{"id":212843,"date":"1996-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996"},"modified":"2015-07-09T00:15:52","modified_gmt":"2015-07-08T18:45:52","slug":"shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 2099, \t\t  JT 1996 (5)\t658<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSHRI BHOGENDRA JHA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI MANOJ KUMAR JHA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 2099\t\t  JT 1996 (5)\t658\n 1996 SCALE  (4)542\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     The appellant  is a  returned candidate to the 10th Lok<br \/>\nSabha  from  13,  Madhubani  Parliamentary  Constituency  in<br \/>\nBihar. The  last date  for filling  nominations for  the Lok<br \/>\nSabha Elections was April 26, 1991. The date of scrutiny was<br \/>\nApril 27,  1991. Out of 61 candidates who filed nominations,<br \/>\nthree nomination  papers of  Pawan Kumar  Pathak, PW-4,\t Lal<br \/>\nBahadur Singh,\tPW-6 and  another came to be rejected by the<br \/>\nReturning officer  during scrutiny. Poll was held on May 23,<br \/>\n1991. Out  of 49 candidates who remained in the contest, the<br \/>\nappellant had  secured 3,30,111\t votes, i.e., 51.91 per cent<br \/>\nas against  the nearest\t candidate Dr.\tJagannath Mishra who<br \/>\nsecured 2,50,020, i.e., 39.31%. Rest of the candidates could<br \/>\nnot even  protect their deposits. The respondent Manoj Kumar<br \/>\nJha,  an  elector  filed  the  election\t petition  impugning<br \/>\nrejection of the nominations of PW-4 and PW-6 as bad in law.<br \/>\nThe High  Court in  the impugned  judgment  has\t upheld\t his<br \/>\ncontention and\tdeclared the  election of  the appellant  as<br \/>\nvoid in E.P.A. No.7\/1991 dated August 25, 1995 by Patna High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In this  appeal, the only question is: whether the view<br \/>\nof the\tHigh  court  that  the\tReturning  Officer  had\t not<br \/>\nconducted  summary   enquiry  under   section  36   of\t the<br \/>\nRepresentation of People Act, 1951 (for short, the &#8216;Act&#8217;) is<br \/>\ncorrect in law? It is seen that even Pawan Kumar Pathak (PW-\n<\/p>\n<p>4) and\tLal Bahadur  Singh,  PW-6  did\tnot  feel  aggrieved<br \/>\nagainst the  rejection of  the nominations  as they  did not<br \/>\nfile election  petitions though they were examined on behalf<br \/>\nof the\trespondent as  witnesses. The appellant, admittedly,<br \/>\nwas not\t and could  not\t present  himself  at  the  time  of<br \/>\nscrutiny  of   nomination  papers   and\t rejection   of\t the<br \/>\nnominations. He did not know what had transpired at the time<br \/>\nof scrutiny  and rejection of the nomination. As regards PW-<br \/>\n4, Pawan Kumar Pathak, the orders of rejection read thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;the proposer  name does  not tally<br \/>\n     with the  name as\tentered\t in  the<br \/>\n     electoral roll hence rejected.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     As regards\t PW-6, it  was rejected for the reason given<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The name\tof the proposer does not<br \/>\n     tally with\t the name  as entered in<br \/>\n     the electoral roll hence rejected.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It is  not in  dispute that PW-4&#8217;s proposer&#8217;s electoral<br \/>\nroll  number  with  S.\tNo.  413,  Part\t 190  while  in\t his<br \/>\nnomination paper  he  mentioned\t S.  No.113  part  190.\t Lal<br \/>\nBahadur Singh&#8217;s\t proposer mentioned his name was in the Part<br \/>\n75 of  electoral roll;\tin fact,  it  is  in  Part  74.\t The<br \/>\nquestion, therefore,  is: whether  it was  necessary for the<br \/>\nReturning Officer  to make  a roving  enquiry as regards the<br \/>\ncorrect number of the proposers in the nomination papers and<br \/>\nthe  electoral\troll.  Section\t33  of\tthe  Act  prescribes<br \/>\nprocedure  for\t presentation  of   the\t nomination  on\t the<br \/>\nappointed date\tby each candidate either in person or by his<br \/>\nproposer, between  the specified  time under sub-section (1)<br \/>\nthereof. The  nomination thereof  is to\t be completed in the<br \/>\nprescribed form\t and signed  by\t the  candidate\t and  by  an<br \/>\nelector of  the constituency  as mandated  under Section 31.<br \/>\nUnder sub-section (4), on the presentation of the nomination<br \/>\npaper, the Returning Officer has to satisfy himself that the<br \/>\nnames and  numbers of  the candidate  and  his\tproposer  as<br \/>\nentered in  the nomination  paper are the same as entered in<br \/>\nthe  electoral roll. The proviso reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Provided\tthat   no  misnomer   or<br \/>\n     inaccurate\t       description    or<br \/>\n     clerical,\ttechnical   or\tprinting<br \/>\n     error in regard to the name of  the<br \/>\n     candidate or  his proposer\t or  any<br \/>\n     other person,  or in  regard to any<br \/>\n     place, mentioned  in the  electoral<br \/>\n     roll or  the   nomination paper and<br \/>\n     no clerical,technical  or\tprinting<br \/>\n     error in  regard to  the  electoral<br \/>\n     roll numbers  of any such person in<br \/>\n     the   electoral\troll   or    the<br \/>\n     nomination paper,\tshall affect the<br \/>\n     full  operation  of  the  electoral<br \/>\n     roll or  the nomination  paper with<br \/>\n     respect to\t such person or place in<br \/>\n     any case  where the  description in<br \/>\n     regard to the name of the person or<br \/>\n     place is  such as\tto  be\tcommonly<br \/>\n     understood;   and\t the   returning<br \/>\n     officer  shall   permit  any   such<br \/>\n     misnomer or  inaccurate description<br \/>\n     or clerical,  technical or printing<br \/>\n     error to  be  corrected  and  where<br \/>\n     necessary,\t direct\t that  any  such<br \/>\n     misnomer,\t\t      inaccurate<br \/>\n     description,clerical,technical   or<br \/>\n     printing  error  in  the  electoral<br \/>\n     roll or  in  the  nomination  paper<br \/>\n     shall be overlooked.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Section 36\t prescribe the procedure for the scrutiny of<br \/>\nnomination paper.  Sub-section (1)  emphasizes that  on\t the<br \/>\ndate of\t the scrutiny  of nomination  paper, the candidates,<br \/>\ntheir election agents,one proposer of each candidate,and one<br \/>\nother person  duly authorised  in writing  by each candidate<br \/>\nand by no other person, may attend at such time and place as<br \/>\nthe Returning Officer may appoint; and the Returning Officer<br \/>\nshall give  them all reasonable facilities for examining the<br \/>\nnomination papers  of the  candidates which  might have been<br \/>\ndelivered under\t Section 33.  Under sub-section\t (2) thereof<br \/>\nthe nomination\tpaper shall  be examined  by  the  Returning<br \/>\nOfficer thereafter  and he shall decide all objections which<br \/>\nmay be\tmade to\t any nomination\t and  may,  either  on\tsuch<br \/>\nobjection or  after such  summary inquiry,  if\tany,  as  he<br \/>\nthinks necessary,  reject  any\tnomination  on\tany  of\t the<br \/>\ngrounds\t enumerated  in\t clause\t (a),  namely,\twhether\t the<br \/>\ncandidate is  not qualified  or is  disqualified  for  being<br \/>\nchosen to  fill the  seat or  there has\t been a\t failure  to<br \/>\ncomply with  any of  the provisions of Section 33 or Section<br \/>\n34 or  the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the<br \/>\nnomination paper  is not genuine. Under sub-section (4), the<br \/>\nreturning officer  shall not  reject any nomination paper on<br \/>\nthe ground  of any  defect which  is not  of  a\t substantial<br \/>\ncharacter. Even\t though no  objection is raised by any other<br \/>\ncandidate, if  the Returning Officer on his own motion finds<br \/>\nthat the defect is of substantial character, he is empowered<br \/>\nto reject  the nomination.  If any  objection is raised, the<br \/>\ncandidate concerned  may be  allowed time  to rebut  it\t not<br \/>\nlater than the next day but one following the date fixed for<br \/>\nscrutiny,  and\t the  Returning\t Officer  shall\t record\t his<br \/>\ndecision on  the date to which the proceedings are adjourned<br \/>\nas envisaged  in proviso  to sub-section  (5). The Returning<br \/>\nOfficer shall  hold, under  sub-section (1), the scrutiny on<br \/>\nthe date  in that behalf and shall not allow any adjournment<br \/>\nof  the\t  proceedings  except\twhen  such   proceeding\t are<br \/>\ninterrupted or\tobstructed by  riot  or\t open,\tviolence  or<br \/>\ncauses\tbeyond\this  control.  Under  sub-section  (6),\t the<br \/>\nReturning Officer shall endorse on such nomination paper his<br \/>\ndecision  accepting  or\t rejecting  the\t same  and,  if\t the<br \/>\nnomination paper  is rejected,\tshall record  in  writing  a<br \/>\nbrief statement\t of his\t reasons for  such rejection.  Under<br \/>\nsub-section (8), immediately after all the nomination papers<br \/>\nhave been  scrutinised and decisions, accepting or rejecting<br \/>\nthe same,  have been  recorded, the  Returning Officer shall<br \/>\nprepare a  list of  validly nominated candidates, that is to<br \/>\nsay, candidates whose nominations have been found valid, and<br \/>\naffix it  on his  notice board.\t What would  be a  defect of<br \/>\nsubstantial character  is always a question of fact based on<br \/>\nfactual matrix\ton record.  Each  case\tis  required  to  be<br \/>\nconsidered on its own backdrop.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This Court in a recent judgment dated 14.3.1996 in C.A.<br \/>\nNo.6478\/95 (Rafiq  Khan &amp;  Anr.\t v.  Lazmi  Narayan  Sharma)<br \/>\nreviewed the entire case law and held that:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Unless the defect is one which can<br \/>\n     be per  se noticed and corrected at<br \/>\n     the stage of section 33(4) or later<br \/>\n     at\t the   stage  of  section  36(4)<br \/>\n     without  the   need  to   refer  to<br \/>\n     various other  documents  the  same<br \/>\n     cannot be\tsaid to\t be  of\t a  non-<br \/>\n     substantial   character.\tIn   the<br \/>\n     instant case  also the defect as to<br \/>\n     the number\t could have been said to<br \/>\n     be not  of a  substantial character<br \/>\n     if the appellant had shown that the<br \/>\n     name of  the proposer  appeared  on<br \/>\n     the  very\t same  sheet  at  serial<br \/>\n     number 138 instead of 136 i.e. Only<br \/>\n     two steps\taway. In  that case  one<br \/>\n     can say  that the Returning Officer<br \/>\n     could have\t verified the same if he<br \/>\n     had  exercised  due  diligence.  In<br \/>\n     such  a   situation  even\t if  the<br \/>\n     appellant had  his proposer  absent<br \/>\n     the court could have taken the view<br \/>\n     that  the\t defect\t was  not  of  a<br \/>\n     substantial nature.  But the defect<br \/>\n     cannot  be\t  noticed   unless   the<br \/>\n     Returning Officer\tis  required  to<br \/>\n     sift    through\tvarious\t   other<br \/>\n     documents or  the voters list or is<br \/>\n     required to undertake an enquiry as<br \/>\n     to\t whether   the\tproposer&#8217;s  name<br \/>\n     appears anywhere else in the voters<br \/>\n     list. The\tdefect may  not\t be  one<br \/>\n     capable of\t being cured without the<br \/>\n     assistance of  the candidate or his<br \/>\n     proposer and in such a situation he<br \/>\n     would be justified in rejecting the<br \/>\n     nomination paper.\tIn  the\t instant<br \/>\n     case since\t there is no evidence to<br \/>\n     suggest  that   the  name\t of  the<br \/>\n     proposer  appeared\t  on  that  very<br \/>\n     sheet at  serial number 138 instead<br \/>\n     of 136  in the  electoral roll,  we<br \/>\n     find it  difficult\t to  find  fault<br \/>\n     with   the\t   rejection   of    the<br \/>\n     nomination paper  by the  Returning<br \/>\n     Officer.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Under Section  36(4) of  the Act,the  Returning Officer<br \/>\nshall not  reject any  nomination paper on the ground of any<br \/>\ndefect which  is  not  of  a  substantial  character.  Under<br \/>\nSection 36(1),\tthe  Returning\tOfficer\t has  the  power  to<br \/>\nconduct an  enquiry. It\t is settled law that it is a summary<br \/>\nenquiry.  When\t the  Returning\t  Officer   scrutinize\t the<br \/>\nnomination paper,  the parties\tor the nominees are required<br \/>\nto be  present\tand  if\t they  seek  liberty  to  place\t the<br \/>\nnecessary material,  the Returning  Officer is\tenjoined  to<br \/>\nadjourn the  case to  the next day. In case they are able to<br \/>\nplace the  necessary  material\tand  satisfy  the  Returning<br \/>\nOfficer of  the correctness of the enrollment as a candidate<br \/>\nor the\taddress of  the nominee, the Returning Officer would<br \/>\nconsider the  same. But\t he is\tnot  expected  to  sift\t the<br \/>\nevidence and  find the\tplacement in the electoral roll, the<br \/>\nname and particular of the nominee.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In this  case, PWs\t 4 and 6 who were the candidates and<br \/>\nhad filed their nominations, though admittedly were present,<br \/>\ndid not\t ask for an opportunity nor attempted to satisfy the<br \/>\nReturning Officer  as to  the correctness of the particulars<br \/>\nfurnished  by\tthem  in  the  nomination  papers  of  their<br \/>\nproposers. Therefore, the Returning Officer was not expected<br \/>\nto make\t a roving  enquiry to  find out whether the names of<br \/>\nthe proposers  found place  in the electoral roll. It is the<br \/>\nduty of\t the candidate\/proposer\t to  satisfy  the  Returning<br \/>\nofficer. It  was suggested  to the  witnesses, PWs  4 and 6,<br \/>\nthat they  were only dummy candidates and had no interest in<br \/>\nthe  election\tand  that   in\tthe   event  Dr.  Misra\t was<br \/>\nunsuccessful at\t the election, they would be used as a means<br \/>\nto unsettle the election of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We find  force in the suggestion. It was suggested that<br \/>\nDr. Misra  had borne  their travel  expenses to\t attend\t the<br \/>\nCourt for  giving evidence.  It is an admitted position that<br \/>\nthey did  not even  know the  result of the election and the<br \/>\nperson who  succeeded in  the election. In other words, they<br \/>\ndid not\t even make  any attempt\t to know  the result  of the<br \/>\nelection, apart\t from the  fact that  they did not file even<br \/>\nthe election  petition. Under  these circumstances, it would<br \/>\nappear that  PWs 4  and 6  were only  dummy candidates to be<br \/>\nused as\t reserve material  to impugn  the  election  of\t the<br \/>\nreturned candidate  in the  event the  election result\twent<br \/>\nagainst any unsuccessful candidate.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Accordingly, we  hold that the High Court was not right<br \/>\nin declaring  the election  of the  appellant as void on the<br \/>\nground that the nominations of PWs 4 and 6 were not valid in<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs quantified<br \/>\nat Rs.15,000\/-. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.<br \/>\nThe election petition stands dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 2099, JT 1996 (5) 658 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: SHRI BHOGENDRA JHA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JHA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/04\/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) MAJMUDAR [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-212843","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996 - 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\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-08T18:45:52+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-08T18:45:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1950,\"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\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996\",\"name\":\"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-08T18:45:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996 - 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\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-08T18:45:52+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-08T18:45:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996"},"wordCount":1950,"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\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996","name":"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-08T18:45:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-bhogendra-jha-vs-shri-manoj-kumar-jha-on-23-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Bhogendra Jha vs Shri Manoj Kumar Jha on 23 April, 1996"}]},{"@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\/212843","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=212843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}