{"id":156095,"date":"2008-12-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-08T12:55:44","modified_gmt":"2017-05-08T07:25:44","slug":"bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT JAMMU            \nCriminal Appeal No. 1 OF 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No. 17 OF 2006   \nBodh Raj \nPetitioner\nState & Ors \nRespondent  \n!Mr. D.S. Saini, Advocate\n^Mr. P.C. Sharma, AAG  \n\nHon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod Kumar Gupta \n DATE: 26\/12\/2008 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n
Accused appellant Bodh Raj is a teacher and in the month of
\nSeptember 1976 he made a representation to the District Education
\nOfficer, Jammu for his transfer from central School Kanyala to any
\nother School in Jammu proper. He was transferred to Govt. Higher
\nSchool Gole Gujral vide order No. 4450-54 dated 18.10.1976 under
\nthe orders of District Education Officer. In compliance with this
\ntransfer order, the accused-appellant joined in Govt. High School
\nGole Gujral on 23.10.1976. Subsequently he was given the charge
\nof clerk also and was authorized to draw salary and other bills by the<\/p>\n
Headmaster vide communication dated 15.2.1977 from the
\nGovernment Treasury, Town Hall Jammu. The Headmaster of the
\nschool was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the Institution.
\nDuring the period from August 1978 to August 1980, it is alleged
\nthat the accused-appellant prepared 25 forged bills and drew
\ndifferent amounts from the Treasury and misappropriated that
\namount. This withdrawal of the amount after preparing forged
\ndocuments was detected when one Shri S.N. Dhar received a letter
\nfrom Accountant General, Srinagar to deposit an amount of
\nRs. 3000\/- drawn by the Headmaster of Govt. High School Gole
\nGujral during 1978 and debited in his account. After verification of
\nthe record, this whole affair was detected. Report was lodged with
\npolice Station Domana, Jammu by the Headmaster Govt. High
\nSchool Gole Gujral on 17.12.1980.\n<\/p>\n
2. On this report, FIR No. 168\/80 under sections 420\/471 RPC
\nwas registered with the Police Station Domana. During
\ninvestigation it was found that the accused-appellant had prepared
\n25 fraudulent bills during 1978 to 1980 and has withdrawn an
\namount of Rs. 67,950\/- from the Treasury and misappropriated the
\nsame. The investigation was subsequently handed over to the Crime
\nBranch and after completion of the investigation 8 different charge
\nsheets(challans) were produced in the court of law. After trial of all
\nthese cases, the accused was acquitted of charges in six cases, but
\nwas convicted in two cases in challan Nos. 124 and 128 under<\/p>\n
sections 420\/465\/471 RPC and sentenced him to undergo simple
\nimprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 1000\/- under section
\n420 RPC, simple imprisonment for six months for the commission
\nof offence under section 465 RPC and a sentence of simple
\nimprisonment for six months for the commission of offence under
\nsection 471 RPC in both cases vide orders\/judgment dated
\n11.10.2007 and 09.01.2007. Sentences were to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
3. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant
\nin both cases on the ground that it stands proved that the
\naccused prepared forged bills in both the cases under the signatures
\nof Drawing and Disbursing Officer and drew the amount of the bills
\nfrom the Treasury and misappropriated the same. Aggrieved by
\nthese impugned orders\/judgments, the accused appellant has
\npreferred these two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also
\nperused the record on the files.\n<\/p>\n
5. Both these appeals are taken up together because the facts in
\nthe case are identical and same question of law is involved in both
\nthe appeals.\n<\/p>\n
6. Mr. D.S. Saini, Advocate appearing for the accused-appellant,
\nhas submitted that the evidence relied upon by the learned trial court
\nin the case is inadmissible because the statements of the witnesses
\nhave been transferred from one file and the accused has not been
\nafforded any opportunity for cross-examination in other cases and<\/p>\n
thereby accused is prejudiced. The handwriting and signatures of
\nthe accused on the bills have not been proved by the prosecution.
\nHe has further submitted that the statement of the accused under
\nsection 342 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded properly inasmuch as all
\nthe accusations found in the prosecution evidence were not put to the
\naccused. He has further submitted that Investigating Officer has not
\nbeen produced in the case which has caused prejudice to the
\naccused\/appellant. On the other hand, Mr. P.C. Sharma, learned
\nAdditional Advocate General, has submitted that the prosecution has
\nsucceeded in proving its case and the evidence of the witnesses in
\nthe case is admissible under sections 47 and 73 of the J & K
\nEvidence Act in respect of handwriting and signatures of a person.
\nHe has further submitted that under section 510 Cr.P.C. the
\ncertificate of handwriting expert is admissible without examination
\nof the expert.\n<\/p>\n
7. It is admitted by the trial court itself that the evidence in these
\ncases has been recorded in one case only and the copies of the same
\nhave been transferred to the other cases and the entire record has
\nbeen seized in one case only and there is no documentary evidence
\non other files. He has admitted that this is the wrong procedure
\nbecause there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for
\nclubbing of the cases. At page 4 of the judgment, the trial court has
\nobserved as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Complicity of accused in commission of
\noffences under section 420\/471 RPC was  <\/p>\n
established, and the transactions were split, into
\nseven cases, in terms of section 234 Cr.P.C.
\nCharges were not only split, but different cases
\nwere even registered against the accused, in
\nrespect of different fraudulent with drawls, one
\ncould understand the necessity of splitting the
\ncases but registration of different reports was not
\nneeded at all, as during the investigation of case
\nFIR No. 168\/80, different fraudulent withdrawals
\nwere unearthed, so even a single FIR could fulfill
\nthe procedural requirement. Anyway, it is no use
\nto comment upon it now. Instant case is the end
\nresult of investigation in case FIR No. 98\/1984,
\nand this judgment shall be limited to this case
\nonly. Ordinarily, convenient course would have
\nbeen to dispose off all the seven cases through a
\nsingle judgment, because all these cases have
\nemanated from case FIR 168\/80, and evidence
\nhas also been recorded in one case only though
\nplaced on separate files, and the entire seized
\nrecord, and the other documentary evidence lies
\non one case file pertaining to case FIR No.
\n168\/80, but that would again be a wrong track as
\nin criminal procedure there is no provision for
\nclubbing of cases. So, each case has to be taken
\nup individually for decision though it would be
\nhighly inconvenient. Since record lies on one file
\nonly, so reference to the record where ever
\ninevitable in this judgment would mean reference
\nto record on File No. 130\/Session which relates
\nto case FIR No. 168\/80, and so it would be the
\nmother file, for rest of the files including this
\none.”\n<\/p>\n
8. Although the learned trial court has admitted that
\nthe wrong procedure has been adopted in
\nsplitting the cases by the investigation and
\nsubsequently tried by the court by clubbing
\nthose cases as there is no such provisions
\nevidence in the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nitself. He has also admitted that the evidence<\/p>\n
oral as well as documentary is in File No.
\n130\/Session relating to the case FIR No. 168\/80.
\nBy doing so, in my opinion, this is an illegality
\nwhich has caused serious prejudice to the
\naccused-appellant because he has been convicted
\nin two cases where the evidence has been taken
\nfrom other file in which the accused has been
\nacquitted of the charge.\n<\/p>\n
9. In order to substantiate the charges against the
\naccused, the prosecution has examined Bank
\nManager Bal Krishan Gupta PW, Kuldip Raj
\nSharma PW a bank employee, Paras Ram, Har
\nDutt, Sharma and Bodh Raj PWs employees of
\ntreasury proving that the accused-appellant had
\nbeen withdrawing amount of the treasury. The
\nprosecution has also examined Gullu Ram and
\nSom Nath Dhar PWs, who were teachers posted
\nin the School and amount of Rs.2500\/- and Rs.
\n3000\/- had been withdrawn from their G.P Fund
\naccount without their applications. Gyan Chand,
\nI.D.Soni and Gurbachan Lal PWs are witnesses
\nto the seizure of record. The depositions of these
\nwitnesses do not connect the accused-appellant
\nwith the commission of offence even remotely.\n<\/p>\n
10. The other evidence on the mother file is the
\ndepositions of Yogya Dutt PW and Kanwarjeet
\nSingh PW, who were Head Masters at the
\nrelevant time and as Head Master they were the
\nDrawing and Disbursing Officers. They have
\ndeposed that they have not signed the withdrawal
\nbills and the same are forged or fraudulent. The
\nevidence relied upon by the learned trial court is
\nthe statement of PW Yagya Dutt, the then
\nHeadmaster Govt. High School Gole Gujral. He
\nhas also deposed that he is acquainted with the
\nsignatures of the accused. The accused has
\nprepared and signed the bills in dispute. He has
\nfurther submitted that the accused-appellant has
\nforged his (witness) signatures on these bills. He
\nhas admitted that he has not signed any bill but
\nthe accused has forged his signatures.\n<\/p>\n
11. The learned trial court has held that this
\nstatement of the Yogya Dutt PW is admissible in
\nevidence because it fulfills the requirements of
\nsection 47 of the Jammu and Kashmir Evidence
\nAct. In taking this view the learned trial court
\nwas not correct because section 47 is not
\napplicable and the opinion given by the witness<\/p>\n
is not admissible under section 47 of the Jammu
\nand Kashmir Evidence Act, section 47 reads as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“47.Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.
\nWhen the Court has to form an opinion as to the person
\nby whom any document was written or signed, the
\nopinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting
\nof the person by whom it is supposed to be written or
\nsigned that it was or was not written or signed by that
\nperson, is a relevant fact.”\n<\/p>\n
From the plain reading of this section, it is clear that the opinion of
\nthe person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it
\nis supposed to be written or signed is admissible if the said person is
\nwell conversant and acquainted with the handwriting of said person.
\nIn this case the signatures and handwriting of the accused on the
\nforged bills is not in dispute. The allegation against the accused is
\nthat he has forged the signatures of Drawing and Disabusing Officer
\nof the institution namely, Headmaster of that school. Headmaster
\nYagya Dutt PW has deposed that he has not signed those bills. He
\nhas exceeded in deposing that these signatures have been forged by
\nthe accused. This evidence of the witness is not admissible because
\nhe is neither expert in forming any opinion that the signatures have
\nbeen forged by the accused on the disputed bills nor he is acquainted
\nwith the forged signatures of the accused-appellant of different
\npersons including himself. He can only state that he has not signed
\nthose bills. Heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the
\naccused has forged those signatures.\n<\/p>\n
12. Section 47 of the J&K Evidence Act makes
\nrelevant the opinion of ordinary witness in
\nabsence of opinion of expert and the same is
\nadmissible sometimes in respect of handwriting
\nor signature. The opinion of expert is also
\nrelevant under section 45. In the instant case, the
\nhandwriting expert has not been examined
\nalthough his report was on record. The learned
\ntrial counsel has held that the report of the expert
\ncannot be admitted in evidence on the ground
\nthat the expert has not been examined and crossexamined
\non account of his non production.\n<\/p>\n
13. The contention of learned AAG that the report of
\nthe handwriting expert although not proved
\nduring the trial is admissible in evidence under
\nsection 510 Cr.P.C. In my opinion, this
\ncontention of the learned counsel for the State is
\ndevoid of any force. Section 510 reads as under:-
\n“510. Report of Chemical Examiner.\n<\/p>\n
i. Any document purporting to be a report under the
\nhand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant
\nChemical Examiner to Government or the Chief
\nInspector of Explosives or the Director of Finer Print
\nBureau or an officer of the Mint, upon any matter or
\nthing duly submitted to him for examination or
\nanalysis and report in the course of any proceeding
\nunder this Code, may be used as evidence in any
\ninquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code.\n<\/p>\n
ii. The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the
\napplication of the prosecution or the accused,
\nsummon and examine any such person as to the
\nsubject-matter of his report.”\n<\/p>\n
This provision does not cover the case in hand. Sub section
\n(2) provides that the witness be summoned on the
\napplication of prosecution. This provision can be invoked
\nonly if the prosecution gives a statement in the court for
\ntaking on record the report of the Chemical examiner or the
\nauthority mentioned in the provisions itself. There is
\nnothing on record to show that the prosecution ever made a
\nrequest to the trial court for taking into consideration the
\nreport of handwriting expert. This report is inadmissible in
\nevidence unless it is proved that this report is covered under
\nthis provision. Even otherwise the report of the handwriting
\nexpert is a weak evidence cannot be considered conclusive
\nin arriving at a final conclusion without any corroborative
\nevidence. As stated above there is no other evidence on the
\nfile to prove this fact.\n<\/p>\n
14. Now the question arises in the case as to whether
\nthe opinion of Yagya Dutt PW that the accusedappellant
\nhas forged his signatures is admissible
\nin evidence. It is a settled law that opinion
\nevidence is hearsay and becomes relevant only if
\nthe condition laid in section 47 of the Evidence
\nAct is proved. Reliance is placed on case Rahim<\/p>\n
Khan Vs. Khurshid Ahmed, AIR 1975 SC 290.
\nThe opinion given by the witness is that the
\naccused-appellant has forged the signatures of
\nsaid witness. As stated earlier that the witness is
\nnot well conversant with the forged signatures
\nmade by the accused. He has not stated on what
\nbasis the witness has formed this opinion and
\nhow he is conversant with the signatures alleged
\nto have been forged by the accused-appellant.
\nThus this opinion is irrelevant and is inadmissible
\nin evidence. It is now well settled that the
\nopinion of the expert or person shall be received
\nwith great case caution and alone cannot be made
\nbasis for conviction of an accused. It can be
\nrelied upon when supported by other evidence. It
\nis unsafe to base a conviction solely on the
\nopinion without substantial corroboration. The
\nlearned trial court has also taken aid of section 73
\nof the Jammu and Kashmir Evidence Act which
\npermits the court to comparison of
\nsignatures\/writing etc of a person with the
\nwriting\/signatures of that person as stated above.
\nThis provision would also not help the
\nprosecution in probing its case. There is no<\/p>\n
admitted forged signatures of Headmaster by the
\naccused which are admitted and as such the same
\ncannot be compared with the forged signatures
\non the bills. Further also the court cannot come
\nto the conclusion that the accused has forged
\nthose signatures only on the basis of comparison
\nof its own without any other evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
15. The learned trial court has also taken aid of
\nsection 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Evidence
\nAct which permits the court to compare the
\ndisputed signatures\/writing etc. of a person with
\nthe admitted writing\/signature of that person.
\nThis provision would also not help the
\nprosecution in proving its case. The trial court
\nhas not taken the signatures from the accused like
\nforged one in its presence and thereby compared
\nthe same with the disputed forged signature. The
\ntrial court has also not taken the signatures of
\nHead Master, witness Yogya Dutt, the Drawing
\nand Disbursing Officer to see as to whether those
\nsignatures were genuine of forged one. There is
\nno admitted forged signatures of Headmaster by
\nthe accused and as such the same cannot be
\ncompared with the forged signatures on the bills.\n<\/p>\n
Further also the court cannot come to the
\nconclusion that the accused has forged those
\nsignatures only on the basis of comparison of its
\nown without and other evidence on record. The
\nconviction cannot be bases solely on the evidence
\nof comparison of signature by court.\n<\/p>\n
16. There is set procedure and norms for withdrawal
\nof any amount by any institution from the
\nTreasury. The bills can be prepared by any
\nperson but the amount is withdrawn from the
\nTreasury only on the authority and signatures of
\nDrawing and Disbursing Officer. After
\nwithdrawal of the amount from the Treasury the
\nsaid amount is disbursed to the concerned by the
\nDisbursing Officer. In the instant
\n( Vinod Kumar Gupta)
\nJudge
\nJammu
\n26.12.2008
\nChuni\/jr<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT JAMMU Criminal Appeal No. 1 OF 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No. 17 OF 2006 Bodh Raj Petitioner State & Ors Respondent !Mr. D.S. Saini, Advocate ^Mr. P.C. Sharma, AAG Hon’ble Mr.Justice Vinod Kumar Gupta DATE: […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008 - 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\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-08T07:25:44+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T07:25:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2731,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T07:25:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008 - 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\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-08T07:25:44+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T07:25:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008"},"wordCount":2731,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008","name":"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T07:25:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bodh-raj-vs-unknown-on-26-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bodh Raj vs Unknown on 26 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/156095","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=156095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}