{"id":151212,"date":"2011-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-09-11T09:02:03","modified_gmt":"2015-09-11T03:32:03","slug":"shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                                              1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                    \n                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                            \n                                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                           \n                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2011\n\n\n\n  Shri Vardachari s\/o. Rangachari,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n  Aged 68 yrs., Occ. retired Administrative\n  Officer, M.S.E.B., r\/o. Ramnagar, Nagpur.                                         .....            APPLICANT.\n                                               \n            \/\/ VERSUS \/\/\n                                              \n  State of Maharashtra,\n  through Anti-Corruption Bureau,\n  Chandrapur.                                                                      ......            NON-APPLICANT.\n                \n             \n\n\n\n  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\n                           Mr.Mahesh Singh, Advocate for the applicant.\n                      Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for the respondent\/State.\n  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                             CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                            DATED            :   21st July, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n   ORAL JUDGMENT                 :\n\n\n\n\n   1.           Heard finally by the consent of                          Mr. Mahesh Singh, Advocate for\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
   the applicant and Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for the respondent\/State.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.        By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the<\/p>\n
impugned order passed below Exh.77 on 10.3.2011 by the learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case (ACB) No.4 of 1998. It appears that the<\/p>\n
learned Advocate for the defence had filed an application (Exh.77) in the trial<\/p>\n
Court contending that the accused came to know in or about the month of<\/p>\n
December, 2010 that the first informant Ku. Surekha is involved in a series of<\/p>\n
serious misconducts and that she was suspended on account of grave charges<\/p>\n
against her. Departmental enquiry was also held against her and she was<\/p>\n
found guilty. Defence had obtained information regarding misconducts of the<\/p>\n
first informant in the third week of December, 2010 and had produced certain<\/p>\n
documents listed with Exh.73 on 4.1.2011, which were allowed to be so<\/p>\n
produced by the learned trial Judge.                    Those documents, according to the<\/p>\n
defence, are not only relevant, but are required to be proved by the defence<\/p>\n
to substantiate their case. The defence, therefore, prayed for examination of<\/p>\n
certain witnesses so as to prove those documents by way of defence evidence<\/p>\n
who were to be examined on behalf of the defence. The learned trial Judge<\/p>\n
held that the documents received and produced by the defence on record<\/p>\n
were in respect of the subsequent incident regarding alleged misconduct of<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
the first informant and therefore, they were not relevant. According to the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge the witnesses proposed and to be examined as defence<\/p>\n
witnesses were not important as far as the trial in question is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the application (Exh.77) was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
3.         The    learned       Advocate         for      the   applicant     submitted       that     the<\/p>\n
documents which were allowed to be produced by the trial Judge cannot be<\/p>\n
proved unless the defence is allowed to adduce evidence in support of its<\/p>\n
defence. The documents could not have been produced earlier because they<\/p>\n
were obtained under the Right to Information Act in the month of December,<\/p>\n
2010 when the accused came to know about the misconduct of the first<\/p>\n
informant. It is submitted that if the evidence which is proposed to be brought<\/p>\n
on record on behalf of the defence is not allowed to be adduced, the defence<\/p>\n
would suffer irreparable loss as defence would not be in a position to<\/p>\n
otherwise assail credibility of complainant\/first informant.\n<\/p>\n
3.         No reply has been filed by the learned A.P.P. to the application,<\/p>\n
although sufficient opportunity has been granted to file the same. The learned<\/p>\n
A.P.P. left it to the discretion of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
4.          In Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a trial before<\/p>\n
the Court of Sessions, the trial Judge is under obligation to take all such<\/p>\n
evidence as may be produced not only in support of the prosecution but also<\/p>\n
which may be produced in support of the defence.         When the accused is not<\/p>\n
acquitted at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, he is required to be<\/p>\n
called upon to enter in his defence and adduce any evidence             which          he<\/p>\n
may have in support thereof. In addition, the accused may also choose to file<\/p>\n
Written Statement in his defence which shall be incorporated in the record of<\/p>\n
the case.   U\/s.233 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the accused<\/p>\n
applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any<\/p>\n
witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such<\/p>\n
process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application<\/p>\n
should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation<\/p>\n
or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. No such reason has been<\/p>\n
mentioned by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order. The learned trial<\/p>\n
Judge merely expressed his opinion that “considering the lapse of ten years<\/p>\n
between the trap and the alleged misconduct of the complainant and the<\/p>\n
misconduct of the complainant in the year 2006 having no concern with the<\/p>\n
trap in the year 1998, I am not of the view that these witnesses are<\/p>\n
important to decide the dispute before the Court i.e. to prove the offence<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
against the accused and to decide conduct of the complainant in the year<\/p>\n
1998.”   This reason assigned by the learned trial Judge                      to reject the<\/p>\n
application to adduce defence evidence is neither just nor proper.                  Even u\/s.\n<\/p>\n
311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court has a power to summon<\/p>\n
any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not<\/p>\n
summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already<\/p>\n
examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine<\/p>\n
any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just<\/p>\n
decision of the case. Therefore, an opportunity is required to be given to the<\/p>\n
defence to adduce any evidence in support of its defence unless the<\/p>\n
application for adducing additional evidence is made vexatiously or to delay or<\/p>\n
defeat the ends of justice.       Thus, applying the above test to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case, in my opinion, opportunity to adduce evidence ought to have<\/p>\n
been granted to the accused to lead evidence in support of the defence.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, the impugned order is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
5.         The applicant\/accused shall be allowed to examine witnesses listed<\/p>\n
in support of his defence.       Defence shall file a list of witnesses as also a list<\/p>\n
of documents    and     shall     call    upon the      prosecution   to admit or         deny<\/p>\n
genuineness of such documents as contemplated u\/s. 294 of the Code of<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
   Criminal Procedure. If the prosecution admits genuineness of the documents,<\/p>\n
   such documents may be read in evidence in the course of trial without formal<\/p>\n
   proof. Proof of such documents may not be required in view of Section 294 of<\/p>\n
   the Code of Criminal Procedure which is intended to prevent delay which may<\/p>\n
   occur due to time consumed in examination of witnesses or further recording<\/p>\n
   of the evidence. The impugned order is set aside. The application is allowed<\/p>\n
   in the above terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
              Copy of this judgment duly authenticated be supplied to the<\/p>\n
   learned Advocate for the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   JUDGE <\/p>\n
jais<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011 Bench: A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2011 Shri Vardachari s\/o. Rangachari, Aged 68 yrs., Occ. retired Administrative Officer, M.S.E.B., r\/o. Ramnagar, Nagpur. ….. APPLICANT. \/\/ VERSUS \/\/ State of Maharashtra, through […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011 - 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\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-11T03:32:03+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T03:32:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1148,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-11T03:32:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011 - 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\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-11T03:32:03+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T03:32:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011"},"wordCount":1148,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011","name":"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-11T03:32:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-vardachari-vs-on-21-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Vardachari vs =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= on 21 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/151212","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=151212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}