{"id":151163,"date":"2010-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-24T19:41:18","modified_gmt":"2017-12-24T14:11:18","slug":"r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/01\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM\n\nCRL.RC.(MD).No.582 of 2008\nand M.P.No.1 of 2008\n\nR.Dennis Raja\t \t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\nVs.\n\nT.Subbiah\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPRAYER\n\nPetition is filed under Section 397 r\/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure\nCode against the Order dated 11.06.2008 made in Crl.M.P.No.1687 of 2007 on the\nfile of the learned Additional District Munsif, Thoothukudi.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.N.Mohideen Basha\n^For Respondent\t... No Appearance\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>*********<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the Order dated<br \/>\n11.06.2008 made in Crl.M.P.No.1687 of 2007, on the file of the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Munsif, Thoothukudi.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the complainant in S.T.C.No.179 of<br \/>\n2007, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Thoothukudi and the<br \/>\nrespondent herein is the accused. The petitioner filed a complaint against the<br \/>\nrespondent herein for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments<br \/>\nAct, 1881. Pending trial,  the respondent herein filed a Criminal Miscellaneous<br \/>\nPetition in Crl.M.P.No.1687 of 2007 under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure with a prayer to send the documents, i.e., Exs.P2 to P9, to the<br \/>\nHandwriting and Finger Prints Expert to find out the age of the signature, age<br \/>\nof the writings in the body of the cheques, age of the signature of the<br \/>\npetitioner\/accused in the letter-head papers, age of the computerized written<br \/>\nmatter in Ex-P2 and to compare the signature of PW-3 with a specimen signature<br \/>\nobtained from him in the Court and also with the signatures in the depositions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The said Miscellaneous Petition was allowed by the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Tuticorin. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner herein<br \/>\nhas come forward with the present Criminal Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Notice was ordered to the respondent herein and the notice sent by this<br \/>\nCourt to the respondent has been served on 14.07.2008. Despite the same, the<br \/>\nrespondent neither appeared before this Court nor represented by any of the<br \/>\ncounsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that<br \/>\noriginally the case was filed in the year 2003 as C.C.No.350 of 2003 on the file<br \/>\nof the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin and subsequently, it has been<br \/>\ntransferred to the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tuticorin.<br \/>\nThe respondent herein has not denied the signatures found in the cheques and<br \/>\nalso in Ex-P2. But, the case of the accused is that signed blank cheques and<br \/>\nletter-head papers have been misused by the complainant. Admittedly, the<br \/>\nwritings are not in the own handwriting of the accused. After lapse of seven<br \/>\nyears, by sending the above documents for comparison, no useful purpose would be<br \/>\nserved. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that PWs-2 and<br \/>\n3 have been cross-examined at length by the defence and the accused has to be<br \/>\nquestioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only in order to<br \/>\nprocrastinate the proceedings, the respondent has filed the above Miscellaneous<br \/>\nPetition seeking to send the documents to the Handwriting Expert. However,<br \/>\nwithout sufficient reasons, the learned Additional District Munsif had allowed<br \/>\nthe said Miscellaneous Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. This Court has considered the above submissions made by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records carefully.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. According to the accused, the complainant has prepared a forged<br \/>\nagreement in the letter-head signed blank papers and the cheques, Exs-P2 to P9,<br \/>\nalso contained the seal with the signatures of the accused, and later, it was<br \/>\nfilled up by the complainant. Even as per the affidavit filed in support of the<br \/>\npetition by the accused before the Trial Court, the accused had admitted his<br \/>\nsignatures in Exs-P2 to P9. Further, according to the accused, the signatures of<br \/>\nPW-3, who stood as a witness to Ex-P2, differs from the specimen signature<br \/>\nobtained from PW-3 in the Court at the time of cross-examination. The prayer<br \/>\nmade by the accused in his Miscellaneous Petition was only to find out the age<br \/>\nof the signature, age of the writings in the body of the cheques, age of the<br \/>\nsignature of the petitioner\/accused in the letter-head papers, age of the<br \/>\ncomputerized written matter in Ex-P2 and to compare the signature of PW-3 with a<br \/>\nspecimen signature obtained from him in the Court and also with the signatures<br \/>\nin the depositions. The learned Judicial Magistrate had allowed the above<br \/>\nMiscellaneous Petition stating that though the accused had admitted his<br \/>\nsignatures in the document, in order to find out the time gap between the period<br \/>\nof the signatures of the accused and the matters typed in Ex-P2, the respondent<br \/>\nherein sought for expert opinion and by sending the documents to the expert<br \/>\nopinion, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. According to the complainant, Exs-P2 to P9 were all executed in the<br \/>\nyear 2002 and the complaint before the Lower Court has also been filed in the<br \/>\nyear 2003. Therefore, all the matters in Exs-P2 to P9 were made prior to the<br \/>\nyear 2003. Now, after lapse of seven years, it is not at all possible for a<br \/>\nHandwriting Expert to give an opinion meticulously as to which part of the<br \/>\ndocument is seven years old and as to which part of the document is eight or<br \/>\nnine years old. The opinion of the handwriting expert will not be in any manner<br \/>\nhelpful to the Court to decide the issue. Ex-P2 has been signed by both PWs-2<br \/>\nand 3 as witnesses. However, the accused wants the signatures of PW-3 alone to<br \/>\nbe compared and not the signatures of PW-2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. In similar circumstances, this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1465663\/\">Gopal v. D.Balachandran<\/a><br \/>\nreported in 2008 (1) CTC 491 has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;12. Following the aforesaid ratio, this Court has also held in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/383600\/\">P.R.Ramakrishnan v. P.Govindarajan,<\/a> 2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 1297, that when the<br \/>\naccused disputes his signatures in the cheques in question in a proceeding under<br \/>\nSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court has to afford an<br \/>\nopportunity to the accused to obtain an expert&#8217;s opinion as to the genuineness<br \/>\nor otherwise of the signature found therein. The above ratio will not apply to a<br \/>\ncase where, a cheque admittedly signed by the drawer is sought to be analysed by<br \/>\nan expert for opinion as to the age of the ink used in the cheque.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In Yashpal v. Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 P&amp;H 344, it has been observed<br \/>\nthat the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of the writing if the<br \/>\nink in dispute was manufactured five years prior to the date of execution of the<br \/>\ndocument and used effectively on a particular date for the first time and an<br \/>\nexpert&#8217;s opinion as to the age of ink will not resolve any controversy, but, it<br \/>\nwill help to create only confusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. As rightly observed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the ratio<br \/>\nreferred to above, if an old ink is used by the person, who assisted the drawer<br \/>\nwho had already put his signature in the cheques, to fill up the matter, no<br \/>\nuseful purpose will be served if such a cheque is analysed by the expert for<br \/>\nrendering an opinion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. It is found that the age of the ink cannot be determined by an expert<br \/>\nwith scientific accuracy. Further, the use of the old ink manufactured long ago<br \/>\nwill definitely create a dent in the opinion furnished by an expert. Therefore,<br \/>\nthere is no necessity for sending the disputed cheque admittedly signed by the<br \/>\npetitioner to an expert for his opinion. The Order passed by the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.I, Erode in C.M.P.No.2915 of 2007 in C.C.No.1287 of 2006<br \/>\ndoes not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Therefore, there is no<br \/>\nwarrant for interference with the well considered order passed by the Trial<br \/>\nCourt&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In view of the above, this Court feels that the Order of the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Munsif needs interference. Therefore, the order dated<br \/>\n11.06.2008 made in Crl.M.P.No.1687 of 2007, passed by the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Thoothukudi, is set aside and this Criminal Revision Petition<br \/>\nis allowed. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>NB<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Additional District Munsif, Thoothukudi.<\/p>\n<pre>\n2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,\n  Madurai.\t\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/01\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM CRL.RC.(MD).No.582 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 R.Dennis Raja &#8230; Petitioner Vs. T.Subbiah &#8230; Respondent PRAYER Petition is filed under Section 397 r\/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code [&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-151163","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>R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010 - 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\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-24T14:11:18+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-24T14:11:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1305,\"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\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010\",\"name\":\"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-24T14:11:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010 - 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\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-24T14:11:18+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-24T14:11:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010"},"wordCount":1305,"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\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010","name":"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-24T14:11:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-dennis-raja-vs-t-subbiah-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Dennis Raja vs T.Subbiah on 20 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/151163","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=151163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}