{"id":112805,"date":"2008-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-27T03:24:16","modified_gmt":"2017-09-26T21:54:16","slug":"c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: D A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                 OF 2008\n         (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3106 of 2007)\n\n\nCentral Bureau of Investigation,\nNew Delhi                                             ...\nAppellant\n\n                              Vs.\n\nM.N. Sharma                                      ...Respondent\n\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directing that the<\/p>\n
conviction of the respondent shall remain stayed during the<\/p>\n
pendency of Criminal Appeal No.813 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                                            1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
3.   Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent    who    was   working    as   Sub-Registrar,<\/p>\n
Tehasildar and was convicted by learned Special Judge, Tis<\/p>\n
Hazari Courts, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 7<\/p>\n
and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act, 1988 (in short `P.C. Act’) and Section 120-B of<\/p>\n
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC’) and sentenced to<\/p>\n
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, 2<\/p>\n
years and one year respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.2000\/-\n<\/p>\n
with default stipulation. Against the judgment in question<\/p>\n
respondent filed the aforesaid Criminal appeal which was<\/p>\n
admitted. After admission of the appeal, respondent filed an<\/p>\n
application in terms of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code’) read with Section 482 of<\/p>\n
the Code for suspension of the judgment of      learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     The High Court by order dated 3.2.2006 stayed the<\/p>\n
conviction. According to the appellant, the view expressed by<\/p>\n
                                                           2<\/span>
\nthis Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh<\/a> [2001(6) SCC<\/p>\n
584] was not kept in view.    The High Court dismissed that<\/p>\n
application.\n<\/p>\n
4.   It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that<\/p>\n
the suspension of the conviction is clearly unsustainable. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the High Court noted that employer had given<\/p>\n
a notice for dispensing his services as Sub-Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the<\/p>\n
High Court took note of the fact that this was a case where the<\/p>\n
prayer for suspension of the conviction was to be granted.\n<\/p>\n
Unless the order of conviction was suspended, the respondent<\/p>\n
would have lost his job.\n<\/p>\n
6.   In State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and Another<\/a> [2003<\/p>\n
(12) SCC 432], it was noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            Having perused the impugned order as also
\n         the judgment of this Court in K.C. Sareen’s case
\n         [2001(6) SCC 584] we find the High Court had
\n         no room for distinguishing the law laid down by
\n         this Court in K.C. Sareen case supra even on<\/p>\n
                                                            3<\/span>
\nfacts. This Court in the said case held: (SCC
\np. 589, para 11)<\/p>\n
       “11. The legal position, therefore, is
\n    this: though the power to suspend an
\n    order of conviction, apart from the order
\n    of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1)
\n    of the Code, its exercise should be limited
\n    to very exceptional cases. Merely because
\n    the convicted person files an appeal in
\n    challenge of the conviction the court should
\n    not suspend the operation of the order of
\n    conviction. The court has a duty to look at
\n    all aspects including the ramifications of
\n    keeping such conviction in abeyance. It is
\n    in the light of the above legal position
\n    that we have to examine the question as
\n    to what should be the position when a
\n    public servant is convicted of an offence
\n    under the PC Act. No doubt when the
\n    appellate court admits the appeal filed in
\n    challenge of the conviction and sentence
\n    for the offence under the PC Act, the
\n    superior court should normally suspend
\n    the sentence of imprisonment until
\n    disposal of the appeal, because refusal
\n    thereof would render the very appeal
\n    otiose unless such appeal could be heard
\n    soon after the filing of the appeal. But
\n    suspension of conviction of the offence
\n    under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of
\n    imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a
\n    different matter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
   In the said judgment of K.C. Sareen’s case
\n(supra) this Court has held that it is only in very
\nexceptional cases that the court should exercise
\nsuch power of stay in matters arising out of the
\nAct. The High Court has in the impugned order
\nnowhere pointed out what is the exceptional
\nfact which in its opinion required it to stay the
\nconviction. The High Court also failed to note
\nthe direction of this Court that it has a duty to
\nlook at all aspects including ramification of
\nkeeping such conviction in abeyance. The High
\nCourt, in our opinion, has not taken into
\nconsideration any of the above factors while
\nstaying the conviction. It should also be noted
\nthat the view expressed by this Court in K.C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
         Sareen case (supra) was subsequently approved
\n         followed by the judgment of this Court in Union
\n         of India v. Atar Singh<\/a> [2003(12) SCC 434].\n<\/p>\n
7.   In Union of India v. Avtar Singh & Anr.<\/a> (2003(12) SCC<\/p>\n
434) it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “This appeal is directed against the impugned
\n          order of the High Court. The respondent-
\n          accused, who has been convicted under
\n          Section 409 IPC and Section 13 OF THE
\n          Prevention of Corruption Act, preferred an
\n          appeal to the High Court, which has been
\n          entertained. On an application being filed
\n          under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal
\n          Procedure, the High Court has suspended the
\n          conviction solely on the ground that the non-
\n          suspension of conviction may entail removal of
\n          the delinquent government servant from
\n          service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   In K.C. Sareen’s case (supra) it was noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “11. The legal position, therefore, is this:<\/p>\n
          though the power to suspend an order of
\n          conviction, apart from the order of sentence, is
\n          not alien to Section 389(1) of the Code, its
\n          exercise should be limited to very exceptional
\n          cases. Merely because the convicted person
\n          files an appeal in challenge of the conviction
\n          the court should not suspend the operation of
\n          the order of conviction. The court has a duty
\n          to look at all aspects including the
\n          ramifications of keeping such conviction in
\n          abeyance. It is in the light of the above legal
\n          position that we have to examine the question
\n          as to what should be the position when a
\n          public servant is convicted of an offence under<\/p>\n
                                                              5<\/span>
\nthe PC Act. No doubt when the appellate court
\nadmits the appeal filed in challenge of the
\nconviction and sentence for the offence under
\nthe PC Act, the superior court should normally
\nsuspend the sentence of imprisonment until
\ndisposal of the appeal, because refusal thereof
\nwould render the very appeal otiose unless
\nsuch appeal could be heard soon after the
\nfiling of the appeal. But suspension of
\nconviction of the offence under the PC Act,
\ndehors the sentence of imprisonment as a
\nsequel thereto, is a different matter.\n<\/p>\n
12. Corruption by public servants has now
\nreached a monstrous dimension in India. Its
\ntentacles have started grappling even the
\ninstitutions created for the protection of the
\nrepublic.    Unless      those   tentacles    are
\nintercepted and impeded from gripping the
\nnormal and orderly functioning of the public
\noffices, through strong legislative, executive as
\nwell as judicial exercises the corrupt public
\nservants could even paralyse the functioning
\nof such institutions and thereby hinder the
\ndemocratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt
\npublic servants could garner momentum to
\ncripple the social order if such men are
\nallowed to continue to manage and operate
\npublic institutions. When a public servant is
\nfound guilty of corruption after a judicial
\nadjudicatory process conducted by a court of
\nlaw, judiciousness demands that he should be
\ntreated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a
\nsuperior court. The mere fact that an appellate
\nor revisional forum has decided to entertain
\nhis challenge and to go into the issues and
\nfindings made against such public servants
\nonce again should not even temporarily
\nabsolve him from such findings. If such a
\npublic servant becomes entitled to hold public
\noffice and to continue to do official acts until
\nhe is judicially absolved from such findings by
\nreason of suspension of the order of
\nconviction, it is public interest which suffers
\nand sometimes, even irreparably. When a
\npublic servant who is convicted of corruption
\nis allowed to continue to hold public office, it
\nwould impair the morale of the other persons
\nmanning such office, and consequently that
\nwould erode the already shrunk confidence of
\nthe people in such public institutions besides
\ndemoralising the other honest public servants
\nwho would either be the colleagues or
\nsubordinates of the convicted person. If honest
\npublic servants are compelled to take orders<\/p>\n
                                                    6<\/span>
\n           from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of
\n           the suspension of the conviction, the fallout
\n           would be one of shaking the system itself.
\n           Hence it is necessary that the court should not
\n           aid the public servant who stands convicted
\n           for corruption charges to hold only (sic) public
\n           office until he is exonerated after conducting a
\n           judicial adjudication at the appellate or
\n           revisional level. It is a different matter if a
\n           corrupt public officer could continue to hold
\n           such public office even without the help of a
\n           court order suspending the conviction.\n<\/p>\n
           13.    The above policy can be acknowledged
\n           as necessary for the efficacy and proper
\n           functioning of public offices. If so, the legal
\n           position can be laid down that when conviction
\n           is on a corruption charge against a public
\n           servant the appellate court or the revisional
\n           court should not suspend the order of
\n           conviction during the pendency of the appeal
\n           even if the sentence of imprisonment is
\n           suspended. It would be a sublime public policy
\n           that the convicted public servant is kept under
\n           disability of the conviction in spite of keeping
\n           the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till
\n           the disposal of the appeal or revision.”\n<\/p>\n
9.   In   State of Haryana v. Hasmat<\/a> [2004(6) SCC 175] it was<\/p>\n
noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “6. Section 389 of the Code deals with
\n           suspension of execution of sentence pending
\n           the appeal and release of the appellant on bail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           There is a distinction between bail and
\n           suspension of sentence. One of the essential
\n           ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement
\n           for the appellate court to record reasons in
\n           writing for ordering suspension of execution of
\n           the sentence or order appealed. If he is in
\n           confinement, the said court can direct that he
\n           be released on bail or on his own bond. The
\n           requirement of recording reasons in writing
\n           clearly indicates that there has to be careful<\/p>\n
                                                              7<\/span>
\n           consideration of the relevant aspects and the
\n           order directing suspension of sentence and
\n           grant of bail should not be passed as a matter
\n           of routine.”\n<\/p>\n
10.   It is to be noted that learned Single Judge while directing<\/p>\n
suspension of conviction indicated no reasons.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Above being the position the order of the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge, directing the suspension\/stay of the conviction cannot<\/p>\n
stand and is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
12.   It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that<\/p>\n
hearing of the cases was posted to 22.5.2008. Since the cases<\/p>\n
of both M.N. Sharma and Roshan Lal Saini were not posted,<\/p>\n
the matter has been adjourned to 22.9.2008. We request the<\/p>\n
High Court to take up the matter and dispose of the appeal as<\/p>\n
early as practicable, preferably by end of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                      …………………………….J.
\n                                      (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                                                                       8<\/span>
\n                …………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                (H.S. BEDI)
\nNew Delhi,
\nJuly 21, 2008<\/p>\n
                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008 Author: D A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Harjit Singh Bedi IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3106 of 2007) Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi … Appellant Vs. M.N. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008 - 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\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-26T21:54:16+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T21:54:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1813,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008\",\"name\":\"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T21:54:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008 - 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\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-26T21:54:16+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T21:54:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008"},"wordCount":1813,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008","name":"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T21:54:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-b-inew-delhi-vs-m-n-sharma-on-21-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.B.I,New Delhi vs M.N.Sharma on 21 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/112805","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=112805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}