{"id":126853,"date":"2001-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001"},"modified":"2017-04-23T05:49:43","modified_gmt":"2017-04-23T00:19:43","slug":"union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K B Nair<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K Radhakrishnan, K B Nair<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. The point which arises for decision in both these Writ Appeals is whether the<br \/>\nimprisonment in jail as under trial prisoner cold be reckoned for computing the six<br \/>\nmonths period of imprisonment for getting freedom fighters pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The undisputed facts are the following:- The first petitioner in O.P.No. 31246\/99<br \/>\nis a freedom fighter. The other petitioner in that Original Petition and the petitioner in<br \/>\nO.P.No. 31395\/99 are the widows of freedom fighters. All of them are getting freedom<br \/>\nfighters pension\/freedom fighters family pension from the State Government. When<br \/>\nthe Central Government declared that Punnapra Vayalar struggle was also part of the<br \/>\nfreedom struggle, they became eligible for the Central pension also. But their<br \/>\napplications were not favourably considered because the imprisonment suffered by<br \/>\nthe concerned freedom fighters was as under trial prisoners and not as convicts.<br \/>\nAccording to Central Government, even though they were freedom<br \/>\nfighters in terms<br \/>\nof the scheme and were charge sheeted by the police in connection with the freedom<br \/>\nstruggle, they are not eligible for pension as their cases ended in acquittal. They were<br \/>\nonly under trial prisoners. So, they are ineligible for pension, the Central Government<br \/>\ncontended.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the decision in these cases will rest on the true construction of the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme known as Swatantrata Sainik<br \/>\nSamman Pension Scheme, 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Scheme has been provided as Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 31246\/1999. A freedom<br \/>\nfighter who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the main land jails<br \/>\nis eligible for pension. The relevant clause in the scheme given in paragraph 4(a) of<br \/>\nExt. P1 reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;4(a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland<br \/>\njails before independence. However, Ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the<br \/>\nimprisonment\/detention suffered by them was outside India.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>An explanation has been added to the said clause. The relevant portion of it reads as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1. Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as<br \/>\nimprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Period of normal remission upon one month will be treated as part of actual imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. In the case of a trial ending in conviction, under trial period will be counted towards<br \/>\nactual imprisonment suffered.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Broken period of imprisonment will be totalled up for computing the qualifying period.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) A person who remained underground for more than six months provided he was:\n<\/p>\n<p>1. a proclaimed offender; or <\/p>\n<p>2. one on whom an award for arrest\/head was announced; or <\/p>\n<p>2. one for whose detention order was issued but not served.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) A person interned in his home or externed from his district provided the period of<br \/>\ninterment\/externment was six months or more&#8230;..&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The main Clause 4(a) speaks of imprisonment only. It does not specify whether it<br \/>\nshould be as convict or as under trial prisoner. Going by the plain meaning of the<br \/>\nwords, the petitioners are eligible for pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. But, relying on Clause 3 of the explanation, the appellant has taken the stand<br \/>\nthat under trial period cannot be counted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge, the explanation, in fact, dilutes the thrust of the main provision providing for six<br \/>\nmonths imprisonment. Other forms of suffering and incarceration in connection with<br \/>\nthe freedom struggle are also deemed to be imprisonment for the purpose of minimum<br \/>\nimprisonment required as per the main provision. Explanation 3 only says that in<br \/>\ncases ending in conviction the imprisonment as under rial prisoner and as convict, can<br \/>\nbe clubbed together to reckon the total period of six months. It does not mean that if<br \/>\nthe entire detention is as under trial prisoner, the same has to be excluded. If that was<br \/>\nthe intention, the same would have been explicitly stated. The interpretation adopted<br \/>\nby the appellants cannot be correct,in view of Clause 4(b) of the Explanation. The<br \/>\nsaid provision says that if a freedom fighter was one who remained underground as a<br \/>\nproclaimed offender or against whom an award for arrest was pending, then he will<br \/>\nalso be eligible for pension. It means that if an accused absent himself and goes<br \/>\nunderground to escape the process of law like arrest, he will be eligible in view of this<br \/>\nclause irrespective of the final fate of the criminal case against him. But, if he was<br \/>\nactually arrested and remanded and while so, faced the trial which ultimately ended in<br \/>\nhis acquittal, he will not be eligible, if the Government&#8217;s contention is accepted. Further,<br \/>\nin view of Clause 4(c) of the Explanation, a person interned in his house for six months<br \/>\nis also eligible for pension. It means, a person even without any criminal case against<br \/>\nhim when prevented from moving out for six months from his house becomes eligible<br \/>\nfor pension. But, a person who is actually involved in a criminal case in connection<br \/>\nwith the freedom struggle and who was imprisoned for more than six months as under<br \/>\ntrial prisoner will be denied pension depending on the outcome of the criminal case<br \/>\nagainst him, if the view of the Government is accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The object of Ext. P1 scheme was to provide succour to the aged and infirm<br \/>\nfreedom fighters and their dependants in recognition of their sacrifice for the mother<br \/>\nland. Going by the settled cannons of construction, we are bound to adopt an<br \/>\ninterpretation which subserves best the object of the scheme. The freedom fighters<br \/>\nwere oppressed and harassed by criminal cases, house arrest etc. The evade the<br \/>\nprocess of law of the oppressive Government, many went underground. Undoubtedly,<br \/>\nthey are eligible for pension. Several others were arrested and false cases were<br \/>\nfoisted upon them. They languished in jail as under trial prisoners and some of them<br \/>\nlater suffered imprisonment as convicts also. Many false cases have ended in acquittal<br \/>\nof the freedom fighters. If the interpretation advanced by the appellant is accepted,<br \/>\nthose who suffered imprisonment as a result of foisting of false cases which ended in<br \/>\ntheir acquittal will be ineligible for the pension. Having regard to the laudable object of<br \/>\nthe scheme, the framers of it cannot be held to have such an intention. The intention<br \/>\nof the framers of the scheme can be gathered by reading the scheme as a whole.<br \/>\nThose who suffered internment in their house, and those who evaded arrest and became<br \/>\nproclaimed offenders or carried an award for arrest are made eligible for pension. It<br \/>\ncannot be said that the framers of the scheme did not intend the benefit of the scheme<br \/>\nbeing extended to those who suffered incarceration, owing to foisting of false cases,<br \/>\nas under trial prisoners. An intention cannot be attributed to the framers of the scheme<br \/>\nthat the eligibility of the prisoners should depend on the success or otherwise of the<br \/>\nprosecution in securing a conviction.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. The Court can definitely look at the whole scope and object of the Act to<br \/>\ngather the intention of it. Lord Porter in Raja Bhagwan Baksh Singh v. Secretary<br \/>\nof State (AIR 1940 Privy Council 82) said:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;A right construction of the Act can only be attained if its whole scope and object together<br \/>\nwith an analysis of its wording and the circumstances in which it is enacted are taken into<br \/>\nconsideration.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above statement of Lord Parker has been quoted with approval by our Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in Premchand Jain v. R.K. Chabra (1984 (2) SCC 301). It will be quite<br \/>\napposite to quote the following words of Judge Learned Hand:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Compunctions about judicial legislation are right enough as long as we have any genuine<br \/>\ndoubt as to the breadth of the legislature&#8217;s intent; and no doubt, the most important single factor<br \/>\nin ascertaining its intent is the words it employs. But the colloquial words of a Statute have not<br \/>\nthe fixed and artificial content of scientific symbols, they have a penumbra, a dim fringe, a<br \/>\nconnotation, for they express an attitude of will, into which it is our duty to penetrate and which<br \/>\nwe must enforce when we can ascertain it, regardless of imprecision in its expression.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(Quoted in 60 Harvard Law Review 370) <\/p>\n<p>7. Further, if the interpretation given to the scheme by the appellant is accepted,<br \/>\nthe same will result in gross injustice also. When persons under internment in the<br \/>\nhouse and those who went underground evading arrest are eligible for pension, those<br \/>\nwho were actually arrested and suffered torture as under trial prisoners, will be denied<br \/>\npension on the basis of the failure of the prosecution to prove the case against him.<br \/>\nMaxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition) says:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Whenever the language of legislature admits of two constructions and, if construed in one<br \/>\nway, would lead to obvious injustice, the courts act upon the view that such a result could not<br \/>\nhave been intended, unless the intention to bring it about has been manifested in plain words.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>One Supreme Court has also spoken in similar words in several cases. In Madhava<br \/>\nRao Scindia v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 530) Shah, J. said:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;The Court will interpret a Statute as far as possible, agreeably to justice and reason and<br \/>\nthat in case of two or more interpretations, one which is more reasonable and just will be adopted,<br \/>\nfor there is always a presumption against the law maker intending injustice and unreason. The<br \/>\nCourt will avoid imputing to the Legislature an intention to enact a provision which flouts notions<br \/>\nof justice and norms of fairplay, unless a contrary intention is manifest from words plain and<br \/>\nunambiguous. A provision in a stature will not be construed to defeat its manifest purpose and<br \/>\ngeneral values which animate its structure&#8230;..&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. When we read the scheme as a whole, in the light of the said principles, we<br \/>\nhave no hesitation to hold that the freedom fighters concerned in these cases are<br \/>\neligible for pension. On their death, their dependents are eligible. Therefore, we find<br \/>\nno infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge. We affirm the same. The<br \/>\nAppeal lack merit and they are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001 Author: K B Nair Bench: K Radhakrishnan, K B Nair JUDGMENT K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The point which arises for decision in both these Writ Appeals is whether the imprisonment in jail as under trial prisoner cold be reckoned for computing [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-23T00:19:43+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\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-23T00:19:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1700,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-23T00:19:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-23T00:19:43+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\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-23T00:19:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001"},"wordCount":1700,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001","name":"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-23T00:19:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-lonan-benjamin-on-1-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Lonan Benjamin on 1 November, 2001"}]},{"@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\/126853","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=126853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}