{"id":149233,"date":"2009-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-25T19:44:32","modified_gmt":"2017-12-25T14:14:32","slug":"state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 01\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM\n\nCrl.A.(MD)No.72 of 1999\n\n\nState represented by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nCrime Branch C.I.D.,\nC.N.R. Unit Crime No.1 of 1996.         \t.. Appellant\n\t\n\nVs\n\n1.Rajesh\n2.Durairaj\t\t\t\t        .. Respondents\n\t\t\t\t\t           Accused 2 and 7\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the\njudgment dated 21.09.1998 passed in C.C.No.159 of 1997 by the learned Judicial\nMagistrate, Srivaikundam.\n\n!For appellant\t     ... Mr.L.Murugan\n\t\t\t Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)\n^For respondent No.1 ... Mr.V.Gopinath\n\t\t\t Senior counsel for\n\t\t\t Mr.V.Andiraj\nFor respondent No.2  ... Mr.V.Prabath\n\n* * * * *\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the<br \/>\naccused 2 and 7 in C.C.No.159 of 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nSrivaikundam dated 21.09.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMrs.Subbulakshmi, W\/o.Subburaman of Tirunelveli, who was the victim in the<br \/>\nalleged rape committed by A1 viz., Mangalam Dhanaraj, formerly Deputy<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police, PCR Unit, Madurai,  which case was pending trial at<br \/>\nthat time against A1 on the file of the learned Assistant sessions Judge,<br \/>\nTenkasi in S.C.No.407 of 1993, brought to the notice of this Court that A1 who<br \/>\nwas kept in Central Prison, Palayamkottai from 16.06.1996 on the execution of<br \/>\nthe NBW issued against him, came out on bail on 16.07.1996 by producing bogus<br \/>\nHigh Court bail order in Crl.O.P.No.4915 of 1996 dated 15.07.1996 before the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam.  The matter  was taken up by this<br \/>\nCourt in Crl.O.P.No.5968 of 1996 and an order was passed on 29.08.1996,<br \/>\ndirecting the Registrar, High Court, Chennai to lodge complaint with the Crime<br \/>\nBranch CID, Chennai against A1 and others for the offences under Sections<br \/>\n120(b), 468, 471 and 476 I.P.C.  Accordingly, the Additional Registrar<br \/>\n(Judicial), High Court, Chennai lodged a complaint with the Crime Branch CID,<br \/>\nChennai on 02.09.1996, which was registered in CB CID Headquarters as Crime<br \/>\nNo.31 of 1996 and subsequently the case was transferred to CB CID, Thoothukudi<br \/>\nUnit on the question of jurisdiction.  The same was registered in Thoothukudi CB<br \/>\nCID Crime No.1 of 1996 and investigation had been taken up as per orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) On completion of procedure contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\ncharges were framed against the accused as follows:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Sl.No.        Name of the accused             Offences\n\n1              Mangala Dhanaraj             120(b) I.P.C.\n\n2                 Rajesh               120(b), 476 r\/w.109, 471 r\/w.468,\n                                          109 and 420 r\/w.109 I.P.C.\n\n3            Asirkovilpitchai          120(b), 476, 468 r\/w.109, 471 r\/w.468,\n                                            109 and 420 r\/w.109  I.P.C.\n\n4              Sudandiraraj                  476 I.P.C.\n\n5              Subramanian               466 and 468 I.P.C.\n\n6                Perumal                      466 I.P.C.\n\n7               Durairaj              471 r\/w.468 and 420 I.P.C.\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t(iii) The prosecution examined twenty six witnesses and marked fourteen<br \/>\nexhibits and fourteen material objects towards proving the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied their<br \/>\ninvolvement and A1 and A3 wished to examine witnesses on their side.  On the<br \/>\nside of A1, two witnesses were examined and ten exhibits were marked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam on completion of trial<br \/>\nconvicted A1 and A3 to A6 as follows:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Sl.No.    Name of the accused         Offence                     Sentence\n\n1       Mangala Dhanaraj (A1)      120(b) I.P.C.     To undergo rigorous imprisonment\n                                                      for two years.\n\n2       Aasir Kovilpitchai(A3)    471 r\/w. 468,       To undergo rigorous imprisonment\n                                  466 and 109, 476    for three years for each offence\n                                  I.P.C.              under Sections\n                                                      120(b), 466 read with 109 and\n                                                      468 r\/w.109 I.P.C. and rigorous\n                                                      imprisonment for three years\n                                                      for each offence under Sections\n                                                      476, 471 r\/w. 468 r\/w.109 I.P.C.\n\n3         Sudandiraraj (A4)           476 I.P.C.      To undergo rigorous imprisonment\n                                                      for three years.\n\n4.         Subramanian (A5)       466 and 468 r\/w.    To undergo rigorous imprisonment\n                                   109 I.P.C.         for three years under Section\n                                                      466 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment\n                                                      for three years under Section\n                                                      468 I.P.C.\n\n5.            Perumal (A6)           468 I.P.C.       To undergo rigorous imprisonment\n                                                      for three years.\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>However, A2 and A7 were acquitted and hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. A2 is the son of A1.  A7 is an Advocate, who moved bail application<br \/>\nbefore the concerned Court on the strength of the forged bail orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. A2 was charged with offences under Sections 120(b), 476 r\/w 109, 471<br \/>\nr\/w 468, 109 and 420 r\/w 109 I.P.C. and A7 was charged with offecnes under<br \/>\nSections 471 r\/w 468 and 420 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) contends that P.W.7,<br \/>\nthe Prison Officer at the Palayamkottai Central Prison, deposed that on<br \/>\n09.07.1996, during the prison visit of A2, son of A1 and one Suresh, another son<br \/>\nof A1, A1 sent the other son viz., Suresh out and asked A2 to bring one<br \/>\nAashirkovilpitchai to Tenkasi Court towards obtaining bail for himself.  After<br \/>\nthe visit, A2 and A3, who stand convicted by the lower Court, had conspired to<br \/>\nprepare the fake bail order.  This was spoken to by P.W.23.  The evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.23 is that A2 and A3 were talking at the corner of the road, when A1 told A3<br \/>\nthat his bail ought to be obtained, somehow or other.  A3 said that Rs.15,000\/-<br \/>\nwould be required.  A1 told A3 that he could pay only Rs.10,000\/- and asked A2<br \/>\nto hand over the said sum to A3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also seeks support in<br \/>\nthe evidence of P.W.24, which is that A3 had represented himself to be an<br \/>\nAdvocate Clerk and stated that if bail was not obtained before the lower Court,<br \/>\nthe same could be obtained at Chennai through engaging a reputed counsel and<br \/>\nthat the same would cost Rs.15,000\/-.  Having referred to the evidence available<br \/>\nas above, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) contended that the<br \/>\nsame was sufficient to bring home the guilt against A2, the lower Court ought to<br \/>\nhave convicted him on the strength thereof and hence the acquittal of A2 has to<br \/>\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. As regards A7, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) relied<br \/>\non Exs.P13 to 17.  Ex.P13 to 17 are the affidavits of the sureties, the property<br \/>\nreceipts and the memo of appearance filed by A7.  The learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate (Criminal side) refers to Ex.P18 and submits that when the defect<br \/>\ntherein viz., the name of the respondent being reflected as Revenue Divisional<br \/>\nOfficer, Cheranmahadevi instead of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, was<br \/>\npointed out, A7 had made bold to swear to an affidavit, Ex.P19, asserting that<br \/>\nthe same was merely an error.  The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)<br \/>\nalso states that whereas the concluding portion of such affidavit has been<br \/>\ncorrected to show the seeking of an order of bail, the actual wording in such<br \/>\nportion in Ex.P19 was an undertaking by A7 to produce the corrected order copy<br \/>\nin relation to Ex.P18.  This, according to the learned Government Advocate<br \/>\n(Criminal side) reflected the complicity of A7 in the crime and given the same,<br \/>\nthe trial Court ought to have found A7 guilty in the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. I have heard the learned senior counsel Mr.V.Gopinath on the<br \/>\nsubmissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Touching upon the submissions of the learned Government Advocate<br \/>\n(Criminal side) in relation to A2, the learned senior counsel submits that even<br \/>\nif the assertion of P.W.7 regarding A1 requiring A2 to bring A3 on a particular<br \/>\ndate towards obtaining bail for A1, is taken to be true, there is nothing wrong<br \/>\nin a father speaking to the son on arrangements regarding bail for himself.<br \/>\nHaving stated thus, the learned senior counsel took this Court through the<br \/>\nevidence of P.W.7 to show that the original of Ex.P4, Jail Visitors Register had<br \/>\nnot been marked in the trial Court and such failure of the prosecution had drawn<br \/>\nadverse remarks at the hands of the trial Court.  The learned senior counsel<br \/>\nstressed that the copy marked as Ex.P4 had not been so much attested.  Thus the<br \/>\nsubmission is that Ex.P4 could not be relied upon.  The learned senior counsel<br \/>\nalso informed that the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.23, who had<br \/>\ndeposed that he had seen A2 and A3 talking to each other when A1 made the<br \/>\nrequest to A3 for arrangement of bail.  Having touched upon the same, the<br \/>\nlearned senior counsel informed that the evidence of P.W.23 was that he went to<br \/>\nthe house of P.W.22 and met P.W.20, the wife of P.W.22, who said that P.W.22 had<br \/>\ngone to Tenkasi and that on such information P.W.23, went to Tenkasi, when he<br \/>\nwitnessed  the conversation between A1, A2 and A3.  P.W.20 had denied that<br \/>\nP.W.23, had called at her residence on the fateful day, 10.07.1986.  As against<br \/>\nthe evidence of P.W.23 that he informed P.W.22 of the conversation between A1 to<br \/>\nA3 on the same day, i.e., 10.07.1986, P.W.22&#8217;s evidence is that only on<br \/>\n02.10.1996, Gandhi Jeyanthi day, he met P.W.23, who informed of such<br \/>\nconversation between A1, A2 and A3.  P.Ws.20 and 22 had filed several petitions<br \/>\nbefore the High Court, Chennai, wherein the forged order of bail was referred<br \/>\nto, but nowhere in those petitions, any reference was made to P.W.23.  Added to<br \/>\nthis, P.Ws.22 and 23 had already been examined in the case and no occasion for<br \/>\nthem to meet arose.  Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the alleged<br \/>\nconspiracy between A1, A2 and A3 sought to be made out through the evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.23 would fall to the ground on a careful appreciation of the prosecution<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. As regards the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal<br \/>\nside) on the involvement of A7, the learned senior counsel would submit that A7<br \/>\nbeing an Advocate has conducted himself in such manner as any Advocate would and<br \/>\nthat the very fact of swearing to an affidavit to the effect that the<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217; names had been wrongly typed in Ex.P18 would go to show that the<br \/>\nAdvocate had nothing to hide.  As regards the contention of Ex.P19 having been<br \/>\nclandestinely corrected by A7, the learned senior counsel drew the attention of<br \/>\nthis Court to the evidence of P.W.18, the learned Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nThiruchendur, who had stated that he had noticed the struck out portion in<br \/>\nEx.P19 and when asked A7 had said that if necessary the corrected copy would be<br \/>\nsubmitted.  Thus, it is apparent that it is Ex.P.19 as corrected, which was<br \/>\nsubmitted before the Court and there was nothing hanky-panky about it.  The<br \/>\nlearned senior counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that even on a<br \/>\nfresh appreciation by this Court, it would be clear that no criminality could be<br \/>\nattributed to either A2 or A7.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. This Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal would be very<br \/>\nslow to interfere and would in fact interfere only if the reasoning of the lower<br \/>\nCourt was totally unfounded or was not supported by the material on record or<br \/>\notherwise perverse or illegal.  None of these defects could be attributed to the<br \/>\nfinding of the trial Court, which on a proper appreciation of the evidence,<br \/>\nwhile arriving at the finding of guilt of the other accused had thought it fit<br \/>\nand proper to acquit the respondents herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The lucid explanation of the circumstances relied upon by the<br \/>\nprosecution towards implicating A2 and A7 in the case and on how, on the<br \/>\nmaterial and evidence on record it totally would be unjust to infer the<br \/>\ninvolvement of these two respondents, call for immediate acceptance.  The lower<br \/>\nCourt, has on proper appreciation, acquitted the respondents herein.  Hence,<br \/>\nthis appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To\t<\/p>\n<p>1.The Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Srivaikundam.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Crime Branch C.I.D.,<br \/>\n  C.N.R. Unit.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.A.(MD)No.72 of 1999 State represented by The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., C.N.R. Unit Crime No.1 of 1996. .. Appellant Vs 1.Rajesh 2.Durairaj .. Respondents Accused [&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-149233","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>State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-25T14:14:32+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T14:14:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1684,\"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\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009\",\"name\":\"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T14:14:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-25T14:14:32+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T14:14:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009"},"wordCount":1684,"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\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009","name":"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T14:14:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-represented-by-vs-rajesh-on-1-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Represented By vs Rajesh on 1 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149233","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=149233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}