{"id":107477,"date":"2009-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-01T19:17:55","modified_gmt":"2017-03-01T13:47:55","slug":"pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                                                                             1\n\n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR\n  --------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                          CIVIL WRIT No. 1500 of 1994\n\n                                 POKAR RAM\n                                    V\/S\n                                STATE OF RAJ.\n\n      Mr. MS SINGHVI, for the appellant \/ petitioner\n\n      Mr. RN UPADHYAY, Mr. MA SIDDIQUI, DY.GA, for the\n      respondent\n\n      Date of Order : 8.9.2009\n\n\n                           HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                                    —–\n<\/p>\n
\n           This      is    second    round        of   litigation,   seeking<\/p>\n
direction to call the entire record including answer books and<\/p>\n
orders dated 27.1.1994 and 1.3.1994, and for quashing these<\/p>\n
two orders, Annex.7 and 8. It is also prayed that inquiry<\/p>\n
report be also requisition and be declared illegal. Various<\/p>\n
other prayers have also been made.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           The controversy arises in the background that for<\/p>\n
the   purpose   of    appointment     on    the    post   of   Forester,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the private respondent had undergone necessary<\/p>\n
training, and thereafter examinations were held, in which in<\/p>\n
all 11 papers were given. The result of that examination was<\/p>\n
declared, and from that point, the controversy has arisen,<\/p>\n
inasmuch as, the petitioner was aggrieved of the result, and<\/p>\n
therefore, he raised the grievance, whereupon inquiry was got<\/p>\n
conducted by the department, and vide report dated 9.12.1992,<\/p>\n
it was inter-alia found, that there had been an interpolation<\/p>\n
in the answer books in particular subject after examination,<\/p>\n
and ultimately, the private respondent was declared to have
\n                                                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
failed, and was debarred for three years from taking up the<\/p>\n
training. Likewise, an inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A.<\/p>\n
Rules   was    also   directed   to   be    initiated,   and      appropriate<\/p>\n
proceedings     under   I.P.C.   were      also   directed   to    be   taken.<\/p>\n
Thereupon the private respondent filed a writ petition before<\/p>\n
this Court at Jaipur Bench, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition<\/p>\n
No.7937\/1992, which came to be allowed on 15.3.1993, solely on<\/p>\n
the ground, that opportunity of hearing was not given to the<\/p>\n
present private respondent, he was also required to be allowed<\/p>\n
to inspect the material, and then only the order could be<\/p>\n
passed. Consequently, the writ was allowed, Annex.5 therein<\/p>\n
was set aside, and it was left open to the department to issue<\/p>\n
show cause notice, to give an opportunity to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
show cause, allowing him to inspect the record, and thereafter<\/p>\n
to make a fresh order. However, it was found, that it will not<\/p>\n
be necessary to allow the petitioner therein to lead evidence<\/p>\n
in the case of present nature.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Thereafter a fresh inquiry was conducted and report<\/p>\n
was submitted on 9.12.1993, which has been produced on record<\/p>\n
by the State respondents, in compliance of the direction given<\/p>\n
by this Court on 8.11.1994. In this inquiry report, it was<\/p>\n
found, that the result originally declared does not require<\/p>\n
any amendment and it was observed that the result was declared<\/p>\n
after an inordinate delay of about 16 months, which resulted<\/p>\n
into violation of secrecy, inasmuch as, all answer books had<\/p>\n
been received in August 1991 itself, however it was directed<\/p>\n
that henceforth the result should be declared within three<\/p>\n
months of completion of the examinations.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Consequently, the orders, Annex.7 and 8 annexed with
\n                                                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
the writ petition had been passed, to the effect, that the<\/p>\n
result    as    declared       on    1.12.1992       should     be   treated        to   be<\/p>\n
effective, whereby the private respondent was declared to have<\/p>\n
stood first, and was consequently given appointment. It is in<\/p>\n
this background, that these orders, Annex.7 and 8, and the<\/p>\n
inquiry report are under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The matter came to be heard by various Benches from<\/p>\n
time   to   time,     and      every      Bench   felt    something       fishy,         and<\/p>\n
therefore,      various     records        were   called,       including      question<\/p>\n
papers and answer books. Not only that, the question papers<\/p>\n
and answer books were also allowed, rather directed to be<\/p>\n
shown to both the parties, which obviously shows, that the<\/p>\n
different      Benches    did       not    feel   satisfied      with    the    inquiry<\/p>\n
report dated 9.12.1993.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               It was not disputed during course of the arguments,<\/p>\n
and on the face of both the inquiry reports, and which could<\/p>\n
possibly       not   be     disputed        either,      that     there       had    been<\/p>\n
interpolations, which are visible from a naked eye in the<\/p>\n
answer    books.     In   my    view,       the   interpolations        are    on    very<\/p>\n
material    aspects,        having        material   bearing      on    the    ultimate<\/p>\n
result.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I<\/p>\n
have gone through the inquiry report dated 9.12.1993. A total<\/p>\n
reading of the inquiry report shows, that the inquiry has not<\/p>\n
been proper and fair, and has also not been complete either,<\/p>\n
inasmuch as, various aspects having material bearing on the<\/p>\n
controversy, have either not been gone into, or a very poor<\/p>\n
homage has been paid to the requirement, by not examining the
\n                                                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
concerned persons, who were required to be examined.<\/p>\n
            It is not for me to embark upon the question, as to<\/p>\n
why and how such an approach was undertaken in conducting the<\/p>\n
inquiry, and submitting the report, which could be described<\/p>\n
to   be,   either    casual,   or    superficial,     or    might      be   even<\/p>\n
partisan. However the fact remains, that in the inquiry report<\/p>\n
dated 9.12.1993 also it has positively been found, that the<\/p>\n
result was declared after about 16 months of completion of the<\/p>\n
examination, and receipt of answer books, and this inordinate<\/p>\n
delay has resulted into violating the secrecy of the result.<\/p>\n
This does show, that even in view of the Inquiry Authority,<\/p>\n
the things did not appear to him to be worth giving altogether<\/p>\n
a clean chit. Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            I   do   not   mean     to   be   understood,    to   be    either<\/p>\n
commenting upon, or making any observation either-ways, as to<\/p>\n
what should have been the conclusion of the inquiry, one way<\/p>\n
or the other, but all this has been observed, only for the<\/p>\n
purpose of expressing myself, to the effect, that the inquiry<\/p>\n
is not satisfactory.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In that view of the matter, I am constrained to set<\/p>\n
aside   this    inquiry    report    dated    9.12.1993.    Obviously       as   a<\/p>\n
necessary consequence, Annex.7 and 8 also go, and are required<\/p>\n
to be set aside, and accordingly Annex. 7, 8 and the inquiry<\/p>\n
report dated 9.12.1993 are all quashed and set aside.<\/p>\n
           Then coming to the practical aspect of the matter,<\/p>\n
that the fact does remain, that the private respondent has<\/p>\n
been appointed as there was no interim order, and is serving,
\n                                                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
while quashing Annex.7 and 8, setting aside the inquiry report<\/p>\n
dated 9.12.1993, and leaving the matter at that only, will<\/p>\n
simply have the effect of removing the private respondent from<\/p>\n
the post, without any further direction, which would not be in<\/p>\n
the interest of justice, after all, the question is, as to<\/p>\n
whether the private respondent was eligible to be appointed,<\/p>\n
or the petitioner was eligible to be appointed, as the tie is<\/p>\n
only     between    the    two      candidates,        both    the       persons    had<\/p>\n
undergone the training, and had appeared in the examination.<\/p>\n
            In that view of the matter, the matter is required<\/p>\n
to be carried to the logical conclusion, and the person, in<\/p>\n
whose favour the conclusion is ultimately reached, is entitled<\/p>\n
to be given appointment, from the retrospective date.<\/p>\n
            Obviously for arriving at a logical conclusion, a<\/p>\n
threadbare inquiry is required to be conducted, and from the<\/p>\n
perusal of the two inquiry reports, it is clear, that the<\/p>\n
departmental authorities can no more be relied upon, for being<\/p>\n
entrusted    the    inquiry,        as    that   would    simply         result    into<\/p>\n
further prolonging of the agony, instead of putting it to an<\/p>\n
end.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In that view of the matter, with the consent of the<\/p>\n
counsels    present,      it   is    directed,     that       the    matter   be    got<\/p>\n
inquired    by     the    C.B.I.     on    all    relevant          aspects   of    the<\/p>\n
controversy, by active participation of the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
private respondent, and also examining all relevant, concerned<\/p>\n
and connected persons, and examining the record, and to come<\/p>\n
to   a   conclusion,      as   to   whether      the   result       as   declared    on<\/p>\n
1.12.1992 is required to be sustained, or the amended result
\n                                                                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
as declared on 9.12.1992 is required to be sustained.<\/p>\n
              Obviously       if   the   C.B.I.     comes     to    the    conclusion,<\/p>\n
that    the    result     declared       on   9.12.1992       is    required      to    be<\/p>\n
sustained, then the petitioner will get appointment on the<\/p>\n
said post, with effect from the date the private respondent<\/p>\n
had been appointed, the private respondent in that event will<\/p>\n
stand removed, and the petitioner will get all actual cash<\/p>\n
consequential benefits, and in that event, it will be open to<\/p>\n
the    department,       to   recover     those     amounts        from    the   private<\/p>\n
respondent. On the other hand, if the C.B.I. comes to the<\/p>\n
conclusion,       that    the      result     as   declared        on     1.12.1992     is<\/p>\n
required to be sustained, then the present petitioner will not<\/p>\n
be entitled to any relief whatever. It is also clarified, that<\/p>\n
in the event of C.B.I. coming to the conclusion about the<\/p>\n
result    dated     9.12.1992       being     required     to      sustain,      in   that<\/p>\n
event,    it    will      also     be    open      to   the     C.B.I.      to    launch<\/p>\n
prosecution against the delinquents, who may be found guilty<\/p>\n
by the C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              The    C.B.I.        should       complete      the       inquiry       most<\/p>\n
expeditiously, as the controversy is already 18 years old.<\/p>\n
              The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed as above.<\/p>\n
The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition.<\/p>\n
                                                            ( N P GUPTA ),J.\n<\/p>\n
\n\/tarun\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ——————————————————– CIVIL WRIT No. 1500 of 1994 POKAR RAM V\/S STATE OF RAJ. Mr. MS SINGHVI, for the appellant \/ petitioner Mr. RN UPADHYAY, Mr. MA SIDDIQUI, DY.GA, for […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nPokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-01T13:47:55+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\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-01T13:47:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1456,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-01T13:47:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 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":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-01T13:47:55+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\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-01T13:47:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009"},"wordCount":1456,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009","name":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-01T13:47:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-raj-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Raj on 8 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\/107477","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=107477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}