{"id":136650,"date":"2000-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000"},"modified":"2017-12-16T16:20:02","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T10:50:02","slug":"ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000","title":{"rendered":"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 2735, 84 (2000) DLT 673<\/div>\n
Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n
Bench: D Bhandari<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 Dalveer Bhandari, J.  <\/p>\n
1.   This  appeal has been filed under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section  5(2)
\nread  with  Section  5(1) (d) of the Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1947 against the order of learned trial court by which the appellant in  Corruption  Case  No. 25 of 1977 on 9th March, 1978 was sentenced one  year  R.I. under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of  Corruption  Act  and a fine of Rs. 100\/- in default of payment of the  fine,  the
\nappellant was further directed to suffer further R.I. for three months  and under  Section 161 IPC the appellant was sentenced to RI for one year.  The trial  court  also directed that the sentences of  imprisonment  shall  run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
     Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are  recapitulated as under.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Ram Kishan appellant, Manual Assistant attached to Taxi Meter Unit  in the  Inspectorate of Weights and Measures of the Office of the Director  of Industries, Khyber Pass, Delhi, was charged under Sections 161 IPC and 5(2) read  with  5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. As  per  the charges,  the appellant, being a public servant employed and posted in  the aforementioned  office,  on 30.6.1976, obtained and accepted a sum  of  Rs. 10\/- from PW 11 who was plying three wheeler scooter, as a motive or reward for getting the meter of his scooter passed.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Kuldip Singh, complainant before trial court, PW 11, used to ply three wheeler scooter on contract basis at Rs. 20\/- per day having hired it  from PW-7. He used to bring the scooter from the house of PW -7 at 8.00 a.m. and
\nreturn at 8.00 p.m. <\/p>\n
4.   On  29.6.76,  Kuldip Singh, complainant went to the house of  PW-7  to collect the scooter and noticed that the seal of the Meter was in a  broken condition.  So, he drove the scooter to the Weights &  Measurements  Office and  got the scooter entered for checking. In order to check the  Meter  of three wheeler scooter, the scooters were required to go on a round to  ISBT from a fixed point on The Mall. If the fare shown by the Meter be Rs.  3.50 p or Rs. 3.60p, the Meter would get passed. In case of the fare being shown above  Rs. 3.60p, the Meter would not be passed as correct. The scooter  of
\ncomplainant showed fare amounting to Rs. 3.70p and so it was not approved.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The appellant told him that if he was paid Rs. 10\/- as bribe, he would get the Meter of complainant’s scooter passed and then the appellant  would himself affix the seal thereon. The complainant at that time put the appellant  off saying that the complainant did not have the amount of  Rs.  10\/- with  him and promised that he would come back on 30.6.1976 at about  11.00 a.m. and pay Rs. 10\/- as bribe for this purpose.\n<\/p>\n
6.   However,  the  complainant  went to the Anti  Corruption  Branch.  The Investigating Officer, after recording statement of the complainant  before two Panch witnesses and number of the ten rupee note of the complainant  as well  as applying powder phenol phthalein thereon, gave the  directions  to the complainant that the complainant should pass on the same ten rupee note to the bribe taker within the hearing and sight of both the Panch witnesses and in the course of such a conversation as to indicate that the money  was accepted by the bribe taker as bribe. The witnesses were also instructed to remain close to the complainant and the bribe taker and watch the  transac-tion.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  raiding  party  then reached near the office  of  the  Inspector, Weights & Measurements, Khyber Pass at 11.15 a.m. The three wheeler scooter of the complainant was sent for checking and again the Meter showed a  fare
\nof Rs. 3.70p and was declared to have failed. The complainant then contacted the appellant and outside the room near the corner, the complainant gave the same ten rupee note alongwith the verification certification form which the appellant accepted in his right hand and put the same in the pocket  of his  shirt. On receiving the signal, the Investigating Officer came  up  on the  scene  and caught the appellant. The number of the currency  note  was tallied with the recorded number in the raid report and all the things were taken  in  to possession in the presence of the complainant and  the  Panch
\nwitnesses. Then a colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared  and as the right hand of the accused was dipped therein, it became pink.  Similarly,  the  left  pocket of the shirt was dipped in  another  solution  of sodium  carbonate and that too became pink. Both these pink solutions  were transferred  into bottles and were sealed and labels with the signature  of the  complainant and the Panch witnesses affixed thereon.  The  complaining statement  alongwith the report was sent to Police Station Anti  Corruption Branch where FIR No. 28 was recorded and the case property was deposited in the Mal Khana, P.S. Civil Lines, Delhi. The bottles were later sent to CFSL and were reported positive test for Phenol Phthalein.\n<\/p>\n
8.   After  obtaining  sanction for the prosecution of  the  appellant,  as contemplated by Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, report under  Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in  Court.  The
\nlearned trial court framed charges under Section 161 IPC and under  Section 5(2)  read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1947. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The  prosecution  examined 12 witnesses in support of  its  case.  The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which the  appellant categorically denied that he demaned Rs. 10\/- from the  complainant  in  order  to get the Meter passed. On  consideration  of  entire evidence  on  record, the learned Special Judge arrived at  the  conclusion that  the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of  the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant Ram Kishan under Section
\n161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention  of Corruption  Act, 1947 against the order of learned Special Judge  by  which the  appellant  in Corruption Case No. 25 of 1977 on 9th  March,  1978  was sentenced one year R.I. under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 100\/- in default  of payment  of the fine, the appellant was further directed to suffer  further R.I. for three months and under Section 161 IPC the appellant was sentenced to  RI for one year. The learned Special Judge also directed that the  sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
p>11.  Reliance  has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in  the case  of Sarup Chand Vs. State of Punjab; reported in 1987 (1) Crimes  818. In  this case the appellant was convicted by the trial court under  Section
\n161 IPC and under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. While maintaining  the conviction the Supreme Court had reduced the  sentence  to the period already undergone on the ground that six years have passed  from the  date  of  the incident and this is the first time  the  appellant  had committed  an offence. In the instant case, 24 years have lapsed since  the date  of  the incidence and the appellant has not been  involved  in  other
\ncriminal cases.\n<\/p>\n
12.  The  learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment  of this  Court in the judgment of Inder Parkash Shingal Vs. State ; 38  (1989) Delhi  Law Times (SN) 5. In this case also the accused appellant  was  con-\n<\/p>\n
victed under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)( (d) & 5(2)  of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court reduced the sentence  of
\nthe imprisonment of appellant to the period already undergone on the ground that the appellant has faced the agony of trial for about 18 years now.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The  learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on some of  the decided cases in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case  of B.G.  Goswami  Vs. Delhi Administration; 1973 SCC (Crl.) 796,  observed  as under :\n<\/p>\n
  “Now  the  question of sentence is always a  difficult  question,      requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of  various      considerations  which weigh with a judicial mind  in  determining      its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of  the      sentence broadly stated is that th accused must realise that  he      has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society  of      which  he forms an integral part but is also harmful to  his  own      future,  both  as an individual and as a member of  the  society.      Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring  potential      offenders  as also by preventing the guilty party from  repeating      the  offence;  it  is also designed to reform  the  offender  and      reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the  society      as  a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of  punishment  thus  play  their due part in  judicial  thinking  while      determining the question. In modern civilised societies, however,      reformatory  aspect is being given somewhat  greater  importance.      Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both loss their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby      making  the  offender a hardened criminal. In the  present  case,      after  weighing the considerations already noticed by us and  the      fact  that  to send the appellant back to jail  now  after  seven years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is     also  going to lose his job and has to earn a living for  himself      and  for  his family members and for those dependent on  him,  we      feel  that  it would meet the ends of justice if  we  reduce  the      sentence  of imprisonment to that already undergone but  increase      the  sentence  of  fine from Rs. 200\/- to Rs.  400\/-.  Period  of      imprisonment in case of default will remain the same.”\n<\/p>\n
14.  This case has been followed in a number of subsequent judgments by the Supreme Court and various other courts. In Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State  of M.P. , while referring to the judgment of B.G. Goswami  Vs. Delhi  Administration (supra), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced  to
\nthe  period  already undergone, in a case where the accused  was  convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
15.  In  the instant case, the incident had taken place in 1976. The  basic facts regarding the delay are quite akin to the facts of Shri Ramesh  Kumar Gupta  Case (supra). The appellant had undergone some part of the  sentence and faced trauma of criminal proceedings for almost 24 years.\n<\/p>\n
16.  On  consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of  this case, in my considered opinion the ends of justice shall be met by  upholding the conviction of the appellant. However, the sentence of  imprisonment of the appellant, Ram Kishan is reduced to the period already undergone.\n<\/p>\n
17.  The appeal is accordingly disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000 Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 2735, 84 (2000) DLT 673 Author: D Bhandari Bench: D Bhandari ORDER Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000 - 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\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-16T10:50:02+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T10:50:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1826,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000\",\"name\":\"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T10:50:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000 - 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\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-16T10:50:02+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000","datePublished":"2000-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T10:50:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000"},"wordCount":1826,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000","name":"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T10:50:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishan-vs-state-on-23-february-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Kishan vs State on 23 February, 2000"}]},{"@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\/136650","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=136650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}