{"id":21645,"date":"2008-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-06T05:15:19","modified_gmt":"2016-10-05T23:45:19","slug":"banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n\n                           AT JODHPUR\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n\n\nBanna Ram                          Vs.        State of Rajasthan\n\n           S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118\/2006\n      against the judgment dt.10.1.2006 passed by\n           the Special Judge, P.C.Act, Jodhpur,\n               in Criminal Case No.47\/2002.\n\n\nDate of Judgment:                                    Aug.21, 2008\n\n\n                           P R E S E N T\n\n\n       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI\n\n\n\nMr.P.N.Mohanani, for appellant.\nMr.O.P.Rathi, Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
1.   By   this   Appeal,   accused     appellant   Banna   Ram   has<\/p>\n
challenged his conviction for the offences u\/ss.7 & 13(1)(d)(ii) of<\/p>\n
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred-to<\/p>\n
as “the Act”, with one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000\/- and in<\/p>\n
default, to further undergo three months’ S.I. and two years’ R.I.<\/p>\n
and a fine of Rs.1000\/- and in default, to further undergo three
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
months’ S.I. respectively. Both the substantive sentences were<\/p>\n
ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 20.3.2001,<\/p>\n
report   Ex.P.31   was   lodged   by   Babulal   (PW    11)   before<\/p>\n
Dy.Inspector General of Police, Anti Corruption Department,<\/p>\n
Jodhpur,   that he   is a   registered   Contractor    of   Municipal<\/p>\n
Corporation, Jodhpur and has done the work of construction of<\/p>\n
Nala etc. His bill was passed but security amount of Rs.17,775\/-<\/p>\n
was not refunded for which he talked with Manoj Kumar, Asstt.<\/p>\n
Director, who told him to meet Banna Ram, who is Accountant in<\/p>\n
the Audit Deptt., where Banna Ram and Mohanlal are the<\/p>\n
Accountants. According to FIR, Banna Ram prepares the bill and<\/p>\n
Mohanlal after passing the same, send it to Manoj Kumar. Both<\/p>\n
were demanding Rs.1000\/- for passing the bill. As he was not<\/p>\n
willing to give the same, he filed this report. Upon this report,<\/p>\n
D.I.G., ACB, Jodhpur deputed Jeta Ram, Dy.S.P., ACB, Churu,<\/p>\n
Camp Jodhpur to arrange the trap. Accordingly, the trap was<\/p>\n
arranged and a tap recorder with cassette was handed over to<\/p>\n
complainant. The complainant produced ten currency notes of<\/p>\n
Rs.100\/- each, which were initialled and after having smeared<\/p>\n
with phenolphthalein powder, kept in the left pocket of shirt of<\/p>\n
complainant. The complainant was instructed about the trap<\/p>\n
proceedings alongwith motbirs. The trap party reached at the
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
office of the Municipal Corporation at 10.30 AM, where Babulal<\/p>\n
complainant pointed towards accused Banna Ram, Jr.Accountnat,<\/p>\n
who obtained Rs.1000\/-. Upon asking, Banna Ram told that he<\/p>\n
has kept Rs.1000\/- in the almirah, which he obtained for himself,<\/p>\n
Mohanlal Jr.Accountant and Manoj Kumar, Asstt. Director. The<\/p>\n
said amount was recovered and upon washing the hands of<\/p>\n
accused Banna Ram, the water of the glass turned into pink<\/p>\n
colour. Another personal amount of Rs.4300\/- was also found in<\/p>\n
the almirah which accused Banna Ram told to be in connection<\/p>\n
with the mining lease in the name of his wife Smt.Jayantik. After<\/p>\n
conducting the trap, the case was registered and accused was<\/p>\n
arrested and after obtaining the sanction, the challan was filed.<\/p>\n
The accused was charged u\/s.7 read with 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act,<\/p>\n
to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 18<\/p>\n
witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded u\/s.313<\/p>\n
CrPC. He produced Jawrilal, DW 1 in his defence. After hearing<\/p>\n
the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant as<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   Learned counsel for the appellant        has assailed the<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial Court on many counts. Firstly according to<\/p>\n
him, the sanction itself is defective because the sanction<\/p>\n
authority has not applied his mind with regard to demand of<\/p>\n
Rs.1000\/- jointly by Mohanlal and Manoj Kumar, who have not
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
been even chargesheeted by the police. According to him, the<\/p>\n
demand was made not by the accused Banna Ram but by Manoj<\/p>\n
Kumar, Asstt.Director, Municipal Corporation, who has been left<\/p>\n
out by the prosecution and who refused to sign the recovery<\/p>\n
memo. According to the learned counsel, the presumption u\/s.20<\/p>\n
of the Act cannot be raised, unless there is a demand by the<\/p>\n
accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the recovery<\/p>\n
was made from the almirah of the office, which can be opened<\/p>\n
by anyone and the personal money of the accused was also lying<\/p>\n
therein. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the<\/p>\n
accused accepted the illegal gratification as a reward of some<\/p>\n
work. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a<\/p>\n
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.Venkata Subbarao<\/p>\n
v. State reported in 2007 Cri.L.J.754.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the<\/p>\n
judgment of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   In the present case, the sanction order is Ex.P.17, which<\/p>\n
has been issued by the Director of Treasury & Accounts against<\/p>\n
Banna Ram. In para 2 of the sanction order, it is stated that the<\/p>\n
demand was made by both Banna Ram and Mohanlal for a sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.1000\/-. The sanctioning authority Sh.A.K.Gupta has been<\/p>\n
examined by the prosecution as PW 5. When this witness was
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
cross examined, he has stated that he discussed with the<\/p>\n
investigating officer but said that neither he knows the name of<\/p>\n
the investigating officer nor factual report was placed before<\/p>\n
him. Even he has said that except FSL report, there is no<\/p>\n
mention of examining other documents in the sanction letter<\/p>\n
Ex.P.17. This evidence reveals that the sanctioning authority<\/p>\n
A.K.Gupta has not applied his mind before issuing sanction. This<\/p>\n
fact can be fortified from the F.I.R. Ex.P.31 in which the<\/p>\n
complainant has given the names of three persons viz; Manoj<\/p>\n
Kumar,   Asstt.Director   and   Accountants   Banna   Ram      and<\/p>\n
Mohanlal. In the running note, which is followed in the papers of<\/p>\n
F.I.R., Ex.P.31, the case was registered against all the three<\/p>\n
persons. When the recovery Officer viz; Jeta Ram was examined<\/p>\n
in this regard as PW 15, he has stated that portion `I to J’ of<\/p>\n
transcript Ex.P.34 was written by him, which reads as under:<\/p>\n
      \"\u092e \u0939\u0928\u0932 \u0932- \u0906\u092a\u0915 \u092c \u0932 \u092e\u092e\u0932 \u091c \u092f\u0917 , \u0906\u092a \u0938 \u0922 \u0926\u0938      \u091c \u0906 \u091c\u0923\n                \u0939\u092e \u0930 \u092a \u0938 ....\u0914......?\n\n      \u092a\u0930\u0930\u0935 \u0926   - \u0915 \u092e \u092e\u0939 \u0930 \u0926\u0938 \u0938 \u0922 \u0926\u0938   \u091c\u091c\u092f \u092a\u0938 \u0932 \u0928 \u0906\u090a\n\n      \u092e \u0939\u0928\u0932 \u0932- \u0906\u092a\u0915 \u0915\u0939 \u0938 \u0922 \u0926\u0938        \u091c \u092c \u0932 \u092a \u0938 \u0915\u0915\u092f \u0939!\u0906 \u092e\u092e\u0932\u0917 \"\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     In this portion, the conversation regarding the money<\/p>\n
transaction is almost between Mohanlal and the complainant.<\/p>\n
There is no conversation with regard to money transaction with
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
accused Banna Ram except that to bring the bill, Babulal is<\/p>\n
`duboda’    (having no means) and to come in the line at three<\/p>\n
places. On the basis of this conversation, accused Banna Ram<\/p>\n
cannot be linked with demand.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   Further, in this regard, Jeta Ram, PW 15 has also stated<\/p>\n
that he did not ask on the spot that who is the incharge of the<\/p>\n
almirah, from where the amount was recovered. When the<\/p>\n
complainant Babulal (PW 11) was examined, he has stated in the<\/p>\n
cross examination that Banna Ram told him that why he was<\/p>\n
giving the money, then    he replied that Manoj Kumar had told<\/p>\n
him to give it. At first stage, Banna Ram refused to accept the<\/p>\n
money but later he forcibly gave the amount to him. The<\/p>\n
relevant portion of the cross examination is as under:<\/p>\n
      ” \u0928\u0928 \u0930 \u092e \u0928 \u092f\u0939 \u0915\u0939 \u0915\u0915 \u092f \u092a\u0938 \u0915\u0915\u0938 \u092e\u0932\u090f \u0926 \u0930\u0939 \u0939 , \u0924 \u092e\u0928 \u0909\u0938\u0915
\n      \u0915\u0939 \u0915\u0915 \u092e\u0928 \u091c \u0915!\u092e \u0930 \u0928 \u0906\u092a\u0915 \u0926\u0928 \u0915 \u092e\u0932\u090f \u0932 \u0939, \u0907\u0938\u092e\u0932\u090f \u0909\u0938\u0928 \u092a\u0938
\n      \u0932 \u092e\u0932\u090f \u092a\u0939\u0932 \u0924 \u0928\u0928 \u0930 \u092e \u0928 \u092a\u0938 \u0932\u0928 \u0938 \u092e\u0928 \u0915\u0930 \u0915\u0926\u092f , \u0915’\u0930 \u0909\u0938\u0928 \u092a\u0938
\n      \u0932 \u092e\u0932\u092f\u0964 \u0928\u0928 \u0930 \u092e \u0928 \u092a\u0938 \u0928\u0939 ) \u092e\u0932\u092f, \u0924 \u092e\u0928 \u0915’\u0930 \u0909\u0938\u0915 \u091c \u0930\u0926\u0938\u0924+ \u092a\u0938
\n      \u0915\u0926\u092f\u0964”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This statement reveals that there was no demand by<\/p>\n
accused appellant Banna Ram from the complainant Babulal,<\/p>\n
who forcibly gave money to accused Banna Ram. The person<\/p>\n
who demanded the money viz; Manoj Kumar has been left out<\/p>\n
alongwith    another   accountant   Mohanlal.   No       satisfactory
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
explanation has been given in this regard by the recovery officer.<\/p>\n
7.    That apart, it is also revealed that the bill was passed on<\/p>\n
20.3.01 as stated by the complainant Babulal (PW 11) and this<\/p>\n
trap has been arranged on the next day i.e. 21.3.01. This shows<\/p>\n
that the work was also not pending on the date of trap and the<\/p>\n
office almirah was common, where the personal amount of<\/p>\n
accused Banna Ram was also lying as stated in the F.I.R. as well<\/p>\n
as in the statement of complainant Babulal (PW 11) and Jeta<\/p>\n
Ram (PW 15). This type of trap proceedings and the prosecution,<\/p>\n
where the principal accused, who demanded the money, has<\/p>\n
been left out, cannot be said to be bonafide, especially when the<\/p>\n
sanctioning authority has also not applied his mind. In this<\/p>\n
regard, the authority cited by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant in V.Venkata Subbarao’s case (supra) is helpful in the<\/p>\n
facts of the present case. The relevant portion of the judgment is<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “22. It is a mystery as to why no offer was made to the
\n      M.R.O. Directly or why the raiding party did not visit his
\n      house? The prosecution witnesses even did not know in
\n      which village the M.R.O., Surveyor and Revenue Inspector
\n      has their respective residences. A short intervention made
\n      by the appellant was purported to be in relation to the
\n      quantum of amount. The offer, therefore, should have
\n      been made to the M.R.O. Directly. He was named in the
\n      complaint, but along with him and the appellant, two
\n      others were also named. Why no action had been taken as
\n      against three other persons, is not known. Why M.R.O.,
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
      who had made a demand, on whose behalf the appellant
\n      had accepted the amount, had escaped prosecution has
\n      not been explained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      23. It is also accepted that before the Sanctioning
\n      Authority, the vital documents showing involvement of the
\n      M.R.O. had not been produced. The Sanctioning Authority,
\n      therefore, did not have any occasion to apply their mind to
\n      the entire materials on record and in that view of the
\n      matter, the sanction is, therefore, vitiated in law. Conduct
\n      of the officers of the respondent who had taken recourse
\n      to suppressio veri deserves serious condemnation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.    In the cited case, the MRO, who demanded the money,<\/p>\n
was left by the prosecution, who was named in the complaint.<\/p>\n
Here in the present case, it was Manoj Kumar, Asstt.Director,<\/p>\n
who made direct demand, has also been left by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
The only incriminating circumstance against the accused Banna<\/p>\n
Ram is about the colour of the water of glass, which turned into<\/p>\n
pink after washing the hands of accused, who accepted the<\/p>\n
money but this is a corroborative evidence and the presumption<\/p>\n
cannot be drawn on the basis of such evidence, unless the<\/p>\n
pendency of the work and demand is proved in a trial for the<\/p>\n
offence u\/s.7 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    In view of the above discussion, particularly in absence of<\/p>\n
demand rather refusal to accept the money and forcibly handing<\/p>\n
over the same to the accused Banna Ram by the complainant<\/p>\n
Babulal, non-implication of principal accused i.e. Manoj Kumar,
\n                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority and<\/p>\n
recovery from a common almirah are such factors, which lead to<\/p>\n
the only conclusion that in the present case, the prosecution<\/p>\n
story suffers from serious infirmities for which accused is entitled<\/p>\n
to be benefitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the<\/p>\n
learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jodhpur<\/p>\n
dt.10.1.2006 convicting the accused appellant Banna Ram for<\/p>\n
the offences u\/ss.7 & 13 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act is set aside. He is<\/p>\n
on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J.\n<\/p>\n
RANKAWAT JK, PS\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Banna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118\/2006 against the judgment dt.10.1.2006 passed by the Special Judge, P.C.Act, Jodhpur, in Criminal Case […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nBanna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-05T23:45:19+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\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T23:45:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1773,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T23:45:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-05T23:45:19+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\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T23:45:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008"},"wordCount":1773,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008","name":"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T23:45:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banna-ram-vs-state-on-21-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Banna Ram vs State on 21 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21645","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=21645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}