{"id":163906,"date":"2007-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-12-11T06:23:39","modified_gmt":"2015-12-11T00:53:39","slug":"rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 19\/02\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nCrl.R.C.(MD).No.20 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2007\n\n\nRajendran\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nBensam Robinson\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\n\n\tCriminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r\/w 401 Cr.P.C.,\npraying to set aside the order dated 06.12.2006 made in Crl.M.P.No.9065 of 2006\nin S.T.C.No.58 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif -cum- Judicial\nMagistrate, Eraniel.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t     ... Mr.C.Mayilvahana Ranjendran\n\n\t\n^For Respondent      ... Mr.T.Arul\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Criminal Revision case is directed against the order passed by the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in Crl.M.P.No.9065 of<br \/>\n2006 in S.T.C.No.58 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Eraniel has dismissed the application seeking a reference of Ex.D.1<br \/>\nreceipt to the Handwriting Expert.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The facts leading to the filing of the criminal revision case can be<br \/>\nsummarised as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondent herein preferred two private complaints for an offence<br \/>\nunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on two dishonoured<br \/>\ncheques allegedly issued by the petitioner herein on 30.05.1998 and 25.01.1999<br \/>\nfor the sums of Rs.60,400\/- and Rs.90,000\/- respectively. The said private<br \/>\ncomplaints have been taken on file by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Eraniel as S.T.C.Nos.58 and 1509 of 1999 respectively. The<br \/>\nrespondent herein\/complainant in the above said cases is contesting the above<br \/>\nsaid cases, after entering appearance in person and through counsel. The trial<br \/>\nin the above said cases is almost over. On the side of the<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainant in the above said case, he himself has been examined as<br \/>\nP.W.1.  Three witnesses have been examined on the side of the accused (the<br \/>\npetitioner in the revision case) including himself.  After the examination of<br \/>\nthree witnesses on the side of the accused (the petitioner in the revision<br \/>\ncase), the accused seems to have filed the above said petition, viz.,<br \/>\nCrl.M.P.No.9065 of 2006 on the file of the trial Court, praying that the<br \/>\ndocument marked as Ex.D.1 on the side of the accused should be referred to a<br \/>\nHandwriting Expert to find out, whether the signature found in the said document<br \/>\nis that of the complainant or not?. The said petition was resisted by the<br \/>\nrespondent herein\/complainant stating that the filing of the petition was<br \/>\nnothing but an attempt to protract the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. After according due consideration to the submissions made on both<br \/>\nsides, the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel observed<br \/>\nthat the receipt marked as Ex.D.1 might not be relevant and hence, would not<br \/>\nhelp the petitioner herein\/accused in establishing his defence in the cheque<br \/>\nbounce case. The learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate also observed<br \/>\nthat the proof of the signature found in the above said document would no way<br \/>\nhelp the petitioner herein\/accused in his defence in the private complaint for<br \/>\nthe offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pointing out<br \/>\nthe fact that, according to the case of the petitioner herein\/accused, the said<br \/>\nreceipt was issued in respect of a different transaction, namely, a chit<br \/>\ntransaction that the petitioner herein\/accused did not state anything regarding<br \/>\nthe said receipt in his reply notice for the statutory notice issued prior to<br \/>\nthe filing of the private complaints and that nothing was mentioned in the reply<br \/>\nnotice regarding the chit transaction, and also the fact that the petitioner<br \/>\nherein\/accused chose to file the above said petition, after a direction was<br \/>\nissued by this Court for the disposal of the cases (S.T.C.Nos.58 and 1509 of<br \/>\n1999) within two months from the date of its order, the learned  District Munsif\n<\/p>\n<p>-cum- Judicial Magistrate observed that the same was nothing but an attempt to<br \/>\nprotract the proceedings and hence dismissed the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Questioning the legality and correctness of the above said order dated<br \/>\n06.12.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nEraniel in Crl.M.P.No.9065 of 2006, the petitioner\/ accused has filed this<br \/>\ncriminal revision case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The arguments advanced by Mr.C.Mayilvahana Ranjendran, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner and also by Mr.T.Arul, learned counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the respondent have been heard and the documents produced in the form of<br \/>\ntyped-sets including the copy of the impugned order have been perused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned counsel for the petitioner\/accused put forth a vehement<br \/>\nargument that a person accused of an offence should be given every chance to<br \/>\nprove his innocence and the order of the trial Court dismissing the application<br \/>\nseeking a reference of the disputed document for the opinion of a handwriting<br \/>\nexpert is nothing but denial of such a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner<br \/>\nto prove his innocence. No doubt that a person accused of an offence should be<br \/>\ngiven every chance of proving his innocence. But at the same time, the accused<br \/>\nshould not be allowed to misuse the process by adopting a method to protract the<br \/>\ncase as long as possible.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel for the respondent has rightly contended that the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case will show that the case of the petitioner in<br \/>\nthe present revision case is one such attempt aimed at protracting the case. The<br \/>\npetitioner herein\/accused has not only failed to plead in his reply notice that<br \/>\nthe cheques were issued in connection with a chit transaction  but also chose to<br \/>\nmake periodical payments, after entering appearance in the criminal case<br \/>\nregistered based on the private complaint of the respondent herein.  A total<br \/>\namount of Rs.17,000\/- was paid by the petitioner herein, after he entered<br \/>\nappearance in the above said criminal case S.T.C.No.58 of 1999. The said amount<br \/>\nwas paid in piecemeal on 11 occasions. The said payment made by the petitioner<br \/>\nherein\/accused are evidenced by the memo submitted on each occasion, the copies<br \/>\nof which have been enclosed in the typed-set filed by the respondent herein.<br \/>\nThereafter, since no further payment was made and progress of the case was also<br \/>\nhindered, the respondent herein moved two petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.5785 and 5786<br \/>\nof 2006 on the file of this Court for a direction to the Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nEraniel to dispose of S.T.C.Nos.58 and 1509 of 1999 expeditiously. This Court,<br \/>\nafter hearing both sides, on 24.08.2006 passed an order directing the Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Eraniel to dispose of the said cases within a period of two months<br \/>\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In spite of the fact that<br \/>\nsuch a direction had been given by this Court, in order to get over the same and<br \/>\nto protract the trial of the case, the petitioner herein\/accused seems to have<br \/>\nfiled the petition for referring the document to a handwriting expert.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Referring to a handwriting expert is not the only way of proving a<br \/>\ndocument. There are also other ways and means of proving the document. <a href=\"\/doc\/1652872\/\">In State<br \/>\nof Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal<\/a> 1999(8) Supreme 401, the Apex Court has observed<br \/>\nthat an expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an<br \/>\nadvisory character. Even the opinion of the handwriting expert will only provide<br \/>\na guidance for the Court to take a correct decision. It shall have a persuasive<br \/>\neffect and will not be of binding nature. In the presence of the opinion of a<br \/>\nhandwriting expert, the Court has to make a comparison of the disputed and<br \/>\nadmitted signatures, with the help of the salient features pointed out by the<br \/>\nhandwriting expert, and come to an independent conclusion. As such, this Court<br \/>\nis not in a position to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainant that the very purpose of filing the petition for<br \/>\nreferring the document to a handwriting expert is to protract the case. The case<br \/>\nis of the year 1999. After eight long years, the petitioner has come forward<br \/>\nwith such a plea. The facts: that the petitioner\/accused has come forward with<br \/>\nsuch a petition belatedly; that such stand was not taken in the reply statement<br \/>\nsent by the petitioner\/accused and that the petition was filed only after the<br \/>\nreceipt of the order of this Court, containing a direction to the Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate to dispose of the case within two months  &#8211; will amplify the object<br \/>\nsought to be achieved by the petitioner, namely, protraction of the case.<br \/>\nTherefore, this Court sees no error or infirmity in the order passed by the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif -cum-Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel in dismissing<br \/>\nCrl.M.P.No.9065 of 2006 and comes to a conclusion that there is no scope for<br \/>\ninterference with the same in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. For all the reasons stated above, the Criminal Revision Case fails and<br \/>\nthe same deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The District Munsif -cum-\n<\/p>\n<p>Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nEraniel.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19\/02\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.R.C.(MD).No.20 of 2007 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2007 Rajendran .. Petitioner Vs. Bensam Robinson .. Respondent Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r\/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to [&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-163906","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>Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 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\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-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=\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-11T00:53:39+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\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-11T00:53:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1426,\"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\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-11T00:53:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 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":"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 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\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-11T00:53:39+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\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-11T00:53:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007"},"wordCount":1426,"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\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007","name":"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-11T00:53:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendran-vs-bensam-robinson-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendran vs Bensam Robinson on 19 February, 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\/163906","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=163906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}