{"id":136318,"date":"2009-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-18T13:24:50","modified_gmt":"2015-03-18T07:54:50","slug":"state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                                                                           1\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.647 OF 2009\n      (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)NO.5937 of 2007)\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh                        ...Appellant\n\n                                  Vs.\n\nRameshwar & Ors.                                 ...Respondents\n\n                          WITH\n             Criminal Appeal No.648 of 2009\n      (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)NO.6929 of 2007)\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 1.      Leave    granted    in   both   the    special       leave<\/p>\n
         petitions which are taken up for hearing<\/p>\n
         and final disposal together.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 2.      The     respondents      were   Directors      of     the<\/p>\n
         Indore    Premier     Co-operative      Bank   Limited<\/p>\n
         and were also members of the Loan Committee<\/p>\n
         for sanctioning loans. One Harish Patil and<\/p>\n
         Kanhaiyalal Yadav lodged a complaint with<\/p>\n
         the Special Establishment of the Lokayukt,
\n                                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
Madhya Pradesh at Indore, alleging that the<\/p>\n
respondents had sanctioned loans amounting<\/p>\n
to Rs.56,50,000\/- in favour of 35 persons<\/p>\n
without      verifying        their    eligibility             to<\/p>\n
receive such loans or the end-use of such<\/p>\n
loans    and    had    intentionally            acted    in    an<\/p>\n
illegal manner to enable the said borrowers<\/p>\n
to   avail     of   the     loans.    On    receiving         the<\/p>\n
complaint,          the      Special        Establishment<\/p>\n
Lokayukt,           Indore,      registered              Crime<\/p>\n
No.133\/99 and after investigation filed a<\/p>\n
charge-sheet against the respondents under<\/p>\n
Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) together with<\/p>\n
Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)<\/p>\n
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/p>\n
(hereinafter         referred    to        as     the    `P.C.<\/p>\n
Act’). The Trial Court on due consideration<\/p>\n
of the charge-sheet, found a prima facie<\/p>\n
case    against       the   respondents          and    by    its<\/p>\n
order dated 4.11.2006 directed framing of<\/p>\n
charges as suggested in the charge-sheet.
\n                                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.   Being    aggrieved       by    the     said       order       dated<\/p>\n
     4.11.2006,      directing          framing        of    charges,<\/p>\n
     the   respondents        moved       in    revision          before<\/p>\n
     the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High<\/p>\n
     Court for setting aside the aforesaid order<\/p>\n
     passed    by   the      Special       Judge,       Indore,       in<\/p>\n
     Special    Case    No.1       of    2006     and       for    their<\/p>\n
     discharge from the above-mentioned charges.<\/p>\n
4.   Considering       the     case        made    out        by     the<\/p>\n
     respective parties, the High Court came to<\/p>\n
     the      conclusion           that         admittedly           the<\/p>\n
     respondents       were        members        of        the     Loan<\/p>\n
     Committee and as such members they are only<\/p>\n
     required to consider the loan cases which<\/p>\n
     are put up to them by the concerned Bank<\/p>\n
     Manager for the grant of loan and it was<\/p>\n
     for the Branch Managers to verify the facts<\/p>\n
     regarding      entitlement           for    grant       of     loan<\/p>\n
     before    submitting          the     same    to       the     Loan<\/p>\n
     Committee.        Furthermore, it is only after
\n                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
the Executive Officer had also verified the<\/p>\n
applications for loan that the loan cases<\/p>\n
were put up before the Loan Committee for<\/p>\n
its    sanction.     In    view    of    the     aforesaid<\/p>\n
procedure,     the    High    Court       held    that    it<\/p>\n
could not be said that the Members of the<\/p>\n
Loan Committee (the respondents herein) had<\/p>\n
acted illegally and had wrongly sanctioned<\/p>\n
loans to the concerned borrowers. The High<\/p>\n
Court also took into consideration the fact<\/p>\n
that out of the total amount of loan which<\/p>\n
had been sanctioned by the Loan Committee<\/p>\n
amounting to Rs.56,50,000\/- a total sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.64,69,000\/-       had    already      been    deposited<\/p>\n
by the concerned depositors in the Bank and<\/p>\n
hence   it   could    not    be    contended      that   by<\/p>\n
sanctioning     the       loans    to    the     concerned<\/p>\n
borrowers     the     Bank        had     suffered       any<\/p>\n
monetary     loss    since    the       full    amount    of<\/p>\n
loan, together with interest, had already<\/p>\n
been    deposited     by    the    borrowers       in    the<\/p>\n
Bank.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
5.   On     the    question       of     status       of    the<\/p>\n
     respondents     as   “public      servants”      for   the<\/p>\n
     purpose of prosecution under the provisions<\/p>\n
     of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,<\/p>\n
     the High Court relying on the judgment of<\/p>\n
     this    Court   in   State     of    Maharashtra       vs.<\/p>\n
     Laljit Rajshi Shah and others<\/a> [(2000) 2 SCC<\/p>\n
     699] held that the respondents could not be<\/p>\n
     treated as public servants and could not,<\/p>\n
     therefore, be punishable either under the<\/p>\n
     provisions of the Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
     Act, 1988, or under Section 409 IPC.<\/p>\n
6.   On   such    finding,    the      High   Court    by   its<\/p>\n
     order dated 17th March, 2007, allowed the<\/p>\n
     Revision Petition and set aside the order<\/p>\n
     of the Trial Court dated 4.11.2006 framing<\/p>\n
     charges      against     the        respondents        and<\/p>\n
     discharged them from the said charges under<\/p>\n
     Sections 409, 418, 420 and 120-B IPC and
\n                                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of<\/p>\n
     the P.C. Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.   The present appeals have been filed by the<\/p>\n
     State of Madhya Pradesh against the said<\/p>\n
     order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   Appearing for the appellant State of Madhya<\/p>\n
     Pradesh,      Mr.    Ravindra         Srivastava,   learned<\/p>\n
     Senior     Counsel        submitted       that    the     High<\/p>\n
     Court had erred both as to the role played<\/p>\n
     by the respondents and also on the question<\/p>\n
     of the status of the said respondents as<\/p>\n
     “public       servants”         for     the     purpose     of<\/p>\n
     prosecution under the provision of the P.C.<\/p>\n
     Act.      Mr. Srivastava also submitted that<\/p>\n
     the    High    Court      had    travelled       beyond    its<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction under Sections 397 read with<\/p>\n
     Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code in re-<\/p>\n
     assessing the factual position in order to<\/p>\n
     arrive        at    the         conclusion       that      the<\/p>\n
     provisions,         under       which    they     had     been
\n                                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
     charged,      were     not      supported          by        the<\/p>\n
     materials in the charge-sheet.<\/p>\n
9.   Referring to the inquiry report dated 21st<\/p>\n
     January,     1999,    submitted       by    the   District<\/p>\n
     Vigilance         Committee,        Indore,       on         the<\/p>\n
     complaint     of    Shri     Kanhaiyalal        Yadav,       Mr.<\/p>\n
     Srivastava submitted that it had come to<\/p>\n
     light during the inquiry that the quotation<\/p>\n
     of Indore Motor and Agro Machinery, having<\/p>\n
     its registered office at 535 Scheme No.54,<\/p>\n
     Indore, loans were advanced by the Banks to<\/p>\n
     the    persons       named     in    the     report          for<\/p>\n
     purchase     of    different     kinds      of    vehicles.<\/p>\n
     However, the said firm was not available at<\/p>\n
     the address indicated.              It also transpired<\/p>\n
     that   the    firm    was     managed      by     one       Shri<\/p>\n
     Himanshu     Joshi,     son    of    Shri       Hem     Joshi,<\/p>\n
     Public     Contact     Officer       working          in     the<\/p>\n
     Indore   Premier      Co-operative         Bank       and    the<\/p>\n
     Current Account of the firm was with the<\/p>\n
     Kila Maidan Branch, Indore and the various
\n                                                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
      Demand Drafts were deposited in the said<\/p>\n
      account     and    the        cash    was    subsequently<\/p>\n
      withdrawn.        It was also reported that the<\/p>\n
      loans were sanctioned with the connivance<\/p>\n
      of the Bank administration for the purchase<\/p>\n
      of vehicles, but were not used for the said<\/p>\n
      purpose and the Demand Drafts were encashed<\/p>\n
      with the intention of cheating the Bank.<\/p>\n
      Mr. Srivastava submitted that the tenor of<\/p>\n
      the Inquiry Report was that Shri Hem Joshi<\/p>\n
      had, in his capacity as the Public Contact<\/p>\n
      Officer of the Bank, in connivance with the<\/p>\n
      other respondents, set up a fictitious firm<\/p>\n
      in the name of his son Shri Himanshu Joshi<\/p>\n
      for   the    purpose      of       encashing       the       Bank<\/p>\n
      Drafts    which    were       all    deposited          in    the<\/p>\n
      account of the purported firm in the Kila<\/p>\n
      Maidan Branch, Indore.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Mr. Srivastava pointed out that from the<\/p>\n
      statements    made       by    the    Managers          of    the<\/p>\n
      different    Branches         of     the    Bank    a    prima
\n                                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
      facie case was made out             that not only were<\/p>\n
      the rules relating to sanctioning of loans<\/p>\n
      not followed, but the grant of such loans<\/p>\n
      revealed lack of awareness and application<\/p>\n
      on the part of the respondents.                    He also<\/p>\n
      submitted that the officers of the National<\/p>\n
      Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development<\/p>\n
      (hereinafter           referred         as      `NABARD’)<\/p>\n
      conducted       an   inspection         of   the     Indore<\/p>\n
      Premier Co-operative Bank in June, 1998 and<\/p>\n
      in their Report they also raised objections<\/p>\n
      with regard to the loans which formed the<\/p>\n
      subject matter of the present appeals.<\/p>\n
11.   Mr. Srivastava submitted that the finding<\/p>\n
      of    the   District     Vigilance       Committee       was<\/p>\n
      that    while    the     Branch     Managers       of     the<\/p>\n
      different     Branches       of   the    Bank      had    not<\/p>\n
      complied     with    the     directions      given       with<\/p>\n
      regard to the policy of sanctioning loans,<\/p>\n
      the    Chairman,       and    the    Chief      Executive<\/p>\n
      Officer of the Bank, who are the Respondent
\n                                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
Nos. 1 and 3 herein, failed to take any<\/p>\n
action    despite     the    Inspection          Report   of<\/p>\n
NABARD, which gave rise to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that they had also played a decisive role<\/p>\n
in     defrauding     the    Bank.        Mr.   Srivastava<\/p>\n
submitted     that     since        the    said       Inquiry<\/p>\n
Report indicted all the respondents, along<\/p>\n
with    several     others,      it   had       recommended<\/p>\n
that a case be registered under Section 420<\/p>\n
read with Section 120-B IPC against all the<\/p>\n
persons named. A further recommendation was<\/p>\n
made     to   register       a    case       against      the<\/p>\n
officers      of     the     Bank,        including       the<\/p>\n
respondents herein, under Section 406, 409,<\/p>\n
419 and 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.<\/p>\n
Departmental        action    was     also      recommended<\/p>\n
against the Members of the Loan Committee<\/p>\n
of    which   the    Respondent       No.1,      Rameshwar,<\/p>\n
was     the    President,         while         the    other<\/p>\n
respondents, who were all Directors of the<\/p>\n
Bank, were members.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
12.   Mr. Srivastava urged that the High Court<\/p>\n
      had     erred   in     completely         absolving       the<\/p>\n
      respondents      of      any          responsibility       in<\/p>\n
      connection      with    the       sanctioning        of   the<\/p>\n
      loans and placing the entire burden of the<\/p>\n
      fraud    perpetrated       on    the     Branch    Managers<\/p>\n
      and the Executive Officer for inadequate or<\/p>\n
      improper verification of the entitlement of<\/p>\n
      the   borrowers      for     grant       of   such    loans.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel also urged that the High<\/p>\n
      Court     had   erred      in     observing       that    the<\/p>\n
      members of the Loan Committee had a limited<\/p>\n
      role to play for the purpose of sanctioning<\/p>\n
      loans, since the ground work had already<\/p>\n
      been prepared upto the level of the Branch<\/p>\n
      Managers who had recommended the grant of<\/p>\n
      such loans.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   Mr. Srivastava submitted that in going into<\/p>\n
      factual    aspects      of      the    matter,    the     High<\/p>\n
      Court had travelled beyond its revisional
\n                                                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
      powers in coming to findings of fact, which<\/p>\n
      were yet to be established on evidence.<\/p>\n
14.   To support his submission, Mr. Srivastava<\/p>\n
      firstly      referred       to    a     decision     of      this<\/p>\n
      Court   in       Stree   Atyachar        Virodhi     Parishad<\/p>\n
      vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr.<\/a> [(1989) 1<\/p>\n
      SCC   715],      wherein,        while    considering        the<\/p>\n
      question         relating        to     discharge       of    or<\/p>\n
      framing of charges against an accused, it<\/p>\n
      was held that when the Trial Court, finding<\/p>\n
      a prima facie case prefers to frame charges<\/p>\n
      against the accused, the High Court should<\/p>\n
      not     interfere         by          probing    into        the<\/p>\n
      sufficiency        of    grounds        for   conviction       of<\/p>\n
      the accused and ordering his discharge.<\/p>\n
15.   Mr.   Srivastava         then     referred      to   another<\/p>\n
      decision of this Court in Om Wati (Smt) &<\/p>\n
      Anr. vs. State, through Delhi Admn. & Ors.<\/p>\n
      [(2001)      4    SCC    333],        wherein   also,     while<\/p>\n
      considering the provisions of Sections 227,
\n                                                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
      228 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,<\/p>\n
      1973, this Court, inter alia, observed that<\/p>\n
      the    High     Court        should        not    ordinarily<\/p>\n
      interfere with the Trial Court’s order for<\/p>\n
      framing of charge unless there is glaring<\/p>\n
      injustice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   Reference was lastly made to the decision<\/p>\n
      of this Court in Munna Devi vs. State of<\/p>\n
      Rajasthan       &     Anr.<\/a>       [(2001)     9    SCC    631],<\/p>\n
      wherein    it       was   held     that    the    revisional<\/p>\n
      powers    of    the       High    Court      could      not   be<\/p>\n
      exercised in a routine and casual manner<\/p>\n
      for quashing the charges framed against an<\/p>\n
      accused, except where there was a legal bar<\/p>\n
      or where no offence is made out against an<\/p>\n
      accused in the F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.   Mr.    Srivastava         submitted       that   apart    from<\/p>\n
      the above, the finding of the High Court<\/p>\n
      that     the    respondents           were       not    public<\/p>\n
      servants was erroneous, as they had been
\n                                                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
elected    as    Office           Bearers    of    the    Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank.         He submitted that the High<\/p>\n
Court had wrongly relied upon the decision<\/p>\n
of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs.<\/p>\n
Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors.<\/a> (supra), in which<\/p>\n
the     definition      of        “public     servant”     as<\/p>\n
contained in section 2 of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption        Act,             1947      was         under<\/p>\n
consideration.          In the said Act, “public<\/p>\n
servant” has been defined in Section 2 to<\/p>\n
mean “public servant” as defined in Section<\/p>\n
21    of   the    Indian           Penal     Code.        Mr.<\/p>\n
Srivastava      urged     that      the     definition     of<\/p>\n
“public     servant”         in     the     Prevention     of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act, 1988 has been given a much<\/p>\n
wider      connotation             and      the      limited<\/p>\n
interpretation       of   the       said    expression     in<\/p>\n
Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors.’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
would not, therefore, be applicable to the<\/p>\n
facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
18.   Mr. Srivastava submitted that on account of<\/p>\n
      being an Office Bearer of a registered Co-<\/p>\n
      operative Society engaged in banking, the<\/p>\n
      respondents came within the definition of<\/p>\n
      “public servant” under Section 2(c)(ix) of<\/p>\n
      the 1988 Act.           He also submitted that the<\/p>\n
      High    Court     had      failed    to     take     note    of<\/p>\n
      Section     87     of       the     M.P.        Co-operative<\/p>\n
      Societies     Act,      1960,     which     provides       that<\/p>\n
      the Registrar and other officers, as well<\/p>\n
      as employees of a Co-operative Bank or a<\/p>\n
      Co-operative Society, would be deemed to be<\/p>\n
      “public    servants”         within       the    meaning     of<\/p>\n
      Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n
19.   In this regard, Mr. Srivastava referred to<\/p>\n
      the    decision       of   this     Court       in   Govt.   of<\/p>\n
      Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. P. Venku Reddy<\/p>\n
      [(2002)   7     SCC     631],     where     reference        was<\/p>\n
      made to the decision in Laljit Rajshi Shah<\/p>\n
      & Ors.’s case (supra) and it was observed<\/p>\n
      that the same was distinguishable as it was
\n                                                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
      based      on     an     interpretation           of   the<\/p>\n
      definition of “public servant”, as defined<\/p>\n
      in   the   1947       Act,   which   restricted        such<\/p>\n
      definition       to    cover    only       such    “public<\/p>\n
      servants” as were included in Section 21 of<\/p>\n
      the Indian Penal Code.           Reference was also<\/p>\n
      made to another decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
      State      of     Maharashtra          &     Anr.      vs.<\/p>\n
      Prabhakarrao & Anr.<\/a> [(2002) 7 SCC 636], in<\/p>\n
      which      the     wider       definition         of   the<\/p>\n
      expression “public servant” under Section 2<\/p>\n
      (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,<\/p>\n
      1988 was held to be applicable and not the<\/p>\n
      narrow definition under Section 21 of the<\/p>\n
      Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.   Mr. Srivastava submitted that as far as the<\/p>\n
      State of Madhya Pradesh was concerned, the<\/p>\n
      same submissions would also be relevant in<\/p>\n
      SLP(Crl.)No.6929\/07.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
21.   Replying to the submissions made on behalf<\/p>\n
      of the appellant, Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned<\/p>\n
      Senior       Counsel,      firstly,          took    us     to    the<\/p>\n
      Charge framed against the respondents under<\/p>\n
      Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of<\/p>\n
      the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and<\/p>\n
      Sections      409,       418,    420       and     120-B    of    the<\/p>\n
      Indian Penal Code.               Mr. Tankha pointed out<\/p>\n
      that    the       Charge    was       framed        against       the<\/p>\n
      Respondent          No.1        in        his      capacity        as<\/p>\n
      Chairman\/Manager of the Indore Premier Co-<\/p>\n
      operative Bank and as a Member of the Loan<\/p>\n
      Sanctioning            Committee          during     the    period<\/p>\n
      from 4th March, 1997 to 4th May, 1998, when<\/p>\n
      he     was    a    public       servant.             The    charge<\/p>\n
      against      the       Respondent          No.1    was     that    in<\/p>\n
      connivance with the other accused persons<\/p>\n
      and     on    the       basis        of     forged       documents<\/p>\n
      relating          to     “Indore           Motor      and        Agro<\/p>\n
      Machinery”, he had, without verification of<\/p>\n
      the loan applications filed for the purpose<\/p>\n
      of purchasing of vehicles by the other co-
\n                                                        18<\/span><\/p>\n
      accused, without ensuring that the margin<\/p>\n
      money was deposited as per the rules and<\/p>\n
      without obtaining security, sanctioned the<\/p>\n
      loans in contravention of the Bank Rules<\/p>\n
      and issued the cheque\/drafts of such loans<\/p>\n
      to the applicants directly who withdrew the<\/p>\n
      amount   without    purchasing     the    vehicles,<\/p>\n
      resulting     in       misappropriation            of<\/p>\n
      Rs.56,50,000\/-.             Accordingly,         the<\/p>\n
      Respondent   No.1    was    purported      to    have<\/p>\n
      committed the offence punishable under the<\/p>\n
      above-mentioned       provisions          of     the<\/p>\n
      Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the<\/p>\n
      Indian Penal code.         Similar charges were<\/p>\n
      framed against the other respondents.<\/p>\n
22.   Mr. Tankha submitted that from the Inquiry<\/p>\n
      Report of the District Vigilance Committee<\/p>\n
      it would be quite apparent that it was the<\/p>\n
      Branch Managers of the different Branches<\/p>\n
      of the Bank who had failed to comply with<\/p>\n
      the   procedure     relating     to      grant   and
\n                                                                19<\/span><\/p>\n
sanction of loans and that all the lapses<\/p>\n
which were attempted to be foisted on the<\/p>\n
respondents      by    Mr.       Srivastava        during       the<\/p>\n
course of his submissions, were required to<\/p>\n
be     fulfilled       at        the     Branches         before<\/p>\n
proposals were put up for sanctioning of<\/p>\n
the loans.        Mr. Tankha submitted that the<\/p>\n
Loan Sanctioning Committee had to deal with<\/p>\n
innumerable      loan       applications           and   it     was<\/p>\n
not    possible       for    the       said    Committee         to<\/p>\n
scrutinize       each        application           to     ensure<\/p>\n
whether    all    the       conditions        for    grant       of<\/p>\n
loan had been satisfied.                     Mr. Tankha, in<\/p>\n
fact, urged that in the Inquiry Report, the<\/p>\n
only      allegation             made         against           the<\/p>\n
respondents herein was that they had not<\/p>\n
taken    any     action      despite         the    Inspection<\/p>\n
Report    of     NABARD          and    it     was       only        a<\/p>\n
presumption       that      as     a    result      thereof          a<\/p>\n
conclusion must be drawn that the Chairman<\/p>\n
of the Bank and the Chief Executive Officer
\n                                                                   20<\/span><\/p>\n
      had also played a main role in the fraud<\/p>\n
      committed upon the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
23.   Mr. Tankha submitted that apart from the<\/p>\n
      above,       the    only      other    allegation      against<\/p>\n
      the respondents in the Inquiry Report was<\/p>\n
      that the members of the Loan Committee had<\/p>\n
      failed to perform their duties efficiently.<\/p>\n
      He submitted that the allegations pointed<\/p>\n
      out     by    Mr.       Srivastava      had     really      been<\/p>\n
      directed       at       the   Branch     Managers      of    the<\/p>\n
      various Branches and the concerned officers<\/p>\n
      of the said Branches.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24.   Mr.   Tankha        submitted         that    there    was    no<\/p>\n
      justification            whatsoever      for    framing       of<\/p>\n
      charges       against         the     respondents      herein,<\/p>\n
      either under the provisions of the Indian<\/p>\n
      Penal Code or under the provisions of the<\/p>\n
      Prevention         of    Corruption      Act,    1988.        He<\/p>\n
      urged    that       if    any   irregularity          had   been<\/p>\n
      committed by the Respondents in sanctioning<\/p>\n
      the loans, there was sufficient scope for
\n                                                                  21<\/span><\/p>\n
      action    to     have      been    taken     against       them<\/p>\n
      under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act<\/p>\n
      instead of taking recourse to the criminal<\/p>\n
      process to apply pressure in respect of a<\/p>\n
      dispute,       which       was    basically        civil     in<\/p>\n
      nature.       Referring to the decision of this<\/p>\n
      Court in Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India<\/p>\n
      Ltd.<\/a> 7 Ors. [(2006) 6 SCC 736], Mr. Tankha<\/p>\n
      relied    on    the     observations        made    by     this<\/p>\n
      Court in holding that it was necessary to<\/p>\n
      take     notice       of    a     growing    tendency        in<\/p>\n
      business      circles       to    convert    purely      civil<\/p>\n
      disputes      into     criminal      cases    and    at     the<\/p>\n
      stage of an application under Section 482<\/p>\n
      Cr.P.C. all that was required to be seen<\/p>\n
      was    whether    necessary        allegations       existed<\/p>\n
      in the complaint to make out an offence as<\/p>\n
      alleged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25.   Further, reference was made to the decision<\/p>\n
      of     this    Court       in     Nikhil     Merchant       vs.<\/p>\n
      Central       Bureau       of    Investigation       &     Anr.
\n                                                                       22<\/span><\/p>\n
      [2008 (11) SCALE 379], where, while taking<\/p>\n
      recourse         to        Article           142         of      the<\/p>\n
      Constitution,         it     was       observed      that        the<\/p>\n
      dispute involved in the case had overtones<\/p>\n
      of a civil dispute with certain criminal<\/p>\n
      facets.      Mr. Tankha submitted that similar<\/p>\n
      was the position in the present case, where<\/p>\n
      the dispute was mainly of a civil nature,<\/p>\n
      which had been given a criminal twist to<\/p>\n
      bring   it   within        the     scope      of    the       Indian<\/p>\n
      Penal     code    and       also       the    Prevention          of<\/p>\n
      Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26.   Mr. Tankha also referred to the decision of<\/p>\n
      this Court in Manoj Sharma vs. State & Ors.<\/p>\n
      (MANU\/SC\/8122\/2008),               where      the        question<\/p>\n
      which   fell     for       determination           was    whether<\/p>\n
      the First Information Report for offences<\/p>\n
      which     were    not        compoundable,           could        be<\/p>\n
      quashed either under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or<\/p>\n
      under Article 226 of the Constitution when<\/p>\n
      the     accused        and       the     complainant             had
\n                                                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
      compromised and settled the matter between<\/p>\n
      themselves.            Mr. Tankha submitted that this<\/p>\n
      Court had set aside the order upon holding<\/p>\n
      that    once       a    dispute       of    a   civil        nature<\/p>\n
      between private parties, had been settled,<\/p>\n
      the     more       pragmatic         view       would        be    to<\/p>\n
      exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
      or Article 226 of the Constitution to bring<\/p>\n
      and end to such litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
27.   As to the question whether the respondents<\/p>\n
      were    public         servants      or    not,       Mr.    Tankha<\/p>\n
      submitted      that       in    a    series      of    decisions<\/p>\n
      this Court had held that certain officers<\/p>\n
      discharging public functions had been held<\/p>\n
      not     to    be       public       servants,      except         for<\/p>\n
      purposes confined to the enactments under<\/p>\n
      which    they      perform       their      functions.             In<\/p>\n
      this regard, Mr. Tankha also referred to<\/p>\n
      the decision in Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors.,<\/p>\n
      which        had       been     referred          to        by    Mr.<\/p>\n
      Srivastava, wherein it had been held that
\n                                                                    24<\/span><\/p>\n
      the Chairman and Members of the Managing<\/p>\n
      Committee were not public servants but were<\/p>\n
      deemed to be public servants under the M.P.<\/p>\n
      Co-operative Societies Act, but not for any<\/p>\n
      other purpose.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28.   Mr.   Tankha    took       us   through      the       M.P.   Co-<\/p>\n
      operative Societies Act, 1960, in support<\/p>\n
      of his submissions.              He submitted that the<\/p>\n
      said Act was a complete self-contained Code<\/p>\n
      by    itself        and    provided         for    different<\/p>\n
      eventualities              relating               to          the<\/p>\n
      administration        of    Co-operative           Societies.<\/p>\n
      Referring      to    Section      74   of    the       Act,   Mr.<\/p>\n
      Tankha submitted that Clause (d) thereof is<\/p>\n
      the remedy contemplated in respect of an<\/p>\n
      offence alleged to have been committed of<\/p>\n
      the instant type.               Further- more, Section<\/p>\n
      75 provided for penalties to be inflicted<\/p>\n
      in case of a proven offence and Section 76<\/p>\n
      also provided that offences under the Act
\n                                                                         25<\/span><\/p>\n
      were   triable       by    a    Magistrate          of    the     Ist<\/p>\n
      Class.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
29.   As to the definition of “public servant” in<\/p>\n
      Section       2(c)(ix)         of     the     Prevention            of<\/p>\n
      Corruption Act, 1988, it was submitted that<\/p>\n
      the same should be read in two parts and<\/p>\n
      that the definition of “public servant” in<\/p>\n
      the    said    provision        in     respect          of    a   Co-<\/p>\n
      operative Society would be covered by the<\/p>\n
      first part and not by the second part.<\/p>\n
30.   Mr.      Tankha      submitted          that       the       charges<\/p>\n
      against     the     respondents            were    without         any<\/p>\n
      foundation,         as    would       be    clear        from      the<\/p>\n
      Inquiry     Report        of   the     District          Vigilance<\/p>\n
      Committee which laid the responsibility for<\/p>\n
      grant of the loans to the 35 persons at the<\/p>\n
      door   of     the    Branch         offices       and    had      only<\/p>\n
      included the respondents within the scope<\/p>\n
      of the charge for their alleged failure of<\/p>\n
      not having taken action on the report of
\n                                                                          26<\/span><\/p>\n
      NABARD and also in not having discharged<\/p>\n
      their       duties       efficiently.                  Mr.    Tankha<\/p>\n
      submitted that the same were not sufficient<\/p>\n
      to     maintain          the         charges         against       the<\/p>\n
      respondents         under         Sections       409,    418,      420<\/p>\n
      and 120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)(d)<\/p>\n
      and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
      Act,    1988       and      the      High      Court    had     quite<\/p>\n
      rightly      quashed           the     charges       against       the<\/p>\n
      respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
31.   As     to     SLP(Crl.)No.6929\/07,                    Mr.     Tankha<\/p>\n
      submitted that the same was in regard to a<\/p>\n
      hospital loan of Rs.2 lacs, which had been<\/p>\n
      advanced       and       had      also      been     repaid        with<\/p>\n
      interest      on     10th      July,     2008.         Mr.    Tankha<\/p>\n
      submitted       that        in       both      the     cases,      the<\/p>\n
      principal       amount            of     the     several        loans<\/p>\n
      together with interest had been repaid and<\/p>\n
      consequently,            the      very    foundation          of   the<\/p>\n
      charges were nonest and the prosecution was<\/p>\n
      liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         27<\/span><\/p>\n
32.   In    addition       to    Mr.    Tankha’s        submissions,<\/p>\n
      Mr.    Sushil    Kumar       Jain,       who      appeared     for<\/p>\n
      some    of    the     respondents,            submitted       that<\/p>\n
      unless        there        was    a         criminal      intent<\/p>\n
      disclosed       in    the    charge-sheet,           no    charge<\/p>\n
      either    under       Section         406    or    Section     409<\/p>\n
      would lie.       He also urged that in order to<\/p>\n
      invoke the provisions of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
      Corruption Act the accused would have to be<\/p>\n
      a public servant and the property alleged<\/p>\n
      to    have    been        misappropriated,          must      have<\/p>\n
      been entrusted to him while he was a public<\/p>\n
      servant.        He urged that the charge-sheet<\/p>\n
      did    not    contain       any       allegation       that    the<\/p>\n
      loan advanced by the Society was out of any<\/p>\n
      fund     or    contribution            received      from      the<\/p>\n
      State.          Accordingly,            the       question         of<\/p>\n
      misappropriation of any amount received by<\/p>\n
      the    public    servant         in    his     capacity       as        a<\/p>\n
      public servant did not arise.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 28<\/span><\/p>\n
33.   Mr. Jain reiterated the other submissions<\/p>\n
      made by Mr. Tankha that the respondents had<\/p>\n
      no conscious knowledge of the ineligibility<\/p>\n
      of the borrowers to apply for and receive<\/p>\n
      the    loans   and     that       the    loans     had    been<\/p>\n
      sanctioned        on        the         basis      of      the<\/p>\n
      recommendations and proposals put up by the<\/p>\n
      Branch office.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
34.   Mr.     Jain      also        submitted          that      the<\/p>\n
      allegations      against        the      respondents      were<\/p>\n
      misconceived and the remedy in respect of<\/p>\n
      the    lapses,    if     any,      lay    not     under    the<\/p>\n
      general     criminal        process,       but    under    the<\/p>\n
      provisions       of    the        M.P.          Co-Operative<\/p>\n
      Societies Act, 1960, itself.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
35.   Having considered the submissions made on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the respective parties and the<\/p>\n
      various decisions cited in support thereof,<\/p>\n
      we    are   unable     to    agree       with     the    views
\n                                                                                29<\/span><\/p>\n
      expressed by the High Court in the order<\/p>\n
      impugned in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
36.   While      it    is        no    doubt          true    that       in    the<\/p>\n
      Inquiry      Report         of        the       District       Vigilance<\/p>\n
      Committee            the        role        attributed             to     the<\/p>\n
      respondents in sanctioning loans was shown<\/p>\n
      to      be       purely              managerial              where        the<\/p>\n
      groundwork had been completed by the Branch<\/p>\n
      offices      and      that           as    members       of    the      Loan<\/p>\n
      Sanctioning            Committee,                they        had        acted<\/p>\n
      inefficiently, it has also been suggested<\/p>\n
      that the Chairman and the Executive Officer<\/p>\n
      of   the     Bank      had       connived             with    the       other<\/p>\n
      accused         in    defrauding                the    Bank.       In     the<\/p>\n
      Inquiry         Report          it        was    stated        that       the<\/p>\n
      respondents had in conspiracy with Shri Hem<\/p>\n
      Joshi, the Public Contact Officer of the<\/p>\n
      Bank, whose son, Himanshu Joshi, maintained<\/p>\n
      a current account of a fictitious firm –<\/p>\n
      Indore Motor and Agro Machinery in the Kila<\/p>\n
      Maidan       Branch             of        the    Bank        at      Indore
\n                                                                       30<\/span><\/p>\n
        encashed the various Demand Drafts issued<\/p>\n
        on account of the loans, by using the said<\/p>\n
        account without purchase of any vehicle for<\/p>\n
        which the loans had been sanctioned.<\/p>\n
37.     The     High       Court     also         did    not,     while<\/p>\n
        considering          the       definition           of        the<\/p>\n
        expression         “public     servant”,          take        into<\/p>\n
        account      the     fact     that        the    decision       in<\/p>\n
        Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors.’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
        was   no    longer      applicable         in    view    of   the<\/p>\n
        amended provisions of Section 2(c) of the<\/p>\n
        Prevention         of       Corruption           Act,     1988,<\/p>\n
        defining the said expression.                    Prima facie,<\/p>\n
        it appears to us that the Respondent Nos.1<\/p>\n
        and 3, in their capacity as the Chairman<\/p>\n
        and   Executive         Officer      of    the    Bank,       come<\/p>\n
        within the definition of “public servant”<\/p>\n
        under      Section      2(c)(ix)      of    the    1988       Act,<\/p>\n
        which reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\n      “public servant” means – any person who
\n      is the President, Secretary or other
\n                                                            31<\/span><\/p>\n
      office-bearer     of    a    registered    co-
\n      operative society engaged in agriculture,
\n      industry, trade or banking, receiving or
\n      having received any financial aid from
\n      the   Central    Government     or   a   State
\n      Government    or    from    any    corporation
\n      established    by   or    under   a   Central,
\n      Provincial or State Act, or any authority
\n      or body owned or controlled or aided by
\n      the Government or a Government Company as
\n      defined in Section 617 of the Companies
\n      Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
38.     Mr. Tankha’s submissions, which were echoed<\/p>\n
        by   Mr.   Jain,   that    the    M.P.   Co-operative<\/p>\n
        Societies Act, 1960 was a complete Code in<\/p>\n
        itself and the remedy of the prosecuting<\/p>\n
        agency lay not under the criminal process<\/p>\n
        but within the ambit of Sections 74 to 76<\/p>\n
        thereof, cannot also be accepted, in view<\/p>\n
        of the fact that there is no bar under the<\/p>\n
        M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to<\/p>\n
        take   resort      to   the      provisions   of   the<\/p>\n
        general    criminal       law,    particularly     when<\/p>\n
        charges under the Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
        Act, 1988, are involved.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         32<\/span><\/p>\n
39.   The   judgments          referred        to     by    Mr.     Tankha<\/p>\n
      regarding        the     tendency         to     convert         civil<\/p>\n
      disputes into criminal cases to pressurize<\/p>\n
      the    accused,        are     unimpeachable,              but     the<\/p>\n
      same will not apply to the facts of this<\/p>\n
      case where a conspiracy to cheat the Bank<\/p>\n
      is alleged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
40.   We are, therefore, inclined to accept Mr.<\/p>\n
      Srivastava’s           submissions             that     the       High<\/p>\n
      Court had in revision erroneously quashed<\/p>\n
      the charges framed against the respondents.<\/p>\n
      Consequently, the orders dated 17th March,<\/p>\n
      2007,    passed        by     the    High       Court       in    Crl.<\/p>\n
      Revision No.1303 of 2006 and Crl. Revision<\/p>\n
      No.36       of   2007,        impugned          in    these        two<\/p>\n
      appeals      are       set     aside       and       the    charges<\/p>\n
      framed      by     the       Trial       Court       against       the<\/p>\n
      respondents are restored.                     The appeals are,<\/p>\n
      accordingly, disposed of with a direction<\/p>\n
      to    the    Trial       Court      to    proceed          with    the<\/p>\n
      trial.       We make it clear that the views
\n                                               33<\/span><\/p>\n
       expressed in this judgment are prima facie<\/p>\n
       in nature for the disposal of these appeals<\/p>\n
       only and should not influence the trial in<\/p>\n
       any way.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  ______________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   (ALTAMAS KABIR)<\/p>\n
                                  ______________J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
\nNew Delhi
\nDated:06.04.2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.647 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)NO.5937 of 2007) State of Madhya Pradesh …Appellant Vs. Rameshwar & Ors. …Respondents WITH […]<\/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-136318","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009 - 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-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-18T07:54:50+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=\"22 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-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-18T07:54:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4340,\"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-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-18T07:54:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009 - 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-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-18T07:54:50+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-18T07:54:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009"},"wordCount":4340,"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-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009","name":"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-18T07:54:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-rameshwar-ors-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of M.P vs Rameshwar & Ors on 6 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/136318","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=136318"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136318\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136318"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136318"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}