{"id":248663,"date":"1996-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996"},"modified":"2017-12-16T11:26:10","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T05:56:10","slug":"p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6), 480\t 1996 SCALE (4)344<\/div>\n
Author: V K.<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataswami K. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.S.RAJYA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nANAND, A.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (6)   480\t  1996 SCALE  (4)344\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t O R D E R
\nK. VENKATASWAMI, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Heard learned counsel for the parties.
\n     The appeal\t was allowed  with costs  by our Order dated
\n27.3.1996 reserving  the reasons  to be given later. Now the
\nreasons are given.\n<\/p>\n
     The short question that arises for our consideration in
\nthis appeal  is\t whether  the  respondent  is  justified  in
\npursuing the prosecution against the appellant under section
\n5(2)  read   with  section  5(1)(e)<\/a>  of\t the  Prevention  of
\nCorruption Act\t1947 notwithstanding  the fact\tthat  on  an
\nidentical  charge   the\t appellant  was\t exonerated  in\t the
\ndepartmental proceedings  in the light of a report submitted
\nby the\tCentral Vigilance  Commission and  concurred by\t the
\nUnion Public Service Commission.\n<\/p>\n
     Short facts are as under :\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  started his\t career in  a college in the
\nyear 1955  and switched\t over to TISCO in the year 1959 till
\nhe was selected and appointed as Inspector in the Income Tax
\nService in  the year  1961. The\t appellant’s wife was also a
\nteacher in  the Central School at Bokaro Steel City. She was
\nallotted on long lease a plot at Bokaro in the year 1980 for
\na sum  of Rs.  20,000\/- by  the\t Steel\tAuthority  of  India
\nLimited (for  short “SAIL”).  As per  terms  and  conditions
\nimposed by  SAIL, shops in the ground floor and residence at
\nfirst floor  were constructed  by  the\tappellant  with\t his
\nearnings  as   well  as\t  the  earnings\t of  his  wife.\t The
\nconstruction was  strictly under  the supervision and on the
\ndrawings  supplied   freely  by\t  SAIL\ttownship  authority.
\nSubsequently  the  building  was  valued  by  SAIL  township
\nengineer at Rs.4.75 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  in the  meanwhile got  promotion and was
\nfunctioning as\tIncome-tax Officer A-Ward, Dhanbad from 1981
\nto 1985.  It appears  that in the course of discharge of his
\nduties, he  impounded  the  books  of  accounts\t of  certain
\nbusiness people\t who seemed  to have complained to the local
\nCongress  Party\t M.P.  who  in\tturn  complained  about\t the
\nappellant to  the Minister  of Finance\twith  a\t request  to
\ntransfer the  appellant and  to order  for  a  CBI  inquiry.
\nAccordingly,  an   FIR\twas   lodged  on  9.4.1986  and\t the
\nappellant’s residence  and office  were raided\ton  11.4.86.
\nHowever, nothing  worth mentioning  was found.\tUltimately a
\ncharge-sheet was  filed on 31.7.89 showing the assets of the
\nappellant consisting of cash, immovable property (house) and
\njewellery as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     i) Building at Bokaro\t\t  Rs. 7,69,300.00\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) NSCs\t\t\t\t  Rs.\t82,500.00\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii) Bank balance\t\t\t  Rs.\t 1,584.91\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iv) Household articles\t\t  Rs. 1,34,709.00
\n\t\t\t\t\t __________________
\n\t\t\t       Total\t  Rs. 9,88,093.91\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t ——————<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     As against\t this the  estimated savings  for the  check
\nperiod (1973 to March 1986) was arrived at in the sum of Rs.
\n6,30,000\/- and\ton that basis it was alleged that the assets
\nwere disproportionate to the extent of Rs. 3,57,439.00.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant aggrieved by the above charge being taken
\ncognizance of  by the  Special Judge  challenged the same by
\nmoving the  Patna High\tCourt under  section 482<\/a> Cr.P.C. The
\nHigh Court  by order  dated 3.8*90  allowed the petition and
\nremitted the matter back to, the Special Judge directing him
\nto get\ta preliminary  enquiry conducted by higher authority
\nof the\tappellant or  do it himself before taking cognizance
\nof the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  the grievance  of  the  appellant  that  without
\nstrictly complying  with the  remit order of the High Court,
\nthe Special  Judge took\t cognizance of the matter and wanted
\nto proceed  further. Aggrieved\tby that\t the appellant again
\nmoved the  Patna High  Court under  section 482<\/a>\t Cr.P.C. for
\nquashing the  cognizance of  charge as mentioned above. This
\ntime the  High Court dismissed the petition holding that the
\nissues raised  before it  have to  be gone into in the final
\nproceedings and\t those cannot  be raised  at the preliminary
\nstage.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  aggrieved by the Order of the High Court
\nhas filed the above appeal by Special Leave.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  not be  quite out\tof place just to mention how
\nthe appellant  was persecuted, if we may use that expression
\non the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  basis of  the FIR\tand consequential  raid\t the
\nappellant  was\tplaced\tunder  suspension  on  24.11.86.  No
\nprogress was  shown nearly  for two  years which obliged the
\nappellant  to  move  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,
\nCalcutta (“CAT”\t for short). On 1.6.88 the Tribunal directed
\nthe Government\tto complete  the investigation\twithin three
\nmonths failing\twhich the fresh consideration. The appellant
\nagain moved  the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Patna for
\npromotion and  other reliefs  which  in\t turn  directed\t the
\nrevocation of  the order  of suspension\t and also to release
\nall increments\tfrom 1987  onwards and\tfor opening  of\t the
\nsealed cover  in which\tthe appellant’s\t promotion order had
\nbeen placed  by the  Department. That  order of\t the CAT was
\nchallenged by  the Department  in this\tCourt and this Court
\ndismissed  the\t Special   Leave   Petition   on   14.10.91.
\nSimultaneously\tthe   appellant\t was  given  a\tdepartmental
\ncharge-sheet containing identical charges. For more than two
\nyears no  progress was\tmade by the Department as no Inquiry
\nOfficer was  appointed. Again,\tthe appellant  was forced to
\nmove the  CAT, Patna  for quashing  the departmental charge-
\nsheet. A  direction was given by the CAT, Patna on 22.2.1993
\nto complete  the  departmental\tenquiry\t by  15.5.1995.\t The
\ndepartmental enquiry  was  conducted  by  Central  Vigilance
\nCommission and\tthe Central  Vigilance\tCommission  after  a
\ndetailed  enquiry   submitted  a   report  exonerating\t the
\nappellant of  all the  charges. The Department forwarded the
\nreport of  the Central\tVigilance Commission for the opinion
\nof the\tUnion Public  Service Commission.  By a long report,
\nthe Union  Public  Service  Commission\tconcurred  with\t the
\nconclusion of  exonerating the appellant of all the charges.
\nAccepting the report of the Union Public Service Commission,
\nthe President  order of suspension would automatically stand
\nrevoked. Since the CBI did not complete the investigation as
\ndirected by CAT, the suspension stood automatically revoked.
\nThereafter the\tCBI got the appellant’s house inspected by a
\nteam of\t three C.P.W.D.\t engineers on  27.9.88 on which date
\nthe appellant and his family members were away and the house
\nwas  locked.  The  appellant  was  forced  to  move  Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal,  Patna for  getting his promotional
\norder and in that course the Tribunal passed some strictures
\nagainst the  authorities. At  last the\tCBI filed  a charge-
\nsheet on  31.7.89 and  the main\t basis for this charge-sheet
\nwas the\t valuation of  the appellant’s house at Bokaro which
\nthe CBI\t fixed at  Rs. 7,69,300.00  as against\tthe  earlier
\nvaluation by the Income-tax Department at Rs. 4.67 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  also mention  that the only ground on which the
\narguments were addressed both by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant and  the learned  Sr. counsel\t for the  respondent
\ncentered round\tthe  valuation\tfixed  by  the\tCBI  to\t the
\nappellant’s house at Bokaro.\n<\/p>\n
     Soon after\t the Special  Judge took  cognizance of\t the
\ncharge, the  appellant was  again placed under suspension on
\n31.5.90. As mentioned above by order dated 3.8.90 High Court
\nof Patna  quashed the  cognizance taken by the Special Judge
\nand  remitted\tthe  matter  for  fresh\t consideration.\t The
\nappellant again\t moved the  Central Administrative Tribunal,
\nPatna for promotion and other reliefs which in turn directed
\nthe revocation\tof the\torder  of  suspension  and  also  to
\nrelease all  increments from 1987 onwards and for opening of
\nthe sealed  cover in  which the\t appellant’s promotion order
\nhad been placed by the Department. That order of the CAT was
\nchallenged by  the Department  in this\tCourt and this Court
\ndismissed  the\t Special   Leave   Petition   on   14.10.91.
\nSimultaneously\tthe   appellant\t was  given  a\tdepartmental
\ncharge-sheet containing identical charges. For more than two
\nyears no  progress was\tmade by the Department as no Inquiry
\nOfficer was  appointed. Again,\tthe appellant  was forced to
\nmove the  CAT, Patna  for quashing  the departmental charge-
\nsheet. A  direction was given by the CAT, Patna on 22.2.1993
\nto complete  the  departmental\tenquiry\t by  15.5.1995.\t The
\ndepartmental enquiry  was  conducted  by  Central  Vigilance
\nCommission and\tthe Central  Vigilance\tCommission  after  a
\ndetailed  enquiry   submitted  a   report  exonerating\t the
\nappellant of  all the  charges. The Department forwarded the
\nreport of  the Central\tVigilance Commission for the opinion
\nof the\tUnion Public  Service Commission.  By a long report,
\nthe Union  Public  Service  Commission\tconcurred  with\t the
\nconclusion of  exonerating the appellant of all the charges.
\nAccepting the report of the Union Public Service Commission,
\nthe President  passed the  final orders\t in  favour  of\t the
\nappellant. In  spite  of  that\twe  are\t informed  that\t the
\nappellant has not got the full retrial benefits.\n<\/p>\n
     Now reverting  to the  merits of  the case\t it  is\t the
\ncontention of  the learned counsel for the appellant that in
\nview  of   the\tclear\treports\t of  the  Central  Vigilance
\nCommission  and\t  the  Union   Public\tService\t  Commission
\nconcerning   identical\t departmental\tcharge,\t  there\t  is
\nabsolutely nothing  for the  prosecution to proceed further.
\nHe also\t submitted that notwithstanding the direction of the
\nHigh Court  to the  Special  Judge  to\thold  a\t preliminary
\nenquiry before\ttaking cognizance of the charge sheet either
\nby himself  or through\thigher authorities of the appellant,
\nthe learned  Special Judge  has taken  cognizance once again
\nwithout holding\t any  preliminary  enquiry.  Therefore,\t the
\norder of  the Special Judge taking cognizance of the charge-
\nsheet confirmed\t by the\t High Court  cannot be sustained. On
\nthis point he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in
\nthe case  of P.Siraiuddin  vs. State  of  Madras<\/a>  [1970\t (3)
\nS.C.R. 931]. According to Mr. Prashant Bhushan the result of
\ndepartmental enquiry  must be  taken as\t preliminary enquiry
\nand in view of the exoneration order, further proceedings in
\ncriminal  charge  should  be  dropped.\tIt  is\tthe  further
\nsubmission of  the learned  counsel, for  the appellant that
\nthe very same engineers who have given the report earlier to
\nthe Income-tax\tDepartment now\tat the\tinstance of the CBI,
\npresumably on  pressure, have  given different valuation and
\nhere  again  there  are\t over-writings\tand  alterations  in
\nseveral places. According to the learned counsel the Central
\nVigilance Commission  has dealt\t with  this  aspect  in\t its
\nreport elaborately  and ultimately came to a conclusion that
\nthe  subsequent\t  valuation  reports  on  which\t CBI  placed
\nreliance are  of doubtful nature. The same view was taken by
\nthe Union  Public Service  Commission.\tEven  otherwise\t the
\nvalue given  as basis  for the charge-sheet is not the value
\ngiven in the report subsequently given by the valuers.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Malhotra,  learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
\nrespondent, contended  that both  the learned  Special Judge
\nand the learned Single Judge of the High Court have not shut
\nout the\t appellant from\t establishing his  case in the final
\nhearing\t and   the  points  now\t raised\t can  very  well  be
\nestablished by\tgiving evidence\t at the appropriate time and
\nthere is  no case  made out  for quashing the charge itself.
\nAccording  to\tthe  learned   counsel\tnotwithstanding\t the
\nfindings rendered under the departmental enquiry, the CBI is
\nentitled to  proceed on\t the basis of the material available
\nand the mere allegation that the reports regarding the value
\nof the\tbuilding was  of doubtful  nature will\tnot take the
\nplace of  proof and that has to be gone into and established
\nin the\tfinal hearing after taking evidence of the concerned
\nvaluers. He,  therefore, supported the orders of the learned
\nSpecial Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court
\n     At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel
\nfor the\t respondent could  not but  accept the position that
\nthe standard  of proof\trequired to establish the guilt in a
\ncriminal case  is far  higher than  the\t standard  of  proof
\nrequired  to   establish  the\tguilt  in  the\tdepartmental
\nproceedings. He\t also accepted that in the present case, the
\ncharge in  the departmental  proceedings and in the criminal
\nproceedings is\tone and\t the same.  He did  not dispute\t the
\nfindings rendered  in the  departmental proceedings  and the
\nultimate result\t of it.\t On these  premises, if\t we  proceed
\nfurther then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of
\nthe appellant.\tFor if\tthe charge  which is identical could
\nnot be established in a departmental proceedings and in view
\nof the\tadmitted discrepancies\tin the\treports submitted by
\nthe valuers  one wonders  what is  there further  to proceed
\nagainst the  appellant\tin  criminal  proceedings.  In\tthis
\ncontext, we  can usefully  extract certain relevant portions
\nfrom the  report of the Central Vigilance Commission on this
\naspect.\n<\/p>\n
     “Neither the  prosecution\tnor  the
\n     defence has  produced the author of
\n     various  reports\tto  confirm  the
\n     valuation. The  documents cited  in
\n     the list  of documents  is a report
\n     signed  by\t  two  engineers  namely
\n     S\/Sh. S.N.Jha  and\t D.N.  Mukherjee
\n     whereas  the  document  brought  on
\n     record (Ex.  S-20) has  been signed
\n     by three  engineers. There\t is also
\n     difference in  the estimated  value
\n     of the property in the statement of
\n     imputation\t and   the  report.  The
\n     document at Ex.S-20 has been signed
\n     by three engineers and the property
\n     has been  valued at  Rs. 4,85,000\/-
\n     for  the\tground\tfloor\tand  Rs.
\n     2,55,600\/- for  the second floor. A
\n     total    of     this    comes    to
\n     Rs.7,40,900\/-  which   is\t totally
\n     different from  the figure\t of  Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7,69,800\/-indicated     in\t     the
\n     statement of  imputation.\tNone  of
\n     the  engineers   who  prepared  the
\n     valuation report  though  cited  as
\n     prosecution   witnesses\tappeared
\n     during the\t course of enquiry. This
\n     supports the  defence argument that
\n     the authenticity  of this\tdocument
\n     is in  serious doubts. It is a fact
\n     that the Income Tax Authorities got
\n     this property  evaluated by  S\/Sh.S
\n     N.Jha and\tVasudev and  as per this
\n     report  at\t pages\t50  to\t63  they
\n     estimated\tthe   property\tat   Rs.
\n     4,57,600\/- including  the\tcost  of
\n     land Rs.  1,82,000\/- for ground and
\n     manezaine floor plus Rs. 2,55,600\/-
\n     for first\tfloor and  Rs.\t20,000\/-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     for cost  of land).  Thus both  the
\n     engineers\t  who\t prepared    the
\n     valuation\treport\tfor  income  tax
\n     purposes also  prepared the  report
\n     for  the\tCBI  and   there  is  no
\n     indication in the subsequent report
\n     as to  why there is a difference in
\n     the  value\t  of  the   property.  A
\n     perusal  of   these   two\t reports
\n     reveals that there is difference in
\n     the specification\tof the work. The
\n     valuation report  prepared\t by  Sh.
\n     S.N.Jha for ground floor for income
\n     tax purposes  clearly  states  that
\n     the  structure   was  having   “RCC
\n     Pillars at\t places, brick\twork  in
\n     cement mortar,  RCC lintal,  60  cm
\n     walls, 9  inch floor  neight, 17.6,
\n     8.00, 8.00\t inch” but in the report
\n     for CBI  which was also prepared by
\n     him the  description is “RCC framed
\n     structure open  warandah  on  three
\n     sides   in\t   the\t ground\t  floor.
\n     Similarly, for  the first\tfloor it
\n     is written in the report as “partly
\n     framed structure  and  partly  load
\n     being walls, floor heights 3.20 mm.
\n     Further Sh.  S.N.Jha on  page 54 of
\n     Ex. D1  had adopted  a rate  of Rs.
\n     290 per  sq. mtr  for ground  floor
\n     and adding\t for extra height he had
\n     estimated\tground\tfloor  including
\n     mezaine floor at Rs.2,02,600\/-. But
\n     for the  report at Ex.S-20 the rate
\n     has been  raised to 365 per sq.mtr.
\n     There is  no explanation  for  this
\n     increase of rate by Rs. 75 per mtr.
\n     It is  also observed  that for  the
\n     updating of  the cost  of index 5-%
\n     was added\tto the\trate of Rs. 290\/
\n     as per  page 55  of Ex.  D-1 by Sh.
\n     S.N. Jha  but this\t has been raised
\n     to 97%  as an  esclanation\t to  the
\n     cost of  index in\tEx.S-20\t without
\n     explaining or  giving  the\t reasons
\n     therefore. It  is\tsurprising  that
\n     same set  of engineers have adopted
\n     different standard\t for  evaluating
\n     the  same\t property  at  different
\n     occasions. Obviously, either of the
\n     report is\tfalse and it was for the
\n     prosecution to suitably explain it.
\n     In\t the  absence  of  it  the  only
\n     inference\tto   be\t drawn\tis  that
\n     report at Ex-S-20 is not authentic.
\n     Since the\tsame  set  of  engineers
\n     have done\tthe  evaluation\t earlier
\n     and if  subsequently they felt that
\n     there was some error in the earlier
\n     report, they  should have explained
\n     detailed  reasons\t either\t in  the
\n     report itself  or during the course
\n     of enquiry.  Therefore, Ex.S-20  is
\n     not reliable.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20. Moreover  a perusal of Ex. S-20
\n     reveals that Sh. Vasudev, Executive
\n     Engineer has  recorded  a\tnote  as
\n     follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Hence the  valuation\t of  Sh.
\n     S.N.Jha was never superceded by any
\n     other estimates.  As  is  confirmed
\n     from  the\trecords,  his  estimated
\n     figures were  only accounted for by
\n     the ITO Bokaro”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Thus according to Sh. Vadusev,
\n     who was  the senior-most  among the
\n     three CPWD\t engineers who\tprepared
\n     Ex.S-20, the  valuation  of  ground
\n     floor remains at Rs.1,82,600\/- plus
\n     Rs.20,000\/- for  the cost\tof land.
\n     The first\tfloor as per Ex.S-20 was
\n     estimated at  Rs. 2,55,600\/-  and a
\n     total of  all  this  comes\t to  Rs.
\n     4,57,600\/- which  is very nearer to
\n     the declaration  of actuals  to the
\n     income tax\t authority and\talso the
\n     estimated cost  by the Bokaro Steel
\n     Township  Engineer\t and  the  Govt.
\n     approved valuer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21. It  is\t clear\tfrom  the  above
\n     discussions   that\t   though    the
\n     document cited in Annexure III is a
\n     joint report  of two engineers what
\n     has been  brought on  record  is  a
\n     document signed  by three engineers
\n     the same set of engineers evaluated
\n     the   property   for   income   tax
\n     purposes  and   there  is\t a  vast
\n     difference\t in  the  specifications
\n     and   the\t  rates\t  adopted    for
\n     calculating  the  cost  in\t Ex.S-20
\n     have  been\t increased  without  any
\n     explanation  and\tnone  of   these
\n     engineers were  produced during the
\n     course of\tenquiry to  clarify  the
\n     position. Hence the authenticity of
\n     Ex. S-20  is doubtful as claimed by
\n     the defence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     22. It  needs to  be mentioned that
\n     the report at Ex.S-20 has evaluated
\n     the ground\t floor at Rs. 4,85,300\/-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     and a  note to  the effect that 10%
\n     should   be    allowed   for   self
\n     supervision  and\tprocurement   of
\n     material has  also been recorded at
\n     the end.  On  this\t basis\tthe  net
\n     value of  ground floor comes to Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4,36,810\/-\t   (Rs.\t   4,85,344    –
\n     Rs.48,534).  The  first  floor  has
\n     been evaluated  at\t Rs.  2,55,600\/-
\n     after allowing  the  allowance  for
\n     self supervision  and  a  total  of
\n     both  items   would  come\t to  Rs.
\n     6,62,410\/-. Thus,\teven the  report
\n     at ex.  S-20 does\tnot support  the
\n     prosecution case  that as\tper  the
\n     report  of\t  CPWD\t Engineers   the
\n     property\tis    valued   at    Rs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7,69,800\/-.   As\t the\tproperty
\n     assessed\tby    the   income   tax
\n     authority for  Rs. 4.67  lakhs  and
\n     even the  valuation  given\t by  the
\n     Bokaro Steel  Township Engineer and
\n     the Govt.\tapproved valuer are very
\n     nearer   to    this   figure,   the
\n     reasonable value  of this\tproperty
\n     could only\t be taken  as 4.75 lakhs
\n     assessed  by  the\tBokaro\tTownship
\n     Engineer\ton   detailed\testimate
\n     basis.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It may  not be  out of  place to extract a portion from
\nthe order  exonerating the  appellant from the charge framed
\nin the departmental proeedings. It reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “The   Commission\t after\t careful
\n     consideration  of\t the  facts  and
\n     records of\t the case,  have advised
\n     that the  savings of the applicant,
\n     Shri P.S. Rajya, were more than the
\n     assets   acquired\t by   him   and,
\n     therefore,\t   the\t   charge     of
\n     acquisition\tof\t  assets
\n     disproprotionate to income does not
\n     stand proved.  A copy of the advice
\n     of the  Commissioner  is  enclosed.
\n     The Commission  have  also\t advised
\n     that the  ends of\tjustice would be
\n     met  by   exonerating  the\t charged
\n     Officer, Shri P.S. Rajya.
\n     The  President  has  given\t careful
\n     consideration  to\t the  facts  and
\n     records of\t the case  and advice of
\n     the UPSC. The President has come to
\n     the conclusion  that the  advice of
\n     the  UPSC\t be  acepted.\tIt   is,
\n     therefore, held  that the\tArticles
\n     of charge framed against Shri Rajya
\n     has not  been proved. The President
\n     is, therefore, pleased to exonerate
\n     Shri  Rajya,  AIT\t(Retd.)\t of  the
\n     charges framed against him and drop
\n     the proceedings  initiated\t against
\n     him.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are inclined to think that the above extracts give a
\ncorrect picture about the issue.\n<\/p>\n
     At the risk of repetition, we may state that the charge
\nhad not\t been proved  and on  that basis  the appellant\t was
\ncleared of  departmental enquiry. In this connection, we may
\nalso usefully  cite a  decision of  this Court\tin State  of
\nHaryana and  Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others<\/a> (1992 Supp.(1)
\nSCC 335).  This Court  after considering  almost all earlier
\ndecisions has  given guidelines\t relating to the exercise of
\nthe  extra   ordinary  power   under  Article\t226<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution or the inherent powers under Section 482<\/a> of the
\nCode of\t Criminal procedure  for quashing  an  F.I.R.  or  a
\ncomplaint. This Court observed as follows ;\n<\/p>\n
     “In    the\t   backdrop    of    the
\n     interpretation   of   the\t various
\n     relevant  provisions  of  the  Code<\/a>
\n     under  Chapter   XIV  and\t of  the
\n     principles\t of  law  enunciated  by
\n     this Court in a series of decisions
\n     relating to  the  exercise\t of  the
\n     extraordinary power  under\t Article
\n     226<\/a> or  the inherent  powers  under
\n     Section 482<\/a>  of the  Code which  we
\n     have   extracted\tand   reproduced
\n     above,  we\t  give\t the   following
\n     categories\t of   cases  by\t way  of
\n     illustration  wherein   such  power
\n     could  be\t exercised   either   to
\n     prevent abuse of the process of any
\n     court or  otherwise to  secure  the
\n     ends of  justice, though it may not
\n     be\t possible   to\tlay   down   any
\n     precise,\tclearly\t   defined   and
\n     sufficiently    channelized     and
\n     inflexible\t guidelines   or   rigid
\n     formulae and  to give an exhaustive
\n     list  of\tmyriad\tkinds  of  cases
\n     wherein  such   power   should   be
\n     exercised.\n<\/p>\n
     (1) Where\tthe allegations\t made in
\n     the first information report or the
\n     complaint, even  if they  are taken
\n     at their face value and accepted in
\n     their entirety  do not  prime facie
\n     constitute any  offence or make out
\n     a case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) Where\tthe  allegation\t in  the
\n     first information\treport and other
\n     materials, if any, accompanying the
\n     FIR  donot\t disclose  a  cognizable
\n     offence,\t    justifying\t      an
\n     investigation  by\tpolice\tofficers
\n     under Section  156(1)<\/a>  of\tthe  ode
\n     except  under   an\t  order\t  of   a
\n     Magistrate within\tthe  purview  of
\n     Section 155(2)<\/a> of the ode.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)   Where    the\t  uncontroverted
\n     allegations  made\tin  the\t FIR  or
\n     complaint\t  and\t the\tevidence
\n     collected in support of the same do
\n     not disclose  the commission of any
\n     offence and make out a case against
\n     the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) Where,\t the allegations  in the
\n     FIR do  not constitute a cognizable
\n     offence but  constitute only a non-\n<\/p>\n
     ongnzable offence, no investigation
\n     is permitted  by  a  magistrate  as
\n     contemplated under\t Section  155(2)<\/a>
\n     of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
     (5) Where\tthe allegations\t made in
\n     the FIR  or complaint are so absurd
\n     and inherently  improbable\t on  the
\n     basis of  which no\t prudent  person
\n     can ever  reach a\tjust  conclusion
\n     that there is sufficient ground for
\n     proceeding against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     (6) Where there is an express legal
\n     bar  engrafted   in  any\tof   the
\n     provisions\t of   the  Code<\/a>\t or  the
\n     concerned\tAct   (under   which   a
\n     criminal proceeding  is instituted)
\n     to the  institution and continuance
\n     of\t the  proceedings  and\/or  where
\n     there is  a specific  provision  in
\n     the  Code<\/a>\tor  the\t concerned  Act,
\n     providing efficacious  redress  for
\n     the  grievance   of  the  aggrieved
\n     party.\n<\/p>\n
     (7) Where\ta criminal proceeding is
\n     manifestly attended  with mala fide
\n     and\/or  where   the  proceeding  is
\n     maliciously  instituted   with   an
\n     ulterior\tmotive\t  for\twreaking
\n     vengeance on the accused and with a
\n     view to spite him due to private an
\n     personal grudge.\n<\/p>\n
\t  We also give a note of caution
\n     to the  effect that  the  power  of
\n     quashing  a   criminal   proceeding
\n     should be\texercised very sparingly
\n     and with  circumspection  and  that
\n     too in  the rarest\t of rare  cases;\n<\/p>\n
     that  the\t court\t will\tnot   be
\n     justified\tin   embarking\tupon  an
\n     enquiry as\t to the\t reliability  or
\n     genuineness  or  otherwise\t of  the
\n     allegations made  in the FIR or the
\n     complaint\t   and\t    that     the
\n     extraordinary or inherent powers do
\n     not    confer     an-     arbitrary
\n     jurisdiction on  the court\t to  act
\n     according to its whim or caprice.”\n<\/p>\n
     The present  case can  be brought\tunder more  than one
\nhead given above without any difficulty.\n<\/p>\n
     The above discussion is sufficient to allow this appeal
\non the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
     Even though all these facts including the Report of the
\nCentral Vigilance  Commission were  brought to the notice of
\nthe High  Court, unfortunately,\t the High  Court took a view
\nthat the  issues raised\t had to\t be gone  into in  the final
\nproceedings  and   the\tReport\t of  the  Central  Vigilance
\nCommission, exonerating\t the appellant of the same charge in
\ndepartmental proceedings  would not  conclude  the  criminal
\ncase against  the appellant.  We have  already held that for
\nthe reasons  given, on\tthe peculiar facts of this case, the
\ncriminal proceedings  initiated against the appellant cannot
\nbe pursued.  Therefore, we  do not agree with the view taken
\nby the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for
\nour order  dated  27.3.1996  for  allowing  the\t appeal\t and
\nquashing  the\timpugned  criminal  proceedings\t and  giving
\nconsequential reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
     Before parting with the case, we cannot but express our
\nanguish about  the way\tin which  the C.B.I.  has  conducted
\nitself in  this case. From the record it is seen that number
\nof adjournments\t were  taken  for  getting  instructions  to
\nwithdraw  the\tprosecution.  After   taking  a\t  number  of
\nadjournments, ultimately the Department decided to leave the
\nmatter to the court’s decision.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  connection, it  will be  useful to  set out  a
\nportion from  the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the
\nappellant which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “It  seems,   however,   that   the
\n     reluctance of  the Regional  C.B.I.
\n     in dropping the proceedings against
\n     the petitioner\/stumps from the fact
\n     that they\tused to\t forge the house
\n     valuation report  as the sole basis
\n     for charging  the\tpetitioner.  The
\n     fact that\tthis report is forged is
\n     abundantly clear from the facts and
\n     circumstances  set\t  out\tin   the
\n     S.L.P.By this  report the\thouse of
\n     the petitioner  was  sought  to  be
\n     valued at Rs. 3 lakhs and odd above
\n     the original  valuation by the same
\n     Engineer which  was accepted by the
\n     Income-tax\t Department.   On   this
\n     basis the\tpetitioner’s assets were
\n     shown to be Rs. 3 lakhs and odd and
\n     above as income.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The petitioner  has in fact filed a
\n     complaint under Section 340<\/a> Cr.P.C.
\n     for taking\t ognizance  against  the
\n     officer  concerned\t  for  using   a
\n     forged  document  in  charging  the
\n     petitioner. This  complaint of  the
\n     petitioner is  pending  before  the
\n     Special Judge  (CBI) Patna.  It  is
\n     perhaps on\t account of  the fear of
\n     being  found   guilty  on\t forgery
\n     document that  the Regional  C.B.I.
\n     Officers are  reluctant to withdraw
\n     the charge\t against the petitioner.
\n     That is  why after\t having a  short
\n     adjournment  on  6\t occasions  from
\n     this  Court   to  enable\tthem  to
\n     withdraw  the  proceedings\t against
\n     the  petitioner,\tthe  C.B.I.  has
\n     changed its  stand and  even  their
\n     Senior Counsel in his place.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We cannot\tsimply ignore  the above  extracts from\t the
\nrejoinder affidavit  in the  facts and\tthe circumstances of
\nthe case. To put it mildly we observe that we are not at all
\nhappy about the way in which the C.B.I. has conducted itself
\nin this\t case. We are sure that the department will not give
\nroom for such observations in the future.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6), 480 1996 SCALE (4)344 Author: V K. Bench: Venkataswami K. (J) PETITIONER: P.S.RAJYA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/05\/1996 BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J) CITATION: JT […]<\/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-248663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996 - 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\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-16T05:56:10+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T05:56:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4413,\"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\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996\",\"name\":\"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T05:56:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996 - 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\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-16T05:56:10+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T05:56:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996"},"wordCount":4413,"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\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996","name":"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T05:56:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-rajya-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-9-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.S.Rajya vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 1996"}]},{"@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\/248663","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=248663"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248663\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248663"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248663"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248663"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}