{"id":221810,"date":"2011-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011"},"modified":"2016-02-15T06:43:49","modified_gmt":"2016-02-15T01:13:49","slug":"gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Hima Kohli<\/div>\n
*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+           Crl. MB No. 483\/2011 in CRL. A. No.363\/2011\n\n                                                  Date of Decision: 18.03.2011\n\nIN THE MATTER OF :\nGULAM HAIDER ZILANI                                        ..... Appellant\n                                Through: Mr. M.K. Verma, Advocate\n\n\n                    versus\n\nSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                      ..... Respondent\n                                Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State\n\n\nCORAM\n\n* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI\n\n     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No\n        be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be                  No\n        reported in the Digest?\n\nHIMA KOHLI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.            This application is filed by the appellant under Section 389 of the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for suspension of sentence during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the accompanying appeal.       By the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2011,<\/p>\n
the appellant was found guilty and convicted by the learned Special Judge,<\/p>\n
Anti Corruption Branch, of the offences under Section 120B IPC read with<\/p>\n
Section 7 and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as `the Act’)      as also under Section 7 of the Act as well as<\/p>\n
Section 13(i)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. As per the order on sentence<\/p>\n
dated 17.02.2011, the appellant was awarded a sentence of rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of `4,000\/-, in default<\/p>\n
Crl.M.B. 483\/2011 in CRL.A. No. 363\/2011                       Page 1 of 5<\/span>
\n whereof, simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(i)(d) of the Act and<\/p>\n
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two<\/p>\n
years and a fine of `4,000\/-, in default whereof, simple imprisonment for a<\/p>\n
period of six months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and further<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a<\/p>\n
fine of `4,000\/-, in default whereof, simple imprisonment for a period of six<\/p>\n
months for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act. All sentences were<\/p>\n
directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
2.          The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed<\/p>\n
as a Junior Engineer with the MCD and as per the prosecution, he alongwith<\/p>\n
his co-accused, Braham Pal, who was employed as a Beldar with MCD, had<\/p>\n
asked for a bribe of `50,000\/- from the complainant (PW4) for allowing him<\/p>\n
to continue to carry out construction of the first floor in his house, failing<\/p>\n
which they would have demolished the said construction. After the<\/p>\n
complainant expressed his inability to pay the sum, the appellant and his co-<\/p>\n
accused reduced their demand to `10,000\/-. The complainant lodged a<\/p>\n
complaint with the Anti Corruption Branch against both the appellant and the<\/p>\n
co-accused, for demanding a bribe from him. On receiving such an<\/p>\n
information, a trap was laid for the appellant and his co-accused and they<\/p>\n
were caught receiving the bribe money on 08.03.2007.\n<\/p>\n
3.          Charges were framed against the appellant and his co-accused,<\/p>\n
who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the trial, 13 prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses including the complainant (PW4), Raid Officer (PW11), and the<\/p>\n
Panch Witness (PW6) were examined. Statements of the appellant and his<\/p>\n
co-accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, however neither of them<\/p>\n
Crl.M.B. 483\/2011 in CRL.A. No. 363\/2011                     Page 2 of 5<\/span>
\n led any defense evidence. On an examination of the evidence which came on<\/p>\n
record, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had<\/p>\n
placed sufficient evidence on record to hold that the appellant and his co-<\/p>\n
accused, both public servants, were guilty of conspiring to accept illegal<\/p>\n
gratification, from the complainant, thereby committing offences under 120B<\/p>\n
IPC and Section 7, 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
4.           The learned counsel for the appellant urges that for an offence<\/p>\n
under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be made out, both the acts of<\/p>\n
demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same would have to be<\/p>\n
proved and in the present case, recovery of GC notes was made from the<\/p>\n
person of the co-accused Braham pal, and that no recovery was made from<\/p>\n
the appellant.   He submits that even if it is assumed that the prosecution<\/p>\n
managed to prove the act of demand against the appellant, the act of<\/p>\n
acceptance remains unproven, as no money was recovered from the<\/p>\n
appellant.   It is contended that the court below failed to consider the fact<\/p>\n
that the Panch Witness (PW6), had turned hostile and had stated that only<\/p>\n
the co-accused, Braham Pal had gone to the first floor of the building<\/p>\n
whereas the appellant had remained downstairs, and further, that PW-6<\/p>\n
having turned hostile, the testimonies of the complainant (PW4) and the<\/p>\n
Raid Officer (PW11) stood uncorroborated on the point of acceptance of<\/p>\n
bribe by the appellant, which fact the trial court overlooked. He, therefore,<\/p>\n
submits that there are sufficient grounds taken in the appeal to entitle the<\/p>\n
appellant to suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.<\/p>\n
5.           The learned APP for the State on the other hand vehemently<\/p>\n
opposes the application for grant of suspension of sentence on the ground<\/p>\n
that acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a grave offence.<\/p>\n
Crl.M.B. 483\/2011 in CRL.A. No. 363\/2011                      Page 3 of 5<\/span>
\n He also urges that a perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial<\/p>\n
court has sifted the evidence on the record and after examining the same,<\/p>\n
rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant and the co-accused had<\/p>\n
accepted bribe from the complainant. He further submits that if an actual<\/p>\n
date for hearing the appeal is fixed, then there is no reason to grant<\/p>\n
suspension of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
6.          This Court has heard counsels for both the parties and has<\/p>\n
perused the impugned judgment of conviction as well as the order on<\/p>\n
sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Branch. On<\/p>\n
the point that the Panch Witness (PW-6) had turned hostile and hence his<\/p>\n
testimony ought to have been disregarded, the trial court observed that the<\/p>\n
said witness had turned hostile only to the extent that he had stated that the<\/p>\n
appellant herein was not present on the first floor of the house where the<\/p>\n
bribe was being accepted by the co-accused. It was held in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment that even if a witness is declared hostile, his entire testimony need<\/p>\n
not be disregarded and that part of his testimony which stands corroborated<\/p>\n
by other evidence and witnesses, should be accepted.           As far as the<\/p>\n
deposition of the complainant (PW-4) and the Raid Officer (PW-11) is<\/p>\n
concerned, the trial court found no reason to disregard the testimony of the<\/p>\n
Raid Officer (PW11), especially since on most of the crucial points, his<\/p>\n
testimony was supported by the testimony of the complainant (PW4) and of<\/p>\n
the Panch Witness (PW6).     The trial court noticed the fact that PW-4 and<\/p>\n
PW-11 had also testified that the appellant had directed his subordinate,<\/p>\n
Braham Pal to accept the bribe money from the complainant. In this<\/p>\n
background, the court concluded that it becomes immaterial whether a<\/p>\n
direct recovery was made from the appellant, and since he was apprehended<\/p>\n
Crl.M.B. 483\/2011 in CRL.A. No. 363\/2011                     Page 4 of 5<\/span>
\n from the scene of crime, implicit recovery is deemed to have been made<\/p>\n
from him.\n<\/p>\n
7.          At the stage of suspension of sentence, this court cannot<\/p>\n
conduct a roving enquiry into the evidence on record, rather it is required to<\/p>\n
see if in its prima facie opinion, there is such patent illegality, arbitrariness<\/p>\n
or perversity in the impugned judgment as to warrant grant of suspension of<\/p>\n
sentence. In the present case, on a prima facie assessment of the facts and<\/p>\n
evidence on record as analysed in the impugned judgment, this Court does<\/p>\n
not find any such patent illegality or perversity, which would warrant<\/p>\n
suspension of sentence. This is more so when the appeal has been fixed for<\/p>\n
hearing on an actual date.\n<\/p>\n
8.          The application is therefore dismissed as being devoid of merits.<\/p>\n
9.          Needless to state that the aforesaid prima facie view is<\/p>\n
expressed only for the purpose of disposing the present application and is<\/p>\n
not a conclusive view of the court, which shall be arrived at only after<\/p>\n
hearing the appeal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
10.         The appellant is directed to surrender before the Jail authorites<\/p>\n
on or before 21.03.2011.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                           (HIMA KOHLI)\nMARCH       18, 2011                                          JUDGE\npm\n\n\n\n\nCrl.M.B. 483\/2011 in CRL.A. No. 363\/2011                       Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011 Author: Hima Kohli * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. MB No. 483\/2011 in CRL. A. No.363\/2011 Date of Decision: 18.03.2011 IN THE MATTER OF : GULAM HAIDER ZILANI ….. Appellant Through: Mr. M.K. […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011 - 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\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-15T01:13:49+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T01:13:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1293,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T01:13:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011 - 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\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-15T01:13:49+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T01:13:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011"},"wordCount":1293,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011","name":"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T01:13:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulam-haider-zilani-vs-state-of-nct-of-delhi-on-18-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulam Haider Zilani vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 18 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/221810","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=221810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}