{"id":149986,"date":"1998-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998"},"modified":"2015-10-12T03:51:07","modified_gmt":"2015-10-11T22:21:07","slug":"rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 VAD Delhi 1, 75 (1998) DLT 141<\/div>\n
Author: A Srivastava<\/div>\n
Bench: A Srivastava<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.K. Srivastava, J.<\/p>\n
1.      The  Revisionist, Rakesh Kumar Jain is facing prosecution for  contravention  of  the provisions of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of  Official  Secrets Act, 1923 in Criminal Case No. 317\/94, Union of India through Deputy Superintendent of Police , C.B.I., Special Police Establishment Vs. Rakesh Kumar
\nJain,  Joint  Managing Director of M\/s. Jain Sudh  Vanaspati  Limited.  He moved an application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the code) before the trial court for his discharge from the  case on two grounds, namely that the order of his prosecution had  not been  passed by a proper authority and that cognizance could not have  been taken  as  the complaint was barred by limitation. By  the  impugned  order dated  17.3.1995  passed by Shri A.K. Garg, Additional  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate the aforesaid application has been dismissed. Hence this  criminal revision.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Heard  learned counsel for the revisionist and the respondent. It  was urged on behalf of the respondent that he ought to have been discharged  on the  following  two  grounds, namely; (1) that the  complaint  against  the revisionist was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) that the order to  file the  complaint ought to have been given by Government of  National  Capital Territory  of  Delhi i.e. the Lt. Government of Delhi and,  therefore,  the order actually given by the Central Government in the name of the President of India was invalid.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Thus  it is to be seen that the pleas taken here for discharge of  the revisionist  from  prosecution  are the same which were  before  the  trial court.\n<\/p>\n
4.   I have gone through the impugned order and I may say that it is a well written and well discussed order.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  complaint  was  filed by Deputy Superintendent  of  Police,  CBI, Special Police Establishment after it received the order dated 21.4.1988 of Government  of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The order  portion  thereof reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “Now,  therefore, the Central Government in pursuing of  sub-section  (3) of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19  of
\n     1923)  hereby orders that the said Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain  should be  prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction for  the  offence  punishable  under  the said Act and  authorise  Shri  K.N. Tiwari, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,  New Delhi to lodge a complaint against the  said  Shri Rakesh  Kumar Jain for the acts aforesaid in the court of  competent jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
6.   Learned  counsel  for revisionist says that the  proper  authority  as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Official Secrets  Act, 1923  in  this case was Lt. Governor and not the President of  India.  That sub-Section reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “13(3)  No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under  this Act  unless upon complaint made by order of, or  under  authority from, the appropriate Government or some officer empowered by the appropriate Government in this behalf.”\n<\/p>\n
7.   From  the  above  provisions, it is clear that a  Court  can-not  take cognizance of any offence under the official Secrets Act unless there is  a complaint  made by Order of, or under authority from, the appropriate  Government  or  some officer empowered by the appropriate Government  in  this behalf.  The  question for consideration in this case is which  shall  have been the appropriate Government. The Central Government in the name of  the President of India or the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi?\n<\/p>\n
8.   The term “appropriate Government” has been defined in sub-section  (5) of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act. According to that definition, it shall,  in  relation to any offences under Section 5 not connected  with  a prohibited  place or with a foreign power, be the State Government  and  in relation  to any other offence, the Central Government. Since  the  offence
\nunder question is under Section 5 not connected with a prohibited place  or with  a foreign power the appropriate Government in this case shall be  the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In the Official Secrets Act, the term “State Government” has not  been defined and, therefore, recourse will have to be taken to its definition in the General Clauses Act, 1897. According to Clause (60) of Section 3 of the General  Clauses  Act, as respects anything done or to be  done  after  the commencement  of  the Constitution (Seventh Amendment)  Act,  1956,  ‘State Government’  shall mean, in a State, the Governor, and a  Union  Territory, the Central Government. Admittedly, Delhi is a Union Territory and,  therefore, State Government in respect of the Union Territory of Delhi shall  be the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The  General  Clauses Act, defines Central Government in  its  Section
\n3(8)(b), which says that Central Government shall, in relation to  anything done  or  to be done after the commencement of the Constitution,  mean  the President  and shall include, in relation to the administration of a  Union Territory the administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority  given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution. This definition  is an  inclusive definition and, therefore, the Central Government in  respect of  the  Union  Territory of Delhi shall be the President as  well  as  the administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority given to  it under  Article 239 of the Constitution. By no stretch of interpretation  it can be said that the President of India ceases to be Central Government  in respect  of  Union Territory of Delhi only because the  Central  Government includes  the administrator. Moreover, the offence allegedly  committed  by
\nthe revisionist under the Official Secrets act related to certain  leakages in  a  Ministry of the Central Government and, therefore, for  the  alleged offence  the  appropriate Government under Section 13(3)  of  the  Official Secrets  Act would be the President of India and not the Lt. Governor,  who has nothing to do with the affair of a Ministry of the Central  Government. Thus,  in my view, the complaint was lodged by the order and  authorisation of the competent authority as envisaged under Section 13(3) of the Official
\nSecrets Act.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Regarding  the plea of limitation, the contention of  learned  counsel for  the  respondents  is that no doubt, the  limitation  prescribed  under Section  468(2)(c) of the Code for the offence in question was three  years and the complaint was lodged beyond three years from the date of  knowledge of  the offence i.e. 28.4.1985 but as per the provisions of Section  470(3)
\nof  the  Code,  the period of 76 days taken by the  Central  Government  to authorise  the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Special Police  Establishment  to lodge complaint against the revisionist would be excluded  and thus if the complaint was filed on 19.5.1988, it cannot be said that it was barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
12.  The  undisputed  facts are that the alleged offence was  committed  on 24.4.1985.  It came to the notice of the Government of India on  28.4.1985. The Central Bureau of Investigation was, on 9.7.1986, asked to  investigate the offence and the FIR was registered by CBI on 10.7.1986. After  investigation of the offence, the CBI sought sanction from the Central  Government on 5.2.1988 and the same was accorded on 21.4.1988.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Learned counsel for revisionist contended that the benefit of  Section 470(3)  of the Code is not available in this case but conceded that if  the benefit is available then the complaint is within period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Thus  the  only question for consideration is whether the  benefit  of Section  470(3) is available in the present case or not.  That  sub-section reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “(3)  Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been  given, or where, under any law for the time being in force, the previous consent  or sanction of the Government or any other authority  is required  for the institution of any prosecution for an  offence, then,  in computing the period of limitation, the period of  such notice  or, as the case may be, the time required  for  obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
15.  Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the words ”  unless upon  complaint  made  by order or under authority  from,  the  appropriate Government”  in sub-Section (3) of Section 13 of the Official  Secrets  Act would not be covered by the words ” the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority” in sub-Section (3) of Section 470 of the Code.  His contention is that under Section 13(3) of the  Official  Secrets Act neither any previous consent of the Government nor any sanction of  the Government is required and that under that sub-section the only requirement is  that the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence under  the  said Act unless there is a complaint made by order of, or under authority  from, the  appropriate  Government. On the other hand, Mr. R.S.  Jamuar,  learned counsel for CBI vehemently contended that the CBI could not have lodged the complaint in question unless the appropriate Government (being the  Central Government)  through  President  of India would have  authorised  the  said Officer  of  the  CBI to launch the prosecution and,  therefore,  the  same amounted  to  taking  of previous consent or sanction  of  the  appropriate Government.\n<\/p>\n
16.  I  have given my careful consideration to the  respective  contentions and,  I am of the view, that the requirement in Section 13(3) of the  Official  Secrets Act amounts to taking of previous consent or sanction of  the appropriate  Government. One should not go by the actual words  used.  What should be seen is the intention of the legislature. The purpose of  providing  for previous consent, sanction or authorisation from  the  appropriate Government  or  other  authority before launching prosecution  is  for  the protection of the alleged offender so that irresponsible prosecution is not launched. However, in seeking such previous consent, sanction or authorisation  some ministerial acts are involved which may take some time. That  is why,  in computing period of limitation under the Code, Section  470(3)  of
\nthe  Code  provides for exclusion of the time required for  obtaining  such consent or sanction.\n<\/p>\n
17.  The  provisions of Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act are  also of the same nature and they act as a protection to the person against  whom any prosecution is sought to be launched under that Act so that irresponsible  prosecution is not launched. Therefore, no logical interpretation,  on the basis of the scheme of the provisions in Section 13(3) of the said Act, the words “upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from” therein  would be covered under the words ” the previous consent or sanction  of
\nthe Government” used in Section 470(3) of the Code and thus the time  taken for obtaining such order or authorisation from appropriate Government shall be  excluded.  It  is an accepted principle of  interpretation  that  there should be strict interpretation of the penal laws as the penal laws are not of the kind of beneficial legislation where interpretation should be liberal.\n<\/p>\n
18.  In  view of the above discussion, there is no force in  this  criminal revision and I do not consider it a fit case for interference.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Accordingly,  the  revision is dismissed. Crl.  M.No.  2148\/95  stands disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 VAD Delhi 1, 75 (1998) DLT 141 Author: A Srivastava Bench: A Srivastava JUDGMENT A.K. Srivastava, J. 1. The Revisionist, Rakesh Kumar Jain is facing prosecution for contravention of the provisions of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of Official […]<\/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-149986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998 - 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\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-11T22:21:07+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\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T22:21:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1823,\"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\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998\",\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T22:21:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998 - 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\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-11T22:21:07+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\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998","datePublished":"1998-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T22:21:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998"},"wordCount":1823,"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\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998","name":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T22:21:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-17-april-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 17 April, 1998"}]},{"@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\/149986","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=149986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}