{"id":103209,"date":"1999-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999"},"modified":"2019-01-08T12:24:21","modified_gmt":"2019-01-08T06:54:21","slug":"jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 VIAD Delhi 557, 82 (1999) DLT 438, 1999 (51) DRJ 585<\/div>\n
Author: S Agarwal<\/div>\n
Bench: D Gupta, S Agarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
S.K. Agarwal J.<\/p>\n
1.
\n     The  petitioner  by this petition has challenged the  detention  order dated  21st  January,  1999 passed against him by respondent  No.  2  under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Privation of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act) with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods in future.\n<\/p>\n
2.   It  is  alleged that officers of Directorate of  Revenue  Intelligence (for  short  DRI), Delhi Zonal Unit intercepted three Trucks and  one  Tata Sumo near Majnu-ka-Tila Gurudwara, Delhi on 9.9.98 and 3470 rolls of taffet cloth  valued at Rs. 76,82,200\/- along with 44 gunny bags containing  loose broom  sticks  were recovered. As the goods were of foreign origin  and  no document  for legitimate or legal import\/acquisition of the said goods  was produced, the same were seized. These goods were found to have been  transported from Calcutta to Delhi. The petitioner in his statement admitted his involvement and stated that he had accompanied the said trucks from Calcutta and that the owner of the goods Gopal had also came in Tata Sumo. Investigations revealed that the petitioner had knowingly undertaken and engaged himself in the prejudicial activity of transportation of smuggled goods. He was  arrested  and on 13.9.98 produced before the court of  the  Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. He was remanded to judicial custody which was extended from time to time. Learned Single Judge of this court, vide orders dated 15.12.98 granted him bail on furnishing  a personal  bond  in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000\/- with one surety  in  the  like amount.  After taking into consideration the antecedents and activities  of the petitioner, the detaining authority was led to the conclusion that  the petitioner has an inclination and propensity to indulge in smuggling activities in an organized manner and unless prevented, he was likely to indulge in  such prejudicial activities in future and the impugned detention  order under section 3(1) of the Act was passed.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  order  of  detention along with the grounds were  served  on  the petitioner  on  3.2.99  and he was kept in  Presidency  Jail,  Calcutta  on 14.4.99  he  was produced before the Advisory Board where  he  submitted  a representation  and  on  17.4.99 a copy of the same was  sent  through  the Superintendent  Jail,  Calcutta  (First  representation).  Petitioner  sent another  representation  to the detaining authority through his  lawyer  on 24.4.99 (Second representation). The petitioner filed the above petition on 17.5.99 challenging the said order of detention, inter alia, on the  ground that  his representations were not considered by the concerned  authorities independently and expeditiously. After service of notice, respondents 1 and 2  filed a reply submitting therein that both representations of the  petitioner,  one  sent to the detaining authority and other to  the  Chairman, Central Advisory Board, were considered independently and expeditiously  by the respective authorities, and were rejected vide two memos dated 7.5.99.\n<\/p>\n
4.   After  pleadings  were completed and the matter was posted  for  arguments,  the  petitioner on 4.8.99 filed an application to  urge  additional grounds. Along with this application a copy of representation dated  1.6.99 sent  by  his  advocate to the detaining authority was  also  filed  (Third Representation), which was rejected by detaining authority on 10.6.99.  The petitioner  also  filed a copy of a representation  in  ‘Gurumukhi  script’ dated  3.7.99,  purported to have been sent by his brother  Kamaljit  Singh residing in Delhi, to the President of India, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi through  post  (Fourth Representation). It was further stated that  as  the file  number was wrongly mentioned on the fourth representation, a copy  of the  same was sent again to the President on 19.7.99, after correcting  the file number. Respondents in reply affidavit submitted a date-chart  showing how  the third representation dated 1.6.99 was dealt with by the  detaining authority  and the Central Government simultaneously but independently  and was rejected on 10.6.99. It was also stated that the fourth representation, purported to be in ‘Gurmukhi script’ and alleged to have been addressed  to the President of India through post, was not received in the COFEPOSA  Unit of the Ministry and therefore, the question of its disposal by the  Central Government did not arise.\n<\/p>\n
5.   We  have heard learned counsel for the parties and have  also  perused synopsis of submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Learned  counsel for the petitioner argued that the impunged order  of detention  was liable to be quashed on the ground of  non-consideration  of his  fourth representation dated 3.7.99 by the Central Government.  It  was urged  that under Section 3. General Claused Act, the  “Central  Government” means President, therefore, must be considered to be a representation addressed  to the Central Government and that in any case this  representation  ought to have been considered by Central Government after receipt  of the same along with application for urging additional grounds; it was  also argued that the fourth representation was different from his earlier  three representations  as it contained two additional grounds for revocation  (a) that his third representation dated 1.6.99 was not considered independently by  the  Central Government (b) that he was a poor person  and  sole  bread earner  of the family. Reliance in support of this argument was  placed  on the two decisions of Supreme Court in Raghavendra Singh Vs. Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur and Ors., 1986 Criminal Law Journal 493, Rajammal Vs. State  of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 1998 IX AD (SC) 353 and on a decision of  this court  in Kishore Kumar Mundhra Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1989  (2)  Delhi Lawyer 337. It was submitted that delay in consideration of the said representation is fatal to continued detention by virtue of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Learned   counsel  for  the  respondents  argued  that  as   per   the petitioner’s  own showing his first representation dated 23rd April,99  was rejected  by  the Central Government on 3rd May, 99 and  by  the  detaining authority  on  29th April, 99 was considered and rejected  by  the  Central Government as well as detaining authority independently on 7th May, 99  and his  third representation dated 1.6.99 was rejected by the Central  Government  on  11th June, 99 and by the detaining authority on  10th  June,  99. Regarding his fourth representation addressed to the President of India  in ‘Gurmukhi’  script, it was submitted that the same was not received in  the COPEPOSA Unit of the Ministry, so the question of its consideration by  the Central  Government  did  not arise and that this  representation  did  not contain  any fresh ground and non-consideration of the same did not  prejudice the petitionery. Decision of Supreme Court in Phillippa Anne Duek  Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,  and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Zaved  Zame  Khan.   were relied upon in  support  of  this contention.\n<\/p>\n
8.   At  the  outset it may be noticed that Supreme  Court  in  Raghavendra Singh  (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner made the  following observations:\n<\/p>\n
     “We must also add that this is not a case of repeated representations  to the Central Government as was the case in State  of  UP      Vs. Zavad Zama Khan, . In that case, it was  held      that  where an earlier representation to the  Central  Government      had been properly disposed of, the fact that the second representation to the Central Government was not so disposed of would not      entitle the detenu to be release.”\n<\/p>\n
9.   Similar  observations were also made by learned single Judge  of  this court in Kishore Kumar Mundhra (supra) while referring to another  decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale Vs. Union of India &  Anr., . It was observed that if the second representation is  not similar  to the representation already made, then the position may be  different.\n<\/p>\n
10.  This leads us to the question as to whether the fourth  representation of  the petitioner is really different from the earlier  three  representations  addressed to the Central Government and to the detaining  authority, which were admittedly considered and rejected by the concerned authorities. It was argued that the fourth representation was different because in  this representation it was stated that his third representation dated 1st  June, 99 was not considered by the Central Government and the detaining authority independently  and  that the petitioner was the sole bread  earner  of  his family.  It may be noticed that the petitioner filed this writ petition  on 17th  May, 99 challenging his detention, after his first and second  representations sent through his lawyer were already rejected. Thus the issue of delay in consideration of his earlier representation was already before the court. No grievance with regard to the disposal of these two representation was  made  by the petitioner during the course of arguments.  A  meaningful reading of the fourth representation shows that it is similar to his earlier  representations. There is no substantial difference. Thus the  non-consideratin  of  fourth  representation did not cause any  prejudice  to  the detenu. Rejecting a similar contention, Division Bench of this court in  P. Moidu  Haji & Anr., Vs. State of Orissa, 1985 Crl. L. J. 1430  observed  as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Another plea of Mr. Harjinder Singh was that the detenu’s representation through his brother to the President of India on February  10, 1985 was mandatorily to be dealt with by the  Government  of  India. Instead it was considered by the State Government  and  dismissed. It is, however, admitted that his earlier  representa     tion  dated February 5, 1985 made to the Government of India  had  been  rejected by that Government vide Memorandum dated  February 15, 1985 (copy Annexure ‘F’ ). In our opinion this argument  has  no  force.  In view of the fact that the Central  Government  has  already considered and took a decision on the earlier representation,  it was not obliged to consider the second  representation, made to President of India.”\n<\/p>\n
11.  Before we part with this contention, we would like observe that in the grounds of detention served on the petitioner, he was specifically informed of  the authorities and their addresses to whom he could as of  right  make representations. Relevant paras of the grounds read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     \"28.  You  have a right to make a representation to  the  Central      Government,  the  detaining  authority  and  the  Advisory  Board      against the detention order in the manner indicated below:- \n \n\n\n     (i)  Representation meant for detaining authority should  be  addressed  to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Ministry of  Finance,   Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau,  6th  Floor, Bowing, Janapath Bhawan, New Delhi. \n \n\n\n     (ii)  Representation meant for the Central Government  should  be  addressed  to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,  Department  of  Revenue, 8th Floor, B-Wing, Janapath Bhawan, New Delhi. \n \n\n\n     (iii) Representation meant for Advisory Board should be addressed   to  The  Chairman, Advisory Board (COFEPOSA), Delhi  High  Court,   Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. \n \n\n\n     29. The above grounds are communicated to you for the purpose  of    clause  (5)  of Article 22 of the Constitution of  India  and  as   required under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. 1974\".\n \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
12.  All the three representations dated 23rd April, 99, 29th April, 99 and 1st  June, 99 were detailed representations sent by the petitioner  through his lawyer. We fail to understand as to why the petitioner’s brother Kamaljit  Singh staying at Delhi would chose to send another representation  and that also in ‘Gurumukhi’ script for revocation of the detention order to an authority  not specified. These circumstances clearly reflect that  sending of the fourth representation to an authority not specified in the order  of detention to whom representation could be made as of right was nothing  but an effort to create a fresh ground for attacking the detention order.  Such a tendency ought to be discouraged. Under the circumstances, we are of  the considered view that non-consideration of the fourth representation  cannot be of any help to the petitioner as it did not prejudice his case.  Supreme Court  in Parkash Chander Mehta Vs. Commissioner and Secretary,  Government of Kerala & Ors., 1986 Crl. L.J. 786 observed:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The society must be protected from that social menace by immobilizing  the persons by detention of the persons engaged in  those   operations and to disrupt the machinery established for  furthering  smuggling and foreign exchange manipulations  (Statement  of      Objects  and  Reasons of 1975 Act.) Preventive  detention  unlike      punitive  detention which is to punish for the wrong done, is  to      protect  the society by preventing wrong being done. Though  such      powers  must  be very cautiously exercised not to  undermine  the      fundamental  freedoms  guaranteed to our people,  the  procedural      safeguards are to ensure that, yet these must be looked at from a      pragmatic and commonsense point of view.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  It was next argued that on 9.9.98 the petitioner was arrested. He  was granted  bail  on 15.12.98 and the detention order was passed  on  21.1.99, therefore,  there was a delay of four months and twelve days in passing  of the  detention order. In support of this argument, reliance was  placed  on Rabindra  Kumar Ghosel @ Buli Vs. The State of West Bengal 1975(4) SC  111, and Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar Vs. Shri S. Ramamurthi & Ors., .  The  explanation offered by the detaining authority is that  the  impugned order was passed after satisfying itself about the proximity between the date of incident and the date of passing the detention order. Admittedly,  the  petitioner is based at Calcutta. The goods  had  originated  from Calcutta.  The  seizure was effected in Delhi. There can be  no  mechanical test  for counting the delay in taking preventive action. In  Ashok  Narain Vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 AC 1222 wherein the detention order was passed eight  months  after  the arrest the Supreme Court declined  to  quash  the detention  order on the ground of delay since it was not occasioned by  any laxity  but was the result of full and detailed consideration of facts  and circumstances. In this case, we feel that there was no delay in passing the order of detention as the investigations had to be carried out in different States.  Decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner are  not applicable to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Lastly,  relying on the decisions in Sk. Nizamuddin Vs. State of  West Bengal, , Surinder Pal Singh Vs. M.L.Wadhawan & Ors.,  1987 (2) Crime 449 and K.P. M. Basheer Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 1992  Crl. L.J.1927  where unexplained delay in execution of the detention  order  for two to five months was considered to be fatal. It was argued that there was delay  of 13 days in the execution of the detention order. In reply it  was submitted  that the detention order was passed on 21.1.99. It was  sent  to the  executing  authority at Calcutta, after due  observance  of  procedure regarding service of the detention order. The explanation offered is  plausible  and  in view of this explanation we are of the view  that  there  is hardly any delay in the execution of the order.\n<\/p>\n
15.  We find no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. No  order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 VIAD Delhi 557, 82 (1999) DLT 438, 1999 (51) DRJ 585 Author: S Agarwal Bench: D Gupta, S Agarwal ORDER S.K. Agarwal J. 1. The petitioner by this petition has challenged the detention order […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999 - 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\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-08T06:54:21+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-08T06:54:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2301,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-08T06:54:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999 - 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\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-08T06:54:21+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-08T06:54:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999"},"wordCount":2301,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999","name":"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-08T06:54:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagroop-singh-rupinder-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-8-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagroop Singh @ Rupinder Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 October, 1999"}]},{"@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\/103209","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=103209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}