{"id":237161,"date":"2007-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007"},"modified":"2016-12-09T20:32:36","modified_gmt":"2016-12-09T15:02:36","slug":"state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1009 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nState, C.B.I., Hyderabad\n\nRESPONDENT:\nEdwin Devasahayam\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/07\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by<br \/>\na learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court,<br \/>\ndirecting acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter described as<br \/>\n&#8216;accused&#8217;). The Trial Court, i.e., Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,<br \/>\nHyderabad in Calendar Case No.80 of 1996, had held the<br \/>\nrespondent guilty of offence punishable under Section 7 of the<br \/>\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short &#8216;the Act&#8217;), while<br \/>\ndirecting his acquittal in respect of the offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.  He<br \/>\nwas sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six<br \/>\nmonths and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- with default<br \/>\nstipulation.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe accused herein is a public servant.  He demanded a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.300\/- from PW-1, a Traveling Ticket Examiner in<br \/>\nSouth Central Railway on 11.1.1995 and accepted the same<br \/>\non 16.1.1995 at 5.40 p.m.<\/p>\n<p>\tPW-1 was working as TTE in South Central Railway and<br \/>\nthe accused was working as Assistant Commercial Manager,<br \/>\nTicket Checking Division.  He was the controlling authority of<br \/>\nPW-1, who joined in Railway service in the year 1981 as Clerk<br \/>\nin Hubli Division.  In the year 1989-1990 he was promoted as<br \/>\nTicket Collector. The performance of PW-1 was not<br \/>\nsatisfactory.  Therefore, he was repatriated to Hubli Division.<br \/>\nHowever, the accused cancelled those orders. The accused was<br \/>\nnot granting leave to PW-1. During January 1995, PW-1 went<br \/>\nto the accused with an application to grant leave for 10 days.<br \/>\nThen the accused asked whether he has taken the charge-<br \/>\nsheet issued against him.  Thereupon, PW-1 replied that it was<br \/>\nnot served on him but he collected the same from the Chief<br \/>\nTicket Inspector&#8217;s office. Ex. P.1 is the charge sheet dated<br \/>\n10.1.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter receiving the charge sheet, PW-1 went to the office<br \/>\nof the accused and explained him orally about the charges<br \/>\nleveled against him.  The accused told PW-1 that he was<br \/>\nprepared to grant leave if he gives explanation to the charges<br \/>\nin writing immediately.  PW-1 refused to give explanation<br \/>\nimmediately.  The leave application given by PW-1 was torn<br \/>\naway by the accused stating that he would pass the orders of<br \/>\nrepatriation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 12.1.1995 PW-1 met the accused and asked for<br \/>\ncancellation of repatriation orders and also for leave.  Then the<br \/>\naccused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.300\/- as<br \/>\nconsideration for the work. PW-1 left the office of the accused<br \/>\nsaying that he will get the money.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 14.1.1995 PW-1 was present at Sankranti Mela<br \/>\norganized by Rail Nilayam. The accused was also posted there.<br \/>\nIn the Mela the accused asked PW-1 whether he brought full<br \/>\nmoney. PW-1 replied that since the banks were closed, he<br \/>\ncould not get the money and that he would pay the money<br \/>\nafter the banks reopen.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn 16.1.1995 PW-1 went to PW-8, the CBI Inspector.  On<br \/>\nthe basis of the complaint given by PW-1, he registered the<br \/>\ncase in R.C. 2 (a)\/95, Hyderabad against the accused.  Ex.<br \/>\nP.14 is the FIR.  PW-8 took up further investigation. He<br \/>\nmobilized two persons to act as mediators for the trap.  On<br \/>\n16.1.1995, he prepared first mediators report Ex. P.5 in the<br \/>\npresence of trap party which included the mediator PW-2 and<br \/>\nother CBI officers.  PW-2 was instructed to accompany PW-1<br \/>\nto give a signal by wiping the face when the accused accepts<br \/>\nthe money.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe trap party proceeded to the office of the accused at<br \/>\nabout 5 p.m.  At about 5.25 p.m., PWs. 1 and 2 entered into<br \/>\nthe office of the accused where the other members of the trap<br \/>\nparty stood outside the office.  At about 5.40 p.m. PW-2 came<br \/>\nout of the office and gave pre-arranged signal.  The entire trap<br \/>\nparty entered into the office.  PW-8 questioned the accused<br \/>\nwho told him that money was kept in the left side shirt pocket.<br \/>\nWhen questioned by the trap party, the accused told them that<br \/>\nthe money was returned as hand loan taken by PW-1 from him<br \/>\non 15.1.1995 in the presence of PW-3.  After complying with<br \/>\nall formalities, the second mediator&#8217;s report Ex. P-7 was<br \/>\nprepared.  PW-8 seized M.Os. 1 to 5 and other documents<br \/>\nduring the trap. PW-8 investigated into the matter and thus on<br \/>\ncompletion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tAfter investigation, charge sheet was filed.  The defence of<br \/>\nthe accused was of total denial and, therefore, the trial was<br \/>\nconducted. On behalf of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were<br \/>\nexamined and certain documents were exhibited as exhibits<br \/>\nP.1 to P.14.  On behalf of the accused one witness was<br \/>\nexamined.  On consideration of the evidence on record, the<br \/>\ntrial court, as noted above, found the respondent-accused<br \/>\nguilty.  The trial court did not find any substance in the stand<br \/>\nof the accused that there was defect in the sanction accorded.<br \/>\nIt was urged that the Secretary Railway Board\/Director could<br \/>\nnot have signed\/issued the order of sanction. The trial court<br \/>\nheld that the Secretary was competent to sign\/issue the order.<br \/>\nIt was also the stand of the accused that since the Secretary<br \/>\nwas not examined to prove the sanction order, therefore, it<br \/>\nwas fatal to the prosecution.  This plea was also not accepted<br \/>\nby the trial court.  It was noted that PW-7, who was well<br \/>\nconversant with the Secretary&#8217;s signature, and had knowledge<br \/>\nof the sanction order (Exhibit P.13) had been examined.  He<br \/>\nwas the then Joint Director (Vigilance) of the Railway Board. A<br \/>\ncategorical finding was recorded that the Railway Board which<br \/>\nwas the authority to accord sanction had, in fact, accorded<br \/>\nsanction under Section 19(1) of the Act for prosecution of the<br \/>\naccused.  The entire record along with self-contained note was<br \/>\nput up by the Secretary and the Member (Traffic) Board<br \/>\napproved the same.  One Member of the Board was competent<br \/>\nto give sanction. The trial court noted that a reading of the<br \/>\nsanction order prima facie shows that there has been<br \/>\napplication of mind and all the relevant materials have been<br \/>\nexamined by the concerned officer.  The trial court also noted<br \/>\nthat non-examination of the sanctioning authority is not fatal<br \/>\nwhen the sanction order contained details showing application<br \/>\nof mind by the concerned authority.  The non-examination of<br \/>\nthe Secretary of the Railway Board was held to be not<br \/>\nvulnerable. On merits also, the trial court found that the<br \/>\naccusations against the respondent have been established.  In<br \/>\nthe appeal filed, it was contended by the accused that the<br \/>\nentire file had not been placed before the Board and the<br \/>\nevidence of PW-7 established the same.  The High Court noted<br \/>\nthat with reference to the materials on record it was satisfied<br \/>\nthat the accused was guilty of accepting the bribe and was<br \/>\nliable to be punished for offence punishable under Section 7 of<br \/>\nthe Act, but on technical ground that the entire record was not<br \/>\nplaced before the Railway Board or its President, the sanction<br \/>\nwas held to be defective.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<br \/>\nHigh Court having accepted that materials on record are<br \/>\nsufficient to establish the accusations, should not have<br \/>\ninterfered with the well-reasoned order of the trial court<br \/>\nholding the accused guilty.  The issue relating to sanction was<br \/>\nexamined at length by the trial court.  It was held that the<br \/>\nSecretary was authorized to sign\/issue the order.  The Board<br \/>\nalone was competent to accord sanction.  PW-7 had in<br \/>\ncategorical terms stated that it was not necessary for the<br \/>\nentire Board to sit and take a decision and only the Member<br \/>\n(Traffic) was the competent authority who could have and had,<br \/>\nin fact, accorded sanction for prosecution. It was also<br \/>\nspecifically stated that one Member of the Board can sit as the<br \/>\nBoard as per the Board&#8217;s Rules.  There was no material before<br \/>\nthe High Court to come to the conclusion that the entire<br \/>\nrecord was not placed before the Board.  On the contrary, with<br \/>\nreference to the evidence of PW-7 and the materials on record<br \/>\nthe trial court had held that all relevant records were placed<br \/>\nbefore the Board. Learned counsel for the respondent<br \/>\nsubmitted that PW-7 had accepted that he had not produced<br \/>\nthe rules authorizing the Secretary to sign the sanction order.<br \/>\nIt was also submitted that if the sanction itself is defective, the<br \/>\ntrial is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIt is to be noted that before the trial court the stand of<br \/>\nthe respondent was in relation to the authority of the<br \/>\nSecretary to sign the sanction order.  The trial court, after<br \/>\nanalyzing the materials on record, came to hold that the<br \/>\nSecretary had the authority.  Before the trial court there was<br \/>\nno plea raised that the relevant records were not placed before<br \/>\nthe Board. The plea relating to lack of authority of the<br \/>\nSecretary appears to have been given up before the High Court<br \/>\nand what seems to have been urged is that the relevant<br \/>\nrecords were not placed before the Board.  The trial court had<br \/>\ncategorically noted that all the relevant records were placed by<br \/>\nthe Secretary before the Member (Traffic). Without indicating<br \/>\nany basis for the conclusion that records were not placed for<br \/>\nconsideration, the High Court could not have drawn an<br \/>\nadverse conclusion that the relevant records were not<br \/>\nproduced before the Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThough learned counsel for the respondent urged that<br \/>\nnothing was shown to substantiate the stand that Member<br \/>\n(Traffic) could act as the Board, the same has no substance. In<br \/>\nthe re-examination, PW-7 has categorically stated that it was<br \/>\nnot necessary for the entire Board to sit and, as per the<br \/>\nBoard&#8217;s Rules, the Member (Traffic) was authorized and<br \/>\ncompetent to accord sanction.  There was no cross-<br \/>\nexamination. Provisions contained in Section 19(3) of the Act<br \/>\nalso need to be noted.  The principles relating to alleged defect<br \/>\nin sanction have been highlighted by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1385093\/\">Central<br \/>\nBureau of Investigation v. V.K. Sehgal and Anr.<\/a> (1999 (8) SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>501) and Shankerbhai Laljibhai Rot v. State of Gujarat  (2004<br \/>\n(13) SCC 487).  Learned counsel for the respondent has placed<br \/>\ngreat emphasis in <a href=\"\/doc\/190260\/\">State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam<br \/>\nv. Surva Sankaram Karri<\/a> (2006 (7) SCC 172) more particularly<br \/>\nin paragraphs 25 and 26 thereof.  There is no quarrel with the<br \/>\nprinciples laid down in that decision. But, on facts of the<br \/>\npresent case, it has not been shown that there was any defect<br \/>\nin the sanction and the High Court was not justified in taking<br \/>\na contrary view.  This being the position, the order of the High<br \/>\nCourt is unsustainable and is set aside and that of the trial<br \/>\ncourt is restored.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe appeal is allowed accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1009 of 2002 PETITIONER: State, C.B.I., Hyderabad RESPONDENT: Edwin Devasahayam DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/07\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; D.K. JAIN JUDGMENT: J U D G M [&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-237161","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>State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007 - 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\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-09T15:02:36+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\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T15:02:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1782,\"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\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007\",\"name\":\"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T15:02:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007 - 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\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-09T15:02:36+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\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T15:02:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007"},"wordCount":1782,"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\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007","name":"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T15:02:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-c-b-i-hyderabad-vs-edwin-devasahayam-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State, C.B.I., Hyderabad vs Edwin Devasahayam on 13 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/237161","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=237161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}