{"id":52994,"date":"2005-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005"},"modified":"2018-01-29T19:59:39","modified_gmt":"2018-01-29T14:29:39","slug":"manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR       \n\n            Criminal Revision No.231 of 2005\n\n                      Manoj Tiwari\n                                      ...Petitioners\n\n                                      VERSUS\n\n                  State of Chhattisgarh\n                                      ...Respondents\n\n\n!     Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for the applicant.\n\n^     Shri D.K. Gwalre  Panel Lawyer for the State.\n\n     Hon'ble Justice SUNIL KUMAR SINHA  \n\n Dated: 12\/12\/2005\n\n:                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>                         (12.12.2005)<\/p>\n<p>(1)    This  revision  has  been  directed  against  the<br \/>\nimpugned  judgment  dated 07.5.2005 passed  in  Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal  No.102\/2005  by the 11th Addl.  Sessions  Judge,<br \/>\n(F.T.C), Raipur (C.G) arising out of the judgment  dated<br \/>\n31.3.2005  passed  in Criminal Case no.602\/2005  by  the<br \/>\nC.J.M.,  Raipur,  whereby the appeal  preferred  by  the<br \/>\nappellant against the conviction and sentence awarded by<br \/>\nthe  trial  Court, under section 34(1) &amp; (2)  of  Excise<br \/>\nAct, has been dismissed by the appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)   The  facts  of the case are that on 26.2.2004,  an<br \/>\ninformation was received by Assistant Sub-Inspector Shri<br \/>\nRamesh Manjhi (P.W.2), that some illicit liquor is being<br \/>\ntransported in an Auto Rickshaw bearing Regn.No.  C.G.04<br \/>\nZA  5580 from Gudhiyari to Teldhani Naka.  On receipt of<br \/>\nthis   information,  he  made  contact  with  the  other<br \/>\npatrolling party and got them accompanied with  him  and<br \/>\nultimately  the  aforesaid  Rickshaw  was  located  near<br \/>\nTeldhani Naka, Raipur. The Rickshaw was being driven  by<br \/>\naccused  Pyarelal  and  present  applicant\/accused   was<br \/>\nsitting  in it.  When the vehicle was searched,  it  was<br \/>\nfound that there were 144 quarter bottles of Indian Made<br \/>\nGoa English Liquor containing 180 Ml. in each bottle  in<br \/>\nRickshaw.   After  the seizure, two notices  were  given<br \/>\nvide  Ex.P.3 &amp; P-4 to the accused persons for  producing<br \/>\nthe    documents    in   relation   to   ownership\/legal<br \/>\ntransportation of the aforesaid liquor u\/s 91 of Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nbut  the  accused persons could not produce any document<br \/>\nand made endorsement to this effect in the notice Ex.P.3<br \/>\n&amp;   P-4   by   their  own  hand-writing  putting   their<br \/>\nsignatures.   The  seizure of the aforesaid  liquor  was<br \/>\nmade  vide Ex.P.2 and the Auto Rickshaw was also  seized<br \/>\nvide  Ex.P.1.  At the trial, two punch witnesses  namely<br \/>\nRajendra Singh (P.W.3) and Daulal (PW.5) turned  hostile<br \/>\nand  had  not  supported the case of  prosecution.   The<br \/>\nlearned trial Judge, believing on the testimony  of  the<br \/>\nInvestigating officer, Ramesh Kumar Manjhi (P.W.2),  and<br \/>\nfurther  believing the testimony of  another  member  of<br \/>\nthe   patrolling  party,  Head  Constable  Radhe   Shyam<br \/>\n(P.W.1), held the accused persons guilty of the  offence<br \/>\npunishable  u\/s  34(1)  &amp; (2)  of  the  Excise  Act  and<br \/>\nsentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year and  to  pay<br \/>\nfine  of  Rs.25,000\/-  &#8211; 25,000\/- each,  in  default  of<br \/>\npayment  of  fine,  to under go additional  R.I.  for  9<br \/>\nmonths -9 months each.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)  Against the aforesaid judgment and order passed  by<br \/>\nthe trial Court, the accused persons preferred an appeal<br \/>\nbefore  the  Sessions  Court  but  the  Sessions   Court<br \/>\ndismissed their appeal and confirmed the conviction  and<br \/>\nsentence passed by the trial Court.  It is against  this<br \/>\njudgment of the appellate court, this revision has  been<br \/>\nfiled by one of the accused persons namely Manoj Tiwari.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)   Referring to a decision rendered in the matter  of<br \/>\nNandu  @   Nandkishore -Vs- State  of  M.P.  (2002)  (2)<br \/>\nC.Cr.J.  712  (M.P), learned counsel for  the  applicant<br \/>\nargued  that  since both the witnesses of  seizure  have<br \/>\nturned  hostile  and  the version of  the  investigating<br \/>\nofficer  is  not  supported  by  the  other  independent<br \/>\nwitnesses,   therefore,  the  conviction  and   sentence<br \/>\nawarded  to the applicant is not proper.  He  relies  on<br \/>\npara 11 of the aforesaid judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)   On  the  other hand, learned State Counsel  argued<br \/>\nthat  the  conviction can be based on the sole testimony<br \/>\nof  the  investigating officer, if the  same  is  wholly<br \/>\nreliable  and dependable.  He also argued  that  in  the<br \/>\npresent case, the testimony of the Investigating Officer<br \/>\nis   fully  corroborated  by  another  member   of   the<br \/>\npatrolling party namely Radhe Shyam (P.W.1).\n<\/p>\n<p>(6)   I  have  heard learned counsel for the parties  at<br \/>\nlength  and  have also perused the records  of  the  two<br \/>\ncourts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>(7)  There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that if<br \/>\nthe evidence of the investigating officer is found to be<br \/>\ntrustworthy and dependable and nothing material has been<br \/>\nbrought   to  discredit  his  evidence  in   the   cross<br \/>\nexamination or his evidence is otherwise not unreliable,<br \/>\nthe  Criminal Court would be justified in convicting the<br \/>\naccused  on  the  sole  testimony of  the  investigating<br \/>\nofficer.   I  am fortified in my views by a decision  of<br \/>\nthe  Supreme  Court rendered in the matter  of  Lopchand<br \/>\nNaruji  Jat and another -Vs- State of Gujarat  (2004)  7<br \/>\nSCC  566.  Normally in cases where the evidence  led  by<br \/>\nthe  prosecution  as  to a fact depends  solely  on  the<br \/>\npolice  witnesses,  the courts seek corroboration  as  a<br \/>\nmatter of caution and not as a matter of a rule.   Thus,<br \/>\nit  is only a rule of prudence, which makes the court to<br \/>\nseek  corroboration from an independent source, in  such<br \/>\ncases while assessing the evidence of the police. But in<br \/>\ncases where the court is satisfied that the evidence  of<br \/>\nthe police can be independently relied upon then in such<br \/>\ncases,  there  is no prohibition in law  that  the  same<br \/>\ncannot be accepted without an independent corroboration.<br \/>\n(Please  see  Praveen  Kumar -Vs-  State  of  Karnataka,<br \/>\n(2003)  12  SCC 199).  In the present case, nothing  has<br \/>\nbeen  brought  on  record as to  why  the  investigating<br \/>\nofficer  should  be  disbelieved.  A  very  short  cross<br \/>\nexamination has been done in which nothing has  come  to<br \/>\ncause  shadow  on  the  testimony of  the  investigating<br \/>\nofficer  Shri  Ramesh  Kumar  Manjhi  (P.W.2).   On  the<br \/>\ncontrary,  his  statement is fully corroborated  by  the<br \/>\nstatement  of  Head Constable Radhe Shyam  (P.W.1),  who<br \/>\nsays  that  when he was doing the patrolling  duty  with<br \/>\nanother  party  he  was contacted by  the  investigating<br \/>\nofficer  after  receipt  of the  information  about  the<br \/>\ntransportation of illicit liquor and then only his party<br \/>\naccompanied  the investigating officer and all  of  them<br \/>\nwent  to the spot and stopped the Auto Rickshaw and made<br \/>\nsearch  thereof leading to the seizure of the  aforesaid<br \/>\nliquor.  Therefore,  in the facts and  circumstances  of<br \/>\nthis  case, I am not inclined to accept that  since  the<br \/>\nversion  of the I.O. is not supported by the independent<br \/>\nwitnesses of seizure, his testimony should be thrown out<br \/>\nand  conviction based upon his testimony should  be  set<br \/>\naside.  In the facts and circumstances of the case,  the<br \/>\nlaw  cited by the learned counsel for the applicant will<br \/>\nnot  be  applicable  because in the aforesaid  judgment,<br \/>\nnothing  has been said about the testimony of  the  I.O.<br \/>\nThat  is  to  say  as  to  whether  his  testimony   was<br \/>\ntrustworthy  or  untrustworthy. The  aforesaid  judgment<br \/>\ndoes   not   help  the  applicant  and   the   same   is<br \/>\ndistinguishable.   It  is  also distinguishable  on  the<br \/>\npoint  that  in  the  present case the  version  of  the<br \/>\ninvestigating officer is corroborated by  P.W.  1  Radhe<br \/>\nShyam.\n<\/p>\n<p>(8)   Another point has been raised that all the bottles<br \/>\nseized from the possession of the applicant was not sent<br \/>\nfor  chemical examination, therefore, it cannot be  said<br \/>\nthat  the applicant was carrying illicit liquor  to  the<br \/>\ntune  of  25 bulk litres.  P.W.4 namely J.K.  Arora  has<br \/>\nbeen  examined as a witness who performed  the  test  of<br \/>\nliquor and submitted his report in this regard.  In  his<br \/>\nreport   Ex.P.12,  he  stated  that  5  quarter  bottles<br \/>\ncontaining  180  ml. liquor in each were brought  before<br \/>\nhim  in  sealed  condition  and  he  performed  test  by<br \/>\nobservation by smell and by taste and he also  performed<br \/>\nthe  blue  litmus  test  as well  as  the  test  through<br \/>\nHydrometer  and aforesaid report Ex.P.12  was  submitted<br \/>\nsaying  that the substance sent for examination  was  an<br \/>\nIndian   made  foreign  liquor  whisky.   The   argument<br \/>\nadvanced  is that the entire bottles were not  sent  for<br \/>\nexamination, therefore, it has not been established that<br \/>\nthe  entire seized property was liquor. In this  regard,<br \/>\nif  we  look into the notices given by the Investigating<br \/>\nOfficer  u\/s  91  of  Cr.P.C.  for  production  of   the<br \/>\ndocuments regarding the validity of the liquor (Ex.P.3 &amp;<br \/>\nP-4), it would appear that in the aforesaid notices,  it<br \/>\nhas  been  mentioned that the articles seized  were  the<br \/>\nquarter  bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor  and  the<br \/>\ndocuments  of those liquor were demanded.  In  reply  to<br \/>\nthe above notice u\/s 91 Cr.P.C., the accused persons had<br \/>\nwritten in their own hand writing that they were  having<br \/>\nno  valid papers to transport the aforesaid liquor  with<br \/>\nthem.   This  goes to show that the seized  article  was<br \/>\nadmitted to be the liquor by the accused persons  before<br \/>\nthe Police Officer and the denial was only to the extent<br \/>\nthat   they   were  having  no  legal  papers  regarding<br \/>\npossession\/transportation  of  the   aforesaid   liquor.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the arguments advanced that the  prosecution<br \/>\ncould  not  establish that the entire bottles (including<br \/>\nthe  bottles  not  sent for chemical  examination)  were<br \/>\ncontaining liquor cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>(9)   Now the main question arises as to what should  be<br \/>\nthe   offence  under  which  the  applicant  should   be<br \/>\nconvicted.   If we examine the contents of  the  charges<br \/>\nframed against the applicant and the co-accused it would<br \/>\nappear  that  the  accused  persons  were  charged   for<br \/>\ncarrying 25 bulk litres of aforesaid liquor.  The entire<br \/>\ntrial  was  conducted for illegal transportation  of  25<br \/>\nbulk litres of liquor.  The order sheet of the J.M.F.C.,<br \/>\ndated   18.3.2005  would  also  show  that   since   the<br \/>\nallegations  were  in relation to transportation  of  25<br \/>\nbulk   litres,  therefore,  on  the  basis  of   certain<br \/>\namendment,   the  Court  of  J.M.F.C.  was   having   no<br \/>\njurisdiction  and the matter was sent for trial  to  the<br \/>\nC.J.M.   The  trial  Court in  the  first  part  of  its<br \/>\njudgment has also mentioned  about the quantity in  bulk<br \/>\nlitres  which  is  expressed  as  25  bulk  litres,  but<br \/>\nultimately in the concluding para of judgment (Para  11)<br \/>\nit  has recorded a finding that the accused persons were<br \/>\nfound  transporting more than 25 bulk litres  of  liquor<br \/>\nand  then only a conviction and sentence u\/s 34(1) &amp; (2)<br \/>\nof  the  Excise  Act has been awarded  and  for  this  a<br \/>\nminimum  punishment vide sub-section (2) that  is   R.I.<br \/>\nfor one year and fine of Rs.25,000\/- has been awarded.\n<\/p>\n<p>(10)  So  far  as holding the applicant  guilty  of  the<br \/>\noffence under section 34 {substantially under section 34<br \/>\n(1)  (a)} is concerned, the judgment is sustainable, but<br \/>\nimposing the sentence as aforementioned with the aid  of<br \/>\nsub-section  (2) of section 34 holding the  quantity  of<br \/>\nliquor  to  be  more  than  25  bulk  litres  cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained  as  according to the judgment  of  the  trial<br \/>\nCourt,  the quantity of liquor transported was shown  to<br \/>\nbe  25 bulk litres and the aforesaid punishment has been<br \/>\nawarded  as  if  the  quantity was &#8220;exceeding&#8221;  25  bulk<br \/>\nlitres  and the appellate court also lost sight of  this<br \/>\nfact.   Unless the quantity is proved to be  &#8220;exceeding&#8221;<br \/>\n25 bulk litres, the aforesaid sentences holding the case<br \/>\nof  exceeding  quantity  of 25  bulk  litres  cannot  be<br \/>\nimposed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(11) The word `exceeds&#8217; engrafted by the legislature  in<br \/>\nsub  Section (2) of Section 34 of the Excise Act has got<br \/>\na  great  significance.  The said word is a  legislative<br \/>\ncommand given by the legislature for imposing punishment<br \/>\nin case of an offence punishable under Clause (a) or (b)<br \/>\nof  sub Section (1) of Section 34 of the Excise Act when<br \/>\nthe  case  relates to the liquor, and is based upon  the<br \/>\ngravity of the offence which has been determined by  the<br \/>\nlegislature on the basis of quantity of the  liquor  for<br \/>\nwhich  the offence is said to have been committed.   The<br \/>\nword  &#8220;exceeds&#8221; has to be given an ordinary meaning  and<br \/>\nthe same must be intended to be the quantity &#8220;more than&#8221;<br \/>\n25  bulk  litres and the Courts are required to construe<br \/>\nthe  meaning of word `exceeds&#8217; in its strict sense  with<br \/>\nreference  to  the  scale of measurement  of  liquor  in<br \/>\nlitres\/bulk litres.\n<\/p>\n<p>(12)   The  conviction  and  sentence  awarded  to   the<br \/>\napplicant  holding  the liquor to be exceeding  25  bulk<br \/>\nlitres is set aside.  Instead the applicant is convicted<br \/>\nfor illegally transporting 25 bulk litres of liquor (not<br \/>\nexceeding   25  bulk  litres)  and  his  punishment   is<br \/>\nmodified.   He is convicted u\/s 34(1)(a) of  the  Excise<br \/>\nAct  and  is  sentenced to the period already  undergone<br \/>\n(which comes about 8 months 24 days as stated by counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  applicant that he could not avail the facility<br \/>\nof  bail  granted by this Court) and a fine of Rs.5000\/-<br \/>\nin  default of payment of fine of Rs. 5,000\/-,  he  will<br \/>\nundergo  R.I.  for  1  month more.  The  conviction  and<br \/>\nsentence are modified to the extent indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The revision is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                   JUDGE<br \/>\n                                     12.12.2005<br \/>\nRao<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.231 of 2005 Manoj Tiwari &#8230;Petitioners VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh &#8230;Respondents ! Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for the applicant. ^ Shri D.K. Gwalre Panel Lawyer for the State. Hon&#8217;ble Justice SUNIL KUMAR SINHA [&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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005 - 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\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-29T14:29:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T14:29:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2030,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T14:29:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005 - 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\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-29T14:29:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T14:29:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005"},"wordCount":2030,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005","name":"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T14:29:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-tiwari-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-12-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 December, 2005"}]},{"@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\/52994","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=52994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}