{"id":88734,"date":"2006-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2"},"modified":"2015-03-17T01:56:19","modified_gmt":"2015-03-16T20:26:19","slug":"state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2","title":{"rendered":"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1040 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Himachal Pradesh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKaranvir\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/05\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA &amp; P.P. NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>The State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before us aggrieved by the<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 24.9.1997 passed in Criminal Revision<br \/>\nNo.149\/1994, whereby and whereunder the revision application, filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent herein, against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1994 passed by<br \/>\nthe Sessions Judge affirming a judgment of conviction and sentence  passed<br \/>\nby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, convicting the<br \/>\nrespondent for commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 of<br \/>\nthe IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of<br \/>\nsix months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-, has been allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent was a Post Master at Chhapang, within the Police<br \/>\nStation Pachhad in the District of Sirmaur. One Rajbir Singh (PW-3), uncle<br \/>\nof the respondent-accused, was at the relevant time working in the<br \/>\nGovernment High School, Ramadhon. He had deposited a sum of Rs.8,000\/-<br \/>\nwith the respondent-accused for purchase of National Savings Certificates.<br \/>\nNecessary forms were also filled up by said Rajbir Singh and a receipt<br \/>\nacknowledging the receipt of the said amount was issued to him. Although<br \/>\nmore than a month had passed but the said Rajbir Singh was not handed over<br \/>\nany National Savings Certificate by the respondent. He, therefore, made<br \/>\nenquiries with the  postal authorities both at Rajgarh and at Nahan,<br \/>\nwhereupon he came to learn that no such National Saving Certificates had<br \/>\nbeen issued. He thereafter made a complaint in that behalf, with the postal<br \/>\nauthorities. The postal authorities entrusted the matter to one Shri Brijpal<br \/>\nThakur (PW-4) for conducting an enquiry. The respondent having come to<br \/>\nlearn of initiation of the said enquiry, deposited a sum of Rs.4200\/- in the<br \/>\nPost Office on 30.11.1989. A further deposit of Rs.4,000\/- was made by him<br \/>\non 11.12.1989. It is not in dispute that the excess amount of Rs.200\/- was<br \/>\ndeposited by the respondent on 30.11.1989 by way of interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>A First Information Report was lodged on 27.6.1990 at Police Station,<br \/>\nPachhad. During the investigation, specimen and admitted writings of the<br \/>\nrespondent were taken and sent to the handwriting expert for comparing with<br \/>\nhis writings and signatures on the receipt. The expert opined that the<br \/>\nquestioned writing and the signatures on the deposited documents tallied<br \/>\nwith the admitted signatures and writings of the respondent. The leaned<br \/>\nChief Judicial Magistrate, as noticed hereinbefore, found the respondent<br \/>\nguilty of commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and<br \/>\nsentenced him  to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.<br \/>\nA fine of Rs.1,000\/- was also imposed upon him.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal preferred by the respondent before the learned Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Sirmaur, also came to be dismissed. In the revision application filed<br \/>\nby the respondent, the High Court held that as the prosecution had not been<br \/>\nable to prove &#8216;misappropriation&#8217; on the part of the respondent, the judgment<br \/>\nof conviction and sentence was unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as<br \/>\nto whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the<br \/>\nprosecution has been able to prove that the respondent misappropriated the<br \/>\nsaid amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 405 of the IPC reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any<br \/>\nmanner entrusted with property, or with any dominion<br \/>\nover property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts<br \/>\nto his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or<br \/>\ndisposes of that property in violation of any direction<br \/>\nof law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be<br \/>\ndischarged, or of any legal contract, express or implied<br \/>\nwhich he has made touching the discharge of such<br \/>\ntrust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do,<br \/>\ncommits &#8216;criminal breach of trust&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Illustration (e) appended to the said provision in this connection be<br \/>\nnoticed.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money<br \/>\nand is either directed by law, or bound by a contract,<br \/>\nexpress or implied, with the Government, to pay into a<br \/>\ncertain treasury all the public money which he holds.<br \/>\nA dishonestly appropriates the money. A has<br \/>\ncommitted criminal breach of trust.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent was a Post Master. He was holding an office of public<br \/>\ntrust. The complainant who was a teacher entrusted the amount to the<br \/>\nrespondent for the purpose of purchasing National Savings Certificates. As<br \/>\nsoon as the amount was received by the respondent on behalf of the postal<br \/>\nauthorities, it became public money. It was required to be utilised for the<br \/>\npurpose for which the same was handed over to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court opined that the entrustment was proved. The fact that<br \/>\ntill 29.11.1989, the amount of Rs.8,000\/- deposited by the complainant with<br \/>\nthe respondent, had not been utilised for the purpose for which the same had<br \/>\nbeen handed over to him also is admitted. When an enquiry came to be made<br \/>\nby Shri Brijpal Thakur (PW-4), the respondent deposited the said amount in<br \/>\ntwo installments along with a sum of Rs.200\/- by way of interest. The<br \/>\nrespondent, therefore, being a public officer had the requisite knowledge that<br \/>\nthe amount carried interest. On 16.7.1989, the postal savings certificates<br \/>\ncame to be issued. The respondent therefore thought himself liable to pay the<br \/>\nsaid amount with interest, so as to reimburse to the complainant the amount<br \/>\nto which was entitled by way of interest for depositing the  said amount.<br \/>\nEven on 30.11.1989, he did not deposit the entire amount.  The entire<br \/>\namount came to be deposited by him on 11.12.1989.  We, therefore, fail to<br \/>\nunderstand as to on what basis the learned Judge opined that the second<br \/>\ningredient of Section 405 of the IPC, i.e. misappropriation of the amount by<br \/>\nthe respondent-accused had not been proved. The High Court, in our<br \/>\nconsidered view, completely misdirected itself in opining that it was<br \/>\nobligatory on the part of Rajbir Singh (PW-3) or Brijpal Thakur (PW-4) to<br \/>\nstate in their complaint that the accused committed criminal<br \/>\nmisappropriation with intention to utilise the amount for his personal use.<br \/>\nThe very fact that the respondent retained with him the entrusted amount is<br \/>\nnot disputed. If he did not utilise the amount for the purpose for which the<br \/>\nsame had been deposited, an offence must be held to have been committed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent would submit that no material was brought on record by the<br \/>\nprosecution to show as to how the respondent had utilized the amount. In our<br \/>\nopinion, the same was not necessary.  In view of the admitted fact, we are of<br \/>\nthe opinion that it was for the respondent himself to prove the defence raised<br \/>\nby him that the entire amount had not been paid to him by the complainant.<br \/>\nThe learned Judge had rejected the said defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>The actual manner of misappropriation, it is well settled, is not<br \/>\nrequired to be proved by the prosecution. Once entrustment is proved, it was<br \/>\nfor the accused to prove as to how the property entrusted to him was dealt<br \/>\nwith in view of Section 405 of the IPC. If the respondent had failed to<br \/>\nproduce any material for this purpose, the prosecution should not suffer<br \/>\ntherefor.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned Trial Judge as also the learned Sessions Judge arrived at<br \/>\nconcurrent findings of fact. The High Court, in our opinion, misdirected<br \/>\nitself in passing the impugned judgment while exercising its revision<br \/>\njurisdiction. [<a href=\"\/doc\/213147\/\">See N. Bhargavan Pillai &amp; Anr. vs. State of Kerala,<\/a> (2004) 13<br \/>\nSCC 217].\n<\/p>\n<p>A contention has further been raised by Mrs. Sarada Devi, that no<br \/>\nquestion was put to the respondent while he was being examined under<br \/>\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a view to give him an<br \/>\nopportunity to explain whether the amount was given to him for his personal<br \/>\nuse or he converted the money for his personal use. We are afraid that such<br \/>\ncontention cannot be accepted. While examining the accused under Section<br \/>\n313 of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court is merely required to ask such question which<br \/>\nhas been brought on record as against the respondent.<br \/>\nThe respondent in fact had admitted the entire prosecution case for all<br \/>\nintent and purport. The entire evidence which was adduced on behalf of the<br \/>\nprosecution was made known to the accused. In his statement under Section<br \/>\n313 Cr.P.C., he accepted that he had received a sum of Rs.8,000\/- from the<br \/>\ncomplainant and he had deposited the said amount together with interest, in<br \/>\ntwo installments. He has merely reiterated his defence, as noticed<br \/>\nhereinbefore, that the complainant had not paid to him the entire sum of<br \/>\nRs.8,000\/-, which has not been accepted by the Trial Court. We are,<br \/>\ntherefore, of the opinion that the High Court committed a manifest error in<br \/>\narriving at a finding that there has been infraction of the mandatory<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained<br \/>\nand it is set aside accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>The question, however, would now arise as to whether in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of this case, the respondent should be sent back to jail. The<br \/>\nrespondent is aged about 60 years. The offence is said to have been<br \/>\ncommitted 15 years back. He was arrested by the police. He might have been<br \/>\nin custody for some time.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and<br \/>\nkeeping in view the fact that the respondent had deposited the entire amount<br \/>\nbefore the First Information Report was lodged, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nthe interest of justice would be subserved if any substantial punishment is<br \/>\nnot awarded. Accordingly, we impose a fine of Rs.4,000\/- upon the<br \/>\nrespondent, which will be apart from the amount of fine of Rs.1,000\/-<br \/>\nimposed by the learned Trial Judge. It is directed that in default of the<br \/>\npayment of the said amount, the respondent shall undergo simple<br \/>\nimprisonment for three months.  The appeal is thus allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006 Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1040 of 1998 PETITIONER: State of Himachal Pradesh RESPONDENT: Karanvir DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/05\/2006 BENCH: S.B. SINHA &amp; P.P. NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J. [&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-88734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006 - 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-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2\" \/>\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=\"2006-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-16T20:26:19+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-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T20:26:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2\"},\"wordCount\":1672,\"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-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2\",\"name\":\"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-16T20:26:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 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":"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006 - 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-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-16T20:26:19+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-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T20:26:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2"},"wordCount":1672,"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-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2","name":"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-16T20:26:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-himachal-pradesh-vs-karanvir-on-12-may-2006-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Karanvir on 12 May, 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\/88734","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=88734"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88734\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}