{"id":8041,"date":"2003-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003"},"modified":"2018-12-02T18:13:17","modified_gmt":"2018-12-02T12:43:17","slug":"adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 24\/02\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.4823 OF 2003\nAND\nCRL.M.P.No.1718 OF 2003.\n\n1.Adimadavan\n2.Damodaran\n3.K.G.Krishna                           ... Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.State, by\n  the Sub Divisional Executive\n  Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional\n  Officer, Salem.\n  (Na.Ka.No.5430\/2002\/A2)\n\n2.The Inspector of Police,\n  Shevapet P.S., Salem.\n  (Cr.No.381\/2002)                      ... Respondents\n\n\n        Criminal Original Petition filed under Section  482  of  the  Code  of\nCriminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioners :  Mr.M.Mohanasundaram\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.O.Srinath,\n                Government Advocate\n                (Crl.side)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 48 2<br \/>\nof  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  praying  to  call  for  the records in<br \/>\nRoc.No.5430\/2002\/A2  on   the   file   of   the   Sub   Divisional   Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The petitioners, who are `A&#8217; party respondents No.1,4 and 6 among<br \/>\nseven in the row, in which the `B&#8217; party respondents are also six  in  number,<br \/>\nin  the above proceeding initiated by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate,<br \/>\nSalem against both the parties under Section  107  of  the  Code  of  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure,  have  come  forward  to  file the above criminal original petition<br \/>\nseeking for the relief extracted supra  on  grounds  such  as  that  the  said<br \/>\nExecutive  Magistrate, as per his preliminary order dated 28.1.2003 has called<br \/>\nfor the petitioners to appear before him on  31.1.2003  at  10.00  a.m.    and<br \/>\nshow-cause  as  to why the petitioners should not be directed to execute bonds<br \/>\nfor maintenance of peace and tranquility in the  area  under  Section  107  of<br \/>\nCr.P.C.  and that the said order is bad for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)that  the order is not sustainable in law as per Section 111 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure since it has not set forth the substance of the information<br \/>\nreceived and the term in which the bond has to be executed;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)that the Executive Magistrate  has  to  pass  a  preliminary  order  under<br \/>\nSection 111 of the Cr.P.C.  but not under Section 107 of the Cr.P.  C.;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)that  one  incidence  by  itself cannot be an occasion for initiating the<br \/>\nproceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C.;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)that the Executive Magistrate has committed  an  error  in  requiring  the<br \/>\npetitioners to execute the bonds, even before he had commenced the enquiry;\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)that the instance cited do not connect all the petitioners;\n<\/p>\n<p>(vi)that  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  Magistrate  has made an<br \/>\nobjective assessment about the truth and the urgency of the  information  laid<br \/>\nbefore him;\n<\/p>\n<p>(vii)that the Executive Magistrate has passed the order without application of<br \/>\nmind  since  there  is  no  averment  in  the  order  as  to how the Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate has arrived at his subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood<br \/>\nof breach of public peace and tranquility.\n<\/p>\n<p>On such grounds, the petitioners have prayed for  the  quash  the  preliminary<br \/>\norder passed by the Executive Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   During  arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioners would lay emphasis on the same points  which  have  been  set  out<br \/>\nabove and would pray to quash the proceedings.  On the other hand, the learned<br \/>\nGovernment  Advocate  on  the  criminal  side,  appearing  on  behalf  of  the<br \/>\nrespondents, would submit that the learned Executive Magistrate  has  complied<br \/>\nwith all the legal requirements, such as the source of information, likelihood<br \/>\nof  the breach of peace and disturbance for public tranquility and that in the<br \/>\nopinion of the Executive Magistrate, if any  person  is  likely  to  commit  a<br \/>\nbreach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any lawful act that<br \/>\nmay  probably  occasion  a  breach  of the peace, the Executive Magistrate may<br \/>\nrequire such person to show-cause as to  why  he  should  not  be  ordered  to<br \/>\nexecute  the bond with or without surety for keeping the peace for such period<br \/>\nnot exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit.  The  learned  Government<br \/>\nAdvocate would  also focus his attention on Section 111 Cr.P.C.  regarding the<br \/>\norder that is to be made as it  has  been  made  in  the  case  in  hand,  the<br \/>\nrequirements  of  which  are  that  he shall make the order in writing setting<br \/>\nforth the substance  of  information  received,  the  amount  of  bond  to  be<br \/>\nexecuted,  the  term  for  which  it  is to be in force and the particulars of<br \/>\nsureties, if any required and therefore the learned Government Advocate  would<br \/>\nultimately pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   In  consideration  of  the  facts  pleaded,  having regard to the<br \/>\nmaterials placed on record and  upon  hearing  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioners and the learned Government Advocate contra, what could be assessed<br \/>\nis  that  the petitioners, who are the members of `A&#8217; party respondents in the<br \/>\nproceeding  initiated  by  the  Sub  Divisional  Executive  Magistrate-cum-the<br \/>\nRevenue  Divisional  Officer,  Salem, raising certain grounds and quoting some<br \/>\njudgments delivered in the past, which have been rendered to  suit  the  facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of those cases dealt with by the learned Judges in the past,<br \/>\nhave  come forward to file the above criminal original petition and this Court<br \/>\nis of the view that it is necessary to find out on those grounds  raised  that<br \/>\nwhether  the  order made by the first respondent\/the Sub Divisional Magistrate<br \/>\nis proper or in violation of the provisions of law covering the subject.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  At the outset, it must be mentioned that the order has  been  made<br \/>\nunder Section  111  of the Cr.P.C.  and therefore factually it is false on the<br \/>\npart of the petitioners to allege that the order has been made  under  Section<br \/>\n107 Cr.P.C.   It could be further seen that in the first paragraph of the said<br \/>\norder, the learned Magistrate has made it clear as  to  what  is  the  subject<br \/>\nmatter,  giving  the  cause  of  action  for  such  an order to be made by the<br \/>\nMagistrate so as to arrive at the conclusion that there is the  likelihood  of<br \/>\nbreach  of  peace  and  disturbance  to  the  tranquility  of  the subject and<br \/>\ntherefore it cannot also be said that the reason for invoking  the  provisions<br \/>\nof law  under  Sections  107  and  111  Cr.P.C.  has not been mentioned in the<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  It is further glaringly seen that on an information  furnished  by<br \/>\nthe  Shevapet  Police  authorities  in connection with the Crime No.381\/2 002,<br \/>\ndated 27.6.2002 and submitting the first information report in the said  case,<br \/>\nthe  said  police  have  requested  the  learned  Magistrate  to  initiate the<br \/>\nproceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C.  and therefore the source of  information<br \/>\nis also  made  very  clear.   It cannot be definitely said that on a single or<br \/>\nisolated event that has occurred,  a  proceeding  cannot  be  initiated  under<br \/>\nSection 107  Cr.P.C..    Even  if  it is a single incident or without any such<br \/>\nincident having taken place, if the Magistrate receives any  information  that<br \/>\nany  person  is  likely  to  commit  a  breach  of peace or disturb the public<br \/>\ntranquility or to do any wrongful act that may  probably  occasion  breach  of<br \/>\npeace  and  tranquility  or  disturb  the public tranquility, it is sufficient<br \/>\nground for the Magistrate to  initiate  such  a  proceeding  as  it  has  been<br \/>\nresorted to by the learned Magistrate in the case in hand so as to require the<br \/>\n`A&#8217;  and  `B&#8217;  party  respondents  to  show-cause as to why they should not be<br \/>\nordered to execute the bond for keeping peace in the area.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It could also be further seen that the learned Magistrate has made<br \/>\na mention of the period for which the bond has to be executed being  one  year<br \/>\nwhich  is  the  maximum period given by law and also the amount of Rs.60,000\/=<br \/>\nbeing the amount of bond that is to be executed by the party  respondents  and<br \/>\nin  such  event  there  is  also  no  enquiry need be conducted as it has been<br \/>\nclaimed on the part of the petitioners for issuing such  a  preliminary  order<br \/>\nand  after  having  issued  the  said  order, the Magistrate could conduct the<br \/>\nenquiry as he is pleased to have it whether within the local  jurisdiction  or<br \/>\noutside the  jurisdiction  or  even  beyond  his jurisdiction.  Therefore, the<br \/>\npreliminary order requiring the party respondents much  less  the  petitioners<br \/>\nissued   in  the  proceeding  mentioned  supra  by  the  first  respondent\/Sub<br \/>\nDivisional Executive Magistrate-cum-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem is a<br \/>\nperfect order made in compliance with the requirements of both  Sections  1097<br \/>\nand 111  of  the Cr.P.C.  and there is no inconsistency or infirmity or patent<br \/>\nerror which are said to have occurred in the subject satisfaction  arrived  at<br \/>\nby  the  learned  Magistrate  so  as to issue the said order and therefore the<br \/>\ninterference of this Court sought tobe  made  into  the  well  considered  and<br \/>\nmerited  order  passed  by  the  first  respondent is not only unnecessary but<br \/>\nunwarranted as well and hence the following order:\n<\/p>\n<p>        In result, there is no merit in the above criminal  original  petition<br \/>\nand the same deserves only to be dismissed and is dismissed as such.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.1718 of 2003 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\nRao<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Sub Divisional Executive<br \/>\nMagistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional<br \/>\nOfficer, Salem.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nShevapet P.S., Salem.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nHigh Court of Madras,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24\/02\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.4823 OF 2003 AND CRL.M.P.No.1718 OF 2003. 1.Adimadavan 2.Damodaran 3.K.G.Krishna &#8230; Petitioners -Vs- 1.State, by the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem. (Na.Ka.No.5430\/2002\/A2) 2.The Inspector of [&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-8041","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>Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 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\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-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=\"2003-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-02T12:43:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-02T12:43:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1441,\"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\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-02T12:43:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 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":"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 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\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-02T12:43:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-02T12:43:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003"},"wordCount":1441,"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\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003","name":"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-02T12:43:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adimadavan-vs-state-on-24-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Adimadavan vs State on 24 February, 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\/8041","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=8041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}