{"id":57536,"date":"2007-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007"},"modified":"2016-06-10T10:18:24","modified_gmt":"2016-06-10T04:48:24","slug":"state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C.K. Thakker, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1244-1245 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF DELHI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJITTI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/10\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nC.K. THAKKER &amp; ALTAMAS KABIR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>C.K. THAKKER, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tBoth these appeals are filed by the<br \/>\nState of Delhi against judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal Nos. 111 and 47 of 1999.  By the said<br \/>\norder, the High Court confirmed an order of<br \/>\nconviction recorded by the Additional Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1996<br \/>\ndated October 14\/October 21, 1998, but<br \/>\nrestricted the sentence to the period already<br \/>\nundergone by the convict.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tShort facts of the case are that Didar<br \/>\nSingh, Circle Inspector along with Constable<br \/>\nRam Karan was on patrolling duty on September<br \/>\n07, 1996.  At about 8.15 p.m., they reached<br \/>\nnear car parking at old Lajpat Rai Market.<br \/>\nThere they received secret information that two<br \/>\npersons aged about 35-40 years were likely to<br \/>\ncome from the side of Bagichi Angoori Bagh and<br \/>\nthey were possessing jute bags containing poppy<br \/>\nstraw powder.  They would catch a bus going to<br \/>\nPunjab.  On receipt of such information, SI<br \/>\nDidar Singh organized a raid party along with<br \/>\npolice officials and 4\/5 persons from general<br \/>\npublic.  At about 8.35 p.m., two persons were<br \/>\napprehended.  Both of them were carrying two<br \/>\njute bags on their heads.  On inquiry, one of<br \/>\nthe accused disclosed his name as Jitti and the<br \/>\nother gave his name as Vaishnu Dass, resident<br \/>\nof District Hoshiarpur in Punjab.  The secret<br \/>\ninformation was then disclosed to both of them<br \/>\nand they were given option to be searched in<br \/>\npresence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.<br \/>\nThey, however, declined the offer.  Thereafter<br \/>\nthe search was carried out. From accused Jitti,<br \/>\n22 Kgs. of poppy straw powder was found whereas<br \/>\nfrom other jute bag 23 Kgs. of poppy straw<br \/>\npowder was recovered.  Thus in all, 45 Kgs of<br \/>\npoppy straw powder was found.  Samples were<br \/>\ntaken from each jute bag and placed in two<br \/>\nbags. The remaining poppy straw powder was kept<br \/>\nin the same jute bags again.  Usual seals were<br \/>\naffixed.  Samples were then sent to Central<br \/>\nForensic Science Laboratory. The result<br \/>\ndisclosed that samples were found to contain<br \/>\npoppy straw powder.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tAfter usual investigation, charges<br \/>\nwere framed against the accused under Section<br \/>\n18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic<br \/>\nSubstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas the Act).  The accused pleaded not guilty<br \/>\nto the charges levelled against him and claimed<br \/>\nto be tried.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tThe Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi<br \/>\nafter examining the evidence of witnesses<br \/>\nproduced by the prosecution, by an order of<br \/>\nconviction recorded on October 14, 1998 held<br \/>\nthat it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that<br \/>\nthe accused was guilty of an offence punishable<br \/>\nunder Section 18 of the Act.  The accused was<br \/>\nthereafter heard on the quantum of sentence and<br \/>\nfinally on October 21, 1998 the Court imposed<br \/>\npunishment on the convict. The operative part<br \/>\nof the order reads thus;\n<\/p>\n<p>     The convict has been convicted<br \/>\nunder Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The<br \/>\noffence under Section 18 of the NDPS<br \/>\nAct is punishable with rigorous<br \/>\npunishment for a term which shall not<br \/>\nbe less than 10 years and shall also<br \/>\nbe liable to fine which shall not be<br \/>\nless than Rs.1 lakh. As per the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 18 of the NDPS<br \/>\nAct, the minimum sentence is 10 years<br \/>\nRI and fine of Rs.1 lakh. The Court<br \/>\nhas no discretion in the matter. Hence<br \/>\nthe convict is sentenced with RI for<br \/>\n10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1<br \/>\nlakh. In default of payment of fine to<br \/>\nundergo RI for 2 years. File be<br \/>\nconsigned to record room.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tBeing aggrieved by the order passed by<br \/>\nthe trial Court, the accused preferred appeals<br \/>\nbefore the High Court of Delhi. As observed by<br \/>\nthe High Court, the counsel for the accused was<br \/>\nnot in a position to challenge the order of<br \/>\nconviction and confined his arguments only on<br \/>\nthe question of sentence.  It was submitted<br \/>\nthat the accused was found in possession of<br \/>\n45 Kgs of poppy husk\/powder.  Relying on the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 41 of the Act as amended<br \/>\nby the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic<br \/>\nSubstances Act, 2001 [Act 9 of 2001], it was<br \/>\nsubmitted that as per the amended provision,<br \/>\ncommercial quantity in respect of poppy husk<br \/>\nwas 50 Kgs.  The accused was found to be in<br \/>\npossession of 45 Kgs. It was, therefore,<br \/>\nsubmitted that when the quantity was not<br \/>\ncommercial quantity, rigorous imprisonment<br \/>\nfor ten years was not the minimum punishment,<br \/>\nbut the maximum punishment.  It was only in<br \/>\nrespect of commercial quantity, the minimum<br \/>\npunishment was for ten years.  It was submitted<br \/>\nthat the accused had already undergone 5= years<br \/>\nin jail and he should be released by passing an<br \/>\nappropriate order that the sentence undergone<br \/>\nby him was sufficient.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. \t\tThough it was contended by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the State that the said provision<br \/>\n(Section 41 as amended by Act 9 of 2001) would<br \/>\nnot apply to cases pending in appeals, the High<br \/>\nCourt held that a view was taken in Ginni Devi<br \/>\nv. State, that the amendment would also apply<br \/>\nto cases pending in appeal.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\nCourt partly allowed the appeal, confirmed the<br \/>\nconviction but reduced the sentence of<br \/>\nimprisonment of the accused to imprisonment<br \/>\nalready undergone and directed to set him at<br \/>\nliberty forthwith if not wanted in any other<br \/>\ncase.  The accused was, therefore, set at<br \/>\nliberty pursuant to the above order of the High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tBeing aggrieved by the order passed by<br \/>\nthe High Court, the State approached this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. \t\tOn March 3, 2003, when the matter was<br \/>\nplaced for admission hearing, it was found that<br \/>\nthere was delay of 209 days in filing the<br \/>\nspecial leave petition in this Court.  Notice<br \/>\nwas, therefore, issued for condonation of delay<br \/>\nas also on special leave petitions.  Interim<br \/>\nstay of the operation of the judgment was also<br \/>\ngranted and bailable warrants were issued.<br \/>\nSince the warrants were not served, non-<br \/>\nbailable warrants were issued on July 7, 2003.<br \/>\nDirection was also issued to the Commissioner<br \/>\nof Police, Delhi to execute them.  On September<br \/>\n8, 2003, when the matter came up before this<br \/>\nCourt, it was noted by the Court that though<br \/>\nnon-bailable warrants were issued, they could<br \/>\nnot be executed.  No report of the Commissioner<br \/>\nof Police in regard to the steps taken was<br \/>\nfiled.  A direction was, therefore, issued to<br \/>\nthe Commissioner of Police, Delhi to file<br \/>\nreport within two days as to compliance of<br \/>\nearlier order.  Actions were thereafter taken<br \/>\nto locate the respondent and finally warrants<br \/>\nwere executed. On September 26, 2003, delay was<br \/>\ncondoned, leave was granted. Since the<br \/>\nrespondent was arrested, meanwhile, he was<br \/>\nordered to be released on bail on his<br \/>\nfurnishing self bond of Rs.1,00,000\/- (rupees<br \/>\none lakh) with two sureties each for the like<br \/>\namount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.<br \/>\nIt appears that the respondent could not<br \/>\nfurnish surety as per the order of this Court<br \/>\nand therefore could not be released on bail.  A<br \/>\nprayer was, therefore, made on his behalf to<br \/>\nhear the matter finally.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. \t\tWe have heard the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tIt was submitted by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the State that the High Court was<br \/>\nnot right in applying Section 41 of the Act as<br \/>\namended in 2001 to the present case. It was<br \/>\nurged that proviso to sub-section (1) of<br \/>\nSection 41 is explicitly clear and expressly<br \/>\nstates that it will not apply to cases pending<br \/>\nin appeal. Section 41, as amended by Act 9 of<br \/>\n2001 reads thus;\n<\/p>\n<p>41. Application of this Act to<br \/>\npending cases.-(1) Notwithstanding<br \/>\nanything contained in sub-section (2)<br \/>\nof section 1, all cases pending before<br \/>\nthe courts or under investigation at<br \/>\nthe commencement of this Act shall be<br \/>\ndisposed of in accordance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of the principal Act as<br \/>\namended by this Act and accordingly,<br \/>\nany person found guilty of any offence<br \/>\npunishable under the principal Act, as<br \/>\nit stood immediately before such<br \/>\ncommencement, shall be liable for a<br \/>\npunishment which is lesser than the<br \/>\npunishment for which he is otherwise<br \/>\nliable at the date of the commission<br \/>\nof such offence:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that nothing in this section<br \/>\nshall apply to cases pending in<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) For the removal of doubts, it is<br \/>\nhereby declared that no act or<br \/>\nomission on the part of any person<br \/>\nshall be punishable as an offence<br \/>\nwhich would not have been so<br \/>\npunishable if this Act has not come<br \/>\ninto force.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tHe, therefore, submitted that the<br \/>\nappeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tLearned amicus curiae for the<br \/>\nrespondent-accused submitted that the High<br \/>\nCourt was right in passing the impugned order.<br \/>\nThe High Court had also taken a similar view in<br \/>\nother cases. It was alternatively urged that on<br \/>\nthe facts and in the circumstances of the case,<br \/>\nthe respondent had undergone about ten years of<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the appeal<br \/>\nmay be disposed of leaving the question open.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tWe have given our anxious<br \/>\nconsideration to the contentions raised by the<br \/>\nparties.  From the record, however, it appears<br \/>\nthat the incident took place on September 7,<br \/>\n1996 and on the same day, the respondent was<br \/>\narrested.  It is stated by the respondent in<br \/>\nCriminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 10614-<br \/>\n10615 of 2007 filed in this Court with the<br \/>\naffidavit that he was in jail from September 7,<br \/>\n1996 from the day he was arrested till the<br \/>\nfinal order was passed by the High Court of<br \/>\nDelhi on April 2, 2002.  Thus, he was in jail<br \/>\nfor more than 5= years.  The said fact is also<br \/>\nnoted by the High Court while disposing the<br \/>\nappeal.  It was further stated in the affidavit<br \/>\nthat after the special leave petition was filed<br \/>\nby the State in this Court, he was again<br \/>\narrested.  From the two affidavits filed by V.<br \/>\nRenganathan, Deputy Commissioner of Police<br \/>\n(Headquarters), I.P. Estate, New Delhi dated<br \/>\nSeptember 10, 2003 and September 24, 2003, it<br \/>\nappears that the respondent was arrested on<br \/>\nSeptember 23, 2003. This Court, no doubt,<br \/>\npassed an order releasing him on bail. In view<br \/>\nof the fact, however, that the respondent could<br \/>\nnot comply with the conditions of bail, he was<br \/>\nnot released on bail and till today, he is in<br \/>\njail. Thus he is in jail since about ten years.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\t\tTaking into account the totality of<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances and factual scenario,<br \/>\nnamely, that the respondent-accused is in jail<br \/>\nsince about ten years, the High Court partly<br \/>\nallowed his appeal and ordered to release him,<br \/>\nthe present appeal challenging the said<br \/>\ndecision is filed by the State, the respondent<br \/>\ncould not be released on bail as he was unable<br \/>\nto furnish sureties, in our opinion, ends of<br \/>\njustice would be met if without expressing<br \/>\nfinal opinion on the question of law raised<br \/>\nbefore us, we dispose of the appeals observing<br \/>\nthat since the respondent had undergone<br \/>\nsentence of almost ten years, he should be<br \/>\nset at liberty unless he is required in any<br \/>\nother offence. As and when the question raised<br \/>\nin these appeals will come up for consideration<br \/>\nin an appropriate case, it will be decided on<br \/>\nits own merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\t\tIn view of the order passed above, the<br \/>\nappeals as well as Criminal Miscellaneous<br \/>\nPetition Nos. 10614-10615 of 2007 stand<br \/>\ndisposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007 Author: C Thakker Bench: C.K. Thakker, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1244-1245 of 2003 PETITIONER: STATE OF DELHI RESPONDENT: JITTI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/10\/2007 BENCH: C.K. THAKKER &amp; ALTAMAS KABIR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, [&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-57536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 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\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-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=\"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-10T04:48:24+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\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-10T04:48:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1822,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-10T04:48:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 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\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-10T04:48:24+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\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-10T04:48:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007"},"wordCount":1822,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007","name":"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-10T04:48:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-delhi-vs-jitti-on-12-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Delhi vs Jitti on 12 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57536","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=57536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}