{"id":165395,"date":"2000-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000"},"modified":"2015-11-03T20:46:09","modified_gmt":"2015-11-03T15:16:09","slug":"navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000","title":{"rendered":"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P.Sethi, S.N.Variva, K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAVINCHANDRA N.MAJITHIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS C\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t16\/10\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nR.P.Sethi, S.N.Variva, K.T.Thomas\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      THOMAS,  J.  The police inaction to carry on with\t the
\ninvestigation  in a particular criminal case was  attributed
\nto financial crunch of the State and the High Court directed
\nthe  complainant  to supply funds to the police to meet\t the
\ncost.\tThe party against whom the case was filed felt\tthat
\nsuch  privately\t funded investigation tantamounts  to  hired
\ninvestigation which would mar the sanctity of the purpose of
\nstatutory  investigation and hence he approached this  Court
\nfor  special  leave to appeal.\tLeave granted.\tFacts  which
\nled to the issuance of the aforesaid direction, briefly, are
\nthe  following:\t A Mumbai based company claimed ownership of
\ncertain\t land situated at a commercially strategic  location
\nin  the city of Mumbai.\t Another company the headquarters of
\nwhich  is  at  Shillong\t in  Meghalaya,\t entered  into\tsome
\ntransaction  with the Mumbai Company in respect of the\tsaid
\nland.\tFurther\t details  of  the   disputes  are  not\tvery
\nnecessary  for this appeal except stating from the stage  of
\ncommencement of the criminal proceedings.  An FIR was lodged
\nby  the\t Shillong company with the Shillong police  alleging
\nthat  the Mumbai Company has cheated Shillong Company to the
\ntune  of Rupees nine crores.  Sometime after lodgment of the
\nsaid  FIR the Shillong Company observed that the police\t was
\nnot  moving  ahead  with  the investigation as\tfast  or  as
\ndistant as the company expected.  Hence the Shillong company
\nfiled  a Writ Petition before the High Court of Guwahati for
\nappropriate  directions.   A single judge of the High  Court
\npassed a direction the extract of which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  circumstances  I\t direct that  in  case\tthe
\npetitioner  is\tready to deposit the amount which  would  be
\nrequired to undertake the investigation and for the visit of
\nthe  senior police officers to Bombay in connection with the
\ninvestigation  work the state government shall allow them to
\ndo  so and direct the investigating team to proceed in right
\nearnest and speedily.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is further directed that the amount that would  be
\nrequired to undertake the investigation will be intimated to
\nthe petitioner within one week and the petitioner shall make
\nthe deposit of the amount within three days thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
      As  the  above direction was obviously unpalatable  to
\nthe  Director General of Police, Meghalaya, he and the\tHome
\nSecretary  of the State filed an appeal along with the State
\nbefore\ta  Division Bench of the High Court challenging\t the
\nsaid direction issued by the Single Judge.  According to the
\nState,\tthe  investigation has to be conducted in Mumbai  by
\nthe Maharashtra police and hence the direction issued by the
\nSingle\tJudge  is unworkable.  But the said  contention\t was
\nrepelled  by  the Division Bench.  Regarding  the  direction
\nissued\tby the Single Judge to get funds from the  aggrieved
\ncomplainant,  the  Division  Bench   did  not  dilate  much.
\nNevertheless  learned judges did not interfere with the said
\ndirection  and observed that in any case the learned single
\njudge  has  passed  a just and proper order in view  of\t the
\npeculiar facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
      In  this\tcontext we may point out that appellant\t was
\nnot  brought into the array even at the above stage.  He was
\nkept  in  dark\tabout all what happened at Shillong  as\t the
\nappellant  was doing his business confining to the radius of
\nMumbai.\t  But when he was called by the police in connection
\nwith  the FIR lodged at Shillong, he learned about the facts
\nwhich  preceded till then.  Hence he moved the High court of
\nBombay\tin  a  Writ  Petition\tunder  Article\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution   for   quashing  the   FIR  and  the   further
\nproceedings  taken thereon.  But a Division Bench of  Bombay
\nHigh   Court  expressed\t helplessness  in  the\tmatter\t and
\ndismissed the Writ Petition on the sole ground that the High
\nCourt of Bombay has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution to deal with an FIR registered at Shillong.\n<\/p>\n
      When  the\t said  Writ   Petition\twas  dismissed,\t the
\nappellant  rushed  to  this  Court with\t two  Special  Leave
\nPetitions, one in challenge of the aforesaid judgment of the
\nBombay High Court which dismissed his Writ Petition for want
\nof  territorial\t jurisdiction and the other in challenge  of
\nthe  judgment  of  the Division Bench of the  Guwahati\tHigh
\nCourt  as  per\twhich  the Shillong police  is\tdirected  to
\ncollect funds from the respondent company.\n<\/p>\n
      We may point out, contextually, that the special leave
\npetition  filed by the appellant against the judgment of the
\nHigh  Court was separately dealt with by granting leave\t and
\njudgment  in that appeal was pronounced.  It is reported  as
\nNavinchandra N.Majithia vs.  State of Maharashtra and others
\nJT<\/a>  2000  (10)\t2 SC 61.  This Court by\t the  said  judgment
\nordered transfer of the FIR lodged by the respondent company
\nwith  the  Shillong police for investigation of\t the  Mumbai
\npolice.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was thought that as the grievance of the appellant
\nwas redressed by the aforesaid direction made by this Court.
\nBut  learned counsel for the appellant as well as the  State
\nof  Meghalaya  submitted that the judgment of  the  Guwahati
\nHigh  Court  would open a Pandoras box as many would  claim
\nthe  same  benefit and the role of the State function  would
\nplummet.  The counsel further said that the direction cannot
\nbe  allowed  to\t remain in force as it is  contrary  to\t the
\nscheme\tof  the Code of the Criminal Procedure.\t Hence\tthey
\ninsisted on a decision in this appeal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
      Thus,  the  question has bogged down to this:   Can  a
\nstatutory  investigating  agency  be   directed\t to   obtain
\nfinancial assistance from private parties for meetin<\/p>\n
      the    expenses\trequired     for   conducting\t the
\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
      Investigation is defined in Section 2(h) of the Code
\nas  including  all the proceedings under this Code for\tthe
\ncollection of evidence conducted by police officer or by any
\nperson\t(other\tthan  a magistrate) who is authorised  by  a
\nmagistrate  in\tthis behalf. Hence no  proceedings  outside
\nprovision  of  the Code can be dragged into the contours  of
\ninvestigation.\t In  other  words, any\tproceedings  falling
\noutside\t the  ambit  of\t the Code will not  be\tregarded  as
\ninvestigation for the purpose of the Code.  Under the scheme
\nof  the\t Code,\tinvestigation  commences  with\tlodgment  of
\ninformation relating to the commission of an offence.  If it
\nis a cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the police
\nstation\t to  whom the information is supplied orally  has  a
\nstatutory duty to reduce it to writing and get the signature
\nof  the\t informant.   He shall enter the  substance  of\t the
\ninformation,  whether given in writing or reduced to writing
\nas  aforesaid,\tin  a book prescribed by the State  in\tthat
\nbehalf.\t  The Officer-in-charge has no escape from doing  so
\nif  the\t offence mentioned therein is a cognizable  offence,
\nwhether\t or not such offence was committed within the limits
\nof   that  police  station.   But   when  the\toffence\t  is
\nnon-cognizable,\t the officer-in-charge of the police station
\nhas  no\t obligation  to\t record it if the  offence  was\t not
\ncommitted  within the limits of his police station.  Section
\n156(1)\tof  the Code says that the said police\tofficer\t can
\ninvestigate  any cognizable offence covered by the said FIR,
\nif  the\t said offence could be inquired into or tried  by  a
\nCourt having jurisdiction over the local area of that police
\nstation.   If the offence was committed outside the limit of
\nsuch  police  station, the officer-in-charge of\t the  police
\nstation\t can  transmit the FIR to the police station  having
\nsuch   territorial   jurisdiction.    Various  States\thave
\nformulated  rules for effecting transfer of such FIR in such
\ncontingencies.\n<\/p>\n
      Investigation   thereafter  would\t  commence  and\t the
\ninvestigating  officer\thas  to go step by step.   The\tCode
\ncontemplates  the  following steps to be carried out  during
\nsuch investigation:\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  Proceeding to the spot;  (2) ascertainment of the
\nfacts  and  circumstances  of the case;\t (3)  discovery\t and
\narrest\tof  the\t suspected   offender;\t (4)  collection  of
\nevidence relating to the commission of the offence which may
\nconsist\t of    (a)  the\t  examination  of  various  persons
\n(including   the  accused)  and\t  the  reduction  of   their
\nstatements  into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the
\nsearch\tof places of seizure of things considered  necessary
\nfor  the investigation and to be produced at the trial;\t and
\n(5)  formation of the opinion as to whether on the  material
\ncollected  there  is  a case to place the accused  before  a
\nmagistrate  for trial and, if so, taking the necessary steps
\nfor the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Sec.173.\n<\/p>\n
      (vide HN Rishbud vs.  State of Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196}
\nand  State  of Madhya Pradesh vs.  Mubarak Ali<\/a> [AIR 1959  SC
\n707]).\n<\/p>\n
      All  the above duties are conferred by the statute  on
\nthe  police  and  they\tshall be carried  out  as  they\t are
\nstatutory  duties.  The sublime idea behind formulating such
\nsteps\tfor  conducting\t investigation\tis  to\tenable\t the
\nstatutory   authority  to  independently   carry   out\t the
\ninvestigation  without\tbeing  influenced  by  any  of\t the
\ninterested parties.  Investigation must not only be fair but
\nimpartial  and\tthe  conclusion reached by  them  should  be
\nunbiased.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t Division Bench of the Madras High Court had pointed
\nto that object of the statutory investigation in re Muddamma
\nMalla  Reddy  [1954  Crl.L.J.167]   through  the   following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
      The  investigating police are primarily the guardians
\nof  the liberty of innocent persons.  A heavy responsibility
\ndevolves  on  them of seeing that innocent persons  are\t not
\ncharged\t on irresponsible and false implication.  There is a
\nduty  cast on the investigating police to scrutinize a first
\ncomplaint  in  which number of persons are  implicated\twith
\nrigorous  care and to refrain from building up a case on its
\nbasis unless satisfied of its truth.\n<\/p>\n
      In Sirajjuddin vs.  State of Madras [1970 (3) SCR 931]
\nthis  Court said thus, after referring to various provisions
\nin the Code dealing with investigation:\n<\/p>\n
      All  the\tabove provisions of the Code are  aimed\t at
\nsecuring   a   fair  investigation   into  the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of  the criminal case;  however\tserious\t the
\ncrime  and howsoever incriminating the circumstances may  be
\nagainst\t a person supposed to be guilty of a crime the\tCode
\nof  Criminal  Procedure aims at securing a conviction if  it
\ncan  be had by the use of utmost fairness on the part of the
\nofficers  investigating\t the crime before the lodging  of  a
\ncharge-\t sheet.\t  Clearly the idea is that no one should  be
\nput  to the harassment of a criminal trial unless there\t are
\ngood and substantial reasons for holding it.\n<\/p>\n
      The  said observations were followed by this Court  in
\nState  of  Rajasthan vs.  Gurcharandas Chadha<\/a> [1980 (1)\t SCC
\n250].\n<\/p>\n
      The  Code\t does  not recognise  private  investigating
\nagency.\t  If  any  person is interested in hiring  any\tsuch
\nprivate\t agency, he may do so at his own risk and cost,\t but
\nsuch  investigation  would not be regarded as  investigation
\nmade  under  law.   Any evidence collected in  such  private
\ninvestigation\tand   any  conclusion\t reached   by\tsuch
\ninvestigators  cannot  be presented by Public Prosecutor  in
\nany  trial.  Of course it may be possible for the defence to
\npresent\t such evidence.\t In this context, we may refer to  a
\nrecent\tdecision  of this Court R.Sarala vs.  TS Velu<\/a>  [2000
\n(4) SCC 459].  This Court said that even a Public Prosecutor
\ncannot\t be   officially  involved   during  the  stage\t  of
\ninvestigation.\t The  following\t observations made  by\tthis
\nCourt in the said decision will be useful:\n<\/p>\n
      Investigation  and  prosecution\tare  two  different
\nfacets\tin the administration of criminal justice.  The role
\nof  a  Public  Prosecutor  is\tinside\tthe  court,  whereas
\ninvestigation  is outside the court.  Normally the role of a
\npublic\tProsecutor commences after the investigating  agency
\npresents   the\tcase  in  the\tcourt  on   culmination\t  of
\ninvestigation.\t Its exception is that the Public Prosecutor
\nmay have to deal with bail applications moved by the parties
\nconcerned  at any stage.  Involving the Public Prosecutor in
\ninvestigation  is unjudicious as well as pernicious in\tlaw.
\nAt any rate no investigating agency can be compelled to seek
\nthe  opinion of a Public Prosecutor under the orders of\t the
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
      The above discussion was made for emphasising the need
\nfor official investigation to be totally extricated from any
\nextraneous  influence.\t The   police  investigation  should
\nnecessarily  be with the fund supplied by the State.  It may
\nbe  possible for a rich complainant to supply any amount  of
\nfund  to  the police for conducting investigation  into\t his
\ncomplaint.   But  a  poor man cannot afford  to\t supply\t any
\nfinancial  assistance to the police.  It is an\tacknowledged
\nreality\t that  he who pays the piper calls the tune.  So  he
\nwould  call  the shots.\t Its corollary is that somebody\t who
\nincurs\tthe  cost  of  anything would  normally\t secure\t its
\ncontrol\t also.\tIn our constitutional scheme, the police and
\nother statutory investigating agency cannot be allowed to be
\nhackneyed  by those who can afford it.\tAll complaints shall
\nbe  investigated with equal alacrity and with equal fairness
\nirrespective of the financial capacity of the person lodging
\nthe complaint.\n<\/p>\n
      Financial\t  crunch  of  any   state  treasury  is\t  no
\njustification  for allowing a private party to supply  funds
\nto   the   police  for\t  conducting   such   investigation.
\nAugmentation  of  the  fiscal  resources of  the  State\t for
\nmeeting\t the expenses needed for such investigations is\t the
\nlookout\t of  the executive.  Failure to do it is no  premise
\nfor  directing\ta  complainant\tto   supply  funds  to\t the
\ninvestigating  officer.\t Such funding by interested  private
\nparties\t would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the
\nCode.\tA  vitiated  investigation  is\tthe  precursor\t for
\nmiscarriage  of\t criminal  justice.  Hence any\tattempt,  to
\ncreate\ta  precedent  permitting private parties  to  supply
\nfinancial   assistance\t to  the   police   for\t  conducting
\ninvestigation,\tshould be nipped in the bud itself.  No such
\nprecedent  can secure judicial imprimatur.  If the  impugned
\njudgments  are\tallowed\t to  stand,  it\t would\tset  up\t  an
\nunwholesome  precedent.\t  Hence we set aside the  directions
\ncontained  in the impugned judgments for supplying funds  to
\nthe police.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000 Bench: R.P.Sethi, S.N.Variva, K.T.Thomas PETITIONER: NAVINCHANDRA N.MAJITHIA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS C DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/10\/2000 BENCH: R.P.Sethi, S.N.Variva, K.T.Thomas JUDGMENT: L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J THOMAS, J. The police inaction to carry on with the investigation in a […]<\/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-165395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNavinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000 - 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\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-03T15:16:09+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\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-03T15:16:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2310,\"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\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000\",\"name\":\"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-03T15:16:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000 - 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\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-03T15:16:09+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\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000","datePublished":"2000-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-03T15:16:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000"},"wordCount":2310,"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\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000","name":"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-03T15:16:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navinchandra-n-majithia-vs-state-of-meghalaya-and-others-c-on-16-october-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Navinchandra N.Majithia vs State Of Meghalaya And Others C on 16 October, 2000"}]},{"@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\/165395","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=165395"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165395\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}