{"id":113361,"date":"2011-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-11T18:23:59","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T12:53:59","slug":"ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: ……………………..J.<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                                        Reportable\n\n\n               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NO.7106 OF 2011        \n\n [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 12091 of 2010]\n\n\n                                      \n\nRam Kumar                                                 ...... Appellant\n\n\n\n                                 Versus\n\n\n\nState of U. P. & Ors.                                 ...... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                               O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
A. K. PATNAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    This  is  an  appeal  against  the  order  dated   31.08.2009  of <\/p>\n
the   Division   Bench   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court   in   Special <\/p>\n
Appeal No.924 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the appellant <\/p>\n
against the  order of  the learned  Single Judge  in Writ  Petition <\/p>\n
(C) No.40674 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The   facts   very   briefly   are   that   pursuant   to   an <\/p>\n
advertisement   issued   by   the   State   Government   of   U.P.   on <\/p>\n
                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
19.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of constable and <\/p>\n
he   submitted   an   affidavit   dated   12.06.2006   to   the   recruiting <\/p>\n
authority   in   the   proforma   of   verification   roll.     In   the   affidavit <\/p>\n
dated   12.06.2006,   he   made   various   statements   required   for <\/p>\n
the   purpose   of   recruitment   and   in   para   4   of   the   affidavit   he <\/p>\n
stated   that   no   criminal   case   was   registered  against   him.     He <\/p>\n
was selected and appointed as a male constable and deputed <\/p>\n
for   training.     Thereafter,   the   Jaswant   Nagar   Police   Station, <\/p>\n
District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15.01.2007 stating <\/p>\n
that         Criminal         Case         No.275\/2001         under         Sections <\/p>\n
324\/323\/504   IPC   was   registered   against   the   appellant   and <\/p>\n
thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the Additional <\/p>\n
Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Etawah,   on   18.07.2002   and   the <\/p>\n
appellant was acquitted by the Court.   Along with this report, <\/p>\n
a   copy   of   the   order   dated   18.07.2002   of   the   Additional   Chief <\/p>\n
Judicial   Magistrate   was   also   enclosed.     The   report   dated <\/p>\n
15.01.2007   of   the   Jaswant   Nagar   Police   Station,   District <\/p>\n
Etawah,   was   sent   to   the   Senior   Superintendent   of   Police, <\/p>\n
Ghaziabad.           By   order   dated   08.08.2007,   the   Senior <\/p>\n
Superintendent   of   Police,   Ghaziabad,   cancelled   the   order   of <\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
selection of the appellant on the ground that he had submitted <\/p>\n
an   affidavit   stating   wrong   facts   and   concealing   correct   facts <\/p>\n
and his selection was irregular and illegal.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Aggrieved,   the   appellant   filed   Writ   Petition   No.40674   of <\/p>\n
2007   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   before   the <\/p>\n
Allahabad High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed <\/p>\n
the writ petition by his order dated  30.08.2007.   The learned <\/p>\n
Single Judge held that since the appellant had furnished false <\/p>\n
information in his affidavit in the proforma verification roll, his <\/p>\n
case   is   squarely   covered   by   the   judgment   rendered   by   this <\/p>\n
Court   in  Kendriya   Vidyalaya   Sangathan   and   Others  v.  Ram  <\/p>\n
Ratan   Yadav<\/a>  [(2003)   3   SCC   437]   and   that   he   was   rightly <\/p>\n
terminated   from   service   without   any   inquiry.     The   appellant <\/p>\n
challenged   the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   Special <\/p>\n
Appeal   No.924   of   2009   but   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High <\/p>\n
Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the <\/p>\n
same by the impugned order dated 31.08.2009.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
appellant had been acquitted by the order dated 18.07.2002 of <\/p>\n
the   Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   in   Criminal   Case <\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
No.275   of   2001   and   for   this   reason   when   the   appellant <\/p>\n
furnished   the   affidavit   dated   12.06.2006   in   the   prescribed <\/p>\n
verification roll, four years after the order of the acquittal, he <\/p>\n
did   not   think   it   necessary   to   state   in   the   affidavit   about   this <\/p>\n
criminal   case.     He   submitted   that   in   any   case,   a   copy   of   the <\/p>\n
order   of   the   Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   in   Criminal <\/p>\n
Case   No.275   of  2001   would   show   that  the   crime   related   to   a <\/p>\n
minor   incident   which   took   place   on  02.12.2000   and   as  there <\/p>\n
was   no   evidence   against   the   appellant,   the   Additional   Chief <\/p>\n
Judicial   Magistrate   acquitted   the   appellant   of   the   charges <\/p>\n
under Sections 324\/34\/504 IPC.  He submitted that therefore <\/p>\n
this   is   not   a   fit   case   in   which   the   selection   of   the   appellant <\/p>\n
should  have  been  cancelled.     He cited  Commissioner  of  Police  <\/p>\n
and   Others  v.  Sandeep   Kumar<\/a>  [2011(3)   SCALE   606]   in  which <\/p>\n
this Court has taken a view that cancellation of candidature to <\/p>\n
the post of temporary Head Constable for the suppression and <\/p>\n
failure to disclose in the verification roll\/application about his <\/p>\n
involvement in an incident resulting in a criminal case under <\/p>\n
Sections   325\/34   of  the   IPC  when  the  candidate   was  a  young <\/p>\n
man, was not justified.\n<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
6.     Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, <\/p>\n
supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as <\/p>\n
the  impugned  order  of the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court.\n<\/p>\n
Besides   relying   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in  Kendriya  <\/p>\n
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav<\/a> (supra), <\/p>\n
he   also   relied   on   the   counter   affidavit   filed   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
respondent   Nos.   2   to   4   and   in   particular   the   Government <\/p>\n
Order dated  28.04.1958 under  which a  verification had to  be <\/p>\n
carried out with regard to the character of the candidate who <\/p>\n
was being  considered for appointment.    He  submitted that  in <\/p>\n
accordance   with   the   Government   instructions   in   the <\/p>\n
Government   Order   dated   28.04.1958,   candidates   desiring <\/p>\n
appointment   to   various   posts   in   Government   service   were <\/p>\n
required   to   submit   a   detailed   affidavit   furnishing   details   of <\/p>\n
their character and antecedents.\n<\/p>\n
7.     We   have   carefully   read   the   Government   Order   dated <\/p>\n
28.04.1958   on   the   subject   `Verification   of   the   character   and  <\/p>\n
antecedents   of   government   servants   before   their   first  <\/p>\n
appointment’ and it is stated in the Government order that the <\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
Governor   has   been   pleased   to   lay   down   the   following <\/p>\n
instructions in supercession of all the previous orders:\n<\/p>\n
      “The   rule   regarding   character   of   candidate   for <\/p>\n
      appointment   under   the   State   Government   shall <\/p>\n
      continue to be as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The   character   of   a   candidate   for   direct <\/p>\n
          appointment  must  be such as to render  him <\/p>\n
          suitable in all respects for employment in the <\/p>\n
          service or post to which he is to be appointed. <\/p>\n
          It   would   be   duty   of   the   appointing   authority <\/p>\n
          to satisfy itself on this point.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
It   will   be   clear   from   the   aforesaid   instructions   issued   by   the <\/p>\n
Governor   that   the   object   of   the   verification   of   the   character <\/p>\n
and   antecedents   of   government   servants   before   their   first <\/p>\n
appointment   is   to   ensure   that   the   character   of   a  government <\/p>\n
servant   for   a   direct   recruitment   is   such   as   to   render   him <\/p>\n
suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to <\/p>\n
which   he   is   to   be   appointed   and   it   would   be   a   duty   of   the <\/p>\n
appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.<\/p>\n
8.     In   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   we   find   that   though <\/p>\n
Criminal   Case   No.275   of   2001   under   Sections   324\/323\/504 <\/p>\n
IPC   had   been   registered   against   the   appellant   at   Jaswant <\/p>\n
Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly the appellant <\/p>\n
                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
had   been   acquitted   by   order   dated   18.07.2002   by   the <\/p>\n
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.  On a reading of <\/p>\n
the   order   dated   18.07.2002   of   the   Additional   Chief   Judicial <\/p>\n
Magistrate would show that the sole witness examined before <\/p>\n
the Court, PW-1 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the <\/p>\n
Court   that   on   02.12.2000   at   4.00   p.m.   children   were <\/p>\n
quarrelling   and   at   that   time   the   appellant,   Shailendra   and <\/p>\n
Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and <\/p>\n
someone   from   the   crowd   hurled   abuses   and   in   the   scuffle <\/p>\n
Akhilesh   Kumar   got   injured   when   he   fell   and   his   head   hit   a <\/p>\n
brick   platform   and   that   he   was   not   beaten   by   the   accused <\/p>\n
persons   by   any   sharp   weapon.     In   the   absence   of   any   other <\/p>\n
witness   against   the   appellant,   the   Additional   Chief   Judicial <\/p>\n
Magistrate   acquitted   the   appellant   of   the   charges   under <\/p>\n
Sections   323\/34\/504   IPC.     On   these   facts,   it   was   not   at   all <\/p>\n
possible   for   the   appointing   authority   to   take   a   view   that   the <\/p>\n
appellant   was   not   suitable   for   appointment   to   the   post   of   a <\/p>\n
police constable.\n<\/p>\n
9.        The   order   dated   18.07.2002   of   the   Additional   Chief <\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated <\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior <\/p>\n
Superintendent   of  Police,   Ghaziabad,   but  it   appears   from   the <\/p>\n
order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, <\/p>\n
Ghaziabad,   that   he   has   not   gone   into   the   question   as   to <\/p>\n
whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service <\/p>\n
or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he <\/p>\n
has   only   held   that   the   selection   of   the   appellant   was   illegal <\/p>\n
and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the <\/p>\n
proforma   of   verification   roll   that   a   criminal   case   has   been <\/p>\n
registered against him.  As has been stated in the instructions <\/p>\n
in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of <\/p>\n
the   Senior   Superintendent   of   Police,   Ghaziabad,   as   the <\/p>\n
appointing   authority,   to   satisfy   himself   on   the   point   as   to <\/p>\n
whether   the   appellant   was   suitable   for   appointment   to   the <\/p>\n
post   of   a   constable,   with   reference   to   the   nature   of <\/p>\n
suppression   and   nature   of   the   criminal   case.     Instead   of <\/p>\n
considering   whether   the   appellant   was   suitable   for <\/p>\n
appointment   to   the   post   of   male   constable,   the   appointing <\/p>\n
authority   has   mechanically   held   that   his   selection   was <\/p>\n
irregular   and   illegal   because   the   appellant   had   furnished   an <\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
affidavit   stating   the   facts   incorrectly   at   the   time   of <\/p>\n
recruitment.\n<\/p>\n
10.    In  Kendriya   Vidyalaya   Sangathan   and   Others  v.  Ram  <\/p>\n
Ratan  Yadav<\/a>  (supra) relied on by the  respondents, a criminal <\/p>\n
case had been registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B <\/p>\n
read   with   Section   34   IPC   and   was   pending   against   the <\/p>\n
respondent   in   that   case   and   the   respondent   had   suppressed <\/p>\n
this   material   in   the   attestation   form.     The   respondent, <\/p>\n
however,   contended   that   the   criminal   case   was   subsequently <\/p>\n
withdrawn   and   the   offences   in   which   the   respondent   was <\/p>\n
alleged to have been involved were also not of serious nature.\n<\/p>\n
On   these   facts,   this   Court   held   that   the   respondent   was   to <\/p>\n
serve   as   a   Physical   Education   Teacher   in   Kendriya   Vidyalaya <\/p>\n
and he could not be suitable for appointment as the character, <\/p>\n
conduct   and   antecedents   of   a   teacher   will   have   some   impact <\/p>\n
on the minds of the students of impressionable age and if the <\/p>\n
authorities   had   dismissed   him   from   service   for   suppressing <\/p>\n
material   information   in   the   attestation   form,   the   decision   of <\/p>\n
the authorities could not be interfered with by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The   facts   of   the   case   in  Kendriya   Vidyalaya   Sangathan   and  <\/p>\n
                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
Others  v.  Ram   Ratan   Yadav  (supra)   are   therefore   materially <\/p>\n
different   from   the   facts   of   the   present   case   and   the   decision <\/p>\n
does not squarely cover the case of the appellant as has been <\/p>\n
held by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.       For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside <\/p>\n
the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order <\/p>\n
of   the   Division   Bench   and   allow   the   writ   petition   of   the <\/p>\n
appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior <\/p>\n
Superintendent   of   Police,   Ghaziabad.     The   appellant   will   be <\/p>\n
taken   back   in   service   within   a   period   of   two   months   from <\/p>\n
today   but   he   will   not   be   entitled   to   any   back   wages   for   the <\/p>\n
period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order <\/p>\n
as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       (R.         V. \n\nRaveendran)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      ..........................J.\n\n                                                                                         (A.   K. \n\nPatnaik)\n\nNew Delhi,\n\nAugust 19, 2011.   \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011 Author: ……………………..J. Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7106 OF 2011 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 12091 of 2010] Ram Kumar …… Appellant Versus State […]<\/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-113361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - 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\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T12:53:59+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\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T12:53:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1681,\"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\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T12:53:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - 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\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T12:53:59+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\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T12:53:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"wordCount":1681,"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\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011","name":"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T12:53:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kumar-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 19 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/113361","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=113361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113361\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}