\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nHCP (MD) No.368 of 2006\n\n\nA.Raju\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by\n   the Secretary to Government,\n  Department of Excise and Prohibition,\n  Secretariat, Fort St.George,\n  Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The District Collector and\n   District Magistrate,\n  Tiruchirappalli District,\n  Tiruchirappalli.\n\n3.The Inspector of Police,\n  Thuvarankurichy Police Station,\n  Manapparai Sub-Division,\n  Tiruchirappalli District.\t... Respondents\n\n\n\t\tPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus by calling for the records relating to the\norder of detention in Crl.M.P.No.69\/2006, dated 23.09.2006, passed by the second\nrespondent and set aside the same and set the detenue Tmt.Dhanam, wife of\nDharmaraj, at liberty.\n\n!For Petitioner   ...  Mr.T.M.Madasamy\n\n^For Respondents  ..   Mr.N.Senthurpandian,\n\t\t       Addl.Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN,J)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn this habeas corpus petition, the detention of one Dhanam, wife of<br \/>\nDharmaraj, passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate,<br \/>\nTiruchirappalli District  by the order in Crl.M.P.No.69\/2006, dated 23.09.2006,<br \/>\nunder the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is questioned.  By that order,<br \/>\nthe detenue has been branched as a &#8220;bootlegger&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.As the order of detention is questioned on the ground that the<br \/>\npre-detention representation dated 27.08.2006, made by the petitioner on behalf<br \/>\nof the detenue was not considered by the detaining authority before passing the<br \/>\norder of detention, we are not elaborating the various other details leading  to<br \/>\nthe order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.It is the case of the petitioner that a pre-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation was sent to the detaining authority and the same was acknowledged<br \/>\nby him on 28.08.2006.  Nevertheless the same was not considered.  Non-<br \/>\nconsideration of pre-detention representation amounts to violation of<br \/>\nfundamental rights guaranteed and hence the order of detention is vitiated and<br \/>\nconsequently is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.In the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, the<br \/>\nfactum of receipt of such pre-detention representation is not disputed.  On the<br \/>\nother hand, it is stated that as the sponsoring authority has filed a sworn-in-<br \/>\naffidavit on 04.09.2006 and the process for detention was initiated only<br \/>\nthereafter, the representation if any  prior to the date of sworn-in-affidavit<br \/>\ncannot be taken for consideration as the cause of action emanates from the date<br \/>\nof sworn-in-affidavit only.  Hence the contention of the petitioner is liable to<br \/>\nbe only rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.Considering the above factual position, it is to be now considered<br \/>\nas to whether consideration of pre-detention representation depends on the date<br \/>\nof sworn-in-affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining<br \/>\nauthority or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.Before  delve upon the above contentious issue, it would be<br \/>\nappropriate to refer to the pre-detention representation, dated 27.08.2006, sent<br \/>\nby the petitioner to the detaining authority.  In the said representation, the<br \/>\npetitioner had stated that he came to know that the detenue was forcibly taken<br \/>\nin a car at about 5.30 a.m. on 22.08.2006 by the Valanadu Police and thereafter<br \/>\nthe whereabouts of the detenu was not known.  When the petitioner had enquired<br \/>\nwith the Valanadu Police, he was informed that a case has been registered<br \/>\nagainst the detenue under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and she<br \/>\nhas been lodged in the Central Prison, Trichy.  When the petitioner met the<br \/>\ndetenue in the prison on 24.08.2005, he was informed by the detenue that she was<br \/>\ncompelled to plead guilty to avoid detention under the Act 14 of 1982 and she<br \/>\nwas also threatened that in the event of not acceding the same, an order of<br \/>\ndetention will be clamped on her.  Hence she pleaded guilty and the fine amount<br \/>\nwas paid by the police themselves.  It is also stated that within 20 days, the<br \/>\nrespondent police had registered atleast three cases and in all those cases the<br \/>\npolice made the detenue to plead guilty and fine amounts were also paid by the<br \/>\npolice.  With the above allegation, the representation was made to the detaining<br \/>\nauthority that the respondent police was contemplating action to clamp an order<br \/>\nof detention on the detenue and therefore the detaining authority was requested<br \/>\nto take appropriate action against the  Valanadu Police who had foisted false<br \/>\ncases on the detenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.From the above narration of the facts found in the pre-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation, it is specifically alleged that the detenue had not only been<br \/>\narrested on 22.08.2006, but was arrested on  three occasions as well and in all<br \/>\nthose occasions she was made to plead guilty and the fine amount was also paid<br \/>\nby the police.  She was compelled to plead guilty only at the threat that in the<br \/>\nevent the detenue did not plead guilty she will be branded as a bootlegger and<br \/>\ndetained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.  The contents in the<br \/>\npre-detention representation are very much relevant at the time when the<br \/>\ndetaining authority considers the sworn-in-affidavit of the very same police to<br \/>\narrive at a conclusion to pass an order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.Article 22 of the Constitution of India provides various<br \/>\nsafeguards calculated to protect the personal liberty against arbitrary<br \/>\nrestraint without trial and the safeguards can be regarded as substantial.  The<br \/>\nobservance of principles of natural justice, which is intended to act as a check<br \/>\non arbitrary exercise of power, is one of the safeguards enunciated under the<br \/>\nsaid Article.  The procedural  requirements under the said provision embodies<br \/>\nthe rule of audi alteram partem to limited, crucial and compulsive extent by<br \/>\nproviding that when a person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any<br \/>\nlaw providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall<br \/>\ntake into consideration all the materials available including the pre-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.Right to make a representation is considered to be a fundamental<br \/>\nright which includes not only when a representation is made  after  the  order<br \/>\nof detention, but also even prior to such an order of detention is passed.  In<br \/>\nanticipation of any order of detention, the detenu or his family members or<br \/>\nrelatives are entitled to make a representation to the detaining authority<br \/>\nbringing to his notice that a calculated false  attempt is being made by the<br \/>\npolice, namely sponsoring authority, to clamp an order of detention by<br \/>\napproaching the detaining authority with an sworn-in-affidavit. A representation<br \/>\nof the detenu whose liberty is in peril cannot be either ignored or lightly<br \/>\nviewed and must be considered.  As orders of detention are usually passed on the<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as to the materials available<br \/>\nand the necessity to detain an individual by-passing the normal procedure<br \/>\nestablished by law to bring the accused before the court, it is incumbent on the<br \/>\ndetaining authority not only to consider the materials paced before him by the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority but also the pre-detention representation received by him.<br \/>\nNon-consideration of such representation would vitiate the order of detention.<br \/>\nThis has been held in the judgment reported in 2003(1) CTC 616 &#8211; <a href=\"\/doc\/13314\/\">A.Pushparani<br \/>\nvs.  The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore.  The Supreme Court<\/a> in<br \/>\nthe judgment reported in 1994 SCC (Crl.) 229 &#8211; District Magistrate and another<br \/>\nvs.  R.Kumaravel has also held that pre-detention representation has to be<br \/>\nnecessarily considered at the time of passing of the grounds of detention and in<br \/>\nthe absence of the same, the order gets vitiated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.There is no controversy over the factual aspect in this case,<br \/>\nthat on the date when the grounds of detention was made and the order of<br \/>\ndetention was passed, the receipt of pre-detention representation was<br \/>\nacknowledged by the detaining authority and the same was available for<br \/>\nconsideration.  The question as to whether the detaining authority is obligated<br \/>\nto consider the  pre-detention representation only after an affidavit of the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority is received by him falls for further consideration.  The<br \/>\nobject of consideration of the representation, be it a pre-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation or a representation after the detention order is clamped, is to<br \/>\nensure the safeguard of personal  liberty enshrined on an individual from<br \/>\narbitrary detention.  The object being so, in our opinion, it cannot be<br \/>\ncontended that only such of those representations which are acknowledged by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority after the receipt of sworn-in-affidavit by the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority alone could be considered.  Such an interpretation, if accepted, would<br \/>\ndefeat the very object of the fundamental right guaranteed on an individual to<br \/>\nsafeguard his personal liberty and to question the arbitrary exercise of power<br \/>\nby the authorities by clamping an order of preventive detention. In fact, it<br \/>\nwill be appropriate to hold that when the representation was made even before<br \/>\nthe sponsoring authority files his sworn-in-affidavit and the same is received<br \/>\nby the detaining authority, it has much force in its contents and must be<br \/>\nconsidered especially when it was alleged that the sponsoring authority, namely<br \/>\nInspector of Police, Thuvarankurichi Police Station, had earlier arrested the<br \/>\ndetenue atleast on three occasions within a short span of time and made her to<br \/>\nplead guilty under compulsion, namely in the event of refusal she will be<br \/>\ndetained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.  When such a<br \/>\nspecific case was put-forth by the petitioner in the pre-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation, the non consideration of such a plea would certainly vitiate the<br \/>\norder of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.The theory that the detaining authority is obligated to consider<br \/>\nany pre-detention representation received only after the filing of sworn-in-<br \/>\naffidavit of the sponsoring authority, as the cause of action for such<br \/>\nconsideration arises for the detaining authority only after  the affidavit of<br \/>\nthe sponsoring authority, cannot be accepted, as cause of action is not relevant<br \/>\nin the cases of preventive detention as the representation is only to ensure<br \/>\nthat the grievance exposed in the representation are to be freely and fairly<br \/>\nconsidered by the detaining authority.  In case of preventive detention, the<br \/>\ndetaining authority if considers such pre-detention representation, there is<br \/>\nevery possibility that he could come to a different conclusion and even refrain<br \/>\nfrom passing an order of detention.   In this context, the consideration of the<br \/>\npre-detention representation and application of mind by the detaining authority<br \/>\nauthority on such representation assume importance.  Non-consideration of such<br \/>\nrepresentation would certainly amount to non- application of mind and<br \/>\nconsequently vitiate the order of detention.    Further, it must also be kept in<br \/>\nmind that either the detenu or the person making a pre-detention representation<br \/>\non behalf of the detenu  could only plead an apprehension that the detenu may be<br \/>\nclamped with an order of detention.  The factum of filing of a sworn-in-<br \/>\naffidavit by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority is beyond<br \/>\nthe knowledge or information of the detenu or the person who makes the pre-<br \/>\ndetention representation.  Such right to make a representation is independent<br \/>\nand indefeasable and has nothing to do with the affidavit of sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.Hence for all the above reasons, we hold that even pre-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation received by the detaining authority much prior to the sworn-in-<br \/>\naffidavit filed by the sponsoring authority should be considered by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority before forming any satisfaction to pass an order of<br \/>\ndetention and failure to consider such representation would violate the<br \/>\nfundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and<br \/>\nconsequently vitiates the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the<br \/>\nimpugned order of detention in Cr.M.P.NO.69\/2006, dated 23.09.2006, passed by<br \/>\nthe second respondent is quashed.  The detenue is directed to be set at  liberty<br \/>\nforthwith, unless her presence is required in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>gb.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Department of Excise and Prohibition,<br \/>\n  Secretariat, Fort St.George,<br \/>\n  Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Collector and<br \/>\n   District Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Tiruchirappalli District,<br \/>\n  Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Thuvarankurichy Police Station,<br \/>\n  Manapparai Sub-Division,<br \/>\n  Tiruchirappalli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05\/01\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA HCP (MD) No.368 of 2006 A.Raju &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Department of Excise and [&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-55313","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>A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007 - 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\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-09T23:18:24+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\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T23:18:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1830,\"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\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007\",\"name\":\"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T23:18:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007 - 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\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-09T23:18:24+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\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T23:18:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007"},"wordCount":1830,"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\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007","name":"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T23:18:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-raju-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Raju vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/55313","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=55313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}