{"id":161496,"date":"2008-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008"},"modified":"2014-12-22T04:04:29","modified_gmt":"2014-12-21T22:34:29","slug":"the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Assistant Commissioner Of … vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Assistant Commissioner Of … vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 25\/01\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR\n\nCrl.A.(MD).No. 985 of 1999\n\nThe Assistant Commissioner of Customs\nHead Quarters Preventive,\nTuticorin. \t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nVs\n\n1. Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia\n   alias Prem Singh  Sisodia\n   alias Prem Pratap Sisodia\n\n2. Anil Bhai Balwant Rai Desai\t\t... Respondents\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nPrayer\n\nCriminal Appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment\ndated 28.5.1999 on the file of the Special District and Sessions Judge, Madurai,\nin C.C.No. 562 of 1998.\n\n!For Appellant \t\t\t... Mr.C.Arulvadivel alias Sekar\n\t\n^For Respondents   \t     \t... Mr.B.Kumar, S.C., for\n\t\t\t\t\t  Mr.K.Chandrasekar\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe state represented by Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Head Quarters
\nPreventive, Tuticorin has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the
\nrespondents herein for the alleged offences under sections 8(c) of NDPS Act
\n1985, punishable under section 22 and 29 of the Act passed by the Special
\nDistrict  and Sessions Court (The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act
\nCourt) Madurai in C.C.No.562 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe charges against the respondents who had been arrayed as A1 and A2
\nbefore the trial court were that on 12.12.1994, the officers of customs
\npreventive, Tuticorin seized seven chlorine cylinders in which Mandrax tablets
\nwere concealed from the godown of Patel Roadways, Tuticorin and on 15.12.1994,
\nA1 and A2 were apprehended in Patel Roadways and statements dated 16.12.1994
\nwere recorded from A1 and A2.  They admitted that in addition to 7 cylinders of
\nMandrax tablets seized at Tuticorin, one more consignment of 7 cylinders were
\nsent to Peenya, Bangalore with fictitious name and address of consignee as M\/s.
\nMeenakshi Enterprise, Peenya Industrial Estate Tumkur Road, Bangalore on
\n30.11.1994 from Saroli branch of RTC and A2 signed in the invoice as G.T.Rana.
\nOn that basis, information was forwarded over phone from Customs Office,
\nTuticorin to Customs Preventive Unit, Headquarters, Bangalore on 16.12.1994. On
\n17.12.1994, the customs officers searched the premises of M\/s.South Eastern
\nRoadways, Bangalore in the presence of witness and found 7 cylinders.  The
\nrelevant documents pertaining to 7 cylinders were recovered.  The address
\nmentioned in the invoice as M\/s.Meenakshi Enterprises was found to be false and
\nwith the help of gas cutters the 7 cylinders were cut open and found Mandrax
\ntablets in polythene pouches and the test carried out gave positive indication
\nof methaqualone.  On the whole 4957 plastic pouches containing Mandrax tablets
\nweighing in all 299.85 kg concealed in the 7 cylinders.  The witness were
\nexamined C.Ramachandra, cashier of M\/s.South Eastern Roadways, Bangalore stated
\nthat on 08.12.1994, two persons approached him for taking delivery of the 7
\ncylinders and the same was not delivered to them because the consignment note
\nwas not having any seal of the consignee.  One Somushankar Rathod, driver of the
\nlorry stated that the seven cylinders were loaded at Surat on 29.11.1994 by one
\nM\/s.MAMA Roadways, Surat and the same were unloaded on 02.12.1994 at RTC South
\nEastern Godown.  Therefore, it is alleged that A1 and A2 admitted in their
\nstatements dated 16.12.1994, 17.12.1994 and 18.12.1994 that they conspired in
\nthe manufacture, transport and sale of Mandrax tablets and are liable for
\npunishment under section 22 and 29 of NDPS Act.\n<\/p>\n
3. When the charges were read over, they denied having committed any of the
\noffence charged and hence the trial was conducted.\n<\/p>\n
4. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-1 to PW-11 were examined and documents were
\nmarked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P70.\n<\/p>\n
5. PW-1, K.S.Srinivasan, Supdt. Customs Preventive Head Quarters, Bangalore, in
\nhis evidence stated that on 1612.1994 at about 2.30 P.M. a telephonic message
\nwas received by Pw9, Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore from Pw10 Addl.
\nCommissioner, Tuticorin.  As per the message Ex.P1 Mandrax tablets in 7
\ncylinders were concealed and were lying at Road Transport Corporation Parcel
\nOffice, Peenya and the officers along with Pw1 went to the transport company as
\ninstructed by Pw11 and search authorization was also given by Pw11.  However,
\nPw1 did not conduct any search because of darkness and posted the officers to
\nguard the premises.  On 17.12.1994, Pw1 went to the godown of South Eastern
\nRoadways, Tunkur at 9 a.m. and after showing the search authorization to the
\nstaff of the Transport godown, search was conducted and 7 cylinders were found
\nand with the help of gas cutters, in the presence of witnesses the seven
\ncylinders were cut open, found to contain 4957 plastic pouches containing
\nMandrax tablets in the 7 cylinders totally weighing 2998 kg.  The Mandrax
\ntablets and the relevant documents Ex.P4 to Ex.P9 were seized under Mahazar
\nEx.P3. Statements of C.Ramachandran, Pw3, Narasimharao, Krishnappa were recorded
\non 18.12.1994 and were marked as Ex.P11, 13, 15 and 17. The report under section
\n57 was marked as Ex.P18.  One Moorthy was examined and a statement in Ex.P20 was
\nrecorded on 19.12.1994.  Ex.P21 was the letter to post master to furnish the
\ncorrect address of Meenakshi Enterprises and his reply is Ex.P22. Forwarding
\nmemo was Ex.P23 and godown receipt was Ex.P24.  On interrogation of Ramachandran
\nof SRC, Bangalore revealed two persons made enquiries about the 7 cylinders. Pw1
\nadmitted that no identification parade regarding A1 and A2 was conducted.\n<\/p>\n
6.PW-2, Chowhan, Customs Inspector, Bangalore has  stated that on 23.12.1994
\nsample packets were received by him and the same were sent to Principal
\nLaboratory, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
7. PW-3, Prakash Pandey, Manager, South Eastern Roadways, Bangalore has stated
\nabout the search and seizure of documents pertaining to 7 cylinders on
\n16.12.1994 and 17.12.1994.  His statement is marked as Ex.P13.\n<\/p>\n
8. PW-4, K.S.Gnanasekar, Superintendent of  Customs Preventive Unit, Tuticorin
\nhas stated about the search and seizure of 7 cylinders containing Mandrax
\ntablets at Roadways, Tuticorin on 12.12.1994 and the relevant documents and the
\nseizure of documents from the accused on 15.12.1994 and the documents and
\nMahazar were filed in C.C.No.113\/95.  The statements of the accused were
\nrecorded on 16.12.1994.  They were Ex.P37 and Ex.P39. Since the averment
\nrevealed transport of 7 cylinders to Peenya, Bangalore on 30.11.1994 from Surat,
\nthe same was revealed to Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and Pw10 by
\nshowing the statements.  Pw10 in the presence of Pw4 telephoned to Pw9 and
\nconveyed the averment in the statements of A1 and A2 and asked him to take
\nsteps. Statements Ex.P41 and Ex.P43 were recorded from A1 and A2 and they were
\narrested on 18.12.1994 and remanded to custody on 19.12.1994 in C.C.No.113\/95.\n<\/p>\n
9. PW-5, P.V.Wankhade, Superintendent of Customs, Preventive at Rathinagiri,
\nMaharashtra has stated that on the basis of the message received from the
\nCustoms Office, Bangalore, he examined the owner of the Truck Pw8 and the driver
\nof the Truck Pw7 in which the seven cylinders were transported from Surat to
\nBangalore.  Their Hindi statements are Ex.P49 and 53 and English translations
\nare Ex.P50 and 54.\n<\/p>\n
10. PW-6, D.K.Bansal, Chief Chemical Examiner, Central Revenue Control
\nLaboratory, New Delhi has stated about the receipt of sample packet and the test
\nreport is Ex.P36.\n<\/p>\n
11. PW-7, Somu Shankar Rathod, Driver of the Truck who transported the seven
\ncylinders from Surat to Bangalore has stated that he left Surat on 30.11.1994
\nand reached Bangalore on 02.12.1994 and delivered the goods at R.T.C. Office,
\nBangalore. His statement is Ex.P53 in Hindi and its English translation is
\nEx.P54.\n<\/p>\n
12. PW-8, Vilas Muley, owner of the truck in which the 7 cylinders transported
\nfrom Surat to Bangalore has given a statement in Ex.P49 in Hindi and its English
\ntranslation is marked as Ex.P50.\n<\/p>\n
13. PW-9, J.S.R.Khating, Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore states about
\nthe Telephonic message from Pw10 on 16.12.1994 and he instructed Pw11 to take
\naction on that basis.\n<\/p>\n
14. PW-10, J.M.K. Sekar, Asst. Commissioner Customs, Tuticorin has stated that
\nPw4 handed over the statements Ex.P37, 39 of A1 and A2 to him and he has given
\nthe telephonic message Ex.P1 to Pw9.\n<\/p>\n
15. PW-11, D.Rengasamy, Asst. Commissioner Customs Preventive, Bangalore has
\nstated about the conveyance of the message by Pw9 to him.  He instructed Pw1 to
\ntake action on that basis and Pw1 filed report Ex.P18.  He filed the complaint
\nEx.P70 before the civil and sessions court, Bangalore as C.C. No.90\/96.\n<\/p>\n
16. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to
\nthe incriminating materials found against them in thwe evidence of the
\nprosecution witnesses, they denied having committed any offence and their
\ncomplicity in the case.\n<\/p>\n
17. On behalf of the accused 1 and 2, Dw-1 and Dw-2 were examined and the prison
\nrecords were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. DW-1, in his evidence stated that on
\n19.12.1994, both the accused were brought to Central Prison, Madurai as remand
\nprisoners, Ex.D1 was the prisoners’ register book maintained in the prison. A1
\nwas given the number 1171 and A2 was given the number 1172. Both A1 and A2 were
\nbrought late  to the prison and at that time both complained of leg pain and
\nnoted the same in Ex.D1 which note was marked as Ex.D2.  It was mentioned in
\nthat A1 complained of contusion on his left leg and pain on his palms because of
\nbeating.  The note with regard to No.1172 mentioned that A2 complained of pain
\non his both palms and he was unable to walk. Dw1 denied that Ex.D2 was
\nsubsequently written in Ex.D1 after deleting the original writing.  He also
\ndenied the suggestion that it was written in some other pen. Since the ink was
\nexhausted, new ink was filled up and Ex.D2 was written.\n<\/p>\n
18. DW-2, in his evidence stated that during December 1994 he was working as
\nprison doctor in Madurai Central Prison and has given medical treatment to A1
\nand A2 in the Central Prison. Both were in- patients in Central Prison hospital.
\nDw2 has given letters Ex.D3 and Ex.D5 to Superintendent, Central prison, Madurai
\nmentioning the nature of complaint made by A1, A2 and O.P. Chits Ex.D4 and Ex.D6
\nwere also enclosed.  As per the records Ex.D4 to Ex.D6, A1 was complaining body
\npain, chest pain and giddiness.  He was examined thoroughly and on examination,
\nthere was a contusion mark in his left calf muscles.  He was detained in jail
\nhospital and treated from 22.12.1994 to 02.01.1995. He was produced before Chief
\nMedical Officer and was seen by him. He was advised to take same line of
\ntreatment.  Similarly, A2 was complaining of low back pain, body pain and pain
\nover both feet. He was examined thoroughly and on examination and with his past
\nhistory, he was diagonised as known case of diabetic and treated with suitable
\ndrugs from 22.12.1994 to 02.01.1995 as in-patent  in jail hospital.  He was
\nproduced before Chief Medical Officer and was seen by him and was advised to
\ntake same line of treatment.\n<\/p>\n
19. The learned Special Judge after analysing the evidence on record and after
\nhearing both sides had acquitted the respondents herein of all the offences
\ncharged on various reasons.\n<\/p>\n
20. The learned special public prosecutor contended that the learned special
\njudge has committed grave error in acquitting the accused without properly
\nconsidering the evidences on record.  He has put-forth the following
\ncontentions:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe lower court ought to have seen that Pw4 in this case on examining A1
\nand A2 and recording their statements, got information about the contraband
\ninvolved in this case and Pw4 in turn has informed his superior officer Pw10 and
\nthis has been recorded in Ex.P1.  Therefore, section 42 (2) of the Act has been
\ncomplied with.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe lower court ought to have taken into consideration of the fact that
\nbased upon the confession statements Ex.P41 to 44 of A1 and A2, the seizure was
\neffected on 17.12.1994 at M\/s.South Eastern Roadways, Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe evidence of Pw7, the lorry driver who has transported the 7 cylinders
\nfrom Surat to Bangalore corroborated the statements of A1 and A2 with regard to
\nthe sending of the consignment from Surat to Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThe confession statements of A1 and A2 are voluntary in nature and the
\nevidence of  Dw1 and Dw2 ought to have been rejected since they have given false
\nevidence only in order to help the accused and in Ex.D1, different ink was used
\nto write Ex.D2 after erasing the original writing in Ex.D1 and the accused had
\nnot made any complaint to the Judicial Magistrate against the officers at the
\ntime of remand and therefore the accused ought to have been convicted on the
\nbasis of their confession statements.\n<\/p>\n
21. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.B.Kumar appearing for the
\nrespondents\/accused would strenuously argue that the prosecution has miserably
\nfailed to prove its case and therefore the trial court rightly acquitted the
\naccused from the charges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
 \t22. According to the learned senior counsel, the foremost material relied
\nupon by the prosecution is the confession statements of the accused. But,  the
\nconfession statements are not voluntary and truthful and therefore they are not
\nadmissible in evidence.  The confession statements of A1 and A2 were recorded on
\n16.12.1994 and 17.12.1994 and 18.12.1994 when they were under the custody of the
\ncustoms officers in customs office, Tuticorin.  According to them, they  were
\nseverely beaten up and involuntary statements were recorded from them.  The
\nfindings of the trial court recorded in that regard are unexceptional.\n<\/p>\n
23.\tThe learned senior counsel for the respondents  has prefaced his
\nsubmissions to show how the statements recorded from A1 and A2 are involuntary
\nand could not be taken into consideration by referring the leading decision of
\nSupreme Court in Sankaria -vs- State of  Rajasthan reported in AIR 1978 SC 1248.
\nThe Supreme Court stated while considering the confession statement, the
\nstatement must satisfy two tests.\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tif the statement is perfectly voluntary.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tif the first test is satisfied on a true reading,  it could be considered
\nas truthful.  If both tests are satisfied and where the statement is retracted,
\nthe court must find if there is corroboration atleast on general particulars.
\nIt is only if all the above three test are satisfied the statements could be
\nrelied upon against the accused.  This decision of the Supreme Court has been
\nquoted and followed in the decision in State (NCT of Delhi) – vs- Navjot Sandhu
\n(Parliament attack case) reported in 2005 SCC (Cr.) 1715.  Therefore, the
\nstatements of A1 and a2 have to be tested in the light of the above three
\nprinciples.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tIn the instant case, the customs officers are not police officers.  Hence,
\nthe confession statement recorded by them is not hit by the prohibition under
\nsection 25 of Evidence Act.  Nevertheless, the statements have to be tested
\nunder section 24 of Evidence Act. The officers being person in authority within
\nthe meaning of  section 24 of Evidence Act, the burden of establishing that the
\nstatements recorded by customs officers are involuntary is on the accused.
\nHowever, the burden is very light.  An accused is only need to show the
\ncircumstances from “which it appears to the court” to have been caused by
\ninducement, threat or promise.  This aspect is also emphasized by the Supreme
\nCourt in Pyare Lal Bhargava -vs- State of Rajesthan reported in AIR 1963 SC 1094
\nand also in the decision in state (NCT of Delhi) – vs – Navjot Sandhu reported
\nin 2005 SCC (Cr.) 1715.  It is stated that “The expression “appears” connotes
\nthat the court need not go to the extent of holding that the threat, etc., has
\nin fact been proved. If the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence
\nadduced makes it reasonably probable that the confession could be the result of
\nthreat, inducement or pressure, the court will refrain from acting on such
\nconfession even if it be a confession made to a Magistrate or a person other
\nthan a police officer”.  Another decision is Sevantilal Karsondas Modi -vs-
\nState of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 SC 705 on the same point.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tThe evidence in this case has to be viewed in the light of the above
\nposition of law.  The Sessions Court while arriving at its conclusion that the
\nstatements of A1 and A2 are involuntary is well supported by circumstances as
\nwell as the evidences given by the defence witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tIt is also contended by the learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondents\/accused that while recording a statement of confession in nature
\nunder section 164 Cr.P.C., by a Magistrate, the code itself provides series of
\nsafeguards.  However, there is no safeguard while recording a statement under
\nNDPS Act by the Officers of customs.  Therefore, according to him, the
\nstatements require  to be “closely scrutinised”  whether it was voluntarily
\nobtained or not. In a decision of Supreme Court in Francis Stanley @ Stalin -vs-
\nIntelligence Officer, NCB, Tiruvanathapuram reported in 2007 (2) SCC (Cr.) 618
\nin paragraph 15, it is held that “while it is true that a confession made before
\nan officer of the department of Revenue Intelligence under the NDPS Act may not
\nbe hit by section 25 in view of the aforesaid decisions, yet such a confession
\nmust be subject to closer scrutiny than a confession made to private citizens or
\nofficials who do not have investigating powers, under the Act.”  This decision
\nis followed in Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail -vs- Spl.Director, Enforcement Directorate
\nreported in 2007 (8) SCC 254.  There is also force in this submission made by
\nthe counsel for the respondent\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tThere is another startling feature in this case. PW-1 in his cross
\nexamination has accepted that two further statements of A1 and A2 were recorded
\non 04.01.1995 and 12.01.1995 in Central Prison, Madurai and in that both the
\naccused totally denied their involvement in the alleged seizure of Mandrax
\ntablets in seven cylinders at Patel Roadways, Tuticorin.  The criticism by the
\nSessions Court that the prosecution has suppressed these two materials and not
\nmarked them in court is also justifiable.\n<\/p>\n
28.\tThe learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in supporting the judgement
\nof the trial court has emphasised the following aspects to show that the
\nstatements recorded from the accused are involuntary and have to be eschewed
\nfrom consideration.  A1 and A2 were cited as accused in four cases in
\nC.C.No.113\/95, C.C.No.417\/95, C.C.No.325\/95 and C.C. No.562\/98 and both of them
\nwere implicated in the cases on the basis of their apprehension on 15.12.1994 at
\nPatel Roadways, Tuticorin and the seizure of documents under Mahazar.  For the
\npurpose of convenience and for better appreciation of evidence, it is to be
\nmentioned here that Gnanasekar, Superintendent of Customs, Tuticorin who was
\ninstrumental in apprehending A1 and A2 at Patel Roadways, Tuticorin has been
\nexamined as PW-1 in C.C.No.113\/95 (C.A. 712\/99), as PW-21 in C.C. No.417\/95
\n(C.A. 844\/99), as PW-2 in C.C. No.325\/95 (C.A. 976\/99) and as PW-4 in
\nC.C.No.562\/98 (C.A.985\/99) and he has spoken about the seizure of documents
\nunder Mahazar which was marked as Ex.P.24 in C.C. No.113\/95 and as Ex.P42 in
\nC.C. No.325\/95.  The statements of A1 and A2 recorded by Gnanasekar on
\n16.12.1994 was marked as Exs.P41 and 42 in C.C. No.113\/95, as Exs.P90 and 89 in
\nC.C. No.417\/95 and as Ex.P37, 38, in C.C. No.562\/98.  The statements of A1 and
\nA2 dated  17.12.1994 and 18.12.1994 were marked as Exs.P.48 and 49 in C.C. No.
\n113\/95, as Exs.P92 and 91 in C.C.No.417\/95, as Exs.P.46 and 47 in C.C. No.325\/95
\nand as Exs.P.41 and 43 in C.C. No.562\/98.  Thirugnanasundaram, Customs
\nInspector, Tuticorin who assisted Gnanasekar was examined as PW-30 in C.C.
\nNo.113\/95 and as PW-16 in C.C. No.325\/95.  Firstly A1 and A2 have been kept
\nunder illegal confinement for over 4 days.  It is the case of the prosecution
\nitself that A1 and A2 were apprehended at Patel Roadways at 11.45 a.m on
\n15.12.1994. They were taken to the Customs Office and kept there in the night.
\nInfact seizure Ex.P24 Mahazar was signed by A1 and A2 on the night of
\n15.12.1994.  Both Pw-1 Superintendent of Customs and another officer of customs
\nPw-30 both admitted in evidence that the accused were in their custody from
\n15.12.1994 till they were produced for the purpose of remand on 19.12.1994.
\nThere was no explanation, nor could there be any for the prolonged confinement
\nof A1 and A2 in the customs office at Tuticorin.  This is more so, when no
\nsummons has been issued either under NDPS Act or under customs Act for their
\nappearance before the customs authorities.  The three statements from each of
\nthe accused were written when they were under such patently illegal custody. The
\ncontention that statements of the accused are therefore stamped with
\ninvoluntariness has force and acceptability.\n<\/p>\n
29. Secondly, there is inherent material to show that the accused were subjected
\nto prolonged interrogation that too in the night time.  In both Exs.P48 and 49
\nwhich are said to have been recorded on 17.12.1994.  The statement begins on
\n17.12.1994 and ends on 18.12.1994. These dates are mentioned in the statements
\nitself.  The prosecution witness Pw-1 & Pw-30 have also accepted the same.  It
\nwas contended before me that the only logical inference is, the accused  were
\ncontinuously interrogated during night time and statements were recorded.  In
\nthis regard, serious reliance was placed in the judgments of the constitution
\nbench of the Supreme Court in Kartar Sing – vs- St.of Punjab, reported in
\n1994(2) JT SC 423 in paragraph 419.  The said judgment was followed by
\nA.Packiraj,J., in an unreported judgement of this court in Criminal Appeal
\nNo.139\/95 dated 26.09.2001. Though the judgment of the Supreme Court on the safe
\nguards to be observed while recording confession statements was in the context
\nof interpreting section 15 of TADA, they are also of general observation where
\nstatements of confession in nature are recorded by the officials who are not
\npolice officers.  The Supreme Court has observed in para 149 that “Equally it is
\nsettled law that confession would not be recorded during nighttime or late hours
\nafter the accused has been subjected to interrogation by the police officers for
\n3 or 4 hours and had broken down under the continued interrogation”.   Thus, the
\njudgments cited on behalf of the respondents clearly apply to the facts of this
\ncase. Thirdly, the accused have more than probablised that they were subjected
\nto ill-treatment and were subjected to serious coercion which have no sanction
\nof law.  The evidence of Pw-20 in C.C.No.113\/95 is relevant in this respect.  It
\nis an admitted case that only three persons were taken to the office of customs
\non 15.12.1994.  They were A1, A2 & Pw20.  Pw-20 was kept for four days in one
\nroom of the customs office while A1 and A2 were kept in the next room and he has
\ndeposed that he heard screaming noise.  Since, no other person than A1 and A2
\nwere brought for the purpose of interrogation, the screaming noise could have
\ncome only from A1 and A2. Though Pw-20 was treated as hostile in C.C. No.113\/95,
\nhis evidence was not disputed by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
30.\tIn this regard, the learned senior counsel also relied on the
\nevidences of Dw1, the Assistant Prison Officer, Central prison, Madurai and Dw2,
\nthe prison doctor who has treated the accused from 22.12.1994 to 02.01.1995 in
\nthe jail hospital as in-patients. Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 were also marked to prove the
\ninjuries and pain found on the accused at the time of their admission in Central
\nprison, Madurai and also their treatment taken there from 22.12.1994 to
\n02.01.1995.\n<\/p>\n
31.\tThis aspect is probablise nay even establish by the evidence of Dw1
\nand Dw2 and production of Ex.D1 to Ex.D6.  These materials were produced to show
\nthat they had physical injuries upon them at the time of remand which are not
\nexplainable except on the hypothesis that they were caused when they were under
\nthe custody of the customs officers.\n<\/p>\n
32.\tThe analysis of evidence of Dw1 and Dw2 in this regard and notings
\nin the jail records that the accused had contusions on their body and could have
\nbeen caused when they were in the custody of customs offices clearly go to show
\nthat the accused had been coerced to give   confession statements.  Therefore,
\nthe findings recorded by Sessions Court cannot be said to be in any way
\nunacceptable or wrong.\n<\/p>\n
33.\tThe learned special public prosecutor has contended that Dw1 and Dw2
\nwere not reliable witnesses and they have given false evidence in order to
\nsupport the accused.  He further contended that the note Ex.D2 in Ex.D1 was
\nwritten in a different ink after the original writing was erased.  He further
\ncontended that Dw2 has given treatment to the accused from 22.12.1994 onwards
\nonly and therefore the injuries might have been caused by some other source and
\nnot because of the beating of the officers as alleged by the accused.  However,
\nit is very pertinent to mention here, that Pw1 in his evidence admitted that
\nafter the accused were remanded on 19.12.1994, custody was sought for by filing
\npetition and three days custody was ordered by the Court.  He has not mentioned
\nthe date of the petition and the date of the order. But the fact is that the
\naccused were remanded on 19.1.21994 and the first fifteen days expired on
\n02.01.1995.  After that, the customs officers could not seek custody of the
\naccused.  As per the jail records Ex.D4 and Ex.D6, the accused were in jail
\nhospital as in patients from 22.12.1994 to 02.01.1995.  Therefore, it is quite
\nevident that the accused ought to have been taken custody on 20th December 1994
\nand reproduced before court on 22.12.1994 after the three days custody period
\nwas complete.  It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the accused were
\ninside the prison on 20.12.1994 and 21.12.1994 also by letting evidence.\n<\/p>\n
34.\tIn this regard, the argument of the learned  Special Public
\nProsecutor requires to be considered.  According to him, the deposition of Dw1,
\nAssistant Prison Officer, Central Prison, Madurai and Dw2, the doctor attached
\nto the jail are not acceptable and the jail records are not reliable due to
\noverwriting.    It is submitted that the entry Ex.D2 in Ex.D1 appears to be over
\nwriting and in different ink and therefore, it has been brought much later.
\nSecondly it was contended that even though jail authority has noted physical
\ninjuries like contusions found on the accused at the time they were admitted to
\nprison after remand, the jail doctor examined them only 3 days later, that is,
\non 22.12.1994, hence defence witness are not to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
35.\tBut, on a careful consideration of the documents and the evidence of Dw1
\nand Dw2, this Court finds that the contention of the learned special public
\nprosecutor cannot be accepted.  Both Dw1 and Dw2 are Government Servants.  The
\nentries made were in the course of official duties and in a regularly kept
\nregister.  That the entry Ex.D2 is in different ink and therefore it must be a
\nlater addition, made much later is also not acceptable since the entries are
\nmade at different times. Entries are made as and when the prisoners are admitted
\nin jail and the entry will be made whoever was in prison during the job at that
\nparticular time.  Hence, difference in the colour of the ink could not be a
\nfactor to discredit Ex.D2 in Ex.D1. The counsel for the accused has explained
\nthat after remand they were taken into customs custody on the following morning
\nfor 3 days and that is why after they came back to prison at the end of police
\ncustody, the doctor examined them on 22.12.1994.  Moreover, if the writings are
\ndisputed, it is the prosecution which could have sent it for scientific analysis
\nby an expert.  But the same was not done.  The injuries noted are all shown to
\nhave been caused when the accused were in the custody of customs authorities for
\na period of 4 days. This circumstance taken together with other circumstances
\npointed out, have been relied upon by the Sessions Court to come to the
\nconclusion that the statements of confessional nature recorded for A1 and A2 in
\nEx.P41, 42, 48 and 49 as  involuntary and therefore require  to be eschewed
\nentirely is proper and correct conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
36.\tThe learned senior counsel for the respondents also contended that Pw-1
\nadmitted in his cross examination that photographs of A1 and A2 were taken while
\nthey were in their custody.  However, the photographs were not produced before
\nthe court. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondents that A1 and A2 were severely beaten up particularly at the foot,
\nthat they were unable to stand and they were made to lean against the wall and
\nphotos were taken.  Because of this reason, the officers have not produced the
\nphotos to the court and therefore adverse inference should be drawn against the
\nprosecution. After going through the evidence of Pw1 and Dw1 and Dw2 and
\nconsidering the other circumstances mentioned above, the contention of the
\ndefence counsel appears to be acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
37.\tThe next contention is that the seizure on 17.12.1994 was effected
\nonly on the basis of the information furnished by A.1 and A.2 in their
\nstatements dated 16.12.1994.  The learned Senior Counsel argued that the seizure
\nwas not effected based upon the statement Ex.P37 and Ex.P39 as stated by Pw4,
\nPw1 and Pw10. The reason given by him cannot be brushed aside lightly.  The
\nlearned senior counsel for the accused has drawn the attention of this Court by
\ncomparing Ex.P1 and Ex.P37 and Ex.P39. A bare perusal of these two documents
\nwould prove that what were not found mentioned by A1 and A2 in Ex.P37 and Ex.P39
\nwere mentioned in Ex.P1. In Ex.P1, the description of the cylinders was
\nmentioned as “7.  feet long and 2. diameter”. This was not stated by A1 and A2
\nin Ex.P37 and Ex.P39. In Ex.P1 it was mentioned that “The cylinders are lying
\nwith M\/s.RTC Road Transport Corporation, Parcel service office near Peenya,
\nBangalore. They also have an office in the city and a godown at Namangal”.  This
\naverment was not available in Ex.P37 and Ex.P39.  Similarly, in Ex.P1, it was
\nmentioned that “the cylinders containing the Mandrax tablets have wooden boards
\nunder which the tablets are kept in plastic. Altogether there are 714 such
\nplastic bag.”  This averment was also not found in Ex.P37 and Ex.P39. Therefore,
\nas rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the accused the alleged
\nseizure on 17.12.1994 at South Eastern Roadways, 4th Main Tumkur Road,
\nNeelamangala, Bangalore was not based upon the statement of A1 and A2. Only in
\norder to implicate or connect A1 and A2 with the seizure of Mandrax tablets on
\n17.12.1994, Ex.P1 was created as if it was based upon Ex.P37 and Ex.P39.
\nTherefore, this court is of the considered view that   the prosecution has
\nfailed to prove that A1 and A2 had connection with the seizure on 17.12.1994 and
\ntherefore there is no necessity to set aside the acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
38.\tA bare perusal of the evidence of Pw7, the lorry driver who has
\ntransported the 7 cylinders in his lorry from Surat to Bangalore would show that
\nhe approached Mama Transport at Surat and enquired any goods to be transported
\nand he was told by Mama Transport Office that 7 cylinders were available for
\ntransport to Bangalore.  No one from Mama Transport was examined to prove the
\nfact who booked the 7 cylinders to Bangalore. Therefore, the evidence of Pw7 is
\nalso not helpful to the prosecution case to establish any contact between the
\ntransport of cylinders from Surat with A1 and A2.\n<\/p>\n
39.\tThe evidence of Pw1 does not inspire confidence and the manner in which he
\nconducted the search and seizure, the trial court has rightly rejected his
\nevidence as unbelievable.  Firstly, he did not make any attempt to search the
\ngodown on 16.12.1994 after he got the instruction from Pw11.  He did not even
\ncare to ask the staff of the Transport Office the relevant documents pertaining
\nto 7 cylinders.  Secondly, he did not inform his superior officers about his
\ndecision not to search the godown on 16.12.1994.  Thirdly, he did not show the
\nsearch authorization to the staff of the transport on 16.12.1994 and the purpose
\nof his visit on 16.12.1994 in their godown.  Fourthly, he enquired Ramachandra
\nof S.R.C at Bangalore and Ramachandra who told him that two persons made
\nenquiries about the consignment to take delivery of the same.  However, no
\ninvestigation was conducted to find out who the two persons were.\n<\/p>\n
40.\tThe prosecution has marked the letter of Assistant Collector of customs
\n(Preventive), Tuticorin as Ex.P47.  It is dated 22.12.1994. This letter was
\naddressed to Additional Collector of Customs, Bangalore.  The letter mentions
\nabout the sending of photographs of A1 and A2 along with the letter.   There is
\nno explanation from the prosecution for what purpose this letter was marked as
\nEx.P47.  Probably they want to show the photographs to some witnesses for
\nidentification purpose. However, no one was identifying A1 and A2 as the persons
\nwho sent the consignment from Surat to Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
41.\tTherefore, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the
\ncharges of conspiracy to manufacture and transport   the Mandrax tablets from
\nSurat to Bangalore and the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused from
\nall charges.  The prosecution has not established the involvement of A1 and A2
\nin the seizure at Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
42.\tThis being an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings of the trial
\ncourt are perverse, highly unreasonable, based on no evidence or record or made
\nin ignorance of relevant evidence on record, this court is not inclined to
\ninterfere with the findings of the trial court and will not set aside the order
\nof acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
43. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
\nwell considered findings of the Sessions Court. Therefore, the judgment of the
\nSessions court in acquitting the accused of all the charges is sustained. In the
\nresult, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgement dated
\n28.5.1999 on the file of the Special District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in
\nS.C.No.562 of 1995. The material objects concerned in this case  shall be
\nconfiscated by the Government after the Appeal period is over or Appeal if any
\nis over.\n<\/p>\n
gkv<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1. The Spl.District and Sessions Judge
\n   (NDPS Act Cases) Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Public Prosecutor,
\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n   Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Assistant Commissioner Of … vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25\/01\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR Crl.A.(MD).No. 985 of 1999 The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Head Quarters Preventive, Tuticorin. … Appellant Vs 1. Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia alias […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-161496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 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\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-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=\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-21T22:34:29+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Assistant Commissioner Of … vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-21T22:34:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5597,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008\",\"name\":\"The Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-21T22:34:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Assistant Commissioner Of … vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 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":"The Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 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\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-21T22:34:29+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Assistant Commissioner Of … vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-21T22:34:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008"},"wordCount":5597,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008","name":"The Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-21T22:34:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-of-vs-prem-pratap-singh-sisodia-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Assistant Commissioner Of … vs Prem Pratap Singh Sisodia on 25 January, 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\/161496","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=161496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}