{"id":131360,"date":"2006-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-31T21:55:00","modified_gmt":"2019-01-31T16:25:00","slug":"state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"State Inspector Of Police … vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Inspector Of Police … vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1335 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState Inspector of Police Visakhapatnam\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSurya Sankaram Karri\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
The State is in appeal before us impugning the judgment and order
\ndated 31st October, 2003 passed in favour of the respondent herein by the
\nHigh Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby and
\nwhereunder a judgment of conviction and sentence passed as against the
\nrespondent under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
\n(‘the Act’, for short) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
\nfor 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.4 lakhs and in default to suffer Simple
\nImprisonment for one year, was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent was an Assistant Station Master.  He was working in
\nthe South Eastern Railway, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh from 16.12.1961
\nto February, 1984.  He was promoted to the post of Commercial Inspector
\nand was working in that capacity from February, 1984 to July, 1986 and as
\nSenior Commercial Inspector from July, 1986 to December, 1993.  He was
\nlater promoted as Chief Commercial Inspector and was working in the said
\ncapacity from December, 1993.  His wife, Smt. K.S. Satyeswari, who
\nexamined herself as D.W.1, was an income tax assessee.  All the three sons
\nof the respondent had been working.  A raid was conducted in his house and
\nalso in the houses of his sons.  Some incriminating documents were
\nallegedly recovered.\n<\/p>\n
During investigation, not only the statement of the respondent, but
\nalso that of his wife and three sons were recorded by the Investigating
\nOfficer.  The investigation was admittedly carried on by P.W.41  Shri K.
\nBiswal and P.W.42  Shri N. Vishnu.  Sanction of prosecution was accorded
\nby P.W. 37  Shri Debaraj Panda, the then Senior Divisional Commercial
\nManager, South-Eastern Railway.\n<\/p>\n
The check period under consideration was 1.1.1986 to 9.8.1994.  The
\nprosecution proceeded on the basis that whereas the total income of the
\nrespondent and his family members was Rs.6,73,203.69p. including loans
\nand advances during the aforesaid check period, the respondent and his
\nfamily members had expended Rs.3,31,068.75p.; and acquired assets both
\nmovable and immovable worth Rs.11,66,873.84p. during the said period.  It
\nwas also alleged that respondent was in possession of assets and pecuniary
\nresources in his own name as also in the name of his wife to the tune of
\nRs.6,54,738.90p., which was disproportionate to his known sources of
\nincome as on 9.8.1994.\n<\/p>\n
Before the learned Special Judge the respondent examined defence
\nwitnesses, including his wife (D.W.1), his three sons, namely, Shri Karri
\nSatyanarayana Sarma (D.W.2), Shri K. Srinivas (D.W.3), Shri K. Rama
\nSarma (D.W.4) and one Engineer, D.W.5  Shri A. Sridhar, who submitted
\nhis report in regard to valuation of respondent’s house.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Special Judge in his judgment, inter alia, opined that the
\nsons of the respondent, other than his eldest son, did not make any
\ncontribution from their salaries.  Reliance was placed on the valuation report
\nsubmitted by the Engineer of the Income Tax Department, P.W.36 in
\npreference to the Valuer appointed by accused, i.e., D.W.5.  The High Court,
\nhowever, by reason of the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that keeping
\nin view the societal norms prevailing in India, vis-`-vis, the developed
\ncountries, the sons of appellant presumably make substantial contribution
\nfrom their income to their parents.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court also relied upon a large number of decisions of this
\nCourt in coming to the conclusion that if a reasonable margin of 10% is
\naccorded, the respondent cannot be said to have failed to have proved in
\nshowing means for acquiring assets held and possessed by him as also by his
\nwife.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on
\nbehalf of the appellant in support of this appeal would submit that –\n<\/p>\n
i) \tThe wife of the respondent-D.W.1, having categorically stated
\nthat only the eldest son, namely, D.W.2 had been making contributions to
\nthe family, the learned Special Judge must be held to have arrived at a
\ncorrect finding of fact that other sons of the respondent having been residing
\nseparately had not been making any such contribution.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThe rental income of Rs.88,318\/- disclosed in the income tax
\nreturn filed by D.W.1, was reckoned twice by the High Court and if the said
\nsum is taken into consideration towards the income of the respondent, the
\nHigh Court must be held to have committed an error in holding that the
\nassets held by the respondent were marginally higher than the known
\nsources of income.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tThe learned Special Judge having assigned sufficient and
\ncogent reasons to accept the report of the Engineer appointed by the
\nprosecution, the same should not have been reversed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tThe High Court also committed an error in calculating the
\nhousehold expenditure of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the respondent, however, submitted :\n<\/p>\n
(i) \tThe learned Special Judge committed a manifest error in so far
\nas he failed to take into consideration that the investigation carried out by the
\nP.Ws. 41 and 42 was wholly illegal having not been carried out under the
\nauthorization of the Superintendent of Police; and<\/p>\n
(ii)\tNo document having been brought on the records to show that
\nP.W.37  Shri Debaraj Panda was delegated with the power to accord
\nsanction of prosecution as against the respondent, the same was vitiated in
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
Although, we have strong reservation in regard to the manner in
\nwhich the High Court dealt with the entire appeal, but we are satisfied that
\nthe investigation carried out by the Investigating Officers was wholly unfair.
\nWe, for the reasons stated hereinafter, are also of the opinion that the P.W.37
\ncould not be said to have been delegated with the power of according
\nsanction of prosecuting the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted to consolidate and
\namend the law relating to prevention of corruption and for matters connected
\ntherewith.  The Act is a Special statute. It contains special procedure not
\nonly in regard to the manner in which the complaint is to be filed, but also
\nthe mode and manner in which the investigation into an offence thereunder
\nis required to be carried out.  It provides for trial by Special Judges
\nappointed for the said purposes.\n<\/p>\n
Section 26 of the Act lays down that the powers of the Special Judges.
\nHe has a power to try summarily under Section 6.  Section 13 provides for
\ncriminal misconduct by a public servant.  The fact that respondent is a public
\nservant is not in dispute.  Section 13(e) specifies criminal misconduct of a
\npublic servant where, an accused himself or any person on his behalf, is in
\npossession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in
\npossession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of
\npecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of
\nincome.\n<\/p>\n
Provisions of the 1988 Act, no doubt, like the 1947 Act seek to protect
\npublic servant from a vexatious prosecution.  Section 17 provides for
\ninvestigation by a person authorized in this behalf.  The said provision
\ncontains a non-obstante clause.  It makes investigation only by police officer
\nof the ranks specified therein to be imperative in character.  The second
\nproviso appended to Section 17 of the Act provides that an offence referred
\nto in clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13, shall not be investigated
\nwithout the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent
\nof Police.  Authorization by a Superintendent of Police in favour of an
\nofficer so as to enable him to carry out investigation in terms of section 17 of
\nthe Act is a statutory one.  The power to grant such sanction has been
\nconferred upon the authorities not below the rank of Superintendent of
\nPolice.  The proviso uses a negative expression.  It also uses the expression
\n“shall”.  Ex-facie it is mandatory in character.  When the authority of a
\nperson to carry out investigation is questioned on the ground that he did not
\nfulfil the statutory requirements laid down therefor in terms of the second
\nproviso, the burden, undoubtedly, was on the prosecution to prove the same.
\nIt has not been disputed before us that the Investigating Officer, P.W.41, did
\nnot produce any record to show that he had been so authorized.  Shri K.
\nBiswal, the Investigating Officer, while examining himself as P.W.41,
\nadmitted that he had not filed any authorization letter stating :\n<\/p>\n
“I have received the specific authorisation from
\nS.P., C.B.I., to register a case but I have not filed the said
\nauthorisation letter.”\n<\/p>\n
No explanation has been offered therefor.  Even no attempt was made
\nto bring the said document on record at a later stage.\n<\/p>\n
Although a specific contention was raised in that behalf on behalf of
\nrespondent, the learned Special Judge negatived the same holding :\n<\/p>\n
“It is contended that P.Ws. 41 and 42 failed to
\nproduce orders of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I.,
\nVisakhapatnam which are mandatory under the second
\nproviso to section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, for any Inspector of Police to take up investigation
\ninto an offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act.  No
\ndoubt, the prosecution did not file the orders of the
\nSuperintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam in this
\nregard.  But, P.W.41 deposed that he registered this case
\nand issued Ex.P-54 F.I.R. on the instructions of
\nSuperintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.  In the
\ncross-examination, he deposed that he received specific
\nauthorization from the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I,
\nVisakhapatnam to register the case.  Ex.P-54 F.I.R.
\nwhich was forwarded to this Court by the Superintendent
\nof Police, C.B.I.\/S.P.E., Visakhapatnam, shows that
\nP.W.41 deposed that as per the orders of the
\nSuperintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam, he took
\nup investigation in this case.  Though it is contended by
\nthe defence counsel that the orders of the Superintendent
\nof Police authorizing P.Ws. 41 and 42 to investigate into
\nthis case were not filed into court, there is absolutely no
\ncross-examination of P.Ws. 41 and 42 to investigate into
\nthis case inspite of there did not in fact give any such
\norders authorizing P.Ws. 41 and 42 to investigate into
\nthis case inspite of there being lengthy cross-examination
\nof those witnesses.”\n<\/p>\n
The approach of the learned Special Judge, to say the least, was not
\ncorrect.  When a statutory functionary passes an order, that too authorizing a
\nperson to carry out a public function like investigation into an offence, an
\norder in writing was required to be passed.  A statutory functionary must act
\nin a manner laid down in the statute.  Issuance of an oral direction is not
\ncontemplated under the Act.  Such a concept is unknown in Administrative
\nLaw.  The statutory functionaries are enjoined with a duty to pass written
\norders.\n<\/p>\n
Submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General was that the
\nrespondent did not further cross-examine the said witnesses to the effect that
\nno such order in writing was passed, and thus, he cannot be said to have
\nbeen prejudiced in any manner whatsoever.  We do not agree.\n<\/p>\n
 It is now well settled that when a document being in possession of a
\npublic functionary, who is under a statutory obligation to produce the same
\nbefore the court of law, fails and\/or neglects to produce the same, an adverse
\ninference may be drawn against him.  The learned Special Judge in the
\naforementioned situation was enjoined with a duty to draw an adverse
\ninference.  He did not consider the question from the point of view of
\nstatutory requirements, but took into consideration factors, which were not
\ngermane.\n<\/p>\n
     Illegality apart, the manner in which the investigation was
\nconducted, is condemnable. The least that a court of law would expect from
\nthe prosecution is that the investigation would be a fair one.  It would not
\nonly be carried out from the stand of the prosecution, but also the defence,
\nparticularly, in view of the fact that the onus of proof may shift to the
\naccused at a later stage.  The evidence of P.W.41 raises doubts about his
\nbona fide.  Why he did not examine important witnesses and as to why he
\nhad not taken into consideration the relevant documentary evidence has not
\nbeen explained.   He did not even care to ascertain the correctness or
\notherwise of the status of both of the respondent and his wife before the
\nIncome Tax Department.  Above all, he did not produce before the Court the
\nstatements made by the appellant, his wife and those of his sons, although
\nthey were relevant.  Had the statements of D.W.3 and D.W.4 been produced
\nbefore, the learned Special Judge might not have opined that the sons of the
\nrespondent, other than D.W.2, did not make any contribution to their parents
\nat all.  If such statements were made by the said witnesses before the
\nInvestigating Officer, omission on the part of D.W.1, the wife of the
\nrespondent, to state the same before the Special Judge might have taken a
\nback seat and the statements of other sons of the respondent, namely, D.W.3
\nand D.W.4 might not have been ignored by the learned Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n
The courts are obliged to go into the question of prejudice of the
\naccused when the main investigation is concluded without a valid sanction.
\n{See State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.V. Narayana<\/a> [(1971) 1 SCC 483 :
\nAIR 1971 SC 811]. } <\/p>\n
It is true that only on the basis of the illegal investigation a proceeding
\nmay not be quashed unless miscarriage of justice is shown, but, in this case,
\nas we have noticed hereinbefore, the respondent had suffered miscarriage of
\njustice as the investigation made by P.W.41 was not fair.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Judge furthermore also committed a serious error in
\nso far as he failed to take into consideration that Shri Debaraj Panda, who
\nexamined himself as P.W.37, being a Senior Divisional Operations Manager,
\nwas not competent to accord sanction for prosecution of the respondent
\nherein.  He, in his evidence, accepted that under the Rules he was not the
\ncompetent authority to remove him from service.  However, he stated that he
\nhad been delegated with power of removing the Chief Commercial Inspector
\nof the Headquarter of South-Eastern Railway.  He also stated :\n<\/p>\n
“It is not true to suggest that only General
\nManager and Divisional Railway Manager are the
\ncompetent persons to remove the accused from service
\nand also to accord sanction to prosecute him.  It is not
\ntrue to suggest that I am not competent to remove the
\naccused from service and also accorded sanction to
\nprosecute him.  The delegation of powers in respect of
\ncertain officers by the Head quarters, South Eastern
\nRailway are available in a Booklet called as “Delegation
\nof Powers” on Establishment matter.”\n<\/p>\n
 The purported delegation of power had never seen the light of the
\nday.  No reliance thereupon could have been placed to arrive at a finding that
\nthe said witness was authorized to accord sanction.  The learned Special
\nJudge did not apply his mind to these aspects of the matter at all.\n<\/p>\n
This question came for consideration before this Court in Sailendra
\nNath Bose vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1968 SC 1292], wherein it was
\ncategorically held :\n<\/p>\n
“P.W. I deposed that the appellant was a Class III
\nofficer and that he could have been appointed or
\ndismissed by the Deputy Agent Personnel who is
\nsubordinate to him. Therefore he (P.W. 1) was competent
\nto grant previous sanction under Section 6(1) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act. P.W. 1’s assertion that the
\nappellant could have been removed from his office either
\nby the Deputy Agent Personnel or by himself was
\nchallenged in his cross-examination. The trial court as
\nwell as the High Court have relied on the oral evidence of
\nP.W. 1 in coming to the conclusion that the sanction
\ngranted is valid. In our opinion those courts erred in
\nrelying on oral evidence in deciding the validity of the
\nsanction granted. Hence, we asked the learned counsel
\nfor the respondent to satisfy us with reference to the rules
\non the subject that P.W. 1 was competent to remove the
\nappellant from his office. For this purpose we granted
\nhim several adjournments. Though our attention has now
\nbeen invited to some rules, those rules do not establish
\nthat P.W. 1 was competent to grant the sanction in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
As per Rule 134 of the Indian Railway
\nEstablishment Code, published in 1959, authorities
\ncompetent to make first appointment to non-gazetted
\nposts in the Indian Railways are the General Manager,
\nthe Chief Administrative Officer or lower authority to
\nwhom he may delegate power. There is no evidence to
\nshow that this power has been delegated to the heads of
\nthe department. No provision in the Indian Railway
\nEstablishment Code, 1959 prescribing the authorities
\ncompetent to remove from office a class III officer was
\nbrought to our notice. But the prefatory note to Vol. I of
\nthe Code says, “The revised Chapter XVII and revised
\nAppendices I and XII will be printed later for inclusion in
\nthis edition. Till such times these are printed, the rules
\nand provisions contained in Chapter XVII and
\nAppendices IV and XVIII in the 1951 Edition (Re-print)
\nas amended from time to time shall continue to apply.”\n<\/p>\n
  In State of Karnataka through CBI vs. C. Nagarajaswamy<\/a>
\n[(2005) 8 SCC 370], it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“Grant of proper sanction by a competent authority
\nis a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence. It
\nis desirable that the question as regard sanction may be
\ndetermined at an early stage.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen a sanction is granted by a person not authorized in law, the
\nsame being without jurisdiction, would be a nullity.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the
\nimpugned judgment need not be interfered with.  The appeal is, accordingly,
\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Inspector Of Police … vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1335 of 2004 PETITIONER: State Inspector of Police Visakhapatnam RESPONDENT: Surya Sankaram Karri DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/08\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-131360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Inspector Of Police ... vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006 - 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\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Inspector Of Police ... vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-31T16:25:00+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Inspector Of Police … vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T16:25:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2994,\"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\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006\",\"name\":\"State Inspector Of Police ... vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T16:25:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Inspector Of Police … vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"State Inspector Of Police ... vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006 - 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\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Inspector Of Police ... vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-31T16:25:00+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Inspector Of Police … vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T16:25:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006"},"wordCount":2994,"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\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006","name":"State Inspector Of Police ... vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T16:25:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-inspector-of-police-vs-surya-sankaram-karri-on-24-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Inspector Of Police … vs Surya Sankaram Karri on 24 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/131360","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=131360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}