{"id":57165,"date":"2006-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006"},"modified":"2017-10-07T10:16:54","modified_gmt":"2017-10-07T04:46:54","slug":"lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 10180 of 2003(J)\n\n\n1. LAKSHMANA, IPS (RETD.),\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n\n4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :07\/12\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n                             R. BASANT, J.\n\n              -------------------------------------------------\n\n                      O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J\n\n              -------------------------------------------------\n\n           Dated this the 7th day of December, 2006\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      When violent naxalite  activity was at its peak in Kerala,<\/p>\n
the   death   of   a   naxalite   leader   one   Varghese     took   place   on<\/p>\n
18\/2\/1970.   He was allegedly wanted in some crimes.   It was<\/p>\n
reported   that   his   death   occurred   in   an   encounter   with   the<\/p>\n
police.     Crime   No.28\/70   of   the   Mananthavady   Police   Station<\/p>\n
was registered under the caption “unnatural death” and it was<\/p>\n
promptly   closed   after   enquiry.       After   about   three   decades,<\/p>\n
consequent   to   the   alleged   disclosures   made     by   a   Police<\/p>\n
Constable   who   was   allegedly   involved   in   such   an   alleged<\/p>\n
encounter,   public   interest   litigations   were   filed   before   this<\/p>\n
Court and by Ext.P2 order dated 27\/1\/1999 this Court directed<\/p>\n
the C.B.I. to register a crime and investigate.  Thus, the F.I.R.<\/p>\n
was   registered   on   3\/3\/99.       Investigation   was   conducted,<\/p>\n
completed   and   final   report   was   filed   on   11\/12\/2002.<\/p>\n
Cognizance was taken.  At that stage, the 2nd accused who was<\/p>\n
charged   sheeted   came   to   this   Court   with   this   petition   under<\/p>\n
O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Art.226  of the Constitution praying that the  final  report and all<\/p>\n
further   proceedings   may   be   quashed.       It   is,   thus,     that   the<\/p>\n
matter is before this Court now.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.      The  1st  accused   is  the  Constable  who allegedly  made<\/p>\n
the   confession   and   who   allegedly   shot   the   deceased   at   the<\/p>\n
instructions   of   accused   2   and   3.     The   2nd  accused  was  a   young<\/p>\n
Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant point of time and<\/p>\n
the 3rd  accused was the Superintendent of Police at the time   in<\/p>\n
the District.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     Various   contentions   have   been   raised   in   this   writ<\/p>\n
petition  to   support   the  prayer   for   quashing   of   the  proceedings.<\/p>\n
But   after   discussions   at   the   Bar,   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   submits   that   all   other   contentions   raised   shall,   if<\/p>\n
necessary,   be   raised   before   the   Sessions   Court   (Special   Court,<\/p>\n
C.B.I.)   to   which   the   case   has   already   been   committed   and   this<\/p>\n
Court   now   need   to   consider   only   the   contention   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   cannot   aspire   to   get   fair   trial   if   the   trial   were   to   be<\/p>\n
held at this belated hour.  That is the only contention which has<\/p>\n
been raised.\n<\/p>\n
\nO.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J              -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      4.   The learned counsel for the petitioner wants me to and<\/p>\n
I must scrupulously avoid the temptation to advert to the facts in<\/p>\n
detail   and   make   any   observations   which   may   prejudice   the<\/p>\n
interests   of   the   parties   in   the   trial   which   will   have   to   be<\/p>\n
undertaken if proceedings are not quashed.  I shall advert to the<\/p>\n
minimal required facts only.  My attention has been drawn to the<\/p>\n
decisions   which   have   dealt   with   the   impact   of   the   delay   in<\/p>\n
investigation\/trial in respect of a criminal offence.  It is trite that<\/p>\n
there   may   be     instances   where   the   delay   virtually   renders   fair<\/p>\n
trial impossible.  The learned counsel for the petitioner contends<\/p>\n
that this is  such a case where on account of the lapse of a period<\/p>\n
exceeding 3 = decades by now the accused is disabled and it is<\/p>\n
not possible for him to set up an effective defence on account of<\/p>\n
the   lapse   of   time.     The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
carefully points out that it is not the number of days, months and<\/p>\n
years   that   have   gone   by   that   disables   the   petitioner.     The<\/p>\n
inevitable absence\/lack of necessary documents does also result<\/p>\n
in denial of fair trial and justice to the petitioner, it is contended.<\/p>\n
      5.   My attention has been drawn to the relevant precedents<\/p>\n
O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J                   -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
on   the   subject.     In   particular,   I   have   been   taken   through   the<\/p>\n
decisions in  Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak<\/a>   ((1992) 1<\/p>\n
SCC 225); Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of<\/p>\n
India  (1996)   4   SCC   33);    Common   Cause,   a   Registered<\/p>\n
Society   ((1996)   6   SCC   775);   Raj   Deo   Sharma   v.   State   of<\/p>\n
Bihar (AIR 1998 SC 3281); Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar<\/p>\n
(AIR   1999   SC   3524)     and  P.   Ramachandra   Rao   v.   State   of<\/p>\n
Karnataka<\/a> ((2002) 4 SCC 578).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     No   inflexible   standard   or   rigid   yardstick   can   be<\/p>\n
employed   by   a   court   while   deciding   whether   the   delay   entail<\/p>\n
denial   of   the   right   to   fair   trial   and   deprives   the     indictee   of     a<\/p>\n
reasonable opportunity to defend himself.  Any refined system of<\/p>\n
law will certainly have to accept and recognise the right for  fair<\/p>\n
trial and the right to fair trial certainly includes the availability<\/p>\n
of   a   reasonable   opportunity   to   defend   himself   in   the   trial.<\/p>\n
Various circumstances may intervene which would threaten this<\/p>\n
right   to   fair   trial   of   the   accused.     The   right   of   the   individual<\/p>\n
facing trial on the one side and the societal interests for justice<\/p>\n
on the other will have to be balanced and harmonised to decide<\/p>\n
O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J                  -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
whether it would be just, proper and fair to compel the accused<\/p>\n
to go for trial  belatedly in a case like the instant one.<\/p>\n
       7.   Truth   does   or   at   least   must   ultimately   triumph.     There<\/p>\n
can be no dispute that the circumstances under which the delay<\/p>\n
occurred   have   got   to   be   considered   very   cautiously.     Even<\/p>\n
assuming   that   the   case   may   ultimately   end   for   want   of   cogent<\/p>\n
and   acceptable   evidence,   I   am   certainly   of   opinion   that   the<\/p>\n
inherent   jurisdiction   under   Sec.482   of   the   Cr.P.C.   or   the<\/p>\n
constitutional   jurisdiction   under   Art.226   cannot   be   lightly<\/p>\n
invoked   to   thwart   a   trial.     At   times   there   is   justice   in   the   trial<\/p>\n
itself.        Sending   round  the   message  that  the  guilty   will  not  be<\/p>\n
spared   wherever   the   lapse   of   time   is   certainly   important   in   a<\/p>\n
society where  the  rule  of law prevents.   I  shall  scrupulously be<\/p>\n
circumspect   but   I   do   take   note   that   the   offence   is   allegedly<\/p>\n
committed   under   sheer   arrogance   of   power   in   the   hope   or   the<\/p>\n
assumption that the crime shall not be brought to light.     There<\/p>\n
is also an assumption that the polity, worried about the menace,<\/p>\n
will   also   appreciate   a   little   highhandedness   on   the   part   of   law<\/p>\n
enforcers.   It will certainly be a good message that whether the<\/p>\n
O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J               -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
lapse of time and however mighty they be, the offenders will be<\/p>\n
brought to book  ultimately and they will have to face trial.   The<\/p>\n
mere   fact   that   those   responsible   for   the   alleged   crime   were<\/p>\n
successful in keeping the offence under cover and secrecy for a<\/p>\n
long   period   of   time   cannot   certainly   help   them   to   successfully<\/p>\n
claim   immunity   from   prosecution   on   the   basis   of   the   delay   for<\/p>\n
which they were themselves responsible.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8.   Will justice   be denied because of the lapse of time and<\/p>\n
the   inability   of   the   accused   to   get   at   all   necessary   documents?<\/p>\n
This   is   the   question   to   be   considered.     Even   the   prosecution   is<\/p>\n
not able to lay their hands on many documents which could have<\/p>\n
been   ordinarily   reckoned   as   important.     But,   in   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances   of   this   case   (and   in   fact,   I   have   been   taken<\/p>\n
through the entire gamut  of materials that are available)    I am<\/p>\n
unable to agree that the mere lapse of time and the consequent<\/p>\n
inevitable  non-availability  of some of the  documents which  may<\/p>\n
have been useful for the prosecution or the accused is sufficient<\/p>\n
in itself in a case like the instant one to save the accused of even<\/p>\n
the trauma of a criminal trial.  Of course, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J                -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner prays that it will be open to the petitioner to claim<\/p>\n
discharge.  I shall therefore, as requested by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for   the   petitioner   also,   not   advert   to   the   materials   which<\/p>\n
allegedly  justify  the  charge  now  raised.    Suffice  it  to  say   that I<\/p>\n
have been taken through the final report submitted by the C.B.I.<\/p>\n
in  which  there is a detailed narration of the facts and evidence<\/p>\n
which the C.B.I. would like to introduce in the trial.   The C.B.I.<\/p>\n
particularly   relies   on   the   admitted   fact   of   death     by   fire   arm<\/p>\n
injury of the deceased.  The C.B.I. relies on the fact that it is the<\/p>\n
petitioner   who   has   recorded   the   information   reckoned   as   the<\/p>\n
F.I.R. in  Crime No.28\/70.    The C.B.I.  relies  on the  fact that the<\/p>\n
contents   of   the   First   Information   Statement   recorded   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner is allegedly false.     The C.B.I. relies   on the fact that<\/p>\n
Varghese was apprehended much earlier and it was not a case of<\/p>\n
any  encounter  at all.   Though  a confession  of the  co-accused is<\/p>\n
relied on, consequent to the death of the accused who allegedly<\/p>\n
made   the   confession,   the   same   may   not   be   available   now   for<\/p>\n
trial.     Be   that   as   it   may,   even   without   that   I   am   certainly   of<\/p>\n
opinion   that   to   meet   the   allegations   which   the   C.B.I.   wants   to<\/p>\n
O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J                -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
raise   as   revealed   in   the   final   report   the   lapse   of   time   and   the<\/p>\n
inevitable   non-availability   of   documents   cannot   be   held   to   be<\/p>\n
sufficient to justify a contention of denial of right of a fair trial.<\/p>\n
This certainly  is   an eminently  fit case where the accused must<\/p>\n
be directed to face a trial  commencing from framing of charge.<\/p>\n
Of course, the question whether the charges have to be framed<\/p>\n
or   not   and   the   materials   justify     discharge   under   Sec.227   or<\/p>\n
framing charge under Sec.228 of the Cr.P.C. will be decided by<\/p>\n
the Special Judge at the stage of Sec.227\/228 of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
       9.    The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is ill  and will  not be able to physically  appear before<\/p>\n
the learned Special Judge for a further period of three months.  I<\/p>\n
do   not   want   to   express   any   opinion.       The   petitioner   has<\/p>\n
admittedly   appeared   before   the   committal   court   already.     To<\/p>\n
decide on the question of framing of charge\/discharge, it may not<\/p>\n
be necessary for the court to insist on the personal appearance<\/p>\n
of   the   petitioner.     Hence   I   make   no   further   directions   on   that<\/p>\n
aspect.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10.  In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.   In the<\/p>\n
O.P.NO. 10180 OF  2003-J               -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
facts and  circumstances of  this  case,  the  learned   Special  Judge<\/p>\n
must certainly endeavour an expeditious disposal of the case.   I<\/p>\n
need  only  direct   the   learned  Special  Judge   to  finally  dispose   of<\/p>\n
the   case   as   expeditiously   as   possible   –   at   any   rate,   within   a<\/p>\n
period of six months from this day.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        11.     Communicate   a   copy   of   this   judgment   to   the   learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (R. BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Nan\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 10180 of 2003(J) 1. LAKSHMANA, IPS (RETD.), … Petitioner Vs 1. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, … Respondent 2. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE 4. UNION OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006 - 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\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-07T04:46:54+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T04:46:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1703,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-07T04:46:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006 - 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\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-07T04:46:54+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T04:46:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006"},"wordCount":1703,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006","name":"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-07T04:46:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmana-vs-central-bureau-of-investigation-on-7-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakshmana vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/57165","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=57165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}