{"id":131090,"date":"2008-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-13T04:12:15","modified_gmt":"2015-05-12T22:42:15","slug":"ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008                            -1-\n\n                                     ****\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n              AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                        Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008\n                        Date of decision : 18.12.2008\n\nRamesh Chand\n\n                                                        .....Appellant\n\n                        Versus\nKailash Mangal                                          ...Respondent\n\n                              ****\n\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND\n\nPresent:    Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the appellant\n\n            None for the respondent.\n\nS. D. ANAND, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The petitioner-complainant had filed a complaint under<\/p>\n
Sections 416, 419, 191, 192 and 193 IPC against the respondent\/accused<\/p>\n
on the allegations which may be indicated as under:-<\/p>\n
            The parties are real brothers inter-se.    In the course of the<\/p>\n
Civil Suit No. 181 of 1987 titled (Surender Kumar Vs. Smt. Champa Devi),<\/p>\n
which was pending in the Court of the then learned Sub Judge Ist Class,<\/p>\n
Tohana, respondent\/accused had filed an affidavit dated 15.12.1990<\/p>\n
containing averments found to be false. On that finding, the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Magistrate convicted the respondent\/accused for        the offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 193\/419 IPC, vide judgment dated 11.10.2004.<\/p>\n
            In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, reversed<\/p>\n
the finding by holding that the affidavit had been filed in the course of<\/p>\n
judicial proceedings, a prosecution in that respect could be competent only
\n Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008                              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ****
\nif a complaint in the relevant behalf was made by the concerned Court in<\/p>\n
accordance with the procedure indicated under Section 340 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
            The complainant\/petitioner is in revision against that order.<\/p>\n
            I have heard Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant and have carefully gone through the record.<\/p>\n
            None turned up on behalf of respondent to assist this Court.<\/p>\n
            It is apparent from the record that affidavit dated 15.12.1990<\/p>\n
had been sworn by respondent\/accused prior to its presentation before the<\/p>\n
Court of the then learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Tohala. It is, thus, not a<\/p>\n
case where the false evidence had been given during the time the<\/p>\n
document was in custodia-legis.       A similar controversy came up for<\/p>\n
consideration before the Apex court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another<\/p>\n
Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another 2005 AIR (SC) 2119. In that case,<\/p>\n
the Apex Court recorded the following observations:-<\/p>\n
            “9. The scheme of the statutory provision may now be<\/p>\n
            examined. Broadly, Section 195, Cr.P.C. deals with three<\/p>\n
            distinct categories of offences which have been described in<\/p>\n
            clauses (a), (b) (i) and (b)(ii) and they relate to (1) contempt of<\/p>\n
            lawful authority of public servants, (2) offences against public<\/p>\n
            justice, and (3) offences relating to documents given in<\/p>\n
            evidence. Clause (a) deals with offences punishable under<\/p>\n
            Sections 172 to 188, IPC which occur in Chapter X of the IPC<\/p>\n
            and the heading of the Chapter is – ‘Of Contempts of The<\/p>\n
            Lawful Authority of Public Servants’. These are offences which<\/p>\n
            directly affect the functioning of or discharge of lawful duties of<\/p>\n
            a public servant. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in Chapter XI<\/p>\n
            of IPC which is headed as – ‘Of False Evidence And Offences<\/p>\n
            Against Public Justice’. The offences mentioned in this clause
\n Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008                         -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  ****
\n         clearly relate to giving or fabricating false evidence or making<\/p>\n
         a false declaration in any judicial proceeding or before a Court<\/p>\n
         of justice or before a public servant who is bound or<\/p>\n
         authorized by law to receive such declaration, and also to<\/p>\n
         some other offences which have a direct correlation with the<\/p>\n
         proceedings in a Court of justice (Sections 205 and 211, IPC).<\/p>\n
         This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of Section<\/p>\n
         195, viz., that the offence should be such which has direct<\/p>\n
         bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties<\/p>\n
         of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the<\/p>\n
         proceedings in a court of justice, the expression “when such<\/p>\n
         offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a<\/p>\n
         document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a<\/p>\n
         Court” occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean<\/p>\n
         commission of such an offence after the document has<\/p>\n
         actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The<\/p>\n
         situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in<\/p>\n
         this clause has already been committed earlier and later on<\/p>\n
         the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court,<\/p>\n
         does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and<\/p>\n
         consequently with the scheme of Section 195, Cr.P.C. This<\/p>\n
         indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the<\/p>\n
         offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a<\/p>\n
         document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in<\/p>\n
         a proceeding in any Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         10. Section 195(1) mandates a complaint in writing of the<\/p>\n
         Court for taking cognizance of the offences enumerated in<\/p>\n
         clauses (b)(i) and (b)(ii) thereof. Sections 340 and 341, Cr.P.C.
\n Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008                          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                  ****
\n         which occur in Chapter XXVI give the procedure for filing of the<\/p>\n
         complaint and other matters connected therewith. The heading<\/p>\n
         of this Chapter is – ‘Provisions As to Offences Affecting The<\/p>\n
         Administration of Justice’. Though, as a general rule, the<\/p>\n
         language employed in a heading cannot be used to give a<\/p>\n
         different effect to clear words of the Section where there<\/p>\n
         cannot be any doubt as to their ordinary meaning, but they are<\/p>\n
         not to be treated as if they were marginal notes or were<\/p>\n
         introduced into the Act merely for the purpose of classifying<\/p>\n
         the enactments. They constitute an important part of the Act<\/p>\n
         itself, and may be read not only as explaining the Sections<\/p>\n
         which immediately follow them, as a preamble to a statute may<\/p>\n
         be looked to explain its enactments, but as affording a better<\/p>\n
         key to the constructions of the Sections which follow them than<\/p>\n
         might be afforded by a mere preamble. (See Craies on Statute<\/p>\n
         Law, 7th Ed. Pages 207, 209). The fact that the procedure for<\/p>\n
         filing a complaint by Court has been provided in Chapter XXVI<\/p>\n
         dealing with offences affecting administration of justice, is a<\/p>\n
         clear pointer of the legislative intent that the offence committed<\/p>\n
         should be of such type which directly affects the administration<\/p>\n
         of justice, viz., which is committed after the document is<\/p>\n
         produced or given in evidence in Court. Any offence committed<\/p>\n
         with respect to a document at a time prior to its production or<\/p>\n
         giving in evidence in Court cannot, strictly speaking, be said to<\/p>\n
         be an offence affecting the administration of justice.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         xxx                      xxxx                      xxxx<\/p>\n
         “25.   In view of the discussion made above, we are of the<\/p>\n
         opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided
\n Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ****
\n            and the view taken therein is the correct    view. Section 195(1)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (b)(ii), Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences<\/p>\n
            enumerated in the said provision have been committed with<\/p>\n
            respect to a document after it has been produced or given in<\/p>\n
            evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time<\/p>\n
            when the document was in custodia legis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            26. In the present case, the Will has been produced in the<\/p>\n
            Court subsequently. It is nobody’s case that any offence as<\/p>\n
            enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to<\/p>\n
            the said Will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of<\/p>\n
            District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (ii), Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo<\/p>\n
            on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on<\/p>\n
            the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view<\/p>\n
            taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High<\/p>\n
            Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The judicial pronouncement aforementioned applies squarely<\/p>\n
to the facts and circumstances of the present case.<\/p>\n
            In the light of the fore-going discussion, the impugned order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, cannot be sustained,<\/p>\n
The appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 6.3.2007 shall<\/p>\n
stand set aside. The finding of indictment recorded by the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Magistrate shall stand restored.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
December 18, 2008                                     (S. D. ANAND)\nPka                                                       JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.336-SBA of 2008 Date of decision : 18.12.2008 Ramesh Chand …..Appellant Versus Kailash Mangal …Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-12T22:42:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-12T22:42:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1266,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-12T22:42:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-12T22:42:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-12T22:42:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008"},"wordCount":1266,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008","name":"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-12T22:42:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chand-vs-kailash-mangal-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Chand vs Kailash Mangal on 18 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/131090","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=131090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}