{"id":36884,"date":"2007-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-08-14T11:03:33","modified_gmt":"2017-08-14T05:33:33","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  766 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Karnataka\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAmeer Jan\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA,  J :\n<\/p>\n
1. \tInterpretation and\/ or application of the provisions of Section 19 of
\nthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) falls for our
\nconsideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated
\n19.06.2000 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal
\nAppeal No. 222 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n
2. \tRespondent herein was working as a Second Division Assistant in the
\nOffice of the Registrar of Firms and Cooperative Societies.  D.V.
\nThrilochana (PW-3) approached him for grant of a certificate.  He allegedly
\ndemanded a sum of Rs. 300\/- from him.  He was put to trial for alleged
\ncommission of an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
3. \tAn order of sanction was issued by the Commissioner of Stamps
\nsolely relying on or on the basis of a purported report issued by the Inspector
\nGeneral of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha.  The purported order of sanction
\nbeing dated 20.07.1992 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“In exercise of the powers conferred under Section
\n19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
\n1988, I hereby accord sanction to prosecute Sri
\nAmeerjan, Second Division Assistant in the office
\nof the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Bangalore,
\nUrban District, Bangalore for offences punishable
\nunder Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the
\ncompetent court of law.”\n<\/p>\n
4. \tThe sanctioning authority examined himself before the learned Trial
\nJudge as PW-8.  He, however, did not produce the report of the Inspector
\nGeneral of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha.  Even otherwise the same was not
\nbrought on records.  The learned Trial Judge upon considering the materials
\nbrought on records by the prosecution opined that the respondent was guilty
\nof commission of the said offence.\n<\/p>\n
 \tBy reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court, however,
\nreversed the same opining that the order of sanction being illegal, the
\njudgment of conviction could not be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
5. \tMr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
\nof Karanataka, in support of this appeal would submit that an order of
\nsanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner.  The learned counsel
\nurged that the High Court committed a manifest error in proceeding to
\ndetermine the legality or validity of the order of sanction having regard to an
\nirrelevant factor, viz., that the offence involved only a sum of Rs. 300\/-.\n<\/p>\n
  \tIn particular, the following findings of the High Court was criticized
\nsubmitting that the same do not lay down the correct legal position:\n<\/p>\n
“…The additional reason for this view is because
\nthere is an entirely different aspect of the law
\nwhich applies to cases of this category insofar as
\nthe courts have now held that if the amount
\ninvolved is relatively small if it is a single isolated
\ninstance and there is no evidence of habitual bribe
\ntaking or assets dis-proportionate to the known
\nsources of income, that the sanctioning authority
\nwill have to carefully evaluate as to whether the
\ninterest of justice will not be adequately served by
\ntaking disciplinary action rather than by burdening
\nthe courts with full fledged prosecution in a case of
\nrelatively trivial facts.  These are all areas of deep
\nseated evaluation which can only be truly justified
\nthrough a proper perusal of the records.  I am
\nunable to accept the submission put forward by the
\nlearned Public Prosecutor that the reference to the
\nreceipt of the records is sufficient to get over the
\nbasic infirmity in the sanction order wherein the
\nauthority is quick to state that he acted only on the
\nbasis of the letter from the Inspector General of
\nPolice…”\n<\/p>\n
6. \tMr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, however, would submit that the purported order of sanction
\ndated 20.07.1992 ex facie shows a total non-application of mind on the part
\nof PW-8 and, thus, the impugned judgment is unassailable.\n<\/p>\n
7. \tWe agree that an order of sanction should not be construed in a
\npedantic manner.  But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an
\norder of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind.
\nOrdinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether
\nthe public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by
\nrefusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not.\n<\/p>\n
8. \tFor the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on
\nthe part of the sanctioning authority is imperative.  The order granting
\nsanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper
\napplication of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.  We have
\nnoticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the
\norder of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector
\nGeneral of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha.  Even the said report has not been
\nbrought on record.  Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body
\nthereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police
\nKarnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected on
\ninvestigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of
\nevidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant
\nconcerned is not evident.  Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction,
\nthe entire records containing the materials collected against the accused
\nshould be placed before the sanctioning authority.  In the event, the order of
\nsanction does not indicate application of mind as the materials placed before
\nthe said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be
\nproduced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been
\nproduced.\n<\/p>\n
9. \tThe Privy Council as far back in 1948 in Gokulchand Dwarkadas
\nMorarka v. The King [AIR 1948 PC 82] opined that the object of the
\nprovision for sanction is that the authority giving it should be able to
\nconsider for itself the evidence before it comes to a conclusion that the
\nprosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden stating:\n<\/p>\n
“In Their Lordships’ view, to comply with the
\nprovisions of clause 23 it must be proved that the
\nsanction was given in respect of the facts
\nconstituting the offence charged. It is plainly
\ndesirable that the facts should be referred to on the
\nface of the sanction, but this is not essential, since
\nclause 23 does not require the sanction to be in any
\nparticular form, nor even to be in writing. But if
\nthe facts constituting the offence charged are not
\nshown on the face of the sanction, the prosecution
\nmust prove by extraneous evidence that those facts
\nwere placed before the sanctioning authority. The
\nsanction to prosecute is an important matter; it
\nconstitutes a condition precedent to the institution
\nof the prosecution and the Government have an
\nabsolute discretion to grant or withhold their
\nsanction.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said decision has been referred to by this Court, with approval, in
\nJaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 124].\n<\/p>\n
10. \tYet again in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh<\/a> [(1979) 4
\nSCC 172], this Court opined that the sanctioning authority cannot rely on the
\nstatutory presumption contained in Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, 1947 stating:\n<\/p>\n
 “In the first place there is no question of the
\npresumption being available to the Sanctioning
\nAuthority because at that stage the occasion for
\ndrawing a presumption never arises since there is
\nno case in the Court. Secondly, the presumption
\ndoes not arise automatically but only on proof of
\ncertain circumstances, that is to say, where it is
\nproved by evidence in the Court that the money
\nsaid to have been paid to the accused was actually
\nrecovered from his possession. It is only then that
\nthe Court may presume the amount received would
\nbe deemed to be an illegal gratification. So far as
\nthe question of sanction is concerned this arises
\nbefore the proceedings come to the Court and the
\nquestion of drawing the presumption, therefore,
\ndoes not arise at this stage”\n<\/p>\n
11. \tIn R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay<\/a> [(1984) 2 SCC 183] following Mohd.
\nIqbal Ahmed (supra), this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“The Legislature advisedly conferred power on
\nthe authority competent to remove the public
\nservant from the office to grant sanction for the
\nobvious reason that that authority alone would be
\nable, when facts and evidence are placed before
\nhim to judge whether a serious offence is
\ncommitted or the prosecution is either frivolous or
\nspeculative. That authority alone would be
\ncompetent to judge whether on the facts alleged,
\nthere has been an abuse or misuse of office held by
\nthe public servant. That authority would be in a
\nposition to know what was the power conferred on
\nthe office which the public servant holds, how that
\npower could be abused for corrupt motive and
\nwhether prima facie it has been so done. That
\ncompetent authority alone would know the nature
\nand functions discharged by the public servant
\nholding the office and whether the same has been
\nabused or misused. It is the vertical hierarchy
\nbetween the authority competent to remove the
\npublic servant from that office and the nature of
\nthe office held by the public servant against whom
\nsanction is sought which would indicate a
\nhierarchy and which would therefore, permit
\ninference of knowledge about the functions and
\nduties of the office and its misuse or abuse by the
\npublic servant. That is why the Legislature clearly
\nprovided that that authority alone would be
\ncompetent to grant sanction which is entitled to
\nremove the public servant against whom sanction
\nis sought from the office.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat<\/a> [(1997) 7 SCC
\n622], this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“14. From a perusal of Section 6, it would appear
\nthat the Central or the State Government or any
\nother authority (depending upon the category of
\nthe public servant) has the right to consider the
\nfacts of each case and to decide whether that
\n“public servant” is to be prosecuted or not. Since
\nthe section clearly prohibits the courts from taking
\ncognizance of the offences specified therein, it
\nenvisages that the Central or the State Government
\nor the “other authority” has not only the right to
\nconsider the question of grant of sanction, it has
\nalso the discretion to grant or not to grant
\nsanction.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t[See also State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran,<\/a> (1998) 9 SCC 268]<\/p>\n
13. \tOur attention, however, was drawn to a recent decision of this Court
\nin Prakash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others [(2007) 1
\nSCC 1] by Mr. Hegde to contend that having regard to Sub-sections (3) and
\n(4) of Section 19 of the Act, only because an order of sanction contains
\ncertain irregularities, the court would not set aside an order of conviction.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Prakash Singh Badal (supra), the question which arose for
\nconsideration before this Court was as to whether an order of sanction is
\nrequired to be passed in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure in relation to an accused who has ceased to be a public servant.  It
\nwas in that context a question arose before this Court as to whether the act
\nalleged to be performed under the colour of office is for the benefit of the
\nofficer or for his own pleasure.  In the context of question as to whether the
\npublic servant concerned should receive continuous protection, it was
\nopined:\n<\/p>\n
“29. The effect of sub-sections (3) and (4) of
\nSection 19 of the Act are of considerable
\nsignificance. In sub-section (3) the stress is on
\n“failure of justice” and that too “in the opinion of
\nthe court”. In sub-section (4), the stress is on
\nraising the plea at the appropriate time.\n<\/p>\n
Significantly, the “failure of justice” is relatable to
\nerror, omission or irregularity in the sanction.
\nTherefore, mere error, omission or irregularity in
\nsanction is ( sic not) considered fatal unless it has
\nresulted in failure of justice or has been occasioned
\nthereby. Section 19(1) is a matter of procedure and
\ndoes not go to the root of jurisdiction as observed
\nin para 95 of Narasimha Rao case 2 . Sub-section
\n(3)( c ) of Section 19 reduces the rigour of
\nprohibition. In Section 6(2) of the old Act [Section
\n19(2) of the Act] question relates to doubt about
\nauthority to grant sanction and not whether
\nsanction is necessary.”\n<\/p>\n
\tPrakash Singh Badal (supra), therefore, is not an authority for the
\nproposition that even when an order of sanction is held to be wholly invalid
\ninter alia on the premise that the order is a nullity having been suffering
\nfrom the vice of total non-application of mind.  We, therefore, are of the
\nopinon that the said decision cannot be said to have any application in the
\ninstant case.\n<\/p>\n
14. \tWe may notice that in Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das & Anr.<\/a> [(2006)
\n4 SCC 584 : JT 2006 (4) SC 34], the Majority, albeit in the context of
\nSection 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, opined:\n<\/p>\n
“22. Learned counsel for the complainant argued
\nthat want of sanction under Section 197(1) of the
\nCode did not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to
\nproceed, but it was only one of the defences
\navailable to the accused and the accused can raise
\nthe defence at the appropriate time. We are not in a
\nposition to accept this submission. Section 197(1),
\nits opening words and the object sought to be
\nachieved by it, and the decisions of this Court
\nearlier cited, clearly indicate that a prosecution hit
\nby that provision cannot be launched without the
\nsanction contemplated. It is a condition precedent,
\nas it were, for a successful prosecution of a public
\nservant when the provision is attracted, though the
\nquestion may arise necessarily not at the inception,
\nbut even at a subsequent stage. We cannot
\ntherefore accede to the request to postpone a
\ndecision on this question.”\n<\/p>\n
15. \tIn this case, the High Court called for the original records.  It had
\ngone thereinto.  It was found that except the report, no other record was
\nmade available before the sanctioning authority.  The order of sanction also
\nstated so.  PW-8 also did not have the occasion to consider the records
\nexcept the purported report.\n<\/p>\n
16. \tWe are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not
\nsuffer from any legal infirmity although some observations made by the
\nHigh Court, as noticed hereinbefore, do not lay down the correct legal
\nposition.  The appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 766 of 2001 PETITIONER: State of Karnataka RESPONDENT: Ameer Jan DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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-36884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-14T05:33:33+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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-14T05:33:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2373,\"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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-14T05:33:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-14T05:33:33+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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-14T05:33:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007"},"wordCount":2373,"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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-14T05:33:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-ameer-jan-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Ameer Jan on 18 September, 2007"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/36884","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=36884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}