{"id":131999,"date":"2007-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007"},"modified":"2018-12-26T22:47:35","modified_gmt":"2018-12-26T17:17:35","slug":"a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 26\/03\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN\n\nCriminal Appeal No.765 of 2001\n\n\nA.Balakrishnan \t.. Appellant\n\nVs\n\nKalaipuli G.Sekaran\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Crl.P.C. against the order\nof acquittal passed in C.C.No.276 of 1997 by the learned Judicial Magistrate\nNo.1, Madurai.\n\n\n!For Appellant \t   : Mr.M.Subash Babu\n\n^For  Respondent   : Mr.P.Sathyamurthy\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.276<br \/>\nof 1997 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta)The complainant is a Distributor of cine films. The accused is both<br \/>\nproducer and an actor.  The complainant on earlier occasions had business<br \/>\ndealings with the accused and thus gave an opportunity for both of them to know<br \/>\neach other well.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb)The accused produced a Tamil picture viz.&#8217;Kudumba Sangili&#8217; and at that<br \/>\ntime he was in an emergent need of money.  Hence, he approached the complainant<br \/>\nto lend him a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs with a promise to repay the amount with<br \/>\ninterest.  The accused also promised to issue a post dated cheque in favour of<br \/>\nthe complainant.  Therefore, on 4.11.1996, the complainant gave a sum of Rupees<br \/>\nFive Lakhs in cash to the accused.  The accused also received the cash and gave<br \/>\nthe  post-dated cheque bearing No.948084 dated 4.12.1996 drawn in Canara bank,<br \/>\nVadapalani, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tc)Inspite of demand made by the complainant, the accused did not repay the<br \/>\namount.  Therefore, on 12.5.1997, the complainant presented the above said<br \/>\ncheque No.948084.\n<\/p>\n<p>However, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement &#8216;Funds<br \/>\nInsufficient&#8217;.  Therefore, the complainant through his counsel sent a notice<br \/>\ndated 1.6.1997 to the accused.  The said notice was returned with an endorsement<br \/>\n&#8221;always door locked&#8221;.  However, the other notice which was sent by<br \/>\n&#8216;Certificate of Posting&#8217; had been duly served on the accused and the accused<br \/>\nalso sent a reply on 10.6.1997 with untrue, imaginary and invented versions and<br \/>\nallegations.  Hence the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The complainant in order to bring home the charges against the accused,<br \/>\nexamined P.Ws 1 &amp; 2 and  filed Ex.P1 to P5.   On the side of defence, D.Ws 1 to<br \/>\n3 were examined and D.W.1-the report of the Forensic Lab was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.On consideration of  the entire evidence on record, the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate I, Madurai,  found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the<br \/>\ncharges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Challenging the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai,<br \/>\nthe above appeal has been filed by the complainant \/appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.Point for Determination:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.whether the respondent has committed the offence       \t   under<br \/>\nSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPOINTS FOR DETERMINATION:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.P.W.1-complainant is a Distributor of cine films. The accused is both<br \/>\nproducer and an actor.  The complainant on earlier occasions had business<br \/>\ndealings with the accused and thus gave an opportunity for both of them to know<br \/>\neach other well.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The accused produced a Tamil picture viz.&#8217;Kudumba Sangili&#8217; and for<br \/>\ncompletion of that film, he was in an emergent need of money.  Hence, he<br \/>\napproached the complainant to lend him a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs with a promise<br \/>\nto repay the amount with interest.  The accused also promised to issue a post<br \/>\ndated cheque in favour of the complainant.  Therefore, on 4.11.1996, the<br \/>\ncomplainant gave a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs in cash to the accused.  The accused<br \/>\nalso received the cash and gave the post-dated cheque bearing No.948084 dated<br \/>\n4.12.1996 drawn in Canara bank, Vadapalani, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.It is stated that inspite of demand made by the complainant, the accused<br \/>\ndid not pay the amount.  Therefore, on 12.5.1997, the complainant presented the<br \/>\nabove said cheque No.948084.   However, the said cheque was dishonoured with an<br \/>\nendorsement &#8216;Funds Insufficient&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.It is the case of the respondent that the cheque was given to one<br \/>\nPandiyan in respect of the film produced by him and when said Pandiyan was not<br \/>\nwilling to purchase the film, in order to compromise the matter, he gave a blank<br \/>\ncheque to Pandiyan and the said cheque was misused by P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.No doubt, in the Cheque-Ex.P1, the date and the signature was written<br \/>\nby the accused, but the body of the cheque was written by another person.  This<br \/>\nis admitted by P.W.1.  But, P.W.1 is unable to say who wrote the body of the<br \/>\ncheque.   In this case, the cheque was sent to Finger Prints Experts and the<br \/>\nreport was also received.  This was spoken by D.W.3-Court Head Clerk.  However,<br \/>\nthe Finger Print Expert was not examined.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The learned counsel for the appellant\/complainant relied on the<br \/>\ndecision of the Superme Court in STATE OF H.P. Vs JAI LAL AND OTHERS reported in<br \/>\n1999 SCC (Crl) 1184, wherein in paragraph Nos.17 to 19, it has been observed as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;17.Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts<br \/>\nadmissible lays down that when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of<br \/>\nforeign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger<br \/>\nimpressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such<br \/>\nforeign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or<br \/>\nfinger impressions are relevant facts.  Therefore, in order to bring the<br \/>\nevidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has to<br \/>\nmake a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or<br \/>\nin other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.An expert is not a witness of fact.  His evidence is really of an<br \/>\nadvisory character.  The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with<br \/>\nthe necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy fo the conclusions so<br \/>\nas to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of<br \/>\nthis criteria to the facts proved by the<\/p>\n<p>evidence of the case.  The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible,<br \/>\nconvincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for<br \/>\nconsideration along with the other evidence of the case.  The credibility of<br \/>\nsuch a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and<br \/>\nthe date and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.The report submitted by an expert   does not go in evidence<br \/>\nautomatically.  He is to be examined as a witness in court and has to face<br \/>\ncross-examination.  This Court in the case of Hazi Mohammad Ekramul Haq V. State<br \/>\nof W.B. concurred with the finding of the High Court in not placing any reliance<br \/>\nupon the evidence of an expert witness on the ground that his evidence was<br \/>\nmerely an opinion unsupported by any reasons.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.No doubt, expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of<br \/>\nan advisory character.  In the case on hand, though expert was not examined, his<br \/>\nevidence is only advisory in character.  So, it cannot be the basis for any<br \/>\nconviction.  Further, the evidence of P.W.1 would show that the body of the<br \/>\ncheque was written by another person who is stranger to P.W.1.  However, the<br \/>\nevidence of D.Ws 1 to 3 would show that one Pandiyan agreed to purchase the film<br \/>\nproduced by the accused,  later on when Pandiyan was not willing to purchase the<br \/>\nfilm, there was a<\/p>\n<p>compromise between them and at that time only, the blank cheque was given to the<br \/>\nPandiyan.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.D.Ws 1 and 2 are in the same field and their evidence would show that<br \/>\nthere was a compromise between Pandiyan and accused.  Further, the evidence of<br \/>\nD.W.1 would show that the case of the complainant is not true, because he<br \/>\nadmitted that before 4.11.1996, there was no business transaction between them,<br \/>\nbut, in the complaint, he has stated that on earlier occasions, he had business<br \/>\ndealings with the accused.    So, it is clear that the complainant deposed<br \/>\nagainst the averments in the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.According to the complainant, accused demanded money for completion of<br \/>\nTamil film &#8216;Kudumba Sangili&#8217;, but he is not able to say, who is the Director of<br \/>\nthat film.  According to him, it is the practice in the Cinema Industry that,<br \/>\neventhough money will be lend for taking film, but  in actual practice, the<br \/>\namount will be given only after completion of the film.  But, in this case, the<br \/>\nversion of P.W.1 that  without seeing the film he advanced the cheque for Rupees<br \/>\nFive Lakhs without any security, is highly artificial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.It is seen that as per the evidence of D.Ws 1 &amp; 2, the cheque was<br \/>\nissued by the accused to one Pandiyan and their evidence are quite natural.  So,<br \/>\nwhen the cheque was not issued by the accused to the complainant for the amount<br \/>\nalleged to have been received from the complainant, I find the evidence of P.W.1<br \/>\nis liable to be rejected.  The complainant has failed to prove the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant\/ complainant fails and the<br \/>\nsame is dismissed, confirming the  order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.276 of<br \/>\n1997 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26\/03\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2001 A.Balakrishnan .. Appellant Vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran .. Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Crl.P.C. against the order of acquittal [&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-131999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-26T17:17:35+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\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T17:17:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1479,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007\",\"name\":\"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-26T17:17:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-26T17:17:35+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\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T17:17:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007"},"wordCount":1479,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007","name":"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-26T17:17:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-balakrishnan-vs-kalaipuli-g-sekaran-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Balakrishnan vs Kalaipuli G.Sekaran on 26 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131999","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=131999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}