{"id":93081,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-11-30T10:04:44","modified_gmt":"2016-11-30T04:34:44","slug":"union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
                                                       REPORTABLE\n\n                IN THE SURPEME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2001\n\n\nUnion of India                                    ...Appellant\n\n                               Versus\n\nSatrohan                                          ...Respondent\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the<\/p>\n
acquittal passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad<\/p>\n
High Court, Lucknow Bench, directing acquittal of the<\/p>\n
respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `accused’) by setting<\/p>\n
aside    the   judgment   of   conviction   recorded   by   learned<\/p>\n
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal     No.65 of 1993. The trial Court had convicted          the<\/p>\n
respondent for offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 15
\nof the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985<\/p>\n
(in short the `Act’) and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years<\/p>\n
and fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     On the basis of secret information Sri Naseem Ahmad, an<\/p>\n
Inspector of Narcotics Department along with other officials<\/p>\n
raided the house of the respondent on 20.11.1992 at about<\/p>\n
8.00 a.m. in village Dadari Jamalpur. The house of the<\/p>\n
respondent was searched and from his house 29 bags<\/p>\n
containing poppy straws were recovered. The respondent<\/p>\n
could not explain legal possession of poppy straws weighing<\/p>\n
309 kgs. The respondent was arrested and after investigation<\/p>\n
charge sheet was submitted against him. The respondent<\/p>\n
denied the possession and ownership of the property in<\/p>\n
question and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial Court found the evidence adduced to be clear<\/p>\n
and cogent and directed conviction and imposed sentence as<\/p>\n
                              2<\/span>
\nafore-noted. In appeal, the High Court directed acquittal by a<\/p>\n
practically non-reasoned order holding that there was non-\n<\/p>\n
compliance of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Act. It was noted<\/p>\n
that the Narcotics Department has given licence to the father<\/p>\n
of the respondent for cultivation of opium and if there had<\/p>\n
been recovery of poppy straws it might be relatable to the<\/p>\n
ownership of father of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
trial Court had relied upon the confession of the accused<\/p>\n
respondent and the grounds on which the High Court directed<\/p>\n
acquittal are (i) non examination of independent witnesses; (ii)<\/p>\n
lack of evidence to show exclusive ownership; and (iii) the<\/p>\n
alleged non compliance of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.   It is pointed out that Section 50 is not applicable to the<\/p>\n
case. Additionally, under Section 57 secret information has to<\/p>\n
be sent and the particulars of seizure and arrest have to be<\/p>\n
sent. The records if asked for could have been produced. In<\/p>\n
the instant case there is no evidence led or not even any<\/p>\n
                              3<\/span>
\nquestion was asked about absence of records. In the<\/p>\n
alternative,   the   inspector   was   a   Gazetted   Officer   and,<\/p>\n
therefore, even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that<\/p>\n
there is any incorrect reference, the acts are covered under<\/p>\n
Section 41 and not under Section 42.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand<\/p>\n
submitted that the confessional statement could not have<\/p>\n
been relied upon. The statement was recorded by PW-2 and<\/p>\n
by the investigating officer (PW-6) on 20.11.1992. There could<\/p>\n
not have been any recording of statement by PW-6 as he was<\/p>\n
entrusted with investigation on 3.12.1992. It is pointed out<\/p>\n
that the investigating officer was not a Gazetted Officer. Since<\/p>\n
authorization was obtained Section 57 comes into play. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that there is licence of the father also. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the High Court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Section 2(xv) and Section 2(xviii) define “opium’ and<\/p>\n
“poppy straws” respectively. It is the stand of the respondent<\/p>\n
that since there was licence of opium, obviously there is<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span>
\npresumption that there was licence of poppy straws.       As a<\/p>\n
matter of fact the High Court did not direct acquittal on the<\/p>\n
ground that there was licence for poppy straws also. The<\/p>\n
evidence on record clearly shows that the expressions “opium”\n<\/p>\n
and “poppy straws” are not interchangeable as contended by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent, as Section 2(xiv) clearly<\/p>\n
makes out a distinction between opium and poppy straws. So<\/p>\n
far as the role of PW-6 is concerned, it is to be noted that<\/p>\n
there is no reference to the stand presently highlighted by the<\/p>\n
High Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Undisputedly, there are two different entries for opium<\/p>\n
and poppy straws. Opium appears at Sl. No.92 while poppy<\/p>\n
straws appear at Sl. No.110. The statement of the accused-\n<\/p>\n
respondent in terms of Section 67 throws considerable light<\/p>\n
on the controversy. In the statement recorded there was no<\/p>\n
retraction and in fact during examination under section 313 of<\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code’)<\/p>\n
while answering question No.4 it was stated that there was no<\/p>\n
confession. The confessional statement was recorded on<\/p>\n
                             5<\/span>
\n20.11.1992 and the statement under Section 313 of the Code<\/p>\n
was recorded on 6.2.1999. Therefore, there has been no<\/p>\n
retraction at any point of time. The position is also clear from<\/p>\n
Section 57 of the Code. At the time of production before the<\/p>\n
Magistrate, there was no allegation of any torture as presently<\/p>\n
submitted. In this connection a few decisions of this Court<\/p>\n
need to be noted.\n<\/p>\n
8.   In Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India<\/a> (2008 (1) SCALE 165) at<\/p>\n
para 7 it was noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “7. Since the appellant Kanhaiyalal was
\n          convicted on the basis of the statement made
\n          by him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, a
\n          question has been raised whether such
\n          statement made to an officer within the
\n          meaning of Section 42 of the said Act could be
\n          treated as a confessional statement and
\n          whether the accused could be convicted on the
\n          basis thereof in the absence of any other
\n          corroborative evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
9.   Similarly in A.K. Mehaboob v. The Intelligence Officer,<\/p>\n
Narcotics Control Bueau (JT<\/a> 2001 (1) SC 614) it was observed<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “4. Smt. Malini Poduval, learned counsel for
\n              the appellants contended that Exhibit P-8
\n              cannot be relied on for more than one reason.
\n              One is that the said statement had been
\n              retracted by the accused himself. Second is
\n              that on 11.8.1994 appellant- Naushad
\n              informed the Magistrate in writing that the
\n              said statement had been coaxed out from him.
\n              The third is that the said retracted confession
\n              had no corroboration and therefore cannot be
\n              made the basis for conviction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              5.    There is nothing to indicate that Exhibit
\n              P-8 had been elicited from A-2 by any
\n              coercion, threat or force and therefore the
\n              learned Single Judge of the High Court had
\n              spurned down that contention. Regarding the
\n              complaint alleged to have been made by
\n              appellant-Naushad on 11.3.1994 we have
\n              perused it. His case therein was that he
\n              offered himself to be a witness     in the case
\n              and some reward was offered for it. It was on
\n              the said offers that he agreed to sign the said
\n              statement. It must be remembered that
\n              appellant-Naushad has no case that when he
\n              was     produced     before  the     Magistrate,
\n              immediately after his arrest, he made any
\n              grievance of any maltreatment administered to
\n              him by the members of the Narcotics Control
\n              Bureau. Wisdom downed on him (when the
\n              complaint dated 11.3.1994 was filed) to put up
\n              an advance defence against the statement
\n              given by him under his own signature. Even<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span>
\n           then he did not think it necessary to make any
\n           allegation that any intimidatory tactic, much
\n           less any third degree method had been applied
\n           on him. His case in the said complaint that a
\n           reward was offered to him and hence he
\n           agreed to sign the statement is contrary to the
\n           present stand adopted by him that he was
\n           coerced and threatened to made such a
\n           statement. The learned Single judge had
\n           rightly repelled the contentions made on
\n           behalf of appellant- Naushad relating to
\n           Exhibit P-8.”\n<\/p>\n
10.   The inferential conclusion that the articles seized might<\/p>\n
have been recovered by the father’s licence is a conclusion<\/p>\n
without any foundation and basis.\n<\/p>\n
11.   So far as the fulfillment of the requirement of Section 57<\/p>\n
of the Act is concerned it is to be noted that the legal position<\/p>\n
was stated by this Court in T. Thomson v. State of Kerala and<\/p>\n
Anr.<\/a> (2002 (9) SCC 618) and in State, NCT of Delhi v.\n<\/p>\n
Malvinder Singh (JT 2007 (9) SC 283). In Malvinder Singh’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) at para 6, it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “6. At this juncture, it would be relevant to
\n           take note of that has been stated by this Court<\/p>\n
                              8<\/span>
\n              in T. Thomson v. State of Kerala and Anr. At<\/a>
\n              para 5 it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                        “5. Learned Senior counsel
\n                  further argued that the record
\n                  alleged to have been prepared by
\n                  PW-1     on    getting    information
\n                  regarding the movement of the
\n                  appellants has not been produced in
\n                  court. But he conceded that no
\n                  motion was made on behalf of the
\n                  appellants to call for the said
\n                  record. There is no statutory
\n                  requirement that such a record
\n                  should be produced in the Court as
\n                  a matter of course. We are,
\n                  therefore, not disposed to upset the
\n                  finding on that score either.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.   So far as the applicability of Section 42 is concerned few<\/p>\n
decisions need to be noted.\n<\/p>\n
13.   In M. Prabhulal v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of<\/p>\n
Revenue Intelligence (JT<\/a> 2003 (2) Supp SC 459) it was noted<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “8. Now, we come to the last and rather more
\n              serious objections raised on behalf of the
\n              appellants regarding the non-compliance with
\n              Section 42 of the NDPS Act vitiating the
\n              conviction which looks quite formidable but<\/p>\n
                                9<\/span>
\nonly on the first impression and not on its
\ndeeper examination. The contention of Mr R.K.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Jain is that the view of the High Court that
\nwhen a Gazetted Officer himself conducts a
\nsearch it is not necessary to comply with
\nSection 42(2) of the Act, is clearly erroneous.
\nSection 42(2) provides that where an officer
\ntakes down any information in writing under
\nsub-section (1) or records grounds for his
\nbelief under the proviso thereto, he shall
\nforthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate
\nofficial superior. This was the statutory
\nprovision at the relevant time. By the Narcotic
\nDrugs      and     Psychotropic       Substances
\n(Amendment) Act, 2001 which came into force
\non 2-10-2001, Section 42(2) was amended
\nwhereunder the information taken down in
\nwriting under sub-section (1) or grounds of
\nbelief recorded under the proviso thereto are
\nrequired to be sent within seventy-two hours
\nto officers’ immediate official superior. The
\ncontention is that the officer who searched and
\nseized the contraband did so on information
\nreceived by him as per Ext. PW 1 but the said
\ninformation was not forwarded to his superior
\nofficer as contemplated in Section 42(2) of the
\nNDPS      Act,   thus     vitiating  the   entire
\nprosecution. Further argues the counsel that
\nthe respondent after grant of bail to the
\nappellants by the High Court taking into
\nconsideration the non-compliance with Section
\n42(2) has tried to fill in the lacuna with a view
\nto show the compliance of this mandatory
\nprovision.\n<\/p>\n
9. The officer who conducted the arrest,
\nsearch and seizure was an empowered
\nGazetted Officer of the Department. This fact is<\/p>\n
                    10<\/span>
\nnot in dispute. According to Mr Vasdev,
\nlearned Senior Counsel for the respondent,
\nSection 42(2) is not applicable when an
\nempowered Gazetted Officer conducts the
\narrest, search and seizure. The counsel
\nsubmits that there was no obligation on the
\nofficer to comply with the requirement of
\nSection 42(2) of the NDPS Act. It was also
\ncontended, in the alternative, that Section 42
\n(2) of the NDPS Act was complied with.\n<\/p>\n
14. Section 41(1) which empowers a
\nMagistrate to issue warrant for arrest of any
\nperson whom he has reason to believe to have
\ncommitted any offence punishable under the
\nNDPS Act or for search, has not much
\nrelevance for the purpose of considering the
\ncontention. Under Section 41(2) only a
\nGazetted Officer can be empowered by the
\nCentral Government or the State Government.
\nSuch empowered officer can either himself
\nmake an arrest or conduct a search or
\nauthorize an officer subordinate to him to do
\nso but that subordinate officer has to be
\nsuperior in rank to a peon, a sepoy or a
\nconstable. Sub-section (3) of Section 41 vests
\nall the powers of an officer acting under
\nSection 42 on three types of officers (i) to
\nwhom a warrant under sub-section (1) is
\naddressed, (ii) the officer who authorized the
\narrest or search under sub-section (2) of
\nSection 41, and (iii) the officer who is so
\nauthorized under sub-section (2) of Section 41.
\nTherefore, an empowered Gazetted Officer has
\nalso all the powers of Section 42 including the
\npower of seizure. Section 42 provides for
\nprocedure and power of entry, search, seizure
\nand arrest without warrant or authorization.\n<\/p>\n
                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
An empowered officer has the power of entry
\ninto and search of any building, conveyance or
\nplace, break open any door, remove
\nobstruction, seize contraband, detain, search
\nand arrest any person between sunrise and
\nsunset in terms provided in sub-section (1) of
\nSection 42. In case of an emergent situation,
\nthese powers can also be exercised even
\nbetween sunset and sunrise without obtaining
\na search warrant or authorization, in terms
\nprovided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of
\nSection 42. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 is a
\nmandatory provision. In terms of this provision
\na copy of information taken down in writing
\nunder sub-section (1) or ground recorded for
\nthe belief under the proviso thereto, is
\nrequired to be sent by the officer to his
\nimmediate superior official. It is clear from
\nSection 41(2) that the Central Government or
\nState Government, as the case may be, can
\nonly empower an officer of a gazetted rank who
\ncan either himself act or authorize his
\nsubordinate on the terms stated in the section.
\nUnder sub-section (1) of Section 42, however,
\nthere is no restriction on the Central
\nGovernment or the State Government to
\nempower only a Gazetted Officer. But on an
\nofficer empowered under sub-section (1) of
\nSection 42, there are additional checks and
\nbalances as provided in the proviso and also
\nprovided in sub-section (2) of Section 42. It is
\nclear from the language of sub-section (2) of
\nSection 42 that it applies to an officer
\ncontemplated by sub-section (1) thereof and
\nnot to a Gazetted Officer contemplated by sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 41, when such a
\nGazetted Officer himself makes an arrest or
\nconducts search and seizure. It would be
\nuseful to also notice Section 43 which relates<\/p>\n
                   12<\/span>
\n           to power of seizure and arrest in a public
\n           place. Any officer of any of the departments
\n           mentioned in Section 42 is empowered to seize
\n           contraband etc. and detain and search a
\n           person in any public place or in transit on
\n           existence of ingredient stated in Section 43. It
\n           can, thus, be seen that Sections 42 and 43 do
\n           not require an officer to be a Gazetted Officer
\n           whereas Section 41(2) requires an officer to be
\n           so. A Gazetted Officer has been differently
\n           dealt with and more trust has been reposed in
\n           him can also be seen from Section 50 of the
\n           NDPS Act which gives a right to a person
\n           about to be searched to ask for being searched
\n           in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The High
\n           Court is, thus, right in coming to the
\n           conclusion that since the Gazetted Officer
\n           himself conducted the search, arrested the
\n           accused and seized the contraband, he was
\n           acting under Section 41 and, therefore, it was
\n           not necessary to comply with Section 42. The
\n           decisions in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh,
\n           Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri<\/a> v. State of
\n           Gujarat and Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. State
\n           of Kerala<\/a> on the aspects under consideration
\n           are neither relevant nor applicable.”\n<\/p>\n
14.   Section 67 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “67. Power to call for information, etc.<\/p>\n
           Any officer referred   to in Section 42 who is
\n           authorised in this      behalf by the Central
\n           Government or a        State Government may,
\n           during the course of   any enquiry in connection<\/p>\n
                              13<\/span>
\n           with the contravention of any provision of this
\n           Act, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (a) Call for information from any person for the
\n           purpose of satisfying himself whether there
\n           has been any contravention of the provisions
\n           of this Act or any rule or order made
\n           thereunder;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (b) Require any person to produce or deliver
\n           any document or thing useful or relevant to
\n           the enquiry;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (c) Examine any person acquainted with the
\n           facts and circumstances of the case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.   Section 41(2) deals with two situations. One is relatable<\/p>\n
to Gazetted Officer while in the other case the Gazetted Officer<\/p>\n
may authorize his subordinate to do the relevant act or may<\/p>\n
do it himself. Section 41(3) refers to the power under Section<\/p>\n
42 which refers to subordinates.\n<\/p>\n
16.   In the confessional statement the accused has clearly<\/p>\n
stated about the ownership. So, there has been no retraction<\/p>\n
at considerable length of time.\n<\/p>\n
                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
17.   Above being the position, the High Court was clearly in<\/p>\n
error by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. We set<\/p>\n
aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the<\/p>\n
trial Court. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
                                      ……………………………J.
\n                                      (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                                      ……………………………J.
\n                                      (P. SATHASIVAM)
\nNew Delhi,
\nJuly 14, 2008<\/p>\n
                              15<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam REPORTABLE IN THE SURPEME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2001 Union of India …Appellant Versus Satrohan …Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal […]<\/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-93081","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-30T04:34:44+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T04:34:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2719,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T04:34:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-30T04:34:44+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T04:34:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":2719,"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\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008","name":"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T04:34:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-satrohan-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/93081","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=93081"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93081\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93081"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93081"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93081"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}