{"id":47471,"date":"2007-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-04-23T00:22:51","modified_gmt":"2015-04-22T18:52:51","slug":"satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  241 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nSatish Jaggi\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; R.V. RAVEENDRAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising Out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 6154 of 2006)<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court<br \/>\ndismissing the transfer petition filed under Section 407 of the<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short &#8216;the Code&#8217;) for<br \/>\ntransferring of Sessions Trial no.329\/2005 (State through CBI<br \/>\nv. Amit Jogi and 30 others), pending in the Court of Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh to some other Court. The transfer<br \/>\nwas sought for primarily on the ground that the Sessions<br \/>\nJudge before whom the trial was pending is the elder brother<br \/>\nof a sitting MLA who is very close to the father of respondent<br \/>\nno.3, one of the main accused persons. It was alleged that the<br \/>\nfather of respondent no. 3 was the previous Chief Minister of<br \/>\nthe state and that he and the brother of the Learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge belong to the same political party. It was further stated<br \/>\nthat the said MLA was very close to the father of respondent<br \/>\nno.3 who was earlier the Chief Minister of the State.<br \/>\nTherefore, according to the appellant, he was under a bona<br \/>\nfide and genuine apprehension that he will not get justice if<br \/>\nthe trial is conducted and concluded by the present Sessions<br \/>\nJudge.  It was also stated that the major part of the trial was<br \/>\nconducted by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. By<br \/>\norder dated 21.6.2006 the case was transferred to the Court of<br \/>\nthe Session Judge, Raipur (Shri R. S. Sharma) who examined<br \/>\nfour prosecution witnesses and 21 defence witnesses. At that<br \/>\nstage, Shri R. S. Sharma was transferred as Sessions Judge,<br \/>\nJanigir- Champa and Shri Sanman Singh was posted in his<br \/>\nplace as the Sessions Judge. Therefore, prayer was made to<br \/>\ntransfer to the Court of Sessions Judge, Janigir-Champa,<br \/>\nwhere the previous Sessions Judge was posted so that he<br \/>\ncould conclude the trial by camping at Raipur for that<br \/>\npurpose.  The High Court held that assurance of fair trial is<br \/>\nimperative for the dispensing of justice and the primary<br \/>\nconsideration for the Court is to consider whether a motion of<br \/>\ntransfer is made out and the High Court is not required to lay<br \/>\nstress on hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party.<br \/>\nThe High Court felt that the grounds set forth by the appellant<br \/>\nseeking transfer cannot be considered to be sufficient to direct<br \/>\ntransfer. Merely because the brother of the trial Judge was a<br \/>\nsitting MLA, that cannot be a ground to prima facie come to a<br \/>\nconclusion that there would be pressure through either by the<br \/>\nbrother or father of the accused who was supposed to be close<br \/>\nto his brother.  It was further noted that the trial is at a final<br \/>\nstage and about 150 prosecution witnesses and all the defence<br \/>\nwitnesses have been examined and what remains to be done is<br \/>\nto hear the arguments and pass the judgment.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nprayer was rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that<br \/>\nultimately administration of justice rests on many principles<br \/>\nand one of the fundamental principles is that justice should<br \/>\nnot only be done but it should be seen to be done.  The<br \/>\npresent case is not one where a mere allegation is made.<br \/>\nThere is no dispute that the brother of the present Sessions<br \/>\nJudge is a sitting MLA belonging to a particular party of which<br \/>\nrespondent no.3&#8217;s father was earlier the leader and the Chief<br \/>\nMinister.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. K.K. Venugopal,  learned senior advocate, appearing<br \/>\nfor some of the respondents submitted that if the allegation is<br \/>\naccepted it would be doubting the impartiality of the present<br \/>\nSessions Judge.  There is no material to show that the Judge<br \/>\nhas any bias or any partisan attitude. The fortuitous<br \/>\ncircumstances that his brother is an MLA cannot be a factor to<br \/>\ndoubt the judicial discipline of the Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>The law with regard to transfer of cases is well settled.<br \/>\nThis Court in the matter of Gurcharan Dass Chadha v. State<br \/>\nof Rajasthan (AIR 1966 SC 1418) held that a case is<br \/>\ntransferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of<br \/>\na party to a case that justice will not be done. This Court said<br \/>\nthat a petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice<br \/>\nwill inevitably fail.  He is entitled to a transfer if he shows<br \/>\ncircumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains<br \/>\nan apprehension and that it is reasonable in the<br \/>\ncircumstances alleged.  This Court further held that it is one<br \/>\nof the principles of the administration of justice that justice<br \/>\nshould not be done but it should be seen to be done. The court<br \/>\nhas further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or<br \/>\nnot.  This Court also said that to judge the reasonableness of<br \/>\nthe apprehension, the state of the mind of the person who<br \/>\nentertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is<br \/>\nnot all.  The apprehension must not only be entertained, but<br \/>\nmust appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was further held by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1572431\/\">Mrs. Maneka Sanjay<br \/>\nGandhi and Anr. V. Miss Rani Jethmalani (AIR<\/a> 1979 SC 468)<br \/>\nthat assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the<br \/>\ndispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court<br \/>\nto consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the<br \/>\nhypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or<br \/>\navailability of legal services or any like grievance.  Something<br \/>\nmore substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the<br \/>\npoint of view of public justice and its attendant environment,<br \/>\nis necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer.<br \/>\nThis is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may<br \/>\nbe myriad and vary from case to case.  This Court, in the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of the case, said that the grounds for the<br \/>\ntransfer have to be tested on this touchstone bearing in mind<br \/>\nthe rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose<br \/>\nany Court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate<br \/>\nwhere the case against him should be tried.  It further said<br \/>\nthat even so, the process of justice should not harass the<br \/>\nparties and from that angle the court may weigh the<br \/>\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1438663\/\">In Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR<\/a> 2000<br \/>\nSC 2293) this Court stated that the purpose of the criminal<br \/>\ntrial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by<br \/>\nextraneous considerations. When it is shown that public<br \/>\nconfidence in the fairness of a trial would be seriously<br \/>\nundermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within<br \/>\nthe State under Section 407 and anywhere in the country<br \/>\nunder Section 406 of the Code.  The apprehension of not<br \/>\ngetting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be<br \/>\nreasonable and not imaginary based upon conjectures and<br \/>\nsurmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice<br \/>\nis not possible impartially and objectively and without any<br \/>\nbias, before any Court or even at any place, the appropriate<br \/>\nCourt may transfer the case to another Court where it feels<br \/>\nthat holding of fair and proper trial is conducive. No universal<br \/>\nor hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer<br \/>\npetition which has always to be decided on the basis of the<br \/>\nfacts of each case. Convenience of the parties including the<br \/>\nwitnesses to be produced at the trial is also a relevant<br \/>\nconsideration for deciding the transfer petition. The<br \/>\nconvenience of the parties does not necessarily mean the<br \/>\nconvenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court<br \/>\non misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the<br \/>\npurposes of transfer means the convenience of the<br \/>\nprosecution, other accused, if any, the witnesses and the<br \/>\nlarger interest of the society.\n<\/p>\n<p> <a href=\"\/doc\/794206\/\">In G.X. Francis v. Banke Bihari Singh (AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 309)<br \/>\nthis Court felt that where public confidence in the fairness of<br \/>\nthe trial is likely to be seriously undermined under the<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, transfer petition could be allowed.<br \/>\nOn finding that &#8220;there is uniformity of testimony from both<br \/>\nsides about the nature of surcharged communal tension in<br \/>\nthat area,&#8221; the Court found that the local atmosphere was not<br \/>\nconducive to a fair and impartial trial which was a good<br \/>\nground for transfer. The court rejected the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner therein regarding the wild allegations made to the<br \/>\neffect that no court in the State of M.P. would be unbiased or<br \/>\nimpartial for dispensing justice. In the peculiar facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, the trial was transferred to an<br \/>\nadjoining court. The mere existence of a surcharged<br \/>\natmosphere without there being proof of inability for holding<br \/>\nfair and impartial trial cannot be made a ground for transfer of<br \/>\na case. Alleged communally surcharged atmosphere has to be<br \/>\nconsidered in the light of the accusations made and the nature<br \/>\nof the crime committed by the accused seeking transfer of his<br \/>\ncase. It will be unsafe to hold that as and when accusations<br \/>\nare made regarding the existence of a surcharged communal<br \/>\natmosphere, the case should be transferred from the area<br \/>\nwhere existence of such surcharged atmosphere is alleged.\n<\/p>\n<p>The position was also examined in <a href=\"\/doc\/1778571\/\">Pal Singh and Anr. V.<br \/>\nCentral Bureau of Investigation and Ors.<\/a> (2005 (12) SCC 329).<br \/>\nIn that case, considering the fact that large number of<br \/>\nwitnesses had been examined and few more witnesses were<br \/>\nleft to be examined, this Court set aside the order of the High<br \/>\nCourt transferring the case from one Sessions Court to<br \/>\nanother.  The High Court was, therefore, held to be not<br \/>\njustified in entertaining the petition for transfer.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this case, one thing which has to be kept in view is<br \/>\nthat the Sessions Judge himself has not indicated his<br \/>\ndisinclination to hear the matter. That is probably because he<br \/>\nbelieves that the mere fact that his brother is known to some<br \/>\npolitical heavyweight cannot stand in his way of discharging<br \/>\njudicial function impartially without fear and favour.  These<br \/>\nare the hallmarks of judicial system.  A judicial officer in<br \/>\nwhatever capacity he may be functioning has to act with the<br \/>\nbelief that he is not to be guided by any factor other than to<br \/>\nensure that he shall render a free and fair decision which<br \/>\naccording to his conscience is the right one on the basis of<br \/>\nmaterials placed before him.  There can be no exceptions to<br \/>\nthis imperative, but at the same time there should not be any<br \/>\nscope given to any person to go away with the feeling that the<br \/>\nJudge was biased, however unfounded the impression may be.<br \/>\nThe qualities desired of a Judge can be simply stated: &#8220;that if<br \/>\nhe be a good one and that he be thought to be so&#8221;. Such<br \/>\ncredentials are not easily acquired. The Judge needs to have<br \/>\n&#8220;the strength to put an end to injustice&#8221; and &#8220;the faculties that<br \/>\nare demanded of the historian and the philosopher and the<br \/>\nprophet&#8221;. A few paragraphs from the book &#8220;Judges&#8221; by David<br \/>\nPannick which are often quoted need to be set out here:<br \/>\n&#8220;The Judge has burdensome responsibilities to<br \/>\ndischarge. He has power over the lives and<br \/>\nlivelihood of all those litigants who enter his<br \/>\ncourt.His decisions may well affect the<br \/>\ninterests of individuals and groups who are not<br \/>\npresent or represented in court. If he is not<br \/>\ncareful, the judge may precipitate a civil war.<br \/>\nOr he may accelerate a revolution.He may<br \/>\naccidentally cause a peaceful but fundamental<br \/>\nchange in the political complexion of the<br \/>\ncountry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\txx\t\txx\t\txx\t\txx<\/p>\n<p>Judges today face tribulations, as well as<br \/>\ntrials, not contemplated by their<br \/>\npredecessors.Parliament has recognized the<br \/>\npressures of the job by providing that before<br \/>\nthe Lord Chancellor recommends anyone to<br \/>\nthe Queen for appointment to the Circuit<br \/>\nBench, the Lord Chancellor &#8216;shall take steps to<br \/>\nsatisfy himself that the person&#8217;s health is<br \/>\nsatisfactory&#8217;.. This seems essential in the<br \/>\nlight of the reminiscences of Lord Roskill as to<br \/>\nthe mental strain which the job can<br \/>\nimpose.Lord Roskill added that, in his<br \/>\nexperience, &#8216;the workload is intolerable: seven<br \/>\ndays a week, 14 hours a day&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>\txx\t\txx\t\txx\t\txx<\/p>\n<p>\tHe (judge) is a symbol of that strange<br \/>\nmixture of reality and illusion, democracy and<br \/>\nprivilege, humbug and decency , the subtle<br \/>\nnetwork of compromises, by which the nation<br \/>\nkeeps itself in its familiar shape&#8221;. <a href=\"\/doc\/1017222\/\">(See Brij<br \/>\nMohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors.<\/a> (2002 (5)<br \/>\nSCC 1)<\/p>\n<p>We are sure that the present Sessions Judge would have<br \/>\nacted in the true sense of a judicial officer. But nevertheless to<br \/>\nensure that justice is not only done, but also seen to be done<br \/>\nand the peculiar facts of the case, we feel that it will be<br \/>\nappropriate if the High Court transfers the case to some other<br \/>\nSessions Court in Raipur itself. We make it clear that the<br \/>\ntransfer shall not be construed as casting any aspersion on<br \/>\nthe Learned Sessions Judge. The Trial Court before whom the<br \/>\ntrial is to continue should ensure that the trial is completed by<br \/>\nthe end of May, 2007. Needless to say, the parties shall co-<br \/>\noperate in the completion of the trial within the said time.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is accordingly disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 241 of 2007 PETITIONER: Satish Jaggi RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; R.V. RAVEENDRAN JUDGMENT: J [&hellip;]<\/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-47471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-22T18:52:51+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T18:52:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2226,\"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\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T18:52:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-22T18:52:51+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T18:52:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007"},"wordCount":2226,"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\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007","name":"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T18:52:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-jaggi-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-ors-on-22-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satish Jaggi vs State Of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors on 22 February, 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:\/\/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\/47471","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=47471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}