{"id":63373,"date":"2009-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-24T15:53:37","modified_gmt":"2018-05-24T10:23:37","slug":"gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/07\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI\n\nCriminal Original Petition No.729 of 2009\n\t\t\t\t\n1.Gobi\n2.Rajesh\n3.Kaliappan\n4.Jeyachandran\n5.Natchimuthu                       .. Petitioners\n\nvs.\n\n1.The State Rep. By its\n  The Inspector of Police,\n  Kannivadi Police Station,\n  Dindigul District.\n\n2.Krishnamoorthy                    .. Respondents\n* * *\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of\nCriminal Procedure praying to pass an order to quash the order passed in\nS.C.NO.95 of 2003 dated 18.12.2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge(Chief\nJudicial Magistrate), Dindigul.\n* * *\n!For Petitioners ... Mr.T.Jeen Joseph\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.P.Rajendran For R1\n                     Govt. Advocate(Crl. Side)\n                     Mr.Sasikumar for R2\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to<br \/>\nquash the order passed in S.C.No.95 of 2003 dated 18.12.2003 by the learned<br \/>\nAssistant Sessions Judge(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The gist of the case is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) A criminal case has been instituted by the second respondent against<br \/>\nthe petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 436 r\/w 149  &amp; 506(ii)<br \/>\nof I.P.C and the same was tried before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge<br \/>\n(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dindigul and after trial, the learned Magistrate<br \/>\nconvicted and sentenced the petitioners in S.C.No.    95 of 2003  as per the<br \/>\njudgment dated 18.12.2003 as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>Sl  \tConviction\t\tSentence<br \/>\nNo.\tRecorded\t\tImposed<\/p>\n<p>1.\t147 I.P.C\t\tTo Pay a fine of Rs.100\/-(Rupees One Hundred Only)<br \/>\n\t\t\t\teach and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment<br \/>\n\t\t\t\tfor a period of one month.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t436 r\/w 149 I.P.C\tTo undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of<br \/>\n\t\t\t\tone year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500\/-(Rupees<br \/>\n\t\t\t\tFive Hundred Only) each and in default to undergo<br \/>\n\t\t\t\tRigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Against the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge<br \/>\n(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dindigul, the petitioners preferred an appeal in<br \/>\nCrl.A.No.1 of 2004  before the Fast Track Judge (Additional Sessions Judge),<br \/>\nDindigul and the same is pending before the said Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioners and the de-facto complainant are closely related and they have<br \/>\nentered into a compromise and they have filed a compromise petition before the<br \/>\nlearned Fast Track Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Dindigul on 31.05.2007 and<br \/>\nthe same was returned by the learned Judge without any endorsement.  Therefore,<br \/>\nthe petitioners has approached this Court to quash the conviction and sentence<br \/>\npassed in S.C.NO.95 of 2003  by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge(Chief<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate), Dindigul as per judgment dated 18.12.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in Mahesh Chand and another vs.<br \/>\nState of Rajasthan  reported in 1991 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 159,  wherein the<br \/>\nSupreme Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The offence not compoundable, however, in view of nature of the case and<br \/>\ncircumstances under which the offence committed, the trial Court directed to<br \/>\naccord permission to compound the offence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner  has also relied on the<br \/>\njudgment in B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another reported in<br \/>\n(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 for the same proposition.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6. Heard Mr.T.Jeen Joseph, learned counsel appearing for petitioner,<br \/>\nMr.P.Rajendran,  learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the first<br \/>\nrespondent and Mr.Sasikumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent<br \/>\nand perused the  materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. When the matter came up for hearing,  both the petitioners and the de-<br \/>\nfacto complainant, who is P.W.1 before the trial Court were present and they<br \/>\nhave also filed a compromise memo signed by both parties and that is recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The petitioners were charged for the offence under Sections 147, 148,<br \/>\n436 r\/w 149 &amp; 506(ii) of I.P.C.  However, they have found guilty and sentenced<br \/>\nfor the offence under Section 147 &amp; 436 r\/w 149 of I.P.C  by the learned<br \/>\nAssistant Sessions Judge(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dindigul by judgment dated<br \/>\n18.12.2003.  Against which an appeal is also pending before the learned  Fast<br \/>\nTrack Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Now, the petitioners have come forward with this petition before this<br \/>\nCourt stating that they have filed compromise petition before Fast Track Court,<br \/>\nDindugal, where the appeal is pending  and it was not admitted by the said<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Now the petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court<br \/>\nunder Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the conviction and sentence passed in<br \/>\nS.C.No.95 of 2003 by the Assistant Sessions Judge(Chief Judicial Magistrate),<br \/>\nDindigul on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The Section 482 of Cr.P.C has held as follows:<br \/>\n\t &#8220;Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be<br \/>\ndeemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such<br \/>\norders as may be necessary to give effect to  any order under the Code, or to<br \/>\nprevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of<br \/>\njustice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the judgment in <a href=\"\/doc\/1033637\/\">State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,<\/a> reported in 1992<br \/>\nSPP (1) SCC 335,   the principles and guidelines for quashing of complaints, the<br \/>\nFirst Information Report and criminal proceedings have been settled in terms<br \/>\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In my considered view, the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C<br \/>\ncannot be invoked to set aside the conviction and sentence and the only course<br \/>\navailable to the accused\/petitioners is to prefer an appeal or revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. However, the facts considered in Mahesh Chand and Another vs. State of<br \/>\nRajasthan reported in 1991 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 159,  is that the accused<br \/>\nwere acquitted by the trial Court, but they were convicted by the High Court for<br \/>\nthe offence under Section 307 I.P.C. However, that offence was not compoundable<br \/>\nunder law,  the parties wanted to treat the case as a special case as there has<br \/>\nbeen a compromise.  The Honourable Supreme Court had considered this point and<br \/>\nhas stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;3. We have our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put<br \/>\nforward for seeking permission to compound the offence.  After examining the<br \/>\nnature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed,<br \/>\nit may be proper that the trial Court shall permit them to compound the<br \/>\noffence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. I have no hesitation to follow the parameter laid down in the above<br \/>\ncase, considering the fact that the de-facto complainant and the accused are<br \/>\nclosely related, the alleged offence are under Section 147 &amp; 436 r\/w 149 I.P.C<br \/>\nand the conviction and sentence are minimum and the parties have compromised<br \/>\namong themselves and the parties are permitted to compound the offence, though<br \/>\nthey are not non-compoundable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In my considered view, the appropriate forum is that the Fast Track<br \/>\nCourt, Dindigul,  where the criminal appeal is pending for the consideration of<br \/>\ncompounding the offence, though the offences are non-compoundable, the Appellate<br \/>\nCourt is bound by the above judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and can<br \/>\ncompound the offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. Therefore, the petitioners and the      de-facto complainant are<br \/>\ndirected to appear before the Fast Track Court, Dindigul, wherein the criminal<br \/>\nappeal is pending to file a petition for compounding along with compromise memo<br \/>\nand the learned Fast Track Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Dindigul is<br \/>\ndirected to permit the petitioners and de-facto complainant to compound the<br \/>\noffence even though it is non-compoundable  as the offences are not serious in<br \/>\nnature and the sentence is very minimum.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith the above said direction, this petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>pm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Fast Track Judge<br \/>\n  (Additional Sessions Judge),<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Assistant Sessions Judge<br \/>\n (Chief Judicial Magistrate),<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Kannivadi Police Station,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/07\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Criminal Original Petition No.729 of 2009 1.Gobi 2.Rajesh 3.Kaliappan 4.Jeyachandran 5.Natchimuthu .. Petitioners vs. 1.The State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police [&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-63373","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009 - 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\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-24T10:23:37+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T10:23:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1178,\"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\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-24T10:23:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009 - 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\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-24T10:23:37+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T10:23:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009"},"wordCount":1178,"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\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009","name":"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-24T10:23:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gobi-vs-the-state-rep-by-its-on-27-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gobi vs The State Rep. By Its on 27 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/63373","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=63373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}