{"id":259831,"date":"2010-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-14T12:15:06","modified_gmt":"2016-06-14T06:45:06","slug":"babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                               1\n                                              S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003\n                                                      (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)\n\n\n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSATHAN AT\n                     JODHPUR\n\n           S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 444\/2003\n          (BABU LAL S\/O KASHI RAM Vs. STATE )\n       (GOVING SINGH S\/o NATHU SINGH VS. STATE)\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n\n\nDate of order :          07th October, 2010\n\n\n                             PRESENT\n\n                  HON'BLE MR. C.M. TOTLA, J.\n\n\nMr. Shaitan Singh for Mr. Mridul Jain for the appellants.\nMr. K.K. Rawal, P.P.\n\n\nBY THE COURT<\/pre>\n
                              ====<\/p>\n
      Appellants convicted for the offence of violation of Section 8<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 18<\/a> of NDPS Act recorded in Sessions Case<\/p>\n
No. 65\/2000 by judgment dated 28.02.2003 and sentenced to ten<\/p>\n
years RI with fine Rs. 1 lac and in default one year RI challenges the<\/p>\n
validity of conviction and sentence awarded.<\/p>\n
      Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
      Prosecution version as disclosed appears to be that posted<\/p>\n
SHO at Police Station Pratapgarh on 17.10.09           Sub inspector Tej<\/p>\n
Singh PW\/12 making roznamcha entry No. 895 handing over charge<\/p>\n
to Sub Inspector Suresh Kumar PW\/2 Ex.P\/23 at 11:15 PM<\/p>\n
proceeded for investigating for certain FIR. PW\/2 about two hours<\/p>\n
later i.e. at 1 AM informed by some of two persons Babu lal and
\n                                                                            2<\/span>
\n                                          S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                  (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
Govind Singh (appellants) with illegal opium shall be proceeding on<\/p>\n
foot towards Fathpur from their village Jamalpura, so PW\/2 making<\/p>\n
entry Ex.P\/21 bearing No. 898 in Roznamcha          intimated of this<\/p>\n
information to Dy. Superintendent vide Ex.P\/13, by dispatching it<\/p>\n
with Constable Keshar Singh PW\/11. PW\/2 with other SI and two<\/p>\n
constables making entry Ex.P\/22 in Roznamcha proceeded to village<\/p>\n
Jhansdi where on asking accompanying Constable PW\/3 called<\/p>\n
independent witnesses PW\/1 & 9 who when given notices Ex.P\/1<\/p>\n
and P\/16 of received information and asked to be motbir expressed<\/p>\n
consent and recorded on Ex.P\/2 and 16. Allegedly at about 3:30 in<\/p>\n
night, two persons were seen coming on foot from vilage Jamalpura<\/p>\n
who encircled and asking them were obtained their names and other<\/p>\n
particulars etc then were told of information received and further<\/p>\n
asked if they desirous of search before and by gazetted or higher<\/p>\n
officer or by incharge present and they expressed desire and<\/p>\n
consented for search by them. So search was made. Babu lal who<\/p>\n
had a white bag in his hands containing polythene bag in which was<\/p>\n
black vicious substance which smelt and tasted of opium and as<\/p>\n
Babu lal did not have a license so substance seized and on weighing<\/p>\n
found to be 3.5 kg from which taken and separately sealed were two<\/p>\n
samples of 50 gm each. Then search was made of other person<\/p>\n
Govind Singh who also was having a green bag in his right hand in<\/p>\n
which also was while polythene containing black vicious substance<\/p>\n
appearing opium that also was seized and weighed 3.0 kg from<\/p>\n
which also two samples were collected and separately sealed. Memo<\/p>\n
of these proceedings prepared is Ex.P\/4 and packet sealed as above
\n                                                                              3<\/span>
\n                                            S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                    (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
respectively marked A to F and seal impression also fixed preparing<\/p>\n
separate impressions.\n<\/p>\n
      Appellants informed of their arrest vide memos Ex.P\/17 & 18<\/p>\n
and arrested preparing memos Ex.P\/7 & 8, preparing memo of<\/p>\n
proceedings P\/14 FIR bearing No. 408\/01 P\/15 came to be<\/p>\n
registered. Superintendent of Police was informed of all above<\/p>\n
happening vide letter P\/20 ad malkhana articles deposited with<\/p>\n
Malkhana incharge PW\/6, making memo Ex.P\/19, and PW\/6 making<\/p>\n
entries P\/25 in register keeping packets safe handed over two<\/p>\n
sample packets marked A & D to Constable PW\/7 who obtaining<\/p>\n
forwarding letter P\/26 and with seal impression of above packets<\/p>\n
deposited at laboratory obtaining receipt P\/27.<\/p>\n
      Inspecting place of occurrence I\/O PW\/10 before PW\/4 and<\/p>\n
PW\/5 prepared site memo and plan Ex.P\/18 completing needful<\/p>\n
including recording statements, chargesheet submitted.<\/p>\n
      FSL Report Ex.P\/29 describe of substance found in received<\/p>\n
intact sealed packets to be opium having respectively 6.75 and 8.17<\/p>\n
per cent morphine.\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant Babu lal charged of keeping opium 3.5 kg and<\/p>\n
appellant Govind Singh of keeping 3.0 kg- denied and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
      PW\/1 and PW\/9 are motbirs of recovery, declared hostile,<\/p>\n
state of police obtaining their signature at police station. PW\/4 & 5<\/p>\n
of preparing site plan. PW\/2 is seizure officer and constable PW\/3<\/p>\n
accompanied him. Head Constable PW\/6 & Constable PW\/7 depose<\/p>\n
of safe keeping and delivering packets at FSL and related matters. R<\/p>\n
PW\/8 wife of elder brother of one of the accused appellant of opium
\n                                                                               4<\/span>
\n                                             S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                     (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
cultivation license for appellant Babu lal two years ago – PW\/10 and<\/p>\n
12 investigated including recording of statements.<\/p>\n
      According to appellant, witnesses are telling lie. Appellant<\/p>\n
Govind Singh avers that while he sleeping at village was taken away.<\/p>\n
Per appellant Babu lal he was sleeping in compound of Bhadar Singh<\/p>\n
was picked up by police. Defence witness Bahadur Singh DW\/1 state<\/p>\n
of appellants being his relative came to him and they went to village<\/p>\n
Honia in some social function where when were asleep in night<\/p>\n
came police man, abused them, and though asked by others<\/p>\n
gathered to refrain still took appellants with them.<\/p>\n
      Learned Sessions Judge concludingly inferred that competent<\/p>\n
officer complying all procedural provisions searched and seized and<\/p>\n
appellants were in possession of narcotic substance held guilty and<\/p>\n
sentenced.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the appellant assailing findings of learned<\/p>\n
Judge argues that (i) SI PW\/2       who allegedly searched was not<\/p>\n
empowered and competent to make such search and seizure (ii)<\/p>\n
under S.42 search can only be by empowered officer and PW\/2 not<\/p>\n
empowered and he knowing himself not to be SHO, if at all did<\/p>\n
search, it is completely illegal (iii) mandatory provisions of Section<\/p>\n
42<\/a> are not complied so vitiated entry is search and seizure –<\/p>\n
consequently all proceeding (iv) no separate memo of information,<\/p>\n
said to have been received,       is made and is not produced (v)<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 50<\/a> not complied with – assertingly urged t hat<\/p>\n
provisions are applicable and even if not applicable                    when<\/p>\n
contemplated, and per prosecution complied with then as mandatory
\n                                                                               5<\/span>
\n                                             S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                     (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
is so strict compliance is to be (vi) Section 55<\/a> completely flouted (vi)<\/p>\n
not fulfilled requirements of Section 57<\/a>. Taking through the<\/p>\n
evidence, submits that version of possession and recovery cannot be<\/p>\n
believed – evidence and versions contrary to each other – memos<\/p>\n
prepared finds number of FIR which do show of preparation of all<\/p>\n
memos only post FIR – link evidence i.e intact delivering packets at<\/p>\n
FSL missing. Stressed that weight found in laboratory is substantially<\/p>\n
less than the said weight of sample allegedly taken. On behalf of<\/p>\n
appellant, cited is 2001 Cr. L.J 1166 Gurbax Singh Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
      On behalf of appellants lastly submitted that sentence<\/p>\n
awarded in default of payment of fine ought to be reduced.<\/p>\n
      Learned Public Prosecutor      submitted that proved           in each<\/p>\n
possession of appellant was opium.\n<\/p>\n
      Evidence at length is well discussed and analysed by learned<\/p>\n
trial Judge so need not be repeated in detail. Produced evidence<\/p>\n
disclose action and recoveries per memos prepared – with stray<\/p>\n
contradiction or omission here and there to which significance<\/p>\n
cannot be attached to. Regarding non-authorising of search officer<\/p>\n
PW\/2, pointed out is that he was not regularly posted as SHO but<\/p>\n
was SI whereas, according to prosecution incharge in absence of<\/p>\n
SHO doing his duties is vested with all empowerment of SHO.<\/p>\n
Learned Sessions Judge discussing at length found that regular SHO<\/p>\n
away so, PW\/2 was empowered for all including seizure. The search<\/p>\n
was made on 18.10.2000. Notification under Section 42<\/a> promulgated<\/p>\n
in year 1988 empowers SHO of police station or officers of rank of
\n                                                                              6<\/span>
\n                                            S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                    (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
inspectors. PW\/12 depose and so also is deposed by PW\/2 and<\/p>\n
others that PW\/2 was incharge police station. Further proved is that<\/p>\n
PW\/12 Tej Singh per entry Ex.P\/23, departed from Police station for<\/p>\n
investigation in relation to other FIR No. 170\/2000 and departed<\/p>\n
from police station giving charge to Suresh Kumar PW\/2. PW\/12 was<\/p>\n
SI, PW\/2 is also SI who again was given charge                  specifically<\/p>\n
mentioning so as above. Roznamcha entry of information received<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/21 and subsequent entries of proceeding for search etc also<\/p>\n
mentions of PW\/2 doing so in the capacity of Incharge. Given such<\/p>\n
fact situation and when incharge PW\/12 provenly was out to a<\/p>\n
distance and not in direct control of police station then not in<\/p>\n
position to perform all his duties who also made entries in<\/p>\n
roznamcha as above.      Moreover, the search is not of building,<\/p>\n
vessel, conveyance but at public way so such argument on such<\/p>\n
proven fact situations cannot be sustainable.<\/p>\n
      Stress is laid down of non-separate reduction in writing of<\/p>\n
secret information received. Pertinent to note is that the provisions<\/p>\n
do prescribe for reduction of information in writing. The information<\/p>\n
is to be reduced in writing and received information is proved to<\/p>\n
have been reduced into writing in Roznamcha Ex.P\/21A at 1 O clock<\/p>\n
in night which stands proved by evidence of PW\/2 and Constable<\/p>\n
PW\/3. Moreover communication of such information and proceeding<\/p>\n
for needful action is made to higher officer vide Ex.P\/13 as is<\/p>\n
established by depositions of PW\/2 and Constable PW\/11 who<\/p>\n
delivered Ex.P\/13 in morning to Dy. S.P at 7:30 AM and Ex.P\/13<\/p>\n
which further finds endorsement with seal of the Superintendent of
\n                                                                             7<\/span>
\n                                           S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                   (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
police he having received it at 10AM. Therefore, the argument raised<\/p>\n
have not basis.\n<\/p>\n
       Packets of substance recovered and seal impressions prepared<\/p>\n
were delivered to Malkahan incharge, Head constable PW\/6 Jamna<\/p>\n
lal who depose of having received in sealed state and of safe intact<\/p>\n
keeping in malkhana making entries Ex.P\/25 in register. PW\/2 the<\/p>\n
recovery officer state that he delivered packets to PW\/6 preparing<\/p>\n
and vide memo Ex.P\/19. PW\/6 further depose of handing over two<\/p>\n
packets marked A & D to Constable         PW\/7 on 08.11.2000 and<\/p>\n
Constable PW\/7 state of receiving packets from PW\/6 and papers<\/p>\n
from   P.S   and   then   obtaining   forwarding    letter     from      the<\/p>\n
Superintendent office at Chittorgarh going Jaipur and staying therein<\/p>\n
in night at P.S. Bani Park depositing both packets intactly at FSL on<\/p>\n
10.11.2000. Copy of forwarding letter to FSL is P\/26 and receipts<\/p>\n
P\/25. Section 55<\/a> provides for taking of charge of articles at Police<\/p>\n
station and sealing with seal of Officer incharge. Here articles were<\/p>\n
already sealed by Officer incharge. On the given facts is not<\/p>\n
essential seems and was to re-seal. Moreover, the articles are prove<\/p>\n
to have been safely delivered on the very same day to Incharge,<\/p>\n
Malkhana who keepig safe and intact handed over for delivering at<\/p>\n
FSL.\n<\/p>\n
       With above, thrustly raised is argument of laboratory finding<\/p>\n
of weight of substance      being less than 50 gm. According to<\/p>\n
prosecution and evidence produced, sample collected was of 50 gm<\/p>\n
and PW\/2 and other mentions of taking samples of 50 gm each and<\/p>\n
keeping them in a polythene and that in iron small container (dibbi)
\n                                                                              8<\/span>
\n                                            S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                    (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
which wrapped by cloth and then sealed. Per FSL report Ex.P\/29<\/p>\n
substance contained with polythene pouch weighed respectively<\/p>\n
45.016 gm and 45.5 gm. Seizure was effected on 18.10.2000 and<\/p>\n
report is of 05.12.2001 and sample on analysis is found to juice of<\/p>\n
opium poppy having morphine 6.75 and 8.17 %. The substance<\/p>\n
recovered was semi solid viscocious and in laboratory weighed about<\/p>\n
after 17 months – difference is about ten per cent. At laboratory,<\/p>\n
obviously weight was using comparatively fine instrument. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, in the considered opinion of the Court, finding the<\/p>\n
sample of little reduced weight do not adversely affect the<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      Emphatically raised is non-compliance of provisions of Section<\/p>\n
50(1)<\/a> & (2). Urged is that when contemplated was such a<\/p>\n
compliance and attributedly search made so complying then have to<\/p>\n
be strictly and these provisions mandatory non-compliance                   of<\/p>\n
vitiates entire search and seizure.\n<\/p>\n
      A careful look at the provisions of Section 50<\/a> and with settled<\/p>\n
states the compliance as prescribed is to be made only while<\/p>\n
personal search, that is when and for search of any person. Unless<\/p>\n
apparent is or is reasonably established fact situations disclose that<\/p>\n
personal search was made but only to circumvent provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 50<\/a> otherwise is attributed then only question of compliance<\/p>\n
or otherwise may arise. Here seizure is from a bag (theli) being<\/p>\n
carried in hands fastened or with palm and fingers – was not a<\/p>\n
personal search.    In addition, evidence produced disclose prove<\/p>\n
(motbirs hostile but accept of signatures) disclose that vide memos
\n                                                                              9<\/span>
\n                                            S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                    (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
P\/3 and P\/11 appellants were informed of their right of search<\/p>\n
before a Magistrate or gazetted officer and they consented for<\/p>\n
search by incharge P.S. PW\/2 and consent also appears in writing<\/p>\n
bearing signatures of appellants. As such the contention is to be<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      Lastly is appearance of number of FIR on memos prepared at<\/p>\n
the place of seizure on basis of which contention is of preparation of<\/p>\n
memos afterwards at Police station. Memos for calling of motbir and<\/p>\n
received information given to motbir and their consents Ex.P\/1, P\/2,<\/p>\n
P\/16, P\/17 – memos of notice under Section 50<\/a>, Ex.P\/3, 11-seizure<\/p>\n
memo Ex.P\/4 and memos of arrest Ex.P\/5 to 8, seal impressions<\/p>\n
P\/9, 10 have in red ink written FIR 408\/2K. Registered FIR Ex.P\/15<\/p>\n
is also of same number. The very fact that number in red and in<\/p>\n
writing distinguishly different to person writing memos so number<\/p>\n
of FIR is written afterwards. This appear only for purpose of<\/p>\n
denoting the number of related FIR. Therefore, the raised argument<\/p>\n
is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      Residuarily submitted is for reduction of sentence in default of<\/p>\n
payment of fine emphasising that unable to pay fine did not furnish<\/p>\n
bail bonds for suspensions of sentence though ordered. Taking all<\/p>\n
factors cumulatively, in the opinion of the Court, just is to reduce<\/p>\n
the sentence in default of payment of fine to six months RI.<\/p>\n
      For   the   reasons   above   described,    appeal       challenging<\/p>\n
conviction fails. Sentence to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and<\/p>\n
fine Rs. 1 lac to each appellant also remains intact. However, in
\n                                                                           10<\/span>
\n                                           S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003
\n                                                   (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State)<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine instead of one year awarded is six months<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
      Therefore, appeal is rejected. As above is ordered that in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine imposed of Rs. 1 lac, each appellant to<\/p>\n
undergo six months RI. Convictions affirmed. Ten years rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment with fine Rs. 1 lac intact but in default of payment of<\/p>\n
fine, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.<\/p>\n
                                                    (C.M. TOTLA), J.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010 1 S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444\/2003 (Babu lal & Anr. Vs. State) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSATHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 444\/2003 (BABU LAL S\/O KASHI RAM Vs. STATE ) (GOVING SINGH S\/o NATHU SINGH VS. […]<\/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-259831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nBabulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010 - 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\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-14T06:45:06+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T06:45:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2373,\"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\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T06:45:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010 - 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\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-14T06:45:06+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T06:45:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"wordCount":2373,"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\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","name":"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T06:45:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babulal-anr-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babulal & Anr vs State on 7 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/259831","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=259831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}