{"id":64590,"date":"2007-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007"},"modified":"2015-03-20T22:22:46","modified_gmt":"2015-03-20T16:52:46","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  407 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Karnataka\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMadesha and Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P.P. NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the Karnataka High Court directing<br \/>\nacquittal of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn this appeal, a notice limited to applicability of Section<br \/>\n201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the &#8216;IPC&#8217;) was<br \/>\nissued by this Court. The High Court came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat Section 201 IPC can only be applied to situations wherein<br \/>\nan offence has taken place and the accused did some act<br \/>\ntowards screening the offenders and more importantly<br \/>\ndestroying or tampering with the evidence. When no offence<br \/>\nwas established to have been committed, Section 201 will not<br \/>\nbe applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThis Court had occasion to deal with such plea. <a href=\"\/doc\/1559235\/\">In V.L.<br \/>\nTresa v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2001 (3) SCC 549) it was noted as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;9.\tThe issue thus pertains to the<br \/>\nmaintainability of conviction and sentence<br \/>\nunder Section 201. The law on this score is<br \/>\nwell settled since the decision in Kalwati case<br \/>\nwherein Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J, speaking for<br \/>\nthe Bench observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;21. But there can scarcely be any<br \/>\ndoubt that she must have witnessed<br \/>\nthe murder of her husband lying<br \/>\nnext to her on a charpai. Shibbi who<br \/>\nwas at a distance of 18 feet was<br \/>\nroused by the sound of a sword<br \/>\nattack. Kalawati must have woken<br \/>\nup also at least during the course of<br \/>\nthe assault if not at its<br \/>\ncommencement, several injuries<br \/>\nhaving been inflicted in succession.<br \/>\nWhen Shibbi woke up, Kalawati&#8217;s<br \/>\nbed was empty, and she was found<br \/>\nin a room nearby and not at the<br \/>\nplace of occurrence. She trotted out<br \/>\nan elaborate story of dacoity, which<br \/>\ncannot be accepted as true. Even if,<br \/>\nin terror she ran away from her bed<br \/>\nand stood at a distance, she is<br \/>\nalmost sure to have known who was<br \/>\nthe offender, unless he had his face<br \/>\nmuffled. The first version she gave<br \/>\nto the police head constable when<br \/>\nhe appeared on the scene<br \/>\nimmediately after the occurrence is,<br \/>\nwe think, false, and we are of<br \/>\nopinion that she knew or believed it<br \/>\nto be false. The borderline between<br \/>\nabetment of the offence and giving<br \/>\nfalse information to screen the<br \/>\noffender is rather thin in her case,<br \/>\nbut it is prudent to err on the safe<br \/>\nside, and hold her guilty only of an<br \/>\noffence under Section 201 Penal<br \/>\nCode, as the learned Sessions Judge<br \/>\ndid.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\txx \t\txx\t\txx<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. Section 201 IPC reads as below:<br \/>\n&#8220;201. Causing disappearance of evidence of<br \/>\noffence or giving false information to screen<br \/>\noffender- Whoever, knowing or having reason<br \/>\nto believe that an offence has been committed,<br \/>\ncauses any evidence of the commission of that<br \/>\noffence to disappear, with the intention of<br \/>\nscreening the offender from legal punishment,<br \/>\nor with that intention gives any information<br \/>\nrespecting the offence which he knows or<br \/>\nbelieves to be false, <\/p>\n<p>(if a capital offence) shall, if the offence which<br \/>\nhe knows or believes to have been committed<br \/>\nis punishable with death, be punished with<br \/>\nimprisonment of either description for a term<br \/>\nwhich may extend to seven  years, and shall<br \/>\nalso be liable to fine;\n<\/p>\n<p>(if punishable with imprisonment for life) and if<br \/>\nthe offence is punishable with imprisonment<br \/>\nfor life, or with imprisonment which may<br \/>\nextend to ten years, shall be punished with<br \/>\nimprisonment of either description for a term<br \/>\nwhich may extend to three years, and shall<br \/>\nalso be liable to fine;\n<\/p>\n<p>(if punishable with less than ten years&#8217;<br \/>\nimprisonment) and if the offence is punishable<br \/>\nwith imprisonment for any term not extending<br \/>\nto ten years, shall be punished with<br \/>\nimprisonment of the description provided for<br \/>\nthe offence, for a term which may extend to<br \/>\none-fourth part of the longest term of the<br \/>\nimprisonment provided for the offence, or with<br \/>\nfine, or with both.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>12. Having regard to the language used, the<br \/>\nfollowing ingredients emerge:\n<\/p>\n<p>(I)\tcommission of an offence;\n<\/p>\n<p>(II)\tperson charged with the offence under<br \/>\nSection 201 must have the knowledge or<br \/>\nreason to believe that the main offence<br \/>\nhas been committed;\n<\/p>\n<p>(III)\tperson charged with the offence under<br \/>\nSection 201 1PC should have caused<br \/>\ndisappearance of evidence or should have<br \/>\ngiven false information regarding the<br \/>\nmain offence; and<\/p>\n<p>(IV) the act should have been done with the<br \/>\nintention of screening the offender from<br \/>\nlegal punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\txx\t\txx\t\txx\t\txx<\/p>\n<p>14. Having regard to the language used, mere<br \/>\nsuspicion would not be sufficient. There must<br \/>\nbe available on record cogent evidence that the<br \/>\naccused has caused the evidence to disappear<br \/>\nin order to screen another known or unknown.<br \/>\nThe foremost necessity being that the accused<br \/>\nmust have the knowledge or have reason to<br \/>\nbelieve that such an offence has been<br \/>\ncommitted. This observation finds support in<br \/>\nthe oft-cited decision of this Court in Palvinder<br \/>\nKaur v. State of Punjab. Further, in Roshan<br \/>\nLal v. State of Punjab, this Court in AIR para<br \/>\n12 of the Report observed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(12) Section 201 is somewhat<br \/>\nclumsily drafted but we think that<br \/>\nthe expression &#8216;knowing or having<br \/>\nreason to believe&#8217; in the first<br \/>\nparagraph and the expression<br \/>\n&#8216;knows or believes&#8217; in the second<br \/>\nparagraph are used in the same<br \/>\nsense. Take the case of an accused<br \/>\nwho has reason to believe that an<br \/>\noffence has been committed. If the<br \/>\nother conditions of the first<br \/>\nparagraph are satisfied, he is guilty<br \/>\nof an offence under Section 201. If it<br \/>\nbe supposed that the word &#8216;believes&#8217;<br \/>\nwas used in a sense different from<br \/>\nthe expression &#8216;having reason to<br \/>\nbelieve&#8217;, it would be necessary for<br \/>\nthe purpose of inflicting punishment<br \/>\nupon the accused to prove that he<br \/>\n&#8216;believes&#8217; in addition to &#8216;having<br \/>\nreason to believe&#8217;. We cannot impute<br \/>\nto the legislature an intention that<br \/>\nan accused who is found guilty of<br \/>\nthe offence under the first<br \/>\nparagraph would escape<br \/>\npunishment under the succeeding<br \/>\nparagraphs unless some additional<br \/>\nfact or state of mind is proved.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe position was re-iterated in Sou. Vijaya @ Baby v.<br \/>\nState of Maharashtra (2003 (8) SCC 296) as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;6.\tSection 201 IPC presents a case of<br \/>\naccusations after the fact. &#8220;An accessory after<br \/>\nthe fact&#8221; said Lord Hale, &#8220;may be, where a<br \/>\nperson knowing a felony to have been<br \/>\ncommitted, receives, comforts, or assists the<br \/>\nfelon&#8221;. (See 1 Dale 618.) Therefore, to make an<br \/>\naccessory ex post facto it is in the first place<br \/>\nrequisite that he should know of the felony<br \/>\ncommitted. In the next place, he must receive,<br \/>\nrelieve, comfort, or assist him. And, generally<br \/>\nany assistance whatever given to a felon to<br \/>\nhinder his being apprehended, tried or<br \/>\nsuffering punishment, makes the assister an<br \/>\naccessory. What Section 201 requires is that<br \/>\nthe accused must have had the intention of<br \/>\nscreening the offender. To put it differently, the<br \/>\nintention to screen the offender, must be the<br \/>\nprimary and sole object of the accused. The<br \/>\nfact that the concealment was likely\tto have<br \/>\nthat effect is not sufficient, for Section 201<br \/>\nspeaks of intention as distinct from a mere<br \/>\nlikelihood.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tSection 201 punishes any person, who<br \/>\nknowing that any offence has been committed,<br \/>\ndestroys the evidence of that offence or gives<br \/>\nfalse information in order to screen the<br \/>\noffender from legal punishment. Section 201 is<br \/>\ndesigned to penalize &#8220;attempts to frustrate the<br \/>\ncourse of justice&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn this case, however, there was no evidence on record to<br \/>\nattribute knowledge of the commission of offence to the<br \/>\naccused. Therefore, it was held that Section 201 IPC cannot be<br \/>\napplied.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned counsel for the State has submitted that<br \/>\nevidence of PW-26 establishes that the accused persons A-3<br \/>\nand A-4 had thrown the body of the deceased to fire.  It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that there was no question of exercising the right of<br \/>\nprivate defence vis-`-vis the deceased and, therefore, the order<br \/>\npassed by the High Court cannot be maintained.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tLearned counsel for the respondents on the other hand<br \/>\nsupported the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tComing to the question whether the plea relating to<br \/>\nexercise of right of private defence can be made available vis-`-<br \/>\nvis the deceased who had no role to play in the dispute, the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 106 IPC needs to be noted.  It reads as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;106-Right of private defence against deadly<br \/>\nassault when there is risk of harm to innocent<br \/>\nperson- If in the exercise of the right of private<br \/>\ndefence against an assault which reasonably<br \/>\ncauses the apprehension of death, the<br \/>\ndefender be so situated that he cannot<br \/>\neffectually exercise that right without risk of<br \/>\nharm to an innocent person, his right of<br \/>\nprivate defence extends to the running of that<br \/>\nrisk.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tTherefore, the possibility of the right of private defence<br \/>\nvis-`-vis the deceased has to be considered in the background<br \/>\nof what was stated in Section 106 IPC. It has been held that<br \/>\nA-1 to A-5 were not the members of any unlawful assembly. A<br \/>\nspecific stand was that A-3 and A-4 had thrown the body of<br \/>\nthe deceased to fire and reliance was placed on the evidence of<br \/>\nPW-26.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIt is to be noted that there can be no dispute that<br \/>\nSection 201 would have application even if the main offence is<br \/>\nnot established in view of what has been stated in V.L. Tresa&#8217;s<br \/>\nand Sou. Vijaya&#8217;s cases (supra). PW-26 who was the star<br \/>\nwitness was not believed by the trial Court and the High Court<br \/>\nand it was held that his evidence was not cogent and credible.<br \/>\nTherefore, while clarifying the position in law we find no scope<br \/>\nfor interference with the order of the High Court in view of the<br \/>\nspecific findings recorded regarding the role played by A-3 and<br \/>\nA-4.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. \tThe appeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 407 of 2001 PETITIONER: State of Karnataka RESPONDENT: Madesha and Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/08\/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P.P. NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: J U D [&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-64590","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 Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 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-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-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=\"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-20T16:52:46+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=\"8 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-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-20T16:52:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1608,\"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-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-20T16:52:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 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 Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 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-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-20T16:52:46+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-20T16:52:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007"},"wordCount":1608,"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-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007","name":"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-20T16:52:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-madesha-and-ors-on-1-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs Madesha And Ors on 1 August, 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\/64590","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=64590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}