{"id":63705,"date":"2007-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007"},"modified":"2017-09-29T08:00:49","modified_gmt":"2017-09-29T02:30:49","slug":"pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n         IN TH HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n        MCCS No. 34 of 2005\n\n        Pohari Sharan  Pandey\n                              ...Petitioners\n\n                                 VERSUS\n\n        1. The State  of  M.P.(Now C.G.)\n\n         2. The Superintendent of Police\n\n                              ...Respondents\n\n!        Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the petitioner\n\n^        Smt.   Anju  Ahuja,  Deputy  Govt.  Advocate  for   the respondents\/State.\n\n\n        Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J)\n\n        Dated: 24\/07\/2007\n\n:        Order\n\n\n               APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE       \n               TRIBUNAL  ACT, 1985 FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER  DATED       \n               13.8.1998, PASSED IN T.A.NO. 3343 OF 1988 STATE OF  \n               M.P. VERSUS POHARI SHARAN PANDEY.     \n\n                              ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                           (Passed on 24th this day of July, 2007)<\/p>\n
     1.   The present application seeks a review of the order dated<\/p>\n
          13.8.1998 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,<\/p>\n
          Jabalpur in T.A. No. 3343\/1988 (State of M.P. & another Vs. Pohri<\/p>\n
          Sharan).\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The  facts  in nutshell are that in the year  1979  the<\/p>\n
          petitioner was working as Police Constable in the office of the<\/p>\n
          Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Kawardha. The petitioner was<\/p>\n
          issued a charge-sheet on 11\/13.8.1981 to the effect that he had<\/p>\n
          submitted forged bills for claiming traveling allowance in<\/p>\n
          respect of the period 6.12.1979 to 29.2.1980 and fraudulently<\/p>\n
          induced the government to release the amount against the said<\/p>\n
          bills. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the<\/p>\n
          petitioner and he was dismissed from service vide order dated<\/p>\n
          25.1.1982. The appeal against the order of dismissal dated<\/p>\n
          25.1.1982 was also dismissed on 28.1.2002.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   The  petitioner was prosecuted for the same charges  in<\/p>\n
          Criminal Case No. 257\/92 under the provisions of Section 467, 471<\/p>\n
          and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate First<\/p>\n
          Class, Rajnandgaon vide judgment and order dated 25.11.1992<\/p>\n
          (Annexure A\/1) acquitted the petitioner from above stated charges<\/p>\n
          on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the<\/p>\n
          charges beyond reasonable doubts. It was further observed that<\/p>\n
          the prosecution was perhaps on account of malice on the part of<\/p>\n
          the Police Station Incharge Shri A. H. Khan towards the<\/p>\n
          petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The petitioner also field Civil Suit No. 3-A\/86 before the<\/p>\n
          Civil Judge Class-I, Rajnandgaon, challenging the order of<\/p>\n
          dismissal dated 25.1.1982. The suit was decreed vide judgment<\/p>\n
          dated 17.8.1987 in favour of the petitioner on the ground that<\/p>\n
          the sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the<\/p>\n
          petitioner. The enquiry officer Shri G.S.Chandrol despite<\/p>\n
          complaint against him, was allowed to complete the enquiry.<\/p>\n
     5.   The  respondent\/State preferred an appeal  against  the<\/p>\n
          judgment and decree dated 17.8.2004 in the Court of District<\/p>\n
          Judge, Rajnandgaon. During the pendency of the appeal in the<\/p>\n
          Court of District Judge, the Madhya Pradesh Administrative<\/p>\n
          Tribunal came into existence and the said appeal  stood<\/p>\n
          transferred to the Tribunal and it was numbered as T.A.No.<\/p>\n
          3343\/88. The Tribunal, vide order dated 13.8.1998 (Annexure A\/3)<\/p>\n
          allowed the appeal and the order dated 17.8.1987, passed by the<\/p>\n
          Civil Judge Class-I was quashed. Consequently, the order of the<\/p>\n
          disciplinary authority terminating the service of the petitioner<\/p>\n
          stood maintained.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   The petitioner has filed this review petition on the ground<\/p>\n
          that perhaps the information about acquittal of the petitioner<\/p>\n
          from criminal charges, which attained finality, could not be<\/p>\n
          pointed out before the Tribunal when the petitioner is protected<\/p>\n
          under Regulation No. 241 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations<\/p>\n
          (for short `the Regulations’).\n<\/p>\n
     7.   The  petitioner has field this review application  that<\/p>\n
          perhaps the facts with regard to the acquittal of the petitioner<\/p>\n
          in criminal case was not pointed out before the Tribunal though<\/p>\n
          the judgment of acquittal in criminal case was already on record<\/p>\n
          in the file when the case was heard and decided by the M. P.<\/p>\n
          Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   Shri Ratan Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the review<\/p>\n
          petitioner submits that there is error apparent on the face of<\/p>\n
          record as the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal Court was<\/p>\n
          not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal vide<\/p>\n
          order dated 13.8.1998. According to learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
          petitioner, the police regulations are statutory in nature, as<\/p>\n
          has been affirmed by the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High<\/p>\n
          Court, thus the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of<\/p>\n
          Regulation 241 of the Regulations. He further submits that once<\/p>\n
          the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case for the same<\/p>\n
          charges, the petitioner be reinstated in service as a rule and he<\/p>\n
          should not be punished departmentally when the offence for which<\/p>\n
          he was tried, constituted the sole ground of punishment.<\/p>\n
     9.   Smt.  Anju  Ahuja,  learned counsel appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
          respondents\/ State would submit that the fact of acquittal in the<\/p>\n
          criminal Court was already brought into the notice of the<\/p>\n
          Tribunal as that formed the part of the records. The petitioner<\/p>\n
          has been terminated after conducting proper departmental enquiry<\/p>\n
          in 1982. Thus the acquittal in criminal case vide order dated<\/p>\n
          25.11.1992 will have no effect in the case. The petitioner<\/p>\n
          belongs to a disciplined force wherein a person having such<\/p>\n
          conduct is not desirable in the service. The finding of the<\/p>\n
          criminal Court is on the basis that the prosecution could not<\/p>\n
          establish the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable<\/p>\n
          doubts.\n<\/p>\n
     10.  Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having<\/p>\n
          perused the pleadings and records appended thereto, it appears<\/p>\n
          that the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental enquiry<\/p>\n
          and the learned Tribunal has not considered the facts of<\/p>\n
          acquittal in criminal case before coming to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
          the punishment pursuant to the departmental enquiry imposed on<\/p>\n
          the petitioner was proper. The Tribunal has passed the judgment<\/p>\n
          and order on 13.8.1998 whereas the petitioner was exonerated in<\/p>\n
          criminal case on 25.11.1992. The petitioner ought to have pointed<\/p>\n
          out the facts of acquittal before the Tribunal. It appears that<\/p>\n
          the petitioner has failed to produce the same before the<\/p>\n
          Tribunal, though the judgment in criminal case was a part of<\/p>\n
          record.\n<\/p>\n
     11.  Regulation 241 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “241.  Cases  of acquittal.-When a police  officer
\n               has  been tried and acquitted by a criminal court,
\n               he  must as a rule be reinstated.  He may  not  be
\n               punished departmentally when the offence for which
\n               he  was  tried  constitutes  the  sole  ground  of
\n               punishment.  If, however the acquittal, whether in
\n               the  court of original jurisdiction or of  appeal,
\n               was  based  on technical grounds, or if the  facts
\n               established  at the trial show that his  retention
\n               in   Government   service  is   undesirable,   the
\n               Superintendent may take departmental cognizance of
\n               his  conduct, after obtaining the sanction of  the
\n               Inspector-General.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               241-A.  The following instructions are  laid  down
\n               for  the  guidance of the magistracy and  superior
\n               courts  regarding the procedure to be followed  in
\n               enquiries into alleged misconduct on the  part  of
\n               the police acting in their official capacity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India<\/p>\n
          and another Vs. Bihari Lal Sidhana1  held as under :-<\/p>\n
               “5.   It is true that the respondent was acquitted
\n               by  the  criminal  court but  acquittal  does  not
\n               automatically give him the right to be  reinstated
\n               into  the service. It would still be open  to  the
\n               competent  authority to take decision whether  the
\n               delinquent  government servant can be  taken  into
\n               service  or  disciplinary action should  be  taken
\n               under  the Central Civil Services (Classification,
\n               Control  &  Appeal) Rules or under  the  Temporary
\n               Service  Rules.   Admittedly, the  respondent  had
\n               been  working  as  a temporary government  servant
\n               before   he   was   kept  under  suspension.   The
\n               termination order indicated the factum that he, by
\n               then,  was under suspension. It is only a  way  of
\n               describing him as being under suspension when  the
\n               order  came  to  be  passed  but  that  does   not
\n               constitute   any   stigma.   Mere   acquittal   of
\n               government employee does not automatically entitle
\n               the  government  servant  to  reinstatement.    As
\n               stated   earlier,  it  would  be   open   to   the
\n               appropriate competent authority to take a decision
\n               whether  the enquiry into the conduct is  required
\n               to  be  done  before  directing  reinstatement  or
\n               appropriate action should be taken as per law,  if
\n               otherwise, available. Since the respondent is only
\n               a  temporary  government servant, the power  being
\n               available  under  Rule 5(1) of the  Rules,  it  is
\n               always  open to the competent authority to  invoke
\n               the  said power and terminate the services of  the
\n               employee instead of conducting the enquiry  or  to
\n               continue  in service a government servant  accused
\n               of  defalcation  of  public money.   Reinstatement
\n               would  be  a  charter  for  him  to  indulge  with
\n               impunity in misappropriation of public money.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mater of G. M. Tank Vs.<\/p>\n
          State of Gujarat & another2 wherein the case of  Union of India<\/p>\n
          and another Vs. Bihari Lal Sidhana (supra) was not considered,<\/p>\n
          held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
               “32.  In  our opinion, such facts and evidence  in
\n               the  department  as  well as criminal  proceedings
\n               were  the  same without there being  any  iota  of
\n               difference,  the  appellant should  succeed.   The
\n               distinction  which is usually proved  between  the
\n               departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis
\n               of  the approach and burden of proof would not  be
\n               applicable  in the instant case.  Through  finding
\n               recorded in the domestic enquiry was not found  to
\n               be  valid by the Courts below, when there  was  an
\n               honorable  acquittal  of the employee  during  the
\n               pendency   of  the  proceedings  challenging   the
\n               dismissal, the same requires to be taken  note  of
\n               and  the  decision in Paul Anthony’s case  (supra)
\n               will  apply. We, therefore, hold that appeal filed
\n               by the appellant deserves to be allowed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.   In the case in hand the charge in the criminal case as well<\/p>\n
          as in the departmental enquiry was one and the same. The alleged<\/p>\n
          forged police rojnamcha sanha was produced before the Magistrate.<\/p>\n
          Shri A. H. Khan, the then Incharge was also examined and cross<\/p>\n
          examined. The Magistrate had found that the witness Shri P. R.<\/p>\n
          Sao had admitted the alleged forged bills as genuine. The then<\/p>\n
          S.D.O.(P) Shri G. R. Shrivastava also supported the case of the<\/p>\n
          petitioner and the criminal Court found that the prosecution was<\/p>\n
          lodged on account of the malice on the part of the Police Station<\/p>\n
          Incharge Shri A. H. Khan towards the petitioner. In the<\/p>\n
          departmental enquiry Shri P. R. Sao and Shri A. H. Khan were also<\/p>\n
          examined. The then S.D.O.(P) was not examined, under whom the<\/p>\n
          petitioner had actually worked, at the relevant time but other<\/p>\n
          S.D.O.(P) Shri P. N. Awasthi was examined. Thus, it is found that<\/p>\n
          the evidence and the documents produced before the criminal<\/p>\n
          Court, as well as before the enquiry authority, were almost the<\/p>\n
          same, except that some new witnesses like Shri P. N. Awasthi,<\/p>\n
          S.D.O.(P), who was not S.D.O.(P) at the relevant time, were<\/p>\n
          examined in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner is entitled<\/p>\n
          to the benefit under Regulation 241 of the Regulations, which is<\/p>\n
          statutory in nature. Regulation 241 clearly mandates that when a<\/p>\n
          police officer has been tried and acquitted in a criminal Court,<\/p>\n
          he must, as a rule, be reinstated. He may not be punished<\/p>\n
          departmentally when the offence for which he was  tried<\/p>\n
          constitutes the sole ground of punishment. In the case of<\/p>\n
          acquittal on technical grounds, the departmental cognizance of<\/p>\n
          misconduct may be taken after obtaining the sanction of the<\/p>\n
          Inspector General of Police. In the present case there was clear<\/p>\n
          cut exoneration and there was no finding against the petitioner<\/p>\n
          that he was undesirable in service.\n<\/p>\n
     15.  As a result, and for the reasons mentioned herein above, the<\/p>\n
          review application is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the<\/p>\n
          reinstatement in service without consequential benefits, except<\/p>\n
          back wages.\n<\/p>\n
     16.  However, with regard to the payment of back wages the same<\/p>\n
          cannot be decided as no foundation has been laid with regard to<\/p>\n
          the gainful employment of the petitioner elsewhere, during this<\/p>\n
          period. The petitioner was terminated from service on 25.11.1982,<\/p>\n
          what would be the financial implications, there is no material<\/p>\n
          available for taking any decision with regard to the grant of<\/p>\n
          back wages. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to<\/p>\n
          make a representation before the authorities concerned, pointing<\/p>\n
          out details about his gainful employment elsewhere and other<\/p>\n
          relevant materials for appropriate relief. The State Authorities<\/p>\n
          shall consider the representation, on its own merits, in<\/p>\n
          accordance with law, within a reasonable period, after having<\/p>\n
          afforded the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the<\/p>\n
          facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to<\/p>\n
          costs.\n<\/p>\n
          J U D G E<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007 IN TH HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCCS No. 34 of 2005 Pohari Sharan Pandey …Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of M.P.(Now C.G.) 2. The Superintendent of Police …Respondents ! Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate for the petitioner ^ […]<\/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-63705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-29T02:30:49+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\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-29T02:30:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1950,\"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\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-29T02:30:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 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":"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-29T02:30:49+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\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-29T02:30:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007"},"wordCount":1950,"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\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007","name":"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-29T02:30:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pohari-sharan-pandey-vs-the-state-of-m-p-now-c-g-on-24-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pohari Sharan Pandey vs The State Of M.P.(Now C.G.) on 24 July, 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\/63705","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=63705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63705\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}