{"id":121862,"date":"2010-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-27T00:29:34","modified_gmt":"2016-05-26T18:59:34","slug":"jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rakesh Kumar<\/div>\n
                    Criminal Miscellaneous No.19657 OF 1998\n\n                     In the matter of an application under\n                     Section 482 of the Code of Criminal\n                     Procedure\n                                     --------\n<\/pre>\n
                     Jagdish Tiwari, Son of Late Kamta Nath
\n                     Tiwari, resident of Village-Atarwalia, Post
\n                     Office    and    Police    Station-Mohania,
\n                     District-Kaimur(Bhabhua)\n<\/p>\n
                                                —–Petitioner
\n                                   Versus<\/p>\n
                     1 THE STATE OF BIHAR\n<\/p>\n
                     2. Ram Bilas Paswan, Block Development
\n                        Officer, Mohania, District-Kaimur\n<\/p>\n
                                     —            Opp.Parties.\n<\/p>\n
                     For the petitioner :S\/Sri.K.N.Choubey,
\n                                               Sr.Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
                                            Nagendra Dubey,Adv.\n<\/p>\n
                     For the State :     Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ————\n<\/p>\n
                                      P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
                            THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar, J                     The sole petitioner, while invoking<\/p>\n
                  inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under<\/p>\n
                  Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,<\/p>\n
                  has virtually prayed for quashing of the F.I.R.<\/p>\n
                  i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998.<\/p>\n
                            2.      Sri    K.N.Choubey,      learned   Senior<\/p>\n
                  counsel    appearing    on   behalf   of   the    petitioner<\/p>\n
                  submits that on same allegation, two F.I.Rs were<\/p>\n
                  lodged as per the information given by one Ram<\/p>\n
                  Bilas Paswan, Block Development Officer, Mohania,<\/p>\n
                  District-Kaimur i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of<\/p>\n
                  1998 and Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998. Learned<\/p>\n
                  Senior    Counsel    further   submits     that   almost   on
\n                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
similar allegation a case vide Mohania P.S. Case<\/p>\n
No.54 of 1998 was registered. In the second case,<\/p>\n
i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998, the police<\/p>\n
after    investigation               submitted        chargesheet          under<\/p>\n
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against co-<\/p>\n
accused, namely, Dharmu Ram, who was Panchayat<\/p>\n
Sewak    at       the    relevant         time       showing       him     as   an<\/p>\n
absconder.          So        far    the       petitioner’s          case        is<\/p>\n
concerned,         the        police      had    not      find     sufficient<\/p>\n
evidence for forwarding him to face trial. The<\/p>\n
final    report          was        submitted        by     the    police        on<\/p>\n
31.5.1999.Subsequently, by order dated 30.6.1999,<\/p>\n
the     learned          Chief         Judicial           Magistrate        took<\/p>\n
cognizance of offence under Section 409 of the<\/p>\n
Indian       Penal       Code       against      accused          Dharmu    Ram.<\/p>\n
Learned       Sr.       Counsel        submits        that     in    view        of<\/p>\n
taking cognizance against accused Dharmu Ram by<\/p>\n
necessary         implication,            it    is    evident        that       the<\/p>\n
learned       Chief      Judicial          Magistrate         accepted          the<\/p>\n
final form submitted by the police in respect of<\/p>\n
this petitioner. Of course, the order does speak<\/p>\n
the same in the clear term.\n<\/p>\n
             3.                Learned Senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner has referred to column-4 of Annexure-<\/p>\n
1,    i.e.    F.I.R.          of    Mohania      P.S.       Case     No.53      of<\/p>\n
1998. In Column-4, the name of the informant,i.e.<\/p>\n
Ram     Bilas       Paswan          was    mentioned.          The       learned<\/p>\n
counsel       has        also        referred          to     Column-4           of
\n                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
Annexure-2,         i.e.       F.I.R.       of    Mohania         P.S.     Case<\/p>\n
No.54 of 1998. In column-4 of the two F.I.Rs.,<\/p>\n
name    of        Ram        Bilas       Paswan      appears        as     the<\/p>\n
informant.         Learned         counsel       for     the      petitioner<\/p>\n
tried to impress upon the Court that since in<\/p>\n
both cases informants are same, it can be assume<\/p>\n
that   for        the    same      allegation          two     F.I.Rs      were<\/p>\n
lodged.       Learned         counsel        further         submits       that<\/p>\n
since in one case i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of<\/p>\n
1998, the petitioner was exonerated by the police<\/p>\n
after completion of the investigation, which was<\/p>\n
also    accepted         by        the     learned       Chief      Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, the petitioner may not be compelled<\/p>\n
to face prosecution in Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of<\/p>\n
1998. He submits that in Mohania P.S. Case No.53<\/p>\n
of 1998 there is same and similar allegation, as<\/p>\n
alleged in Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998. He<\/p>\n
further submits that in view of Section 300 of<\/p>\n
the    Code       of     Criminal          Procedure         as    well      as<\/p>\n
Article-20(2) of the Constitution of India, the<\/p>\n
petitioner can not be twice prosecuted for the<\/p>\n
same offence. On these grounds, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel       has       virtually          prayed       that      F.I.R.     of<\/p>\n
Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998 be quashed and<\/p>\n
the    petitioner            may     not    be    compelled         to     face<\/p>\n
prosecution in Mohania P.S. Case No.53 of 1998.<\/p>\n
             4.               Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned A.P.P.<\/p>\n
for    the    State          has   opposed        the    prayer      of    the
\n                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner. First of all, he submits that at the<\/p>\n
initial stage of investigation                       that too only on<\/p>\n
the basis of perusal of the F.I.R. it would be<\/p>\n
difficult for this Court to examine as to whether<\/p>\n
the petitioner was proceeded on same and similar<\/p>\n
accusation        in      two        cases    or     not.   He    further<\/p>\n
submits that these things can be looked by the<\/p>\n
concerned        court         and    not    by     this    Court     while<\/p>\n
exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
            5.            I have also minutely examined two<\/p>\n
F.I.Rs , which have been annexed as Annexures 1<\/p>\n
and    2    to   the      petition.          The    first   F.I.R.,i.e.<\/p>\n
Mohania P.s. Case No.53 of 2998 was registered<\/p>\n
against one accused , who was Panchayat Sewak                           of<\/p>\n
the    Gram      Panchayat-Bhitty.                 The   name    of    sole<\/p>\n
accused in the said F.I.R. is Dharmu Ram. In the<\/p>\n
said       F.I.R.        the      specific         allegation     against<\/p>\n
Dharmu Ram was regarding dereliction of duty and<\/p>\n
non-production               of      official        records      despite<\/p>\n
repeated direction. There was also an allegation<\/p>\n
that       Dharmu         Ram         had     misappropriated           the<\/p>\n
Government fund relating to Jawahar Rojgar Yojna.<\/p>\n
            6.            In the second F.I.R. i.e. Mohania<\/p>\n
P.S. Case No.54 of 1998, of course, the informant<\/p>\n
was the same, but in the said F.I.R. two persons<\/p>\n
were    named       as       accused.       Those    are    Dharmu     Ram,<\/p>\n
Panchayat Sewak and this petitioner, who was at
\n                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
the relevant time Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat.<\/p>\n
In    the    second            F.I.R.,       i.e.    Mohania       P.S.    Case<\/p>\n
No.54 of 1998, there was specific allegation of<\/p>\n
misappropriate of fund under the Jawahar Rojgar<\/p>\n
Yojna.           Specifically                   the             amount         of<\/p>\n
misappropriation                and    dates        of    misappropriation<\/p>\n
were mentioned in the said F.I.R.<\/p>\n
            7.             On perusal of both the F.I.Rs.,<\/p>\n
prima facie            I am of the view that one cannot<\/p>\n
come to the conclusion that in both the F.I.Rs<\/p>\n
allegations are same and similar.Moreover, in the<\/p>\n
second F.I.R.i.e. Mohania P.S. Case No.54 of 1998<\/p>\n
after       investigation              the     police       did     not    find<\/p>\n
sufficient            materials for sending the petitioner<\/p>\n
for trial . Only on the ground of non-sending of<\/p>\n
the petitioner for facing the trial, this plea<\/p>\n
cannot      be   taken          that     the    petitioner         cannot      be<\/p>\n
asked         to       face          prosecution          twice     for    such<\/p>\n
allegation.           It        is     evident           that     only    after<\/p>\n
investigation, final form was submitted by the<\/p>\n
police and the petitioner was never put on trial.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, I am of the view that in such a<\/p>\n
situation, the petitioner may not be allowed to<\/p>\n
take the protection under Section 300 of the Code<\/p>\n
of Criminal Procedure. It would be appropriate to<\/p>\n
quote       the provisions contained in Section 300 of<\/p>\n
the   Code       of    Criminal          Procedure         ,    which     is   as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
       “300.Person once convicted                         or acquitted<\/p>\n
not to be tried for same offence–<\/p>\n
     (1)      A person who has once been tried by
\n       a court of competent jurisdiction for an
\n       offence        and     convicted         or       acquitted        of
\n       such offence shall, while such conviction
\n       or    acquittal         remains         in     force,       not    be
\n       liable     to     be    tried       again         for     the   same
\n       offence, nor on the same facts for any
\n       other      offence          for        which       a     different
\n       charge       from      the    one       made        against       him
\n       might      have      been    made       under          sub-section
\n       (1) of Section 221, or for which he might
\n       have been convicted under sub-section (2)
\n       thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)      (2) A person acquitted or convicted
\n       of any offence may be afterwards tried,
\n       with the consent of the State Government,
\n       for    any      distinct          offence         for     which     a
\n       separate        charge       might           have       been     made
\n       against        him     at    the       former       trial       under
\n       sub-section (1) of section 220.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n     (3)      A    person      convicted            of     any    offence\n       constituted                  by        any        act      causing\n       consequences            which, together                 with such\n       act,    constituted                a    different          offence\n<\/pre>\n
       from that of which he was convicted , may
\n       be     afterwards           tried       for       such           last
\n       mentioned         offence,         if    the        consequences
\n       had not happened , or were not known to
\n       the Court to have happened , at the time
\n       when he was convicted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)      A person acquitted or convicted of
\n       any offence constituted by any acts may,
\n       notwithstanding               such            acquittal            or
\n       conviction, be subsequently charged with,
\n                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
          and       tried        for,    any     other         offence
\n          constituted by the same acts which he may
\n          have committed if the Court by which he
\n          was first tried was not competent                     to try
\n          the offence with which he is subsequently
\n          charged.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (5)        A    person    discharged      under        section
\n          258 shall not be tried again for the same
\n          offence except with the consent of the
\n          Court by which he was discharged or of
\n          any       other    Court       to    which     the        first
\n          mentioned Court is subordinate.
\n        (6)        Nothing in this section shall affect
\n          the      provisions       of    Section      26      of     the
\n          General Clauses Act, 1897(10 of 1897) or
\n          of section 188 of this Code.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              8.       So far as violation of fundamental<\/p>\n
right     in       view     of     Article       20(2)      of        the<\/p>\n
Constitution is concerned, merely on perusal of<\/p>\n
definition of said Article, one can come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion         that    this   provision      shows      that     one<\/p>\n
cannot be prosecuted and punished twice for the<\/p>\n
same offence. It is also necessary to quote the<\/p>\n
provisions         contained       in     Article-20         of       the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
              “20. Protection in respect of conviction
\nfor offences–(1) No person shall be convicted of
\nany offence except for violation of a law in
\nforce at the time of the commission of the act as
\nan offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater
\nthan that which might have been inflicted under
\nthe law in force at the time of the commission of
\nthe offence.\n<\/p>\n
                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
             (2) No person shall be prosecuted and
\npunished for the same offence more than once.\n<\/p>\n
             (3)       No     person         accused        of    any     offence
\nshall       be    compelled             to     be     a     witness       against
\nhimself.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             9.                    On    perusal          of    the    provision\n\ncontained         in    Clause           2     of    Article       20     of   the\n\n<\/pre>\n
Constitution of India, it is evident that this<\/p>\n
protection is given to a citizen that he cannot<\/p>\n
be prosecuted and punished for the same offence<\/p>\n
more than once. In the present case, it is not a<\/p>\n
case    that       the        petitioner             was       prosecuted      and<\/p>\n
punished.         Even        in    one        case        only    police      had<\/p>\n
conducted         investigation                and       thereafter       he   was<\/p>\n
exonerated. The petitioner was neither prosecuted<\/p>\n
nor punished for the same offence. Accordingly, I<\/p>\n
am     of        the    view            that        in     the        facts    and<\/p>\n
circumstances                of     the         present           case,        both<\/p>\n
provisions i.e. provision under Article 20(2) of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India or Section 300 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
are not applicable.\n<\/p>\n
             10.             So far as the allegation made in<\/p>\n
the first F.I.R. i.e. Mohania P.s. Case No.53 of<\/p>\n
1998 is concerned, on perusal of the F.I.R. it is<\/p>\n
evident that the petitioner was not named in the<\/p>\n
said F.I.R.This F.I.R. was lodged only against<\/p>\n
Dharmu Ram, who was Panchayat Sewak. Moreover,<\/p>\n
after lodging the F.I.R. while the case was at
\n                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
the     initial    stage       of   the    investigation,       the<\/p>\n
petitioner rushed to this Court while invoking<\/p>\n
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section<\/p>\n
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing<\/p>\n
the present case. In this case, by the order<\/p>\n
dated 16.9.1998 while admitting the case , this<\/p>\n
Court had directed that during the pendency of<\/p>\n
this application, further proceeding in Mohania<\/p>\n
P.S. Case No.53 of 1998             appertaining to G.R.Case<\/p>\n
No.361 of 1998 shall remain stayed. The order of<\/p>\n
stay is still continuing.\n<\/p>\n
           11.           In the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of the case,I am of the view that at the initial<\/p>\n
stage     of      investigation,          it    would     not    be<\/p>\n
appropriate for this Court to interfere in such<\/p>\n
cases. Unless a report is submitted by the police<\/p>\n
before the Magistrate, it cannot be said that a<\/p>\n
proceeding was pending. In absence of pendency of<\/p>\n
a proceeding before the Court below, one has got<\/p>\n
no right to invoke inherent jurisdiction under<\/p>\n
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
Accordingly,       on    the    ground     of   maintainability<\/p>\n
itself, the petition is liable to be rejected.<\/p>\n
However,       without    recording       my    opinion   on    the<\/p>\n
point of maintainability of the present case, in<\/p>\n
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
I am of the view that only on perusal of two<\/p>\n
F.I.Rs, it is difficult for this Court to come to
\n                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
                     a   definite      conclusion       that       the   petitioner      was<\/p>\n
                     made      accused    twice       for    the    same      and   similar<\/p>\n
                     allegation.         Moreover,      perusal          of   the    F.I.R.<\/p>\n
                     indicates that the allegations are not exactly<\/p>\n
                     similar in two F.I.Rs.\n<\/p>\n
                                 12.           Accordingly, I do not find any<\/p>\n
                     merit in this petition and the petition stands<\/p>\n
                     rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                 13.             In   view    of    rejection       of   the<\/p>\n
                     present petition the interim order of stay, which<\/p>\n
                     was granted on 16.9.1998, stands automatically<\/p>\n
                     vacated.\n<\/p>\n
                                 Let this order be communicated to the<\/p>\n
                     court below forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            ( Rakesh Kumar, J)
\nPatna High Court,Patna
\nDated : the 2nd April,2010
\nNawal Kishore Singh\/N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010 Author: Rakesh Kumar Criminal Miscellaneous No.19657 OF 1998 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ——– Jagdish Tiwari, Son of Late Kamta Nath Tiwari, resident of Village-Atarwalia, Post Office and Police Station-Mohania, District-Kaimur(Bhabhua) —–Petitioner […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010 - 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\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-26T18:59:34+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-26T18:59:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2036,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-26T18:59:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010 - 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\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-26T18:59:34+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-26T18:59:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010"},"wordCount":2036,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010","name":"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-26T18:59:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdish-tiwari-vs-state-of-bihar-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagdish Tiwari vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121862","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=121862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121862\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}