{"id":160903,"date":"2007-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007"},"modified":"2019-04-01T11:08:28","modified_gmt":"2019-04-01T05:38:28","slug":"state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1119 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of A.P.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA.S. Peter\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA,  J :\n<\/p>\n
1. \tThe State of Andhra Pradesh is before us aggrieved by and
\ndissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the High
\nCourt of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3955 of
\n2000 allowing a criminal revision application filed by the respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
2. \tRespondent (Accused No. 1) carries on business in Red Sanders hard
\nwood and was having a godown at Renigunta in the District  of Chittoor.  A
\nfire broke out in the said godown on 28\/29.06.1996 resulting in destruction
\nof red sanders hard wood, undressed wood as also nine cutting machines.\n<\/p>\n
     The said godown was insured.  The concerned Forest Officer gave an
\ninformation to the police station that the respondent had made a false
\ndeclaration regarding the stock shown in the godown and inflated the same
\nin order to make unlawful gain,  whereupon a First Information Report was
\nlodged.  Investigation was carried out upon obtaining permission of the
\nconcerned Magistrate.  A chargesheet was filed upon completion of the
\ninvestigation in the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati for
\nalleged commission of offence under Sections 199, 200 and 200 of the
\nIndian Penal Code.  Subsequently, however, as some allegations had been
\nmade against the manner in which the local police conducted the
\ninvestigation, the Additional Director General of Police, CID entrusted the
\ncase for further investigation to the Inspector of Police, CID, Prakasam
\nDistrict on 5.11.1997.\n<\/p>\n
     Before carrying out the said investigation, the Inspector of Police,
\nCID filed a memo in the said Court with the prayer that the matter be
\nadjourned.  Although it does not appear that any express permission was
\ngranted for carrying out further investigation, the prayer of adjournment was
\nallowed in terms of the said Memo.  Further investigation was carried out
\nwhereafter an additional chargesheet was filed against Accused Nos. 1 to 3
\nin the Court of IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor for offences under
\nSections 199, 200, 204 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code.  More accused
\npersons were also added in the chargesheet in the category of accused.
\nIndisputably, the case was transferred from the Tirupati Court to a
\nDesignated Court at Chittoor.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant filed an application before the High Court of Andhra
\nPradesh for quashing of the criminal proceedings inter alia on the ground
\nthat prior permission of the Magistrate was not obtained for further
\ninvestigation as also on the ground that the same was conducted entirely by a
\ndifferent investigating agency.\n<\/p>\n
     A learned Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned
\norder has allowed the said application.\n<\/p>\n
3. \tMrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant in support of this appeal submitted that the High Court committed
\na manifest error in taking the view that the investigation in question was a
\nfresh investigation or it was imperative on the part of the investigating
\nofficer to obtain express permission from the Magistrate concerned.
\nDecisions of this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration)<\/a>
\n[(1979) 2 SCC 322] and K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Others
\n[(1998) 5 SCC 223] whereupon the High Court relied upon, Mrs. Reddy,
\nwould contend, have no application to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
4. \tMr. Nagendra Rai, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the fact that not
\nonly a re-investigation was conducted by a different investigating agency,
\neven another case was instituted at a different place without obtaining the
\nprior permission of the Magistrate concerned and, thus, the impugned
\njudgment is unassailable in view of the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal
\nNarang (supra) and K. Chandrasekhar (supra).\n<\/p>\n
5. \tIndisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission
\nfrom the Magistrate for further investigation.  Carrying out of a further
\ninvestigation even after filing of the chargesheet is a statutory right of the
\npolice.  A distinction also exists between further investigation and re-
\ninvestigation.  Whereas re-investigation without prior permission is
\nnecessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.\n<\/p>\n
6. \tIn R.P. Kapur and Others v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and Others<\/a>
\n[1961 (2) SCR 143], this Court laid down the law in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
The Additional Inspector General of Police to
\nwhom Sethis complaint was sent was, without
\ndoubt, a police officer superior in rank to an officer
\nin charge of a police station. Sardar Hardayal
\nSingh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID,
\nAmritsar, was also an officer superior in rank to an
\nofficer in charge of a police station. Both these
\nofficers could, therefore, exercise the powers,
\nthroughout the local area to which they were
\nappointed, as might be exercised by an officer in
\ncharge of a police station within the limits of his
\npolice station<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further held:\n<\/p>\n
If the police officer concerned thought that the
\ncase should be investigated by the C.I.D.  even
\nthough for a reason which does not appeal to us
\nit cannot be said that the procedure adopted was
\nillegal<\/p>\n
7. \tIt is not correct to contend that the investigation was taken up by a
\ndifferent agency.  The CID is a part of the investigating authorities of the
\nState.  A further investigation was directed by the Additional Director
\nGeneral of Police.  Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972
\nempowers a police officer, superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police
\nstation, to exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which they
\nare appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his
\nstation.\n<\/p>\n
8. \tIt was, therefore, permissible for the higher authority to carry out or
\ndirect further investigation in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
9. \tThis aspect of the matter is covered by a decision of this Court in
\nState of Bihar and Another v. J.A.C. Saldanha and Others<\/a> [(1980) 1 SCC
\n554], wherein it was held:\n<\/p>\n
19.   .This provision does not in any way affect
\nthe power of the investigating officer to further
\ninvestigate the case even after submission of the
\nreport as provided in Section 173(8). Therefore,
\nthe High Court was in error in holding that the
\nState Government in exercise of the power of
\nsuperintendence under Section 3 of the Act lacked
\nthe power to direct further investigation into the
\ncase. In reaching this conclusion we have kept out
\nof consideration the provision contained in Section
\n156(2) that an investigation by an officer in charge
\nof a police station, which expression includes
\npolice officer superior in rank to such officer,
\ncannot be questioned on the ground that such
\ninvestigating officer had no jurisdiction to carry on
\nthe investigation; otherwise that provision would
\nhave been a short answer to the contention raised
\non behalf of Respondent 1. <\/p>\n
     [See also Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash,<\/a> (2004) 13 SCC 292]<\/p>\n
10. \tIn Ram Lal Narang (supra), this Court was concerned with a case
\nwhere two conspiracies were alleged; one being part of a larger conspiracy.
\nTwo investigations were carried out.  This Court, while opining that further
\ninvestigation is permissible in law, held that the Magistrate has a discretion
\nin the matter to direct further investigation, even if he had taken cognizance
\nof the offence, stating:\n<\/p>\n
The criticism that a further investigation by the
\npolice would trench upon the proceeding before
\nthe court is really not of very great substance, since
\nwhatever the police may do, the final discretion in
\nregard to further action is with the Magistrate. That
\nthe final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient
\nsafeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the
\npower of the police to make further investigation.
\nWe should not, however, be understood to say that
\nthe police should ignore the pendency of a
\nproceeding before a court and investigate every
\nfresh fact that comes to light as if no cognizance
\nhad been taken by the Court of any offence. We
\nthink that in the interests of the independence of
\nthe magistracy and the judiciary, in the interests of
\nthe purity of the administration of criminal justice
\nand in the interests of the comity of the various
\nagencies and institutions entrusted with different
\nstages of such administration, it would ordinarily
\nbe desirable that the police should inform the court
\nand seek formal permission to make further
\ninvestigation when fresh facts come to light.<\/p>\n
 \tWhile acknowledging the power of the police authorities to carry out
\nfurther investigation in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, an observation was made therein  to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
 In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate
\nhad taken cognizance of the offence upon a police
\nreport submitted under Section 173 of the 1898
\nCode, the right of the police to further investigate
\nwas not exhausted and the police could exercise
\nsuch right as often as necessary when fresh
\ninformation came to light. Where the police
\ndesired to make a further investigation, the police
\ncould express their regard and respect for the court
\nby seeking its formal permission to make further
\ninvestigation.<\/p>\n
11. \tEven in regard to an independent investigation undertaken by the
\npolice authorities, it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
22. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate
\nhad taken cognizance of the offence upon a police
\nreport submitted under Section 173 of the 1898
\nCode, the right of the police to further investigate
\nwas not exhausted and the police could exercise
\nsuch right as often as necessary when fresh
\ninformation came to light. Where the police
\ndesired to make a further investigation, the police
\ncould express their regard and respect for the court
\nby seeking its formal permission to make further
\ninvestigation <\/p>\n
12. \tIt is not a case where investigation was carried out in relation to a
\nseparate conspiracy.  As allegations had been made against the officer of a
\nlocal police station in regard to the mode and manner in which investigation
\nwas carried out, a further investigation was directed. The court was informed
\nthereabout.   Although, no express permission was granted, but evidently,
\nsuch a permission was granted by necessary implication as further
\nproceeding was stayed by the learned Magistrate.  It is also not a case where
\ntwo chargesheets were filed before two different courts.  The Court
\ndesignated to deal with the matters wherein investigation had been carried
\nout by the CID, is located at Chitoor.  It is in the aforementioned situation,
\nthe Sessions Judge transferred the case pending in the Tirupati Court to the
\nDesignated Court at Chittoor.  Cognizance of further offence had also been
\ntaken by the Chittoor Court.\n<\/p>\n
13. \tReliance placed by the High Court as also by Mr. Rai in K.
\nChandrasekhar (supra) is misplaced.  Therein investigation had been carried
\nout by the Central Bureau of Investigation with the consent of the State.
\nHowever, the State withdrew the same.  The question which arose for
\nconsideration therein was as to whether it was permissible for the State to do
\nso.  The said issue was answered in the negative stating that the investigating
\nofficer must be directed to complete the investigation.  It was in the
\naforementioned situation opined:\n<\/p>\n
24. From a plain reading of the above section it is
\nevident that even after submission of police report
\nunder sub-section (2) on completion of
\ninvestigation, the police has a right of further
\ninvestigation under sub-section (8) but not fresh
\ninvestigation or reinvestigation. That the
\nGovernment of Kerala was also conscious of this
\nposition is evident from the fact that though
\ninitially it stated in the Explanatory Note of their
\nnotification dated 27-6-1996 (quoted earlier) that
\nthe consent was being withdrawn in public interest
\nto order a reinvestigation of the case by a special
\nteam of State police officers, in the amendatory
\nnotification (quoted earlier) it made it clear that
\nthey wanted a further investigation of the case
\ninstead of reinvestigation of the case. The
\ndictionary meaning of further (when used as an
\nadjective) is additional; more; supplemental.
\nFurther investigation therefore is the
\ncontinuation of the earlier investigation and not a
\nfresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started
\nab initio wiping out the earlier investigation
\naltogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also
\ndrawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8)
\nclearly envisages that on completion of further
\ninvestigation the investigating agency has to
\nforward to the Magistrate a further report or
\nreports  and not fresh report or reports
\nregarding the further evidence obtained during
\nsuch investigation. Once it is accepted  and it
\nhas got to be accepted in view of the judgment in
\nKazi Lhendup Dorji   that an investigation
\nundertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted
\nunder Section 6 of the Act is to be completed,
\nnotwithstanding withdrawal of the consent, and
\nthat further investigation is a continuation of
\nsuch investigation which culminates in a further
\npolice report under sub-section (8) of Section 173,
\nit necessarily means that withdrawal of consent in
\nthe instant case would not entitle the State Police,
\nto further investigate into the case. To put it
\ndifferently, if any further investigation is to be
\nmade it is the CBI alone which can do so, for it
\nwas entrusted to investigate into the case by the
\nState Government. Resultantly, the notification
\nissued withdrawing the consent to enable the State
\nPolice to further investigate into the case is
\npatently invalid and unsustainable in law. In view
\nof this finding of ours we need not go into the
\nquestions, whether Section 21 of the General
\nClauses Act applies to the consent given under
\nSection 6 of the Act and whether consent given for
\ninvestigating into Crime No. 246 of 1994 was
\nredundant in view of the general consent earlier
\ngiven by the State of Kerala.<\/p>\n
 \tWe do not see any application of the said ratio herein.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court
\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
15. \tMr. Rai submitted that the High Court did not go into the other
\ncontentions raised by the respondent in quashing the application.  We have
\nexamined the application filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure and are satisfied that the respondent herein only
\nraised the contention of validity of the chargesheet filed upon completion of
\nthe second investigation.\n<\/p>\n
16. \tFor the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1119 of 2004 PETITIONER: State of A.P. RESPONDENT: A.S. Peter DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/12\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-01T05:38:28+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-01T05:38:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2338,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-01T05:38:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-01T05:38:28+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-01T05:38:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007"},"wordCount":2338,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007","name":"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-01T05:38:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-a-p-vs-a-s-peter-on-13-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of A.P vs A.S. Peter on 13 December, 2007"}]},{"@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\/160903","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=160903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}