{"id":245912,"date":"2000-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000"},"modified":"2017-03-05T05:04:45","modified_gmt":"2017-03-04T23:34:45","slug":"shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Y Sabharwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, J.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSHRI ABDUL KARIM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. Sabharwal, J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Y.K.SABHARWAL,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<br \/>\n    I  have gone through the elaborate and learned  judgment<br \/>\nprepared   by\tmy  brother   Justice  S.P.   Bharucha.\t   I<br \/>\nrespectfully  agree that the orders granting consent on\t the<br \/>\nspecial\t Public\t Prosecutor&#8217;s Applications do not  meet\t the<br \/>\nrequirements  of  Section  321\tof   the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  (for short, `Cr.P.C.&#8217;) and the orders are bad  in<br \/>\nlaw.   The  questions  raised  in these\t matters  have\twide<br \/>\nranging\t repercussions\tregarding the scope of\tSection\t 321<br \/>\nCr.P.C.\t and what is required to be considered by the Public<br \/>\nProsecutor  before consent of court is sought under  Section<br \/>\n321  to\t withdraw  from the prosecution of  any\t person.   I<br \/>\nrecord these additional reasons for concurring with decision<br \/>\narrived at by Justice Bharucha and Justice Mohapatra.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of<br \/>\nJustice Bharucha and it is unnecessary to repeat them except<br \/>\nto briefly notice the broad admitted and\/or well established<br \/>\nfacts  for  appreciating the points involved.  They  are  as<br \/>\nunder :\n<\/p>\n<p>    (A)\t Veerappan is a dreaded criminal and despite various<br \/>\nattempts over a number of years could not be apprehended.@@<br \/>\n\t JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<\/p>\n<p>    (B)\t Veerappan  and\t his associates are  alleged  to  be<br \/>\nresponsible  for  killing of a large number of people  (over\n<\/p>\n<p>100) including Police personnel, Forest personnel and others<br \/>\nbesides\t being\tresponsible for causing injuries to a  large<br \/>\nnumber\tof people and loss of property to the tune of crores<br \/>\nof rupees.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (C)\t Veerappan and his gang members hatched a conspiracy<br \/>\nto  kill  Superintendent  of Police, Mysore  District,\tShri<br \/>\nHarikrishna  and  Sub-Inspector of Police of MM\t Hills\tShri<br \/>\nShakeel Ahmed and other Police personnel who had been to nab<br \/>\nVeerappan  with a view to terrorise the Police force and  to<br \/>\nput  fear  of  death into the minds of\tPolicemen  who\twere<br \/>\nperforming  duty in attempting to arrest the wanted persons.<br \/>\nVarious\t charges  relating  to murder,\tambush,\t attempt  to<br \/>\noverawe\t the Government of Karnataka, killing of  elephants,<br \/>\nsmuggling  of Sandal wood etc.\tfrom the forest,  possession<br \/>\nof  arms  and  ammunition,  opening of fire  on\t task  force<br \/>\npersonnel,  have been framed against accused who are said to<br \/>\nbe  the\t associates of Veerappan.  Cases filed against\tthem<br \/>\nare  under  the\t provisions  of\t Terrorist  and\t  Disruptive<br \/>\nActivities  Act\t (TADA)\t and other penal  provisions,  i.e.,<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (D) from their source information police authorities had<br \/>\nlearnt that Veerappan intended to kidnap Rajkumar during his<br \/>\nvisit  to his farmhouse in Gajanoor.  More than a year back,<br \/>\nDirector  General  of Police of the State of  Karnataka\t had<br \/>\ninformed  the  Inspector General of Police of the  State  of<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu  requesting for adequate  security\tarrangements<br \/>\nbeing  made  for Rajkumar whenever he visited the said\tfarm<br \/>\nhouse.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (E)\t Rajkumar is a very popular film actor of Karnataka.<br \/>\nIn  case  any  harm  is caused to  Rajkumar,  there  may  be<br \/>\nbacklash  on Tamils in Karnataka and it may lead to problems<br \/>\nbetween\t the two linguistic communities in the States.\t The<br \/>\npeople may indulge in acts of violence.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (F) On 30th July, 2000, Veerappan abducted Rajkumar from<br \/>\nhis  farm  house  along\t with three others.   As  of  today,<br \/>\nRajkumar and one Nag esh are still in Veerappan&#8217;s custody.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (G)\t No Police protection or security was provided\twhen<br \/>\nRajkumar visited the farm house.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (H) Soon after the abduction of Rajkumar and others, the<br \/>\ntwo  State  Governments\t decided to accept  the\t demands  of<br \/>\nVeerappan  to release those in respect of whom TADA  charges<br \/>\nand  detention\torders under the National Security Act\thave<br \/>\nbeen  withdrawn.  The decision was taken in the meeting held<br \/>\non 4\/5th August, 2000 between the Chief Ministers of the two<br \/>\nStates.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (I)\t Applications  under  Section 321  Cr.P.C.   seeking<br \/>\nconsent\t of  court  to withdraw TADA charges were  filed  to@@<br \/>\n\t     JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nfacilitate  ultimately\tthe release of accused persons\tfrom@@<br \/>\nJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\njudicial  custody  so  as to meet Veerappan&#8217;s  demand.\t The<br \/>\narrangement  was  that once TADA charges are withdrawn,\t the<br \/>\naccused\t in judicial custody will move bail applications  in<br \/>\ncases of offences under IPC and other penal enactments.\t The<br \/>\nPublic Prosecutor will concede and will not oppose the grant<br \/>\nof  bail.  The court will grant the bail and, thus,  accused<br \/>\nwill  come out from judicial custody and, thus, this  demand<br \/>\nof Veerappan would be met.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Keeping  in view the aforesaid facts, let me now  revert<br \/>\nto   application  filed\t under\t Section  321  Cr.P.C.\t The@@<br \/>\n     JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\napplication  filed under Section 321 has been reproduced  in<br \/>\nextenso\t  in   the  judgment  of  Justice   Bharucha.\t The<br \/>\napplication  makes  no\treference  whatsoever  to  any\tsuch<br \/>\narrangement  as\t mentioned  at (I) above.  The\tmain  ground<br \/>\nstated\tin  the application is that in order to restore\t the<br \/>\npeace  and normalcy in the border area and among the  people<br \/>\nliving\tin  the border area and to maintain peace among\t the<br \/>\npublic at general and inhabitants of the particular village,<br \/>\nthe  Prosecutor has decided to withdraw from the prosecution<br \/>\nthe  accused  charged  of   the\t offences  punishable  under<br \/>\nSections  3,  4 and 5 of the TADA.  Abdul Karim,  father  of<br \/>\nShakeel\t Ahmed, opposed the application on various  grounds,<br \/>\ninter  alia,  stating in the objection petition that if\t the<br \/>\ncases  against\tthe hardcore criminals are withdrawn  or  if<br \/>\nthey  are  released on bail that may expose the families  of<br \/>\nthe victims to terror unleashed by the TADA detenus, who may<br \/>\nunleash\t terror\t and  jeopardize   public  order  and  cause<br \/>\ndetriment  to the general public interest.  In reply to\t the<br \/>\nsaid  objections, instead of admitting that TADA charges are<br \/>\nbeing withdrawn to facilitate grant of bail, the stand taken<br \/>\nby  the Public Prosecutor, inter alia, is that Veerappan and<br \/>\nhis  associates\t will not be let out freely as they will  be<br \/>\nfacing\tprosecution  for other offences and, therefore,\t the<br \/>\nsubmission   that  the\tState\tGovernment  has\t yielded  to<br \/>\nblackmail tactics of outlaw Veerappan is not correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The Public Prosecutor has to be straight, forthright and<br \/>\nhonest and has to admit the arrangement and inform the court<br \/>\nthat  the  real arrangement is to ultimately facilitate\t the<br \/>\nrelease\t of  these  accused  from judicial  custody  by\t not<br \/>\nopposing  the bail applications after the withdrawal of TADA<br \/>\ncharges.   The arrangement as set out above has neither been<br \/>\ndisputed  nor  is it capable of being disputed.\t It is\twell<br \/>\nestablished that real purpose for withdrawal of TADA charges<br \/>\nwas to facilitate the grant of bail to the accused.  In such<br \/>\ncircumstances,\twhy the camouflage?  Why it is not so stated<br \/>\nin  the application filed under Section 321?  In fact, it is<br \/>\na  deceit.   These are the questions for which there  is  no<br \/>\nplausible  answer.  No court of law can be a party to such a<br \/>\ncamouflage  and deceit in judicial proceedings.\t The  answer<br \/>\nto these basic questions cannot be that the judge knew about<br \/>\nit   from  the\tvery  nature  of  the  case.   Under   these<br \/>\ncircumstances,\tit  cannot be said that the application\t was<br \/>\nmade  in  good\tfaith.\t The   satisfaction  for  moving  an<br \/>\napplication  under  Section  321 Cr.P.C.  has to be  of\t the<br \/>\nPublic\tProsecutor  which in the nature of the case in\thand<br \/>\nhas  to be based on the material provided by the State.\t The<br \/>\nnature\tof  the\t power to be exercised by  the\tCourt  while<br \/>\ndeciding  application under Section 321 is delineated by the<br \/>\ndecision  of  this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/996328\/\">Sheonandan Paswan v.   State  of<br \/>\nBihar  &amp; Ors.<\/a>  [(1987) 1 SCC 288].  This decision holds that<br \/>\ngrant  of consent by the court is not a matter of course and<br \/>\nwhen  such an application is filed by the Public  Prosecutor<br \/>\nafter taking into consideration the material before him, the<br \/>\ncourt  exercises its judicial discretion by considering such<br \/>\nmaterial  and on such consideration either gives consent  or<br \/>\ndeclines  consent.  It also lays down that the court has  to<br \/>\nsee  that  the\tapplication is made in good  faith,  in\t the<br \/>\ninterest  of public policy and justice and not to thwart  or<br \/>\nstifle the process of law or suffers from such improprieties<br \/>\nor illegalities as to cause manifest injustice if consent is<br \/>\ngiven.\t True,\tthe power of the court under Section 321  is<br \/>\nsupervisory  but  that does not mean that  while  exercising<br \/>\nthat  power,  the consent has to be granted on mere  asking.<br \/>\nThe court has to examine that all relevant aspects have been<br \/>\ntaken  into consideration by the Public Prosecutor and\/or by<br \/>\nthe  Government\t in  exercise  of  its\texecutive  function.<br \/>\nBesides\t the  eight questions noticed in the main  judgment,<br \/>\nthe  question  and aspect of association of  Veerappan\twith<br \/>\nthose\thaving\tsecessionist  aspirations   were  also\t not<br \/>\nconsidered.   Further though it may have been considered  as<br \/>\nto  what  happened  on\t1st August,  immediately  after\t the<br \/>\nabduction  of Rajkumar, but what does not seem to have\tbeen<br \/>\nconsidered  is that those were spontaneous outburst and\t the<br \/>\nauthorities  may  have been taken unaware but what would  be<br \/>\nthe  ground  realities when the law enforcing agencies\thave<br \/>\nsufficient  time to prepare for any apprehended contingency.<br \/>\nThe  application and order under Section 321 is a result  of<br \/>\npanic  reaction\t by  overzealous   persons  without   proper<br \/>\nunderstanding  of  the\tproblem\t and  consideration  of\t the<br \/>\nrelevant  material,  though they may not have  any  personal<br \/>\nmotive.\t  It does not appear that anybody considered that if<br \/>\ndemocratically elected governments give an impression to the<br \/>\ncitizens  of this country of being lawbreakers, would it not<br \/>\nbreed  contempt\t for law;  would it not invite\tcitizens  to<br \/>\nbecome\ta law onto themselves.\tIt may lead to anarchy.\t The<br \/>\nGovernments  have to consider and balance the choice between<br \/>\nmaintenance  of\t law  and order and anarchy.   It  does\t not<br \/>\nappear\tthat  anyone considered this aspect.  It yielded  to<br \/>\nthe  pressure  tactics\tof  those   who\t according  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  are\t out  to terrorise the Police force  and  to<br \/>\noverawe\t the  elected Governments.  It does not appear\tthat<br \/>\nanyone\tconsidered  that with their action people  may\tlose<br \/>\nfaith  in  the\tdemocratic  process, when  they\t see  public<br \/>\nauthority  flouted  and the helplessness of the\t Government.<br \/>\nThe  aspect  of paralysing and discrediting  the  democratic<br \/>\nauthority  had\tto be taken into consideration.\t It  is\t the<br \/>\nexecutive  function to decide in public interest to withdraw<br \/>\nfrom  prosecution  as  claimed.\t  But it  is  also  for\t the<br \/>\nGovernment to maintain its existence.  The self-preservation<br \/>\nis  the\t most pervasive aspect of sovereignty.\tTo  preserve<br \/>\nits  independence  and\tterritories is the highest  duty  of<br \/>\nevery  nation  and  to attain these ends  nearly  all  other<br \/>\nconsiderations are to be subordinated.\tOf course, it is for<br \/>\nthe  State  to\tconsi\t   der\tthese  aspects\tand  take  a<br \/>\nconscious  decision.  In the present case, without  withdraw<br \/>\nconsideration of these aspects the decision was taken to the<br \/>\nTADA  charges.\t It is evident from material now  placed  on<br \/>\nrecord\tbefore\tthis  Court  that Veerappan  was  acting  in<br \/>\nconsultation  with  secessionist organisations\/groups  which<br \/>\nhad  the object of liberation of Tamil from India.  There is<br \/>\nno  serious challenge to this aspect.  None of the aforesaid<br \/>\naspects\t were  considered  by the Government or\t the  Public<br \/>\nProsecutors  before  having recourse to Section 321  Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nWith  these additional reasons, I am in complete  respectful<br \/>\nagreement  with\t the  conclusion and opinion  of  my  senior<br \/>\ncolleague Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice S.P.  Bharucha.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000 Author: Y Sabharwal Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, J. PETITIONER: SHRI ABDUL KARIM Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/11\/2000 BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal, J. JUDGMENT: Y.K.SABHARWAL,J. L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J I have gone through the elaborate and [&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-245912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000 - 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-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-04T23:34:45+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\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-04T23:34:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1866,\"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-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000\",\"name\":\"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-04T23:34:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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 Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000 - 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-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-04T23:34:45+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\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-04T23:34:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000"},"wordCount":1866,"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-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000","name":"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-04T23:34:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-abdul-karim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-7-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Abdul Karim vs The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors on 7 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/245912","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=245912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245912\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}