{"id":251711,"date":"2000-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000"},"modified":"2018-08-16T12:25:46","modified_gmt":"2018-08-16T06:55:46","slug":"rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Sethi<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 555  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nRAKESH KUMAR JAIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE THROUGH CBI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
    The\t criminal  complaint  under Section 5(4)  read\twith
\nSections  5(2)\t&  (3)\tof the Official\t Secrets  Act<\/a>,\t1923
\n(hereinafter  called  “the  Act”)   was\t filed\tagainst\t the
\npetitioner  in\tthe Court of Chief Metropolitan\t Magistrate,
\nDelhi by the Union of India through Deputy Superintendent of
\nPolice,\t  Central  Bureau  of\tInvestigation,\t SPE,\tAnti
\nCorruption  Unit,  New\tDelhi.\t  The  petitioner  filed  an
\napplication  under  Section  245<\/a>  of the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure  in  the Trial Court for being discharged  on\t the
\ngrounds\t that  the  order of the prosecution  had  not\tbeen
\npassed\tby an appropriate authority and that the  cognizance
\ncould  not have been taken as according to him the complaint
\nwas  barred  by\t limitation.  The  Magistrate  rejected\t the
\napplication  by\t his order dated 17.3.1995 and the  revision
\nfiled  in  the\tHigh  Court was\t dismissed  vide  the  order
\nimpugned  in  this  appeal.  Relying on\t the  provisions  of
\nSection\t 13(3)<\/a>\tof the Act, the Trial Magistrate as well  as
\nthe  High Court held that Section 13(3)<\/a> of the Act  provided
\nthe   taking  of  previous  consent   or  sanction  of\t the
\nappropriate  Government and the time required for  obtaining
\nsuch  consent  or  sanction was to be excluded in  terms  of
\nSection 470(3)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  It may be
\nnoticed at this stage that limitation in the instant case is
\nstated\tto  have  started  from 24th  April,  1985  and\t the
\ncomplaint  was\tfiled  in  the\t Court\ton  19th  May,\t1988
\napparently  beyond  25\tdays  of the  period  of  limitation
\nprescribed.   The plea of the complainant was that period of
\n79  days required for obtaining the sanction order should be
\nexcluded  in  computing the period of  limitation.   Pointed
\nreference  was\tmade  to the order of  sanction\t dated\t21st
\nApril,\t1988, copy of which has been placed on the paperbook
\nof  this appeal.  Accepting the plea of the complainant, the
\ncomplaint filed against the petitioner was held to be within
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Vijay  Bahuguna,\t Senior Advocate appearing  for\t the
\npetitioner  submitted  that  as no sanction or\tconsent\t was
\nprovided to be taken from the Government under Section 13(3)<\/a>
\nof  the Act, the complaint admittedly filed after the period
\nof  limitation was required to be dismissed and the  accused
\ndischarged  in terms of Section 245<\/a> of the Code of  Criminal
\nProcedure.   He did not urge any other point.  In support of
\nhis contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court
\nin  Electrical\tManufacturing Co.  Ltd.\t v.  D.D.   Bhargava<\/a>
\n[1968  (1)  SCR\t 394].\t Shri\tKirit  N.   Rawal,   learned
\nAdditional   Solicitor\tGeneral,   defending  the   impugned
\njudgment  has  submitted  that the judgment relied  upon  is
\ndistinguishable as the mandate of Section 13(3)<\/a> is clear and
\nunambiguous  providing\tthe  obtaining\tof  sanction  before
\nfiling\tthe  complaint.\t He drew our attention\ttowards\t the
\naverments  made in the petition and the order of sanction to
\nurge that even if no sanction was required, the complaint be
\ndeemed to have been filed within time as the complainant and
\nthe other officials bonafidely believed that such a sanction
\nwas necessary before the filing of the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
    In\torder  to  appreciate the rival submissions  of\t the
\nlearned\t counsel  appearing in the case, a cursory  look  at
\nsome of the provisions of the Act is necessary.\t The Act<\/a> has
\nbeen  enacted  to consolidate the law relating\tto  official
\nsecrets.    Section  5(2)<\/a>  provides   that  if\tany   person
\nvoluntarily  receives any secret official code or pass\tword
\nor  any\t sketch,  plan, model, article,\t note,\tdocument  or
\ninformation  knowing or having reasonable ground to believe,
\nat  the time when he receives it, that the code, pass  word,
\nsketch,\t plan, model, article, note, document or information
\nis  communicated  in contravention of the Act, he  shall  be
\nguilty\tof an offence under the section for which punishment
\nas provided under sub-section (4).  Section 6<\/a> deals with and
\nprovides  punishment  for  unauthorised\t  use  of  uniforms,
\nfalsification  of  reports, forgery, personation  and  false
\ndocuments.   Section 11<\/a> authorises a Presidency\t Magistrate,
\nMagistrate  of\tfirst class or Sub-divisional Magistrate  to
\nissue  such  warrants under the circumstances  as  specified
\ntherein.   Section 13<\/a> provides that no court other than that
\nof the Magistrate of First Class specially empowered in that
\nbehalf,\t shall\ttry any offence under the Act.\t Sub-section
\n(3) of Section 13<\/a>, reads:\n<\/p>\n
    “No\t court\tshall take cognizance of any  offence  under
\nthis  Act  unless upon complaint made by order of, or  under
\nauthority  from, the Appropriate Government or some  officer
\nempowered by the Appropriate Government in this behalf”\n<\/p>\n
    Sub-section\t (3)  provides\tthat cognizance\t of  offence
\nunder  the Act can be taken only upon complaint which is (a)@@
\n\t       JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nfiled  by  order  of appropriate government;  or  (b)  filed@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nunder  authority from the appropriate government;  or (c) by
\nsome  officer  empowered by the appropriate government.\t  No
\nconsent\t or sanction of the Government or any authority,  as
\ncontemplated  by  Explanation to Sub-section (3) of  Section
\n470<\/a>  Cr.P.C., is required for filing the complaint under the
\nAct.   ‘Consent’  or ‘sanction’ envisaged under Section\t 470<\/a>
\nCr.P.C.\t  cannot be equated with the ‘order’ or\t ‘authority’
\nfor  the  purposes of filing the complaint as  envisaged  by
\nSub-section  (3)  of  Section  13<\/a>   of\tthe  Act.   Specific
\nprovisions  have  been\tmade in various\t statutes  requiring
\nprevious  consent or sanction for the purposes of  launching
\nof  prosecution against the accused under those\t enactments.
\nExplanation  to\t Sub-section  (3)  of  Section\t470<\/a>  Cr.P.C.
\nobviously  refers to such consents and sanctions and not the
\norder  or  authority as required under the Act.\t Consent  or
\nsanction  as are referred to in the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct<\/a>, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act<\/a>, various Foodgrains
\nControl\t Orders,  and other similar enactments envisage\t the
\napplication  of\t mind  before the grant of such\t consent  or
\nsanction  which\t is a quasi-judicial function,\twhereas\t the
\npassing\t of  order, individual or general, or conferment  of
\nauthority  individually or generally, or empowering a person
\nfor   the  purposes  of\t filing\t a  complaint  is  only\t  an
\nadministrative\t action\t facilitating  in  identifying\t the
\ncomplainant  before the court for the purposes of filing and
\nprosecuting the case under the Act.  The Legislature, in its
\nwisdom,\t thought it appropriate to exclude only such  period
\nwhich  is  required  for obtaining the previous\t consent  or
\nsanction   of\tthe  Government\t  for  institution  of\t any
\nprosecution  of\t an offence and not obtaining of  orders  or
\nauthority  or naming a person for the purpose of filing\t the
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
    This  Court in Electrical Manufacturing Co.\t Ltd.’s case
\n(Supra)\t while\tdealing\t with Section 6<\/a> of  the\t Import\t and@@
\n\t JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nExport\t(Control)  Act,\t 1947 which provided that  no  Court@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nshall  take  cognizance of any offence punishable under\t the
\nAct  except  upon  complaint in writing made by\t an  officer
\nauthorised  in\tthat  behalf by the Central  Government,  by
\ngeneral\t  or  special  order,\theld  that  the\t  principles
\napplicable  to cases requiring sanction have no\t application
\nto  filing  of complaints under the Act.  Section 6<\/a> of\tthat
\nAct  only insisted that complaint was to be made in  writing
\nand  must  have been filed by an officer authorised in\tthat
\nbehalf.\t In that case the Court relied upon the observations
\nmade  in  S.A.\tVenkataraman v.\t The State<\/a> [1958  SCR  1037]
\nwherein it was held:\n<\/p>\n
    “In\t construing  the  provisions  of  a  statute  it  is
\nessential for a court, in the first instance, to give effect
\nto  the natural meaning of the words used therein, if  those
\nwords  are  clear  enough.  It is only in the  case  of\t any
\nambiguity  that\t a  court  is\tentitled  to  ascertain\t the
\nintention of the legislature by construing the provisions of
\nthe  statute as a whole and taking into consideration  other
\nmatters\t and the circumstances which led to the enactment of
\nthe statute.”\n<\/p>\n
    Though  Sub-Section (3) of Section 13<\/a> of the Act is\t not
\npari materia to Section 6<\/a> of the Import and Export (Control)
\nAct,  1947, yet we find that the insistence of the order  or
\nauthority  is  intended\t to  ascertain\tthe  filing  of\t the
\ncomplaint  under the Act without requiring giving consent or
\nsanction to prosecute.\tLearned Additional Solicitor General
\nwanted\tto  impress upon us that Sub-section (3) was in\t two
\nparts  –  one  dealing with the passing of the\torder  which
\nnecessarily meant consent or sanction and the second dealing
\nwith  the  person  authorised  to file\tthe  complaint.\t  On
\ncritical  examination of the plain words of the\t sub-section
\nand  the  object  underlying it, we do not  agree  that\t the
\naforesaid sub-section has two parts, as argued.\t We conceive
\nno  doubt that sub-section (3) of Section 13<\/a> envisages\tonly
\nthe  filing of the complaint, by order of or under authority
\nfrom  the appropriate government or by an officer  empowered
\nby such Government.  If the intention of the Legislature was
\nto have the section in two parts, one dealing with the grant
\nof  consent  or sanction by way of order and the other\tpart
\ndealing\t with  the  authority  of the  person  to  file\t the
\ncomplaint,  in that case after the words “made by order of”,
\nthere  should not have been a “comma” and the word “or”.  In
\nthat  event for the word “or” the Legislature must have used
\nthe  word  “and” and omitted the comma.\t The High Court\t was
\nnot  justified\tin  reading  between   the  lines  to  hold:@@
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       JJJJJ
\n“….that  the requirement in Section 13(3)<\/a> of the  Official
\nSecrets\t Act  amounts  to  taking  of  previous\t consent  or
\nsanction  of the appropriate Government.  One should not  go
\nby  the\t actual\t words\tused.  What should be  seen  is\t the
\nintention  of the legislature.\tThe purpose of providing for
\nprevious  consent,  sanction  or   authorisation  from\t the
\nappropriate  government or other authority before  launching
\nprosecution is for the protection of the alleged offender so
\nthat irresponsible prosecution is not launched.”\n<\/p>\n
    We,\t therefore,  agree  with  the  submissions  made  by
\nMr.Bahuguna  that  no sanction or consent is provided to  be
\ntaken from the Government under Section 13(3)<\/a> of the Act and
\nthe  period  spent  in obtaining the orders for\t filing\t the
\ncomplaint  cannot  be  excluded under  Explanation  to\tSub-
\nsection (3) of Section 470<\/a> Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    The mere fact that the complaint was filed 25 days after
\nthe  expiry of the period of limitation, did not entitle the
\naccused\t to  seek  his discharge under Section\t245<\/a>  Cr.P.C.
\nbecause\t the complainant has, under law, a right to seek for
\nextension of time under Section 473<\/a> Cr.P.C.  The complainant
\ncould  satisfy the Magistrate on the facts and circumstances
\nof  the\t case  that  the delay\twas  explainable  which\t was
\noccasioned on account of their bonafide belief to obtain the
\nsanction  for  the purpose of filing the  complaint.   After
\nnoticing  the  averments made in the complaint and  perusing
\nthe  record  particularly order of the Government  of  India
\ndated  21st April, 1988, authorising Sh.K.N.  Tiwari, Deputy
\nSuperintendent\tof Police, Central Bureau of  Investigation,
\nNew Delhi to lodge the complaint, it can be safely held that
\nthe  complainant  was  entitled to extension  of  period  of
\nlimitation  under  Section  473<\/a> Cr.P.C.\t No  useful  purpose
\nwould  be  served  by  again directing\tthe  complainant  to
\napproach  the  Trial Magistrate for the purposes of  seeking
\nextension  of period of limitation.  The complainant is held
\nto  have  explained the delay in filing the complaint  which
\nrequired extension.  The complaint is, therefore, held to be
\nwithin\ttime  and  the\tpetitioner is  not  entitled  to  be
\ndischarged on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
    During  the arguments it was pointed out that as various
\ncomplaints  filed after obtaining sanction from the  Central@@
\n\t    JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nGovernment  and the courts having given the exclusion of the@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nperiod in terms of Explanation to sub-section (3) of Section
\n470<\/a>  Cr.P.C., this judgment of ours may amount to  upsetting
\nall  such orders and affect the pending on-going proceedings
\nunder  the Act.\t The accused in those cases, in such  event,
\nmay  be lured to raise similar pleas as have been raised  in
\nthis case for the purposes of quashing the proceeding on the
\nbasis  of this judgment.  Though the apprehension appears to
\nbe  misconceived,  yet\twe make it clear  that\tthe  present
\njudgment  would\t not,  in  any way,  affect  the  continuing
\nproceedings  in any court wherein the complaints, under\t the
\nAct, have been filed after obtaining sanction and the courts
\nhave  given remission of the period in terms of\t Explanation
\nto  Sub-Section\t (3)  of  Section   470<\/a>\t Cr.P.C.   All\tsuch
\nextensions  shall  be deemed to be valid even under  Section
\n473<\/a> Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
    There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with
\nthe  direction to the Trial Magistrate to deal with the case
\nin  accordance\twith  law and expedite the disposal  of\t the
\ncomplaint.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 555 of 1999 PETITIONER: RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE THROUGH CBI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/08\/2000 BENCH: K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi. JUDGMENT: SETHI,J. L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J The criminal complaint under […]<\/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-251711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000 - 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\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-16T06:55:46+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T06:55:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2066,\"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\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T06:55:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 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":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000 - 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\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-16T06:55:46+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T06:55:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000"},"wordCount":2066,"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\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000","name":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T06:55:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jain-vs-state-through-cbi-on-8-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh Kumar Jain vs State Through Cbi on 8 August, 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\/251711","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=251711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}