{"id":188445,"date":"2010-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-08T06:18:32","modified_gmt":"2017-06-08T00:48:32","slug":"mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 5\n\nCase :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 56 of 1998\n\nPetitioner :- Mangal Prasad\nRespondent :- State Of U.P.\nPetitioner Counsel :- A.R.Siddiqui,K.M.Rakesh\nRespondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate\n\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>This revision under Section 397\/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 2.3.1998, passed by Sri Mahendra Dayal, the<br \/>\nthen X Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 24<br \/>\nof 1995 State Vs. Mangal Prasad and others whereby the appeal<br \/>\npreferred by the revisionists against their conviction and sentence for<br \/>\nthe offence punishable under Sections 323,324 and 506 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code recorded by II Additional Civil Judge ( Senior<br \/>\nDivision)\/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal<br \/>\nCase No. 29 of 1995 State Vs.Mangal Prasad and others Police Station<br \/>\nHanswar district Faizabad was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Brief facts relevant for decision of this revision are that one Sri Ram<br \/>\nShavad on 29.9.1987 at about 12.40 p.m. lodged the first information<br \/>\nreport at Police Station Hanswar to the effect that on 29.9.1987 at about<br \/>\n10 a.m. when he reached at his field he saw that Mangal and<br \/>\nTriveni( Revisionists Nos. 1 and 2 herein) were ploughing their field<br \/>\nwhile Kashi Ram and Ram Charan( Revisionists no. 3 and 4) were<br \/>\nsitting there . The said accused persons demolished Mend of his field<br \/>\nand when it was objected upon by him they started beating him and<br \/>\nwhen his brother Komal came there to rescue him he was also beaten. It<br \/>\nis alleged that at that time Mangal had Ballam; Triveni had Kudal;<br \/>\nwhile Kashi Ram and Ram Charan had Lathi with them. The said<br \/>\nincident was witnessed by Ram Shanker and Gati Yadav, who rescued<br \/>\ncomplainant Ram Shavad and his brother Komal from the accused<br \/>\npersons. On the basis of the written report submitted at the Police<br \/>\nStation by Ram Shavad, a case for the offence punishable under<br \/>\nSections 323,324,504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered against the accused<br \/>\n persons and after investigation of the case the Police submitted charge<br \/>\nsheet against all the accused persons. The learned trial court framed the<br \/>\ncharge for the offence punishable under Sections 323\/34 I.P.C., 324\/34<br \/>\nI.P.C., 504 and 506 I.P.C. against accused persons, who pleaded not<br \/>\nguilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n<p>In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined six witnesses in<br \/>\nall before the trial Court, out of whom P.W.1 Ram Shavad is<br \/>\ncomplainant himself and it is alleged that he had received injuries in the<br \/>\nincident. P.W.2 Komal is also an injured witness of the incident .P.W.3<br \/>\nGati Yadav is alleged to be an independent eye witness of the incident.<br \/>\nP.W.4 Ram Palat is the scribe of the written report. P.W.5 Shyam Lal is<br \/>\nthe Investigating Officer while P.W.6 Dr. M.L. Srivastava had<br \/>\nmedically examined Ram Shavad and Komal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied<br \/>\nthe prosecution allegation against them and stated that they have been<br \/>\nfalsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was adduced by<br \/>\nthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned Magistrate after going through the evidence on record and after<br \/>\nanalysing the same reached the conclusion that charge for the offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 324 I.P.C. is made out against Mangal Prasad<br \/>\nTiwari only while charge for the offence punishable under Section 323<br \/>\nI.P.C. stands proved against Triveni Prasad, Kashi Ram and Ram<br \/>\nCharan and charge for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C.<br \/>\nstands proved against all the accused persons. The charge for the<br \/>\noffence punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. was found not to have been<br \/>\nmade out against any one and accordingly all the accused were<br \/>\nacquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under Section 504<br \/>\nI.P.C., the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment was awarded for<br \/>\nthe offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. to Mangal Prasad<br \/>\nTiwari, six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 323 I.P.C. was awarded to Triveni Prasad, Kashi Ram<br \/>\nand Ram Charan while rigorous imprisonment for the period of one<br \/>\nyear was awarded to each accused for the offence punishable under<br \/>\n Section 506 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and order, passed by<br \/>\nlearned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate an appeal was preferred<br \/>\nwhich was dismissed as stated above and conviction and sentence were<br \/>\nmaintained . Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and order, passed<br \/>\nby the court below the accused persons have preferred this revision.<br \/>\nI have heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned<br \/>\nA.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case along with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and order carefully.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the revisionists has not questioned the legality and<br \/>\npropriety of the conviction recorded by the trial court against the<br \/>\nrevisionists. He confined his arguments only to the extent of legality<br \/>\nand the severity of the sentence passed against the revisionists by the<br \/>\ncourts below. It was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists<br \/>\nthat the incident had occurred all of a sudden and there was no<br \/>\npremeditation to commit this offence by the accused persons He further<br \/>\ncontended that accused were not previous convicts and have no criminal<br \/>\nhistory. They are simple villagers and have no criminal antecedents and<br \/>\nby keeping them in jail no useful purpose will be served out. While<br \/>\nconverse to it there is possibility that they will come into the contacts<br \/>\nwith hardened criminals in the jail. It was further submitted that object<br \/>\nof the punishment should be reformative and keeping all these facts in<br \/>\nview, it was necessary for the courts below to give benefits of<br \/>\nprovisions of the Probation of Offenders Act but the learned court<br \/>\nbelow has neither given benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act to<br \/>\nthe revisionists nor recorded any reason for not having done so. Thus,<br \/>\njudgment and order, passed by the learned courts below on this count<br \/>\nsuffer from illegality and the revisionists should be given benefit of the<br \/>\nProbation of Offenders Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned AGA submitted that the revisionists before the courts below<br \/>\nhad not demanded the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of<br \/>\nOffenders Act and as such if this benefit was not accorded to them, it<br \/>\ncannot be said any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the<br \/>\n courts below and the revision as such is liable to be dismissed.<br \/>\nI have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>It reveals from the perusal of the record that the revisionists are not<br \/>\nprevious convicts . They have no criminal history or antecedent. The<br \/>\nincident had occurred all of a sudden. The maximum sentence awarded<br \/>\nto the revisionists is one year R.I. Thus, short term imprisonment was<br \/>\nawarded to the revisionists. If for this short term period, the revisionists<br \/>\nare sent to jail now after 23 years from the date of incident, there is<br \/>\nevery possibility that they will associate with criminals in jail. The<br \/>\nrevisionists had been under constant mental tension of this litigation<br \/>\nsince the last 23 years. Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\nprovides that where in any case the Court could have dealt with an<br \/>\naccused person under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders<br \/>\nAct,1958 but has not done so, he shall record in his judgment the<br \/>\nspecial reasons for not having done so. It has been admitted by both the<br \/>\nparties that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is applicable in U.P.<br \/>\nSection 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act provides that when any<br \/>\nperson is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable<br \/>\nwith death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is<br \/>\nfound guilty is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case including the nature of the offence and the character of the<br \/>\noffender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct,<br \/>\nthen, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time<br \/>\nbeing in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any<br \/>\npunishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with or<br \/>\nwithout sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during<br \/>\nsuch period not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in<br \/>\nthe meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior.<br \/>\nA perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that neither the trial<br \/>\ncourt nor the appellate court has recorded special reasons in their<br \/>\njudgments for not giving benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to<br \/>\naccused persons in compliance of the provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\n Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act states that revisional court<br \/>\nis also competent to accord benefit of the Probation of the Offenders<br \/>\nAct to an accused in the revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case,antecedent of the revisionists and the provisions of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure and the Probation of the Offenders Act,1958, it<br \/>\nappears expedient that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of the<br \/>\nOffenders Act be accorded to the revisionists and as such the judgments<br \/>\nand orders of the courts below are liable to be modified to this extent.<br \/>\nThe revision, therefore, should be allowed .\n<\/p>\n<p>The revision is, therefore, allowed accordingly. The order of sentence,<br \/>\npassed against the revisionists is hereby suspended and it is directed that<br \/>\nthe revisionists shall be released on probation of good conduct for a<br \/>\nperiod of one year from today under the provisions of Section 4 of the<br \/>\nProbation of the Offenders Act, on their entering into a bond with one<br \/>\nsurety in the amount of rs.10,000\/- to the effect that they will appear<br \/>\nand receive sentence when called upon by the trial court during the said<br \/>\nperiod of one year and they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour<br \/>\nduring the said period. The bonds shall be furnished by the revisionists<br \/>\nbefore the trial court within a period of one month from today.<br \/>\nIf the revisionists fail to comply the above direction, the revision shall<br \/>\ndismissed and they shall be liable to undergo sentences awarded to<br \/>\nthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 28.7.2010<br \/>\nTripathi\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 5 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. &#8211; 56 of 1998 Petitioner :- Mangal Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- A.R.Siddiqui,K.M.Rakesh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon&#8217;ble Vedpal,J. This revision under Section 397\/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed [&hellip;]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-08T00:48:32+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-08T00:48:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1679,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-08T00:48:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-08T00:48:32+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-08T00:48:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"},"wordCount":1679,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010","name":"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-08T00:48:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangal-prasad-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangal Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/188445","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=188445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}