{"id":173466,"date":"2004-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004"},"modified":"2017-08-03T02:56:48","modified_gmt":"2017-08-02T21:26:48","slug":"chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1999 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nChandrika Prasad Yadav\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Bihar & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
With Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 174\/2003<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe extent of jurisdiction of election tribunal to
\ndirect recounting of votes is the primal question involved
\nin this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order
\ndated 18.11.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 1149\/2002
\ndismissing the appeal arising out of an order dated
\n7.10.2002 passed in Writ Petition marked as CWJC No.
\n5004\/2002 whereby and whereunder a learned Single Judge of
\nthe High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the
\nrespondent herein questioning an order of the election
\ntribunal dated 20.10.2001.\n<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND FACTS:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe private parties hereto contested an election for
\nthe post of Mukhiya of Raj Gamhariya, Gram Panchayat.  The
\nsaid election was held on 19.4.2001 and the votes polled
\ntherein were counted on 20.5.2001.  The contention of the
\nappellant was that the returning officer had informed him
\nthat he had secured 900 votes out of which 150 had been
\ndeclared invalid and, thus, he got 670 valid votes whereas
\nthe respondent Mahendra Rai had secured only 622 votes.
\nHowever, when the result was finally declared on 21.5.2001,
\nthe 4th respondent herein was declared elected by securing
\nallegedly 32 more votes than the appellant herein.  The
\ntotal votes polled by the appellant was shown as 670 and
\nvotes polled by the 4th respondent was shown as 702.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe appellant allegedly moved an application for
\nrecounting of votesbefore the returning officer but the same
\nwas not entertained.  The appellant thereafter filed an
\nelection petition questioning the election of the 4th
\nrespondent herein before the learned Munsif, Raxoul, East
\nChamparan primarily on the ground of irregularities in
\ncounting of votes.  Before the election tribunal, the
\nparties adduced their respective evidences whereafter the
\nlearned Munsif by an order dated 20.10.2001 directed
\ninspection and recounting of ballot papers; pursuant to or
\nin furtherance whereof the Returning Officer, East Champaran
\nwas directed to produce the ballot papers.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, a writ
\npetition was filed by the 4th respondent herein which was,
\nhowever, withdrawn.  Recounting of the ballot papers was
\nheld on 23.3.2002 as a result whereof the appellant was said
\nto have secured 671 votes; whereas the 4th respondent
\nsecured 667 votes.  The Election Petition, therefore,
\nthereafter was allowed by a judgment and order dated
\n6.4.2002.  The 4th respondent being aggrieved by and
\ndissatisfied therewith filed a writ petition before the
\nPatna High Court which was marked as CWJC No. 5004\/2002.  By
\nan order dated 7.10.2002, the said writ petition was allowed
\nwhereagainst a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the
\nappellant herein which was dismissed by a Division Bench of
\nthe High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
SUBMISSIONS:\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing
\non behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court
\ncommitted a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment
\npurporting to rely upon or on the basis of the decision of
\nthis Court in Ram Rati (Smt.) Vs. Saroj Devi and Others
\n[(1997) 6 SCC 66] wherein it has been held that it is
\nmandatory for the election petitioner to file an application
\nfor recounting of votes before the returning officer in
\nterms of the election rules, although the same has since
\nbeen overruled by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal
\nVs. Babu Gandhi and Ors. [JT 2002 (9) SC 474: (2003) 1 SCC
\n108].\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel would urge that as in a democracy
\nthe rule of majority should prevail, the learned Munsif was
\nwithin his jurisdiction to direct recounting of votes upon
\nsatisfying itself the necessity therefor and in that view of
\nthe matter the High Court should not have interfered with
\nthe said judgment.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Sharan would submit that the learned Munsif had
\nassigned valid and cogent reasons in support of his order
\nupon taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties
\nand the evidences brought on records and in that view of the
\nmatter the High Court erred in setting aside the same.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the 4th respondent, on the other hand, would
\ncontend that the High Court has rightly proceeded on the
\npremise that the pleadings of the appellant being vague and
\ngeneral in nature, no case was made out for recounting of
\nvotes.  The learned counsel pointed out that prayer for
\nrecounting of votes made by the appellant was on the basis
\nthat he had filed a proper application before the returning
\nofficer but he failed to prove the said fact nor brought on
\nthe records of the case a copy thereof.  As regard the
\nfindings of the learned Munsif to the effect that the Ex.
\nA\/20 contained cutting and over-writing, the learned counsel
\nwould submit that no such case had been made out in the
\nelection petition.  It was pointed out that in any event
\nhaving regard to the fact that 100 valid votes had not been
\ncounted so far as the appellant is concerned; and in fact
\nmore than 400 votes polled by the 4th respondent herein
\nwere held to be not valid and, thus, the appellant herein
\nwas not prejudiced at all.\n<\/p>\n
 \tDrawing our attention to the judgment of the learned
\nSingle Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court,
\nthe learned counsel would urge that the High Court analysed
\nthe pleadings of the appellant made in his election petition
\nand came to the conclusion that the same are absolutely
\nvague and general in nature and no reliance thereupon could
\nhave been placed by the learned Munsif.  Filing of an
\napplication before the returning officer for recounting of
\nvotes may not be mandatory but Mr. Dwivedi would aruge that
\nthe same goes a long way to show that as to on what basis
\nthe recounting was sought for.  The order of the returning
\nofficer allowing or rejecting the same, the learned counsel
\nwould contend, be of great assistance for the Election
\nTribunal to judge the correctness thereof.\n<\/p>\n
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:\n<\/p>\n
 \tSection 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993
\nmandates that the election of Mukhiya shall not be called in
\nquestion before any forum except by way of an election
\npetition.  The State of Bihar in exercise of its power
\nconferred upon it under Section 121 of the said Act framed
\nrules known as Bihar Panchayat Election Rules.  It is not in
\ndispute that various provisions exist as regard rejection or
\nacceptance of votes and the right of a candidate or his
\nauthorised agent to question the same by filing an
\nappropriate application therefor before the prescribed
\nauthority.  Rule 79 of the Rules provides that the candidate
\nor in his absence his agent or his counting agent can file
\nan application to the election officer or the officer(s)
\nauthorised by him praying for recounting and the basis
\ntherefor.  On reciept of such an application, the election
\nofficer can accept either in whole or in part the same or
\nreject the same wherefor reasons are required to be
\nassigned.  In the event of election officer accepting either
\nin whole or in part such a prayer of the candidate, he would
\nrecount the votes whereafter the result or the number of
\nvotes polled may be amended.  However, no application would
\nbe accepted for further recounting.\n<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS OF REUIREMENTS OF LAW :\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe law relating to recounting of votes is now well-
\nsettled.  The provisions of the Act and the rules framed
\nthereunder provide that in relation to an election petition
\nthe provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply.
\nAn election petition, therefore, must contain coincise
\nstatement of material facts.  It is well-settled that the
\nquestion as to what would constitute material facts would
\ndepend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe have been taken through the averments made in the
\nelection petition.  The learned Single Judge of the High
\nCourt in his judgment dated 7.10.2002 upon noticing
\nparagraphs 6 to 11 and 17 of the election petition held:\n<\/p>\n
“10. From the pleadings of respondent
\nNo. 4, it is manifest that the
\nallegations made by him were quite vague
\nand did not come up to the stringent
\nstandards laid down by the Supreme
\nCourt.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe appellant has not produced before us a copy of the
\naffidavit affirmed in support of the Election Petition to
\nshow as to how the averments made in the Election Petition
\nwere verified.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOur attention has also been drawn to paragraphs 19 to
\n21 by Mr. Sharan which read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“19. That, in all 16 Booths were in the
\nelectoral area of Gram Panchayat Raj,
\nGamhariya Kala, vide Booth No. 106 to\n<\/p>\n
121.<\/p>\n
20. That, the dependent No. 1 has
\nwrongly been declared elected, by a
\nmargin of 32 votes, as against the
\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
21. That, as a matter of fact, the
\nplaintiff has got, near about 200 excess
\nvalid votes than the defendant No. 1.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe averments made in the said paragraphs do not
\nimprove the appellant’s case inasmuch as therein also no
\nmaterial fact has been averred as to how and in what matter
\nthe so-called valid votes were kept out of consideration or
\ninvalid votes had been taken into consideration.  The
\nappellant in paragraph 11 of the election petition
\ncategorically stated that a request was made to the
\nreturning officer for recounting of the votes but he did not
\npay any heed thereto.  In the aforementioned situation, it
\nwas obligatory on the part of the appellant to prove the
\nsaid fact.  The averments made in the election petition
\nclearly go to show that the appellant was aware of his right
\nto file an appropriate application before the returning
\nofficer praying for a recounting.  If the said application
\nwas not entertained, he should have proved the said fact by
\nbringing on record the original application which was
\nrefused to be accepted or a copy thereof.  He should have
\nalso adduced evidence in that behalf before the learned
\nMunsif.\n<\/p>\n
In his order dated 20.10.2001, the learned Munsif held:\n<\/p>\n
“In view of documentary as well as oral
\nevidence I find that there are
\nsufficient materials available on record
\nto show that allegation of petitioner,
\nabout illegal reception of votes in
\nfavour of opposite party and mischief in
\npreparation of result are clearly
\nevidence and euitch (sic) about
\nsomething hidden.  In Pvt (sic) 4\/12
\nG.P. Mahendra Rai was shown to have got
\n81 votes but on the very first look of
\nform 20(A\/12) shows that 31 was made 81
\nand in A\/13 total votes 237 was changed
\ninto figure 287.  There is no initial in
\nany cutting like wise in Ext. A\/20
\nMahendra Rai was shown to have got 509
\nvotes but it was out (sic) and 122 votes
\nhave been shown in favour of Mahendra
\nRai.  There is no initial of any officer
\non this cutting too.  In oral evidence
\nD.W.-9 and D.W.-12 have supported the
\npetitioner allegations.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Munsif in his order dated 20.10.2001 failed
\nto analyse the evidences adduced by the parties.  He also
\ndid not state as to what materials were brought on record to
\nshow that there had been illegal reception of votes in
\nfavour of the opposite party.  Reference to Ex. 4\/12 only
\nshows certain interpolation but whether the same had
\nmaterially affected the result or not had not been taken
\ninto consideration.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Dwivedi is right in pointing out that whereas the
\nappellant could have claimed 100 more votes on the basis
\nthereof, 509 votes polled by the 4th respondent had been
\nbrought down to 122 votes.  There is also nothing on record
\nto show that as to how and in what manner D.W.-9 and D.W.-12
\nhad supported the allegations made by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Munsif despite having opined that an order
\nfor inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support
\nvague pleas and not supported by material facts but failed
\nto point out as to which averments made by the appellant
\ncould be accepted as disclosing material facts, on the basis
\nwhereof an order for recounting could be passed. The said
\norder dated 20.10.2001 being not supported by any cogent or
\nvalid reasons could not have been sustained.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is well-settled that an order of recounting of votes
\ncan be passed when the following conditions are fulfilled:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tA prima facie case;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tPleading of material facts stating irregularities
\nin counting of votes;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tA roving and fishing inquiry shall not be made
\nwhile directing recounting of votes; and\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tAn objection to the said effect has been taken
\nrecourse to.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe requirement of maintaining the secrecy of ballot
\npapers must also be kept in view before a recounting can be
\ndirected.  Narrow margin of votes between the returned
\ncandidate and the election petitioner by itself would not be
\nsufficient for issuing a direction for recounting.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn M. Chinnasamy Vs. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors. [2003 (10)
\nSCALE 103] this Court upon noticing a large number of
\ndecisions held that it is obligatory on the part of the
\nElection Tribunal to arrive at a positive finding as to how
\na prima facie case has been made out for issuing a direction
\nfor recounting holding:\n<\/p>\n
“Apart from the clear legal position as
\nlaid down in several decisions, as
\nnoticed hereinbefore, there cannot be
\nany doubt or dispute that only because a
\nrecounting has been directed, it would
\nbe held to be sacrosanct to the effect
\nthat although in a given case the court
\nmay find such evidence to be at variance
\nwith the pleadings, the same must be
\ntaken into consideration. It is now
\nwell-settled principle of law that
\nevidence adduced beyond the pleadings
\nwould not be admissible nor any evidence
\ncan be permitted to be adduced which is
\nat variance with the pleadings.  The
\ncourt at a later stage of the trial as
\nalso the appellate court having regard
\nto the rule of pleadings would be
\nentitled to reject the evidence wherefor
\nthere does not exist any pleading.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further held that for the said purpose the
\nTribunal must arrive at a finding that the errors are of
\nsuch magnitude which would materially affect the result of
\nthe election.  As regard standard of proof, this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“The requirement of laying foundation
\nin the pleadings must also be considered
\nhaving regard to the fact that the onus
\nto prove the allegations was on the
\nelection petitioner.  The degree of
\nproof for issuing a direction of
\nrecounting of votes must be of a very
\nhigh standard and is required to be
\ndischarged. [See Mahender Pratap vs.
\nKrishan Pal and Others<\/a> – (2003) 1 SCC
\n390].\n<\/p>\n
 \t(See also Mukand Ltd. Vs. Mukand Staff & Officers
\nAssociation, JT 2004 (3) SC 474)<\/p>\n
The order of the learned Munsif did not satisfy the
\nstatutory requirements.\n<\/p>\n
RULE 79 OF BIHAR PANCHAYAT ELECTION RULES, 1995  WHETHER
\nMANDATORY OR DIRECTORY<\/p>\n
 \tRule 79 as noticed hereinbefore enables a candidate to
\nfile an appropriate application for recounting of votes.
\nRule 79 unlike rules framed by other States does not say
\nthat such an application would not be maintainable after
\ndeclarations of the votes polled by the parties or prior
\nthereto.  Such an application, therefore, can be filed at
\nany point of time.  The very fact that Sub-rule (3) of Rule
\n79 provides for amendment of the result relating to the
\nvotes polled by the respective candidates and as, such
\namended result is required to be announced in the prescribed
\nform under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 79, the same itself is a
\npointer to the fact that even after announcement of result
\nfor recounting an application would be maintainable.  It may
\nbe true that only because such an application had not been
\nfiled before the returning officer by itself may not
\npreclude the Election Tribunal to go into the question of
\nrequirement of issuing a direction for recounting but there
\ncannot be any doubt whatsoever that Rule 79 serves a
\nsalutary purpose.  Counting of ballot papers in terms of the
\nrules takes place in presence of the candidate or his
\ncounting agent.  When an agent or a counting agent or the
\ncandidate himself notices improper acceptance or rejection
\nof the ballot papers, he may bring the same to the notice of
\nthe prescribed authority.  As noticed hereinbefore, in a
\ngiven case, an application for recounting either before
\nannouncement of the result or thereafter, would be
\nmaintainable.  Once an application is filed by an agent or a
\ncounting agent or the candidate himself pointing out the
\nirregularities committed by the officers appointed for the
\ncounting the ballot papers, immediate redressal of
\ngrievances would be possible.  As indicated hereinbefore,
\nwhile filing such an application the basis for making a
\nrequest for recounting of votes is required to be disclosed.
\nThe returning officer is statutorily enjoined with a duty to
\nentertain such an application, make an inquiry and pass an
\nappropriate order in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 79 either
\naccepting in whole or in part such requests or rejecting the
\nsame wherefor he is required to assign sufficient or cogent
\nreasons.  In the event, such an application is allowed
\neither in whole or in part, he is statutorily empowered to
\namend the results also.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOrdinarily, thus, it is expected that the statutory
\nremedies provided for shall be availed of.  If such an
\nopportunity is availed of by the Election Petitioner; he has
\nto state the reasons therefor.  If no sufficient explanation
\nis furnished by the Election Petitioner as to why such
\nstatutory remedy was not availed of, the Election Tribunal
\nmay consider the same as one of the factors for accepting or
\nrejecting the prayer for recounting.  An order of the
\nprescribed authority passed in such application would
\nrender great assistance to the Election Tribunal in arriving
\nat a decision as to whether a prima facie case for issuance
\nof direction for recounting has been made out.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Ram Rati (supra) a 2-Judge Bench of this Court while
\ninterpreting Rule 76 of M.P. Panchayat Elections Rules, 1994
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
“…In the light of the mandatory
\nlanguage of Rule 76 of the Rules, it is
\nincumbent upon a candidate or an agent,
\nif the candidate was not present, to
\nmake an application in writing and give
\nreasons in support thereof, while
\nseeking recounting. If it is not done,
\nthen the tribunal or the court is not
\nempowered to direct recounting even
\nafter adduction of evidence and
\nconsideration of the alleged
\nirregularities in the counting…”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA 3-Judge Bench, however in Sohan Lal (supra) while
\nconsidering the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram
\nSwaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rule 80 of the Rules framed
\nthereunder held:\n<\/p>\n
“13. In view of Section 122 and the
\nrules, we are unable to agree with the
\nratio laid down in Ram Rati’s case. It
\nis not correct to hold that, in an
\nelection petition, after the declaration
\nof the result, the Court or Tribunal
\ncannot direct recounting of votes unless
\nthe party has first applied in writing
\nfor recounting of votes. There is no
\nprohibition in the Act or under the
\nrules prohibiting the Court or Tribunal
\nto direct a recounting of the votes.\n<\/p>\n
Even otherwise a party may not know that
\nthe recounting is necessary till after
\nresult is declared. At this stage, it
\nwould not be possible for him to apply
\nfor recounting to the Returning Officer.
\nHis only remedy would be to file an
\nElection Petition under Section 122. In
\nsuch a case, the Court or the Tribunal
\nis bound to consider the plea and where
\ncase is made out, it may direct recount
\ndepending upon the evidence led by the
\nparties. In the present case, there was
\nobvious error in declaring the result.
\nWe, therefore, hold that the ratio laid
\ndown in Ram Rati’s case is not
\ncorrect.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram and Others [AIR 2000 SC 3230]
\nwherein this Court while considering a pari materia
\nprovision contained in T.N. Panchayats Act, 1994 as also
\nupon noticing a large number of decisions observed:
\n“The appellant-election petitioner
\ncould not make out a case for re-count
\nof votes. He filed the application for
\nre-count before the Returning Officer
\nonly after the declaration of result and
\nthat was rightly rejected by the
\nReturning Officer. The appellant had no
\ncase that the illegality or
\nirregularity, if any, committed had
\nmaterially affected the result of the
\nelection. Taking all the aspects into
\nconsideration, we are of the view that
\nthe learned Single Judge was perfectly
\njustified in holding that the Election
\nTribunal erred in appointing a
\nCommissioner and ordering the re-count
\nof votes. The counsel for the appellant
\ncontended that the powers of the
\nrevisional court are not as wide as the
\npowers of the appellate court and,
\ntherefore, the learned Single Judge
\nshould not have set aside the order
\npassed by the Election Tribunal. We do
\nnot find any force in this contention.
\nWhen there is error of jurisdiction or
\nflagrant violation of the law laid down
\nby this Court, by exercising the
\nrevisional powers, the court can set
\naside the order passed by the Tribunal
\nto do justice between the parties. The
\nillegality committed by the Election
\nTribunal has been corrected by the
\nrevisional order. We find no merit in
\nthe present appeal and the same is
\ndismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tVadivelu (supra) was relied upon by the High Court and
\nin our opinion having regard to the averments made by the
\nappellant in his Election Petition the ratio of the said
\ndecision applies to the fact of the present case also.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe question as to whether a statute is directory or
\nmandatory would not depend upon the phraseology used
\ntherein.  The principle as regard the nature of the statute
\nmust be determined having regard to the purpose and object
\nthe statute seeks to achieve.  (See P.T. Rajan Vs. T.P.M.
\nSahir and Ors., 2003 (8) SCALE 165)<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION  :\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion
\nthat the judgment of the High Court does not call for any
\ninterference.  The appeal as also the contempt petition are
\naccordingly dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1999 of 2003 PETITIONER: Chandrika Prasad Yadav RESPONDENT: State of Bihar & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2004 BENCH: CJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia. JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-173466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004 - 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\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-02T21:26:48+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-02T21:26:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3632,\"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\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-02T21:26:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004 - 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\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-02T21:26:48+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-02T21:26:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004"},"wordCount":3632,"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\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004","name":"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-02T21:26:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrika-prasad-yadav-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-5-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandrika Prasad Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/173466","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=173466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}