{"id":246320,"date":"2008-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008"},"modified":"2019-02-04T06:00:48","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T00:30:48","slug":"tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 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\nRam Narain                  Vs.      State of Rajasthan\n         (1) S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1151\/2004\n\nTarkesh Telang              Vs.      State of Rajasthan\n         (2) S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1192\/2004\n\n      against the judgment dt.23.11.04 passed by\n        the Special Judge, P.C.Act Cases, Udaipur,\n               in Special Case No.107\/97.\n\n\nDate of Judgment:                         Aug.20, 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.Mahesh Boda     )\nMr.Anil Kumar Singh) for appellants.\n\nMr.O.P.Rathi, Public Prosecutor.\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
1.   These are the two appeals arising out of the common<\/p>\n
judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur dated 23.11.2004, whereby he<\/p>\n
convicted & sentenced both the accused appellants Ram Narain<\/p>\n
and Tarkesh Telang under various offences as under:<\/p>\n
U\/Sec.120B IPC :        One year’s imprisonment & a fine of
\n                        Rs.25,000\/- and in default, to further
\n                        undergo three months’ S.I.\n<\/p>\n
U\/Sec.468 IPC     :     One year’s imprisonment & a fine of
\n                        Rs.25,000\/- and in default, to further
\n                        undergo three months’ S.I.\n<\/p>\n
U\/Sec.201 IPC     :     One year’s imprisonment & a fine of
\n                        Rs.25,000\/- and in default, to further
\n                        undergo three months’ S.I.<\/p>\n
\n\nU\/Sec.13(1)(d)          One year's imprisonment & a fine of\nr\/w Sec.13(2) of :      Rs.25,000\/- and in default, to further\nP.C.Act                 undergo three months' S.I.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     All   the   substantive   sentences   were   ordered   to   run<\/p>\n
concurrently.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   Facts leading to this appeal are that Bahadur Singh,<\/p>\n
Addl.S.P., ACB, Kota received information that Mahesh Chand<\/p>\n
Saraswat, A.En., Tarkesh Telang, Jr.Accountant and Ram Narain,<\/p>\n
LDC, with a criminal conspiracy, made forged entries in the<\/p>\n
muster roll with regard to distribution of the wheat price for<\/p>\n
famine relief work at Irrigation Sub Division of Rawatbhata in the
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
year 1987. The case was registered at Police Station, ACB, Jaipur<\/p>\n
and after investigation, the challan was filed against the above<\/p>\n
two accused appellants as also Mahesh Chand Saraswat, A.En.,<\/p>\n
who is absconding in this case and standing warrant has been<\/p>\n
issued against him, under ss.120B, 468 & 201 IPC and Sec.13(1)<\/p>\n
(d) r\/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,<\/p>\n
hereinafter referred-to as “the Act”. After hearing the arguments<\/p>\n
on charges, all the three were charged accordingly, to which<\/p>\n
they pleaded guilty and claimed trial. During trial, accused<\/p>\n
Mahesh Chand Saraswat absconded and the standing warrant<\/p>\n
was issued against him on 22.9.2000. As against the remaining<\/p>\n
two accused, the prosecution examined 35 witnesses. The<\/p>\n
statements of the accused were recorded u\/s.313 CrPC. They led<\/p>\n
no defence and after hearing the arguments, the learned trial<\/p>\n
Judge convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants as<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   At the outset, both the learned counsel Mr.Mahesh Boda<\/p>\n
and A.K.Singh appearing for the accused appellants have<\/p>\n
submitted that there is no iota of evidence against both of them<\/p>\n
but the trial Court without assigning any reasons, convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced accused appellants, which is per se against law and<\/p>\n
facts. According to them, the story is based on fabrication of the<\/p>\n
muster rolls on the basis of which the payments were made but
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
the muster rolls were prepared by Mahesh Chand Saraswat,<\/p>\n
A.En., about whom all the witnesses have said but he is<\/p>\n
absconding and both the accused appellants have been falsely<\/p>\n
implicated without there being any iota of evidence against<\/p>\n
them. It has been further submitted that while reproducing the<\/p>\n
evidence, the learned trial Judge in the concluding para came to<\/p>\n
the   conclusion   that   both   the   accused   appellants   hatched<\/p>\n
conspiracy with Mahesh Chand Saraswat, A.En., and they are<\/p>\n
guilty. This finding of the trial Court is perverse and without<\/p>\n
application of mind.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has supported<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    Upon re-appraisal of the evidence, the contention of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants finds favour from the available<\/p>\n
record of the case. Having discussed the evidence of PW 1 to PW<\/p>\n
35 from para No.7 to para No.46 of the judgment, the trial Court<\/p>\n
came to the conclusion in para 48 that the accused appellants<\/p>\n
Ram Narain and Tarkesh conspired with the accused Mahesh<\/p>\n
Chand in making forged entries in the muster rolls and obtained<\/p>\n
illegal gratification by putting loss to the State exchequer and<\/p>\n
thereafter sentenced them. Per se, the judgment of the trial<\/p>\n
Court is not reasoned. If the evidence is looked into, the main
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
investigating Officer is Shiv Ratan Bohra (PW 4), who was<\/p>\n
Dy.S.P. and investigated the case and seized certain documents.<\/p>\n
So far as the charge against the accused about the conspiracy<\/p>\n
with Mahesh Chand and making forged entries in the muster rolls<\/p>\n
by showing Beldars as vehicle drivers and destroying that record<\/p>\n
thereby putting loss to the State exchequer amounting to<\/p>\n
Rs.1,61,350\/- is concerned, the most important evidence in the<\/p>\n
case is of Padam Singh (PW 3), who was Executive Engineer of<\/p>\n
the Irrigation Department at Ranapratap Sagar Rawatbhata from<\/p>\n
July, 1986 to May, 1988. He has stated in his evidence that at<\/p>\n
the lowest level, the famine relief work was to be looked into by<\/p>\n
Mate, who used to mark attendance of the labourers, thereafter<\/p>\n
in sequence by Mistri and Junior Engineer, who used to make<\/p>\n
entry in the muster roll by verifying the attendance. After his<\/p>\n
verification, the Asstt.Engineer used to send the requisition and<\/p>\n
on that basis, they used to sanction the payment i.e. half by<\/p>\n
cash and half with the supply of foodgrains. From the evidence of<\/p>\n
this material witness, it reveals that muster rolls were being<\/p>\n
prepared from Mate to the Assistant Engineer and the last<\/p>\n
authority of issuing the requisition on verification was A.En.<\/p>\n
Mahesh Chand Saraswat, who is absconding in this case. There<\/p>\n
was neither any role of the store keeper Ram Narain nor of<\/p>\n
Accountant Tarkesh in making forged entries. This witness has<\/p>\n
further said that the muster roll Ex.P.4 to 30 were ofcourse
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
issued by Ram Narain and on some of the muster rolls, there is<\/p>\n
signature of recipient Asstt. Engineer Mahesh Chand. In the last,<\/p>\n
he has stated that on the basis of the muster roll, A.En. used to<\/p>\n
prepare the bill in the form of impressed cash amount, which<\/p>\n
was being checked by the Jr.Accountant and his Assistant and<\/p>\n
thereafter he used to issue the order of payment. According to<\/p>\n
him, the bills Ex.P.31 to 34 and 40 to 44 are signed by him and<\/p>\n
Mahesh Chand Asstt.Engineer and the requisition for issue of<\/p>\n
check on the basis of muster roll Ex.P.35 to 39 are signed by<\/p>\n
Mahesh Chand Saraswat, A.En. And Tarkesh Telang. When this<\/p>\n
witness was cross examined, he has specifically stated that there<\/p>\n
was no cutting in the impressed cash amount and there was no<\/p>\n
endorsement of the Accounts Section of the Divisional Office.<\/p>\n
From his evidence, it is clear that there was no role of the<\/p>\n
present accused appellants in preparing the muster rolls and<\/p>\n
there was no cutting in it.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    Heeralal Dhakad (PW 5), who was Manager of the<\/p>\n
Eklingpura   Gram    Sewa     Sahakari   Samiti,   has   stated   that<\/p>\n
whatever foodgrains was supplied in pursuance to the muster<\/p>\n
roll, was not to the truck drivers. Askaran Singh (PW 7), who<\/p>\n
was typist of the Irrigation Department has only identified the<\/p>\n
signature of Mahesh Chand Saraswat on Ex.P.6. According to<\/p>\n
him, the payment was to be made through Assistant Engineer
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
Mahesh Chand, who used to mark attendance. According to him,<\/p>\n
Tarkesh was not posted in his office but he was in the Divisional<\/p>\n
Office. PW 21 Modulal, who was Technician at the relevant time,<\/p>\n
has stated that Mahesh Chand used to check the work at the site<\/p>\n
for the payment but he does not know under what procedure, he<\/p>\n
used to do the work. Mohan Lal (PW 23) is the Manager of the<\/p>\n
Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Jawahar Nagar, Chittorgarh, who<\/p>\n
has said about the supply of the wheat to the labourers in<\/p>\n
pursuance to the muster rolls being prepared by the Overseer.<\/p>\n
He does not know Tarkesh Telang and Ram Narain Meena.<\/p>\n
Prakash Chand (PW 26) has also said that the payment was used<\/p>\n
to be made on the basis of the muster roll and he does not know<\/p>\n
any one of the accused. Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi (PW 33) who<\/p>\n
was Store Assistant at the relevant time, has said that the<\/p>\n
payment to the labourers was made on the basis of the muster<\/p>\n
rolls being prepared by the J.En. and later, on verification before<\/p>\n
the A.En. According to him, the duty of the Asstt.Engineer<\/p>\n
Mahesh Chand was to prepare the bill and send the same for<\/p>\n
payment to the Divisional Office. This witness has not said<\/p>\n
anything about the role of accused appellants except about<\/p>\n
Mahesh Chand Saraswat. According to him, the role of Ram<\/p>\n
Narain Meena Store Keeper was to issue muster roll and the role<\/p>\n
of Jr.Accountant was to check the entries of the bills. Ghasilal<\/p>\n
(PW 34), who was also employee, has said nothing about
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
present two accused appellants. Rest of the witnesses are formal<\/p>\n
witnesses, who are labourers and vehicle drivers and they have<\/p>\n
not blamed these two accused appellants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    From the above evidence, it appears that not a single<\/p>\n
witness has said that any forged entry was made by the present<\/p>\n
accused appellants in the muster roll in conspiracy with the<\/p>\n
accused Mahesh Chand, who is absconding and they received<\/p>\n
any benefit from him. The conclusion of guilt arrived at by the<\/p>\n
trial Court is totally unfounded from the evidence on record,<\/p>\n
which cannot be sustained. Whatever witnesses have been<\/p>\n
examined by the prosecution, they implicate the role of Mahesh<\/p>\n
Chand Saraswat, who is absconding, in preparing the muster<\/p>\n
rolls and bills in accordance with the muster rolls. In view of the<\/p>\n
zero evidence against the accused appellants, they cannot be<\/p>\n
convicted for the offences charged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the judgment<\/p>\n
dt.23.11.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur convicting accused appellants<\/p>\n
Ram Narain and Tarkesh Telang for the offences u\/ss.120B, 468<\/p>\n
and 201 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Act<\/p>\n
is set aside. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled.
\n                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
                      (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J.\n<\/p>\n
RANKAWAT JK, PS\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Ram Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1151\/2004 Tarkesh Telang Vs. State of Rajasthan (2) S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1192\/2004 against the judgment […]<\/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-246320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nTarkesh Telang vs State on 20 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\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-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=\"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-04T00:30:48+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\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T00:30:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1600,\"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\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T00:30:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 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":"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 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\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-04T00:30:48+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\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T00:30:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008"},"wordCount":1600,"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\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008","name":"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T00:30:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarkesh-telang-vs-state-on-20-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tarkesh Telang vs State on 20 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\/246320","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=246320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}