{"id":127542,"date":"2004-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004"},"modified":"2017-10-11T04:55:26","modified_gmt":"2017-10-10T23:25:26","slug":"mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004","title":{"rendered":"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  667 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nMangilal\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Madhya Pradesh\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/01\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tAn interesting question relating to the scope and ambit of Section
\n357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) is
\nraised in this appeal which by order dated 15.10.2003 was limited to the
\nquestion of grant of compensation as done by the High Court. In view of
\nthe aforesaid, and the question of law involved, it is not necessary to
\ngo into the factual aspects in detail.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused) faced
\ntrial along with seven others for alleged commission of offences
\npunishable under Section 452, 148, 323 read with Section 149, 302 read
\nwith Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’)
\nfor allegedly causing death of one Rajinder Kumar (hereinafter referred
\nto as ‘the deceased’). All the accused persons including the appellant
\nwere found guilty for offences relatable to Section 448.  They were also
\nfound guilty of offence relatable to Section 323 read with Section 149
\nIPC for having caused injuries to Amar Singh, the informant (PW-8). They
\nwere acquitted of the charges relatable to Section 148 IPC and were
\nconvicted in relation to Section 147 IPC.  Appellant was acquitted of
\ncharges relatable to Section 323 read with Section 149 but was convicted
\nunder Section 302 IPC.  The rest of the accused persons were not found
\nguilty in relation to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.  All the
\naccused persons except accused Babu Lal were acquitted of the charges
\nunder Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC.  Accused-appellant was
\nsentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under
\nSection 302 IPC and for the rest of offence he was sentenced to RI for
\nsix months each.  Other accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for
\nsix months each for two offences for which they were found guilty.
\nAccused Babu Lal in addition was sentenced to undergo for all the three
\noffences for six months RI. Four appeals were filed by the accused
\npersons including the appellant before the High Court. By the impugned
\njudgment, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court maintained
\nconvictions of the appellant.  It was noticed that the appellants before
\nthe High Court (except the present accused-appellant) have been in
\ncustody for about two months.  It was noted that the trial Court had not
\nawarded any compensation to the heirs of the deceased and to the injured
\n(PW-8).  As the High Court did not feel it appropriate to send the rest
\nof the accused persons to jail, direction was given that each of them
\nshall pay compensation @ Rs.30,000\/- in terms of Sections 357 (3) and
\n(4) of the Code. The accused-appellant was also directed to pay similar
\ncompensation. Fixing a proportion by apportionment it was directed that
\nout of the compensation, 2\/3rd was to be paid to the heirs of the
\ndeceased while rest 1\/3rd was to be paid to the injured (PW-8).  Sentence
\nof all the appellants in respect of Sections 147 and 148, and in case of
\naccused-Babulal additionally for Section 323 was reduced to the period
\nof imprisonment already undergone.  Only accused-appellant Mangilal has
\npreferred this appeal which as noted at the outset was restricted to the
\nquestion of grant of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\tDr. T.N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
\nsubmitted that the High Court has not kept in view the object underlying
\nthe grant of compensation under Section 357 of the Code.  This is a case
\nwhere no fine was imposed by the trial Court, but the High Court
\ndirected payment of compensation. While fixing the quantum the accused
\npersons were not heard thereby violating principles of natural justice.
\nAn additional liability was fastened on the accused-appellant, and
\ntherefore, the principles of natural justice mandated grant of an
\nopportunity.\n<\/p>\n
\tPer contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
\ncompensation is in addition to the fine and when for allocating fine no
\nhearing is necessary, except while hearing on the question of sentence,
\nthere is no requirement for hearing the accused before awarding
\ncompensation.  In any event, Section 357 nowhere postulates grant of an
\nopportunity to be heard.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor appreciating rival submissions, it is appropriate to quote
\nSection 357 of the Code along with the amendments in the State of Madhya
\nPradesh, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Section 357: Order to pay compensation  (1) When a
\ncourt imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence
\n(including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a
\npart, the Court may, when passing judgment order the
\nwhole or any part of the fine recovered to be
\napplied; –\n<\/p>\n
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred
\nin the prosecution;\n<\/p>\n
(b) in the payment to any person of
\ncompensation for any loss or injury caused by
\nthe offence, when compensation is, in the
\nopinion of the Court, recoverable by such
\nperson in a Civil Court;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\twhen any person is convicted to any
\noffence for having caused the death of another
\nperson or of having abetted the commission of
\nsuch an offence, in paying compensation to the
\npersons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act
\n(13 of 1855), entitled to recover damages from
\nthe person sentenced for the loss resulting to
\nthem from such death;\n<\/p>\n
(d) when any person is convicted of any offence
\nwhich includes theft, criminal
\nmisappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or
\ncheating, or of having dishonestly received or
\nretained, or of having voluntarily assisted in
\ndisposing of, stolen property knowing or having
\nreason to believe the same to be stolen, in
\ncompensating any bona fide purchaser of such
\nproperty for the loss of the same if such
\nproperty is restored to the possession of the
\nperson entitled thereto.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIf the fine is imposed in a case which is
\nsubject to appeal, no such payment shall be made
\nbefore the period allowed for presenting the appeal
\nhas elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before
\nthe decision of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhen a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine
\ndoes not form a part, the Court may, when passing
\njudgment order the accused person to pay, by way of
\ncompensation such amount as may be specified in the
\norder to the person who has suffered any loss or
\ninjury by reason of the act for which the accused
\nperson has been so sentenced.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tAn order under this section may also be made by
\nan Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of
\nSession when exercising its powers of revision.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tAt the time of awarding compensation in any
\nsubsequent civil suit relating to the same matter,
\nthe Court shall take into account any sum paid or
\nrecovered as compensation under this section.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Madhya Pradesh State Amendment reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“(a) In sub-section (1), for-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)\tWhen a Court imposes a sentence of fine
\nor a sentence (including a sentence of death) of
\nwhich fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing
\njudgment, order the whole or any part of the fine
\nrecovered to be applied; substitute-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)\tWhen a Court imposes a sentence of fine
\nor a sentence (including a sentence of death) of
\nwhich fine forms a part, the Court may, and where a
\nperson against whom an offence is committed belongs
\nto Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as defined in
\nclauses (24) and (25) of Article 366 of the
\nConstitution of India, 1950 (in short the
\n‘Constitution’) except when both the accused person
\nand the person against whom an offence is committed
\nbelong either to such castes or tribes, the Court
\nshall, when passing judgment, order the whole or any
\npart of the fine recovered to be applied; and<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tsubstitute sub-section (3) as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)\tWhen a Court imposes a sentence, of which
\nfine does not form a part, the Court may, and where a
\nperson against whom an offence is committed belongs
\nto Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as defined in
\nclauses (24) and (25) of Article 366 of the
\nConstitution, the Court shall, when passing judgment,
\norder the accused person to pay, by way of
\ncompensation, such amount as may be specified in the
\norder to the person who has suffered any loss or
\ninjury by reason of the act for which the accused
\nperson has been so sentenced.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that the Court may not order the
\naccused person to pay by way of compensation any
\namount, if both the accused person and the person
\nagainst whom an offence is committed belong either to
\nthe Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. (M.P. Act
\n20 of 1978 w.e.f. 5.10.1978)”\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section (1) of Section 357 deals with a situation when a Court
\nimposes a fine or a sentence (including sentence of death) of which fine
\nalso forms a part.  It confers a discretion on the Court to order as to
\nhow the whole or any part of fine recovered is to be applied.  For
\nbringing in application of sub-section (1) of Section 357 it is a
\nstatutory requirement that fine is imposed and thereupon make further
\norders as to the disbursement of the said fine in the manner envisaged
\ntherein.  If no fine is imposed, sub-section (1) of Section 357 has no
\napplication.  In the case at hand no fine was imposed by the trial Court
\nor the High Court. Sub-section (3) on the other hand deals with the
\nsituation where fine does not form part of the sentence imposed by a
\nCourt.  In such a case, the Court when passing a judgment can order the
\naccused persons to pay by way of compensation such amount as may be
\nspecified in the order to the person who has suffered a loss or injury
\nby reason of the act of which the accused person has been so convicted
\nand sentenced.  The basic difference between sub-section (1) and (3) is
\nthat in the former case, the imposition of fine is the basic and
\nessential requirement, while in the latter even in the absence thereof
\nempowers the Court to direct payment of compensation. Such power is
\navailable to be exercised by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or
\nCourt of Sessions when exercising revisional powers. Sub-section (5)
\ndeals with a situation when the Court fixes the compensation in any
\nsubsequent civil suit relating to the same matter. While awarding
\ncompensation the Court is required to take into account any sum paid or
\nrecovered as compensation under Section 357 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
The power of the Court to award compensation to victims under
\nSection 357 is not ancillary to other sentences but is in addition
\nthereto. In                  Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors.<\/a> (1988
\n(4) SCC 551) it was observed that the power under Section 357 is a
\nmeasure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the
\nvictim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a re-compensatory
\nmeasure to rehabilitate to an extent the beleaguered victims of the
\ncrime, a modern constructive approach to crimes, a step forward in our
\ncriminal justice system. In Sarwan Singh and Ors. etc. v. the State of
\nPunjab (AIR 1978 SC 1525) it was held that in awarding compensation, the
\nCourt has to decide whether the case is fit one in which compensation
\nhas to be awarded.  If it is found that the compensation should be
\nordered to be paid, then while arriving at the quantum to be paid,
\nCourts are obliged to keep into account the capacity of the accused to
\npay the compensation besides taking into consideration also the nature
\nof the crime in each case, the justness of the claim for compensation
\nand the need for it in the context of the victim or members of the
\nfamily of the victim and other relevant circumstances, if any, in so
\nfixing or apportioning the amount of compensation. As noted above, the
\nmode of application of the fine is indicated in sub-section (1) of
\nSection 357. Sub-section (3) contains an independent and distinct power
\nto award compensation.\n<\/p>\n
That brings us to the most crucial question, that is, whether the
\nCourt was required to hear accused before fixing the quantum of
\ncompensation.  It is urged by the learned counsel for the State that
\nunlike a sentence of fine before imposition of which a Court is required
\nto hear the accused while considering the question of quantum of
\nsentence, it is but natural that the trial Court after hearing on the
\nquestion of sentence does not impose a fine, but in terms of sub-section
\n(3) of Section 357 proceed to award compensation, at that juncture or
\neven during the course of hearing as to the quantum of sentence by
\nsufficient indication made by the Court concerned, the accused gets
\nopportunity to present his version as to the relevant criteria or norms
\nto be applied in the context of the case before the Court on the quantum
\nof compensation. The position cannot be said to be, in any way different
\nwhile the Appellate or Revisional Court also does it in terms of sub-
\nsection (4), as long as it requires to be done in the light of the
\ncriteria indicated as above, unless it is by any agreement or consent of
\nthe parties such compensation has been fixed.\n<\/p>\n
Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the
\nAct or Rules made thereunder there could be nothing wrong in spelling
\nout the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to
\nbe affected, by the orders that may be passed, and making it a
\nrequirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless
\nthe statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must
\nbe read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is
\nclear mandate to the contrary.  No form or procedure should ever be
\npermitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s defence or stand.
\nEven in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in
\nevery Tribunal\/Court of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, to adopt
\nmodalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair
\nplay to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is
\nmainly grounded on principles of natural justice irrespective of the
\nextent of its application by express provision in that regard in given
\nsituation.  It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute
\nis silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice,
\nsuch statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles
\nof natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably
\naffected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless
\nfound excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. (See
\nSwadesi Cotton Mills etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. etc., AIR 1961 SC\n<\/p>\n
818).  Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of
\njustice.  Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but
\nsupplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law
\nvalidly made.  They are means to an end and not an end in themselves.
\nThe principles of natural justice have many facets.  Two of them are:
\nnotice of the case to be met, and opportunity to explain.\n<\/p>\n
In the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is that
\nopportunity has to be granted before directing payment of compensation
\nunder Section 357 (4) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe use of the expression “may” throws light on the legislative
\nintent in the context it is used.  It has been used in the permissible
\nsense and does not make it obligatory. In the aforesaid background, the
\ninevitable conclusion is that if the Appellate Court intends to award
\ncompensation an opportunity of hearing has to be granted so that the
\nrelevant aspects like the need to award compensation, capacity of the
\naccused to pay and several other relevant factors can be taken note of.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly, we set aside that part of the High Court judgment
\nwhich relates to direction for payment of compensation by the accused-
\nappellant and remit the matter back to the High Court, which shall grant
\nan opportunity to the accused-appellant, and the adjudication shall be
\nlimited to that question particularly relating to the liability of the
\nappellant only since others are said to have already paid the respective
\namount.  It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
\nmerits of the issue to be decided under Section 357 (4) of the Code. The
\nappeal is allowed to the extent indicated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 667 of 2003 PETITIONER: Mangilal RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/01\/2004 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T […]<\/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-127542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004 - 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\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-10T23:25:26+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T23:25:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2697,\"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\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004\",\"name\":\"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T23:25:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004 - 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\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-10T23:25:26+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004","datePublished":"2004-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T23:25:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004"},"wordCount":2697,"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\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004","name":"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T23:25:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangilal-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-5-january-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004"}]},{"@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\/127542","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=127542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}