{"id":74066,"date":"2003-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003"},"modified":"2015-04-14T01:10:11","modified_gmt":"2015-04-13T19:40:11","slug":"murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 28\/07\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nC.A.No.497 of 2002\n\nMurugan                                                .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nState\nInspector of Police\nNIB\/CID Thuthukudi                              .. Respondent\n\n        This criminal appeal is preferred under S.374 of The Code of  Criminal\nProcedure  against  the  judgment  of the Special District and Sessions Judge,\nMadurai (Court constituted for N.D.P.S.  Act cases, Madurai) made in C.C.No.33\nof 1999 dated 10.9.2001.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.T.Munirathinam Naidu\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.O.Srinath,\n                Government Advocate (Crl.  Side)\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The sole accused, who stood charged, tried and convicted and sentenced<br \/>\nto undergo R.I.  for 10 years under S.8(c) r\/w 18 of the N.D.P.S.  Act and  to<br \/>\npay a  fine  of  Rs.1.00  lakh and in default to undergo R.I.  for 2 years has<br \/>\nbrought forth this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:<br \/>\n        P.W.6 Beski, Sub Inspector, attached to  NIB\/CID,  on  receipt  of  an<br \/>\ninformation on 15.10.1998 at about 10.00 A.M.  as to the transport of narcotic<br \/>\nsubstance, reduced the same into writing and informed the same by telephone to<br \/>\nP.W.7 Jeyakumar,  Inspector.    He  accompanied  by  P.W.1 H.Velusamy, Village<br \/>\nAdministrative Officer and his menial proceeded  to  the  Central  Bus  Stand,<br \/>\nTuticorin,  where  two  persons were identified in front of Paul Sornam Lodge.<br \/>\nOf those two persons, the appellant\/accused was one.  In the presence  of  the<br \/>\nwitnesses, they  were  enquired.   The appellant and the other person informed<br \/>\nthat they were in possession of two kilos of abin each.  They were informed of<br \/>\ntheir right that they could be  searched  before  a  Magistrate  or  before  a<br \/>\ngazetted Officer,  and  the  same  was  replied  not  necessary.    Under such<br \/>\ncircumstances, in the presence of the witnesses, the appellant and  the  other<br \/>\nperson  produced  the  parcels  what  they kept secret in their waist, and the<br \/>\nparcel produced by the appellant was unfolded.  It was weighed in the presence<br \/>\nof the witnesses.  The samples were taken, and they were given mark,  and  the<br \/>\nrest  was  also  put  in a parcel, and they were also given mark as B1 and B2.<br \/>\nThe seizure athatchi was prepared and signed by the witnesses.    The  accused<br \/>\nwas arrested  and  remanded  to  judicial  custody.   A report was sent to the<br \/>\nInspector, marked as Ex.P10 .  The F.I.R., the samples and  the  rest  of  the<br \/>\nseized contraband all were produced before the concerned Magistrate&#8217;s Court on<br \/>\nthe same  day.   On requisition, the samples were sent for analysis, while the<br \/>\nrest was returned to the Inspector to be kept in his custody.  On 21.10.1 998,<br \/>\nthe samples were sent for analysis, and they were accordingly done  and  found<br \/>\nto be a narcotic substance, according to the evidence of P.W.6.  On completion<br \/>\nof  the investigation, P.W.7 filed the charge sheet under S.8(c) r\/w 18 of the<br \/>\nNDPS Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In order to prove  the  charge  levelled  against  the  appellant\/<br \/>\naccused,  the  prosecution  examined  7 witnesses and marked 12 exhibits and 3<br \/>\nmaterial objects.  When the appellant\/accused was questioned  under  S.313  of<br \/>\nCr.P.C.   as  to  the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses, he denied the same as false.  No  defence  witness  was<br \/>\nexamined.    After  consideration  of  the  rival  submissions  and  materials<br \/>\navailable, the trial Court found him guilty under S.8(c) r\/w 18  of  NDPS  Act<br \/>\nand sentenced him as referred to above.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Arguing  for  the appellant, the learned Counsel interalia raised<br \/>\nthe following points:\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a) The first line of attack was that the place where  the  appellant,<br \/>\naccording  to  the  prosecution, was intercepted and seizure was made, was the<br \/>\nplace within the compound of one Sornam Lodge, and  hence,  even  as  per  the<br \/>\nevidence  available, it was a private place, and under such circumstances, the<br \/>\nmandatory provisions of S.42 of the NDPS Act should have been followed, but in<br \/>\nthe instant case, it  was  not  done  so,  and  thus,  it  was  fatal  to  the<br \/>\nprosecution  case,  and  the  lower Court should have rejected the case of the<br \/>\nprosecution.  In order to substantiate the same, the learned Counsel relied on<br \/>\nthe following decisions:  (1) 1997 Crl.L.J.  513; (2) 1998 Crl.L.J.   132  and<br \/>\n(3) 2000 Crl.L.  J.  1384.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b)  The  second point that was raised by the learned Counsel was that<br \/>\naccording to the prosecution case, the seizure was made on 15.10.98,  and  the<br \/>\ncontraband  seized  along  with the samples were produced before the concerned<br \/>\nMagistrate&#8217;s Court only on 16.10.98 and again produced before the  said  Court<br \/>\non  20.10.98;  and  that  there  is  no  evidence to show in whose custody the<br \/>\ncontraband was from 16.10.98 to 20.1 0.98.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c) Even for sending the samples for analysis, a huge delay  has  been<br \/>\nnoticed,  and  apart  from  that,  25 grams of samples was seized and sent for<br \/>\nanalysis.  But according to the evidence of P.W.5 Analyst,  the  samples  that<br \/>\nwas  sent  weighed  only  19.16  gram, and there was no possibility of loss of<br \/>\nweight when once it was  sealed  and  brought  for  analysis,  and  thus,  the<br \/>\nprosecution has not explained the said deficiency.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (d)  The  final report of the entire prosecution case should have been<br \/>\nsent to the immediate superiors by the concerned Officer as required  by  S.57<br \/>\nof the  NDPS  Act.    Though it was not mandatory, it has got to be taken into<br \/>\nconsideration along with the other aspects of the matter, which would no doubt<br \/>\naffect the prosecution case.  From the evidence of P.W.10, it would  be  clear<br \/>\nthat  no  such  report  was  received by him, and under the circumstances, the<br \/>\nlower Court should have rejected the case of the prosecution, and in  view  of<br \/>\nthe above noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused is<br \/>\nentitled for an acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   In  answer  to  the  above  contentions,  the  learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate (Criminal Side)  would  urge  that  the  prosecution  by  proper  and<br \/>\nsufficient evidence has proved that the appellant\/accused was in possession of<br \/>\nthe  contraband  namely  2  kilos  of abin, and after following the procedural<br \/>\nformalities, they were seized; that the place of interception and seizure  was<br \/>\nonly  a  public place, and hence, no question would arise as to the compliance<br \/>\nof S.42 of the NDPS Act, but, in the circumstances, it would attract only S.43<br \/>\nof the Act; that so far as the full report was concerned, the provisions under<br \/>\nS.57 of the Act does not spell any mandate, but, in the instant case, there is<br \/>\navailable evidence to show that actually such a report was perused  by  P.W.7,<br \/>\nthe  next  day;  that  according to the prosecution case, 25 grams of abin was<br \/>\ntaken as samples from the  seized  contraband  and  was  produced  before  the<br \/>\nconcerned  Magistrate&#8217;s  Court,  which has accordingly been sent for analysis,<br \/>\nand in such circumstances, the fact to that extent has been proved, and hence,<br \/>\nthe contention that 19.16 grams, according to P.W.1&#8217;s evidence, was  available<br \/>\nat  the  time of test, which is less than what has been taken naturally cannot<br \/>\nbe given much weight, as the prosecution agency had no hands to do anything in<br \/>\nthe same, and therefore, the lower Court was perfectly correct  in  convicting<br \/>\nthe  appellant\/accused,  and  the  judgment  of  the lower Court has got to be<br \/>\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  This Court has given its sincere and earnest consideration on  the<br \/>\ncontentions put  forth  by  either  side.   The Court is of the firm view that<br \/>\nthere is no substance in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The prosecution has proved through the evidence of  P.W.1  V.A.O.,<br \/>\nan independent  witness  that  on  15.10.1998 at about 10.00 A.M.  P.W.1 after<br \/>\ninforming the right of the appellant as to the search  as  contemplated  under<br \/>\nS.50 of the NDPS Act made a search of the packet which he voluntarily produced<br \/>\nand found two kilos of opium which was seized in the presence of the witnesses<br \/>\nunder the  mahazar.   Samples have been taken, and in doing so also, procedure<br \/>\nhas been followed.  All the samples and the contraband  were  produced  before<br \/>\nthe  concerned  Magistrate&#8217;s Court, and there is endorsement available to show<br \/>\nthat on production,  the  rest  of  the  contraband  namely  1950  grams,  the<br \/>\nremainder,  except  the  sample, was returned to be kept in the custody of the<br \/>\nDepartment, and the same was in the custody of the  Department  till  20.10.19\n<\/p>\n<p>98.  It  was  produced  before  the said Court.  Therefore it is futile on the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s side to state that there is no evidence as to the custody  of  the<br \/>\nsame from  the  period  16.10.98 to 20.10.98.  From the available evidence, it<br \/>\nwould be clear that it was in the custody of the Department.  The samples have<br \/>\nbeen subjected to test, and the narcotic substance has been found, as per  the<br \/>\nevidence of  P.W.5  Analyst.   Regarding the loss after the samples were taken<br \/>\nand before the test was made, the Court cannot give  much  weight.    In  this<br \/>\ncontext,  the  decision  of  the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT<br \/>\n2355 <a href=\"\/doc\/1936140\/\">(PON ADITHAN V.  DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,  MADRAS)  and<\/a><br \/>\nrelied  on  by the learned Government Advocate has got full application to the<br \/>\ncase on hand.  On that account, no doubt can be cast on the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   The  Court  is  unable  to  agree  with  the  contention  of  the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  side  that  the search was made not in a public place, but within<br \/>\nthe compound of the said lodge, and hence, mandatory provision of S.42 of  the<br \/>\nNDPS  Act  should  have  been complied with, in view of the fact that from the<br \/>\navailable materials and that the witnesses have clearly spoken to that effect.<br \/>\nThat apart, it is found in the mahazar &#8220;giHa g!; epiyak;.  EiHt[  thapy;  mUnf<br \/>\ncs;s ghy;  brhh;zk;  yhl;;$;  Kd;g[  itj; J&#8221;.  This place where the search and<br \/>\nseizure was made cannot at any stretch of imagination be  taken  to  be  as  a<br \/>\nprivate place.   Needless to say that it was a public place.  It has been held<br \/>\nby the Apex Court in a decision reported in (2002) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES  7  (<br \/>\nNARAYANASWAMY RAVISHANKAR VS.    ASSTT.    DIRECTOR,  DIRECTORATE  OF  REVENUE<br \/>\nINTELLIGENCE) that if search and seizure are conducted in a public  place,  in<br \/>\nsuch  case,  S.43  of  the NDPS Act is applicable and not S.42 of the Act, and<br \/>\nhence, the question of non-compliance, if any, of the provisions under S.42 of<br \/>\nthe NDPS Act in the instant case was wholly irrelevant.    Applying  the  said<br \/>\ndecision  of  the Apex Court, the said contention of the appellant&#8217;s side does<br \/>\nnot carry any substance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  In the light of the above reasons, the Court is of the  view  that<br \/>\nthere  is  no  merit  in  this  appeal, and the same deserves to be dismissed.<br \/>\nHowever, the Court is of the opinion that the default sentence awarded by  the<br \/>\ntrial Court namely 2 years R.I.  has got to be reduced.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  Therefore,  the  default sentence of R.I.  for 2 years imposed by<br \/>\nthe lower Court is modified, and in default of payment of fine awarded by  the<br \/>\nlower Court, the  appellant\/accused  shall  undergo  R.I.  for six months.  In<br \/>\nother respects, the judgment of the lower Court is confirmed.  With the  above<br \/>\nmodification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The Special District and Sessions Judge-NDPS, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>4) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>5) The D.I.G.  of Police, Chennai 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>6) Mr.O.Srinath, Government Advocate (Crl.  Side), High Court<br \/>\nMadras\n<\/p>\n<p>7) The Inspector of Police, NIB\/CID, Thuthukudi.\n<\/p>\n<p>vvk\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/07\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM C.A.No.497 of 2002 Murugan .. Appellant -Vs- State Inspector of Police NIB\/CID Thuthukudi .. Respondent This criminal appeal is preferred under S.374 of The Code of Criminal Procedure against the [&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-74066","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>Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003 - 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\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-13T19:40:11+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T19:40:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1823,\"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\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-13T19:40:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003 - 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\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-13T19:40:11+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T19:40:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003"},"wordCount":1823,"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\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003","name":"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-13T19:40:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugan-vs-state-on-28-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugan vs State on 28 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/74066","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=74066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}