{"id":119751,"date":"1996-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996"},"modified":"2018-01-12T19:47:03","modified_gmt":"2018-01-12T14:17:03","slug":"kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKULDIP SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t16\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nPARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nB.P.JEEVAN REDDY J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal arises from the judgement of the Punjab and
\nHaryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the
\nappellant.   The appellant was a Head Constable of Police in
\nthe service  of the Punjab Government. He has been dismissed
\nfrom service  without holding  an enquiry as contemplated by
\nclause (2)  of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The
\nSenior Superintendent  of Police  [S.S.P.], Tarn  Taran\t has
\ninvoked\t proviso  (b)  appended\t to  the  said\tclause\t(2),
\ndispensing with\t the enquiry  on the  ground that  it is not
\nreasonable practicable\tto hold\t such an enquiry in the case
\nof the\tappellant. The\torder of dismissal is dated February
\n21,  1992.   The  appeal  preferred  by\t the  appellant\t was
\ndismissed by  the Inspector General of Police, Border Range,
\nAmritsar on  June 22,  1993. The  order of dismissal and the
\nappellate  order   affirming  it   were\t questioned  by\t the
\nappellant by  way of  a writ  petition\tin  the\t Punjab\t and
\nHaryana High  Court which  too has  failed, as stated above.
\nThe order  of dismissal\t passed by  the S.S.P.,\t Tarn Taran,
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
     “Whereas  Head   Constable\t  Kuldip
\n     Singh No.2374\/TT  of this\tdistrict
\n     has   been\t  found\t  indulging   in
\n     activities\t  prejudicial\tto   the
\n     efficient functioning of the Police
\n     force. He has very close links with
\n     extremists\t and   helping\tthem  by
\n     providing information of the Police
\n     Department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     And whereas  it is established that
\n     Head   Constable\t Kuldip\t   Singh
\n     No.2374\/TT is  mixed  up  with  the
\n     extremists\t and   had  been   found
\n     responsible      for      supplying
\n     information relating  to the Police
\n     Department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     And  whereas  in  the  interest  of
\n     maintenance  of   law  and\t general
\n     administration  and   retention  of
\n     Head   Constable\t Kuldip\t   Singh
\n     No.2847\/TT of  Police District tarn
\n     Taran is considered undesirable
\n     And whereas I am satisfied that the
\n     circumstances of  the case are such
\n     that   if\t  is   not    reasonably
\n     practicable to  hold an  enquiry in
\n     the  manner   provided  in\t  Punjab
\n     Police  Rules   16.24  because   no
\n     witness is likely to depose against
\n     him due  to fear  of injury  of his
\n     life.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Now,  therefore,\tI  Ajit\t  Singh,
\n     Senior  Superintendent  of\t Police,
\n     Tarn  Taran   in  exercise\t of  the
\n     powers vested  in me  by virtue  of
\n     the  provisions   of   the\t  Punjab
\n     Police Rules 16.1 read with Section
\n     7\tof  the\t Police\t Act,  1861  and
\n     Article 311(2)  of the Constitution
\n     of India,\tdo hereby  dismiss  from
\n     service the  Head Constable  Kuldip
\n     Singh No.2874\/TT  with effect  from
\n     21.2.1992.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On Appeal,\t the  appellate\t authority  found  that\t the
\nappellant did  have links  with the terrorists and was mixed
\nup with\t them and he was supplying secret information of the
\npolice department to terrorists which was creating hindrance
\nin the\tsmooth functioning  of the  police  department.\t The
\nappellate authority  also found\t that it  was impossible  to
\nconduct an  enquiry against  the  appellant  because  nobody
\nwould come  forward to\tdepose against such “militant police
\nofficial”. The appellate authority also referred to the fact
\nthat  the   appellant  was   interrogated  in  a  case,\t FIR
\nNo.210\/90, and that during interrogation he admitted that he
\nwas having  links with\tMajor Singh  Shahid and\t Sital Singh
\nJakhar and  was working\t for them.  It further\tstated in it
\norder that the appellant was preparing to murder some senior
\npolice officers while taking advantage of his position.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court found  that the  reasons given  by\t the
\nS.S.P. for  dispensing\twith the enquiry were acceptable and
\nthat the  satisfaction recorded\t by him cannot be said to be
\nunjustified or\tunwarranted. The  High Court was also of the
\nopinion\t that  there  was  sufficient  material\t before\t the
\ndisciplinary authority to conclude that it was not expedient
\nto hold a regular enquiry against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  appeal, it  is  contended\t by  Sri  R.S.Sodhi,
\nlearned counsel\t for the  appellant, the  except the alleged
\nadmission\/confession of the appellant made before the police
\nofficers during\t interrogation in FIR No.219\/90, there is no
\nother material\tupon which  the disciplinary authority could
\nhave concluded\tthat the  dismissal  of\t the  appellant\t was
\nwarranted. He submitted that such an admission\/confession is
\ninadmissible in\t law and,  therefore, cannot  constitute the
\nbasis of  an order  of dismissal.  The learned\tcounsel also
\nsubmitted  that\t  no  material\t has  been   placed  by\t the
\ndisciplinary authority\tbefore the  Court upon\twhich it was
\nsatisfied that\tit was\tnot expedient to hold a disciplinary
\nenquiry against\t the appellant as contemplated by clause (2)
\nof Article  311. The  learned counsel  also brought  to\t our
\nnotice that  though the\t appellant was\tprosecuted and tried
\nbefore the  designated court,  Amritsar under Terrorists and
\nDisruptive Activities  Act in  connection with\tthe crime in
\nFIR No.219\/90, he has been acquitted by the said court.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  other hand, the learned counsel for respondents
\nsupported the  reasoning and conclusion of the High Court as
\nalso the action of the authorities.\n<\/p>\n
     At our direction made on April 22, 1996 in this matter,
\nthe learned  counsel for the State has produced the original
\nrecord relating\t to the\t appellant’s  dismissal\t along\twith
\ntranslated  copies  o  the  relevant  documents.  The  first
\ndocument placed\t before us  by the  learned counsel  for the
\nState is  the copy  of the  FIR No.219\/90 dated November 24,
\n1990. It  is based  upon the  statement\t of  Head  Constable
\nHardev Singh,  who was\tposted as  gunman  with\t Sri  Harjit
\nSingh, Superintendent  of  Police  [S.P]  [Operations].\t The
\nF.I.R. speaks  of the  jeep [in\t which\tthe  said  S.P.\t was
\ntravelling along  with certain police personnel] being blown
\nup killing the said S.P. and few other police officials. The
\nnext document  placed before us is the case diary pertaining
\nto the said crime containing the statement of the appellant,
\nKuldip Singh.  In his  statement, Kuldip  Singh, did clearly
\nstate about  his association  with certain  named militants,
\nthe  plot   laid  by   them  to\t  kill\tSri   Harjit  Singh,
\nSuperintendent of  Police, Tarn\t Taran by placing a bomb and
\nthe manner  in which they carried out the said plot. He also
\nstated that  he and his militant companions planned to plant
\na bomb\tin the\toffice of  S.S.P., Tarn\t Taran but  that the
\npolice officers\t came to know of the said plan, thus foiling
\ntheir plan.  The learned counsel for the State of Punjab did
\nconcede\t  that\t  except   the\t  aforesaid   statement\t  of
\nadmission\/confession of\t the appellant,\t there was  no other
\nmaterial on  which the\tappellant could\t be held  guilty  of
\nconduct warranting dismissal from service.\n<\/p>\n
     Proviso (b)  to Article  311(2) says  that the  enquiry
\ncontemplated by\t clause (2)  need not  be  held\t “where\t the
\nauthority empowered  to dismiss\t or remove  a person  or  to
\nreduce him  in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be
\nrecorded by  that authority in writing, it is not reasonably
\npracticable to hold such enquiry.” Clause (3) of Article 311
\nexpressly provides  that “if,  in respect of any such person
\nas aforesaid,  the question  arises whether it is reasonably
\npracticable to hold such enquiry as is referred to in clause
\n(2), the  decision thereon  of the  authority  empowered  to
\ndismiss or  remove such\t person or  to reduce\thim  in rank
\nshall be  final.” These\t provisions have  been the  subject-
\nmatter of  consideration by  a Constitution  Bench  of\tthis
\nCourt in  Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel<\/a> [1985 Suppl. (2)
\nS.C.R.131]. It would be appropriate to notice a few relevant
\nholdings in the said judgement:\n<\/p>\n
     “Before   denying\t  a   government
\n     servant his constitutional right to
\n     an enquiry, the first consideration
\n     would be whether the conduct of the
\n     concerned\tgovernment   servant  is
\n     such as  justifies the  penalty  of
\n     dismissal, removal\t or reduction in
\n     rank.    Once  that  conclusion  is
\n     reached and the condition specified
\n     in\t the   relevant\t clause\t of  the
\n     second proviso  is satisfied,  that
\n     proviso becomes  applicable and the
\n     government servant\t is not entitled
\n     to an  enquiry (p.205)…..it would
\n     also not  be reasonably practicable
\n     to\t hold\tthe  enquiry   where  an
\n     atmosphere\t of   violence\t or   of
\n     general\t  indiscipline\t     and
\n     insubordination prevails, and it is
\n     immaterial\t whether  the  concerned
\n     government servant\t is or\tis not a
\n     party to  bringing\t about\tsuch  an
\n     atmosphere…..The\t      reasonable
\n     practicability   of    holding   an
\n     inquiry is\t a matter  of assessment
\n     to\t be  made  by  the  disciplinary
\n     authority.\t  Such\t  authority   is
\n     generally on  the\tspot  and  knows
\n     what is  happening. It  is\t because
\n     the disciplinary  authority is  the
\n     best judge\t of this that clause (3)
\n     of Article\t 311 makes  the decision
\n     of the  disciplinary  authority  on
\n     this question  of the  disciplinary
\n     authority by  Article 311(3) is not
\n     binding upon  the court  so far  as
\n     its power\tof  judicial  review  is
\n     concerned\t(p.270)…..   Where   a
\n     government\t servant  is  dismissed,
\n     removed  or   reduced  in\trank  by
\n     applying  clause  or  an  analogous
\n     provision of  the service rules and
\n     he approaches either the High Court
\n     under Article  226\t or  this  Court
\n     under Article  32, the  court  will
\n     interfere\t  on\t grounds    well
\n     established in law for the exercise
\n     of\t power\tof  judicial  review  in
\n     matters\twhere\t  administrative
\n     discretion is  exercised.\tIt  will
\n     consider whether  clause (b) or  an
\n     analogous provision  in the service
\n     rules  was\t  properly  applied   or
\n     not…. In\t examining the relevancy
\n     of\t the  reasons,\tthe  court  will
\n     consider\tthe    situation   which
\n     according\t to   the   disciplinary
\n     authority\tmade   it  come\t to  the
\n     conclusion\t  that\t  it   was   not
\n     reasonably practicable  to hold the
\n     inquiry….In    considering    the
\n     relevancy of  the reasons\tgiven by
\n     the  disciplinary\t authority,  the
\n     court will\t not,  however,\t sit  in
\n     judgment over  them like a court of
\n     first appeal (p.273-274).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The judgment  also stresses  that very  often a  person
\ndealt with  under any  of the  three clauses  in the  second
\nproviso to  Article 311(2)  has a  right of appeal where the
\ncorrectness  of\t  the  decision\t taken\tby  the\t appropriate
\nauthority will\tbe subject  to review-apart, of course, from
\nthe remedy of judicial review provided in the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     Now coming\t to  the  main\tcontention  of\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for  the appellant,  it is true that a confession or
\nadmission of  guilt made  by a\tperson accused of an offence
\nbefore, or while in the custody of, a police officer; is not
\nadmissible in  a court of law according to Section 25 and 26
\nof the\tEvidence Act  but it  is equally  well settled\tthat
\nthese  rules  of  evidence  do\tnot  apply  to\tdepartmental
\nenquiries –  See State\tof Mysore v. S.S.Makapur<\/a> [A.I.R.1963
\nS.C.375]  and\tState  of   Assam  v.\tS.K.Das<\/a>\t [A.I.R.1970
\nS.C.1255]- wherein  the only  test is  compliance  with\t the
\nprinciples of  natural justice-and,  of\t course,  compliance
\nwith the  rules governing  the enquiries,  if any.  In\tthis
\ncontext, it  is well  to remember  that in  India,  evidence
\nrecovered or  discovered as a result of an illegal search is
\nheld relevant  departing from  the law in the United States.
\nWe may\trefer to  the following observations of the Judicial
\nCommittee of  the Privy Council in Kuruma v. The Queen [1955
\nA.C.197], quoted  approvingly by  the Constitution  Bench of
\nthis Court in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection<\/a> [1974 (1)
\nS.C.C.345 at 256].\n<\/p>\n
     “The test\tto be  applied, both  in
\n     civil and\tin  criminal  cases,  in
\n     considering  whether   evidence  is
\n     admissible\t  is   whether\t it   is
\n     relevant to  the matters  in issue.
\n     If it  is, it  admissible, and  the
\n     Court is  not concerned with how it
\n     was obtained.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t this\tsense,\tif  the\t appellant’s  confession  is
\nrelevant, the  fact that  it was made to the police or while
\nin the\tcustody of the police may not be of much consequence
\nfor the\t reason that  strict rules  of Evidence\t Act do\t not
\napply\tto   departmental\/disciplinary\t enquiries.   In   a
\ndepartmental enquiry,  it would\t perhaps be  permissible for
\nthe authorities\t to prove that the appellant did make such a
\nconfession admission  during the course of interrogation and
\nit would be for the disciplinary authority to decide whether
\nit is  a  voluntary  confession\/admission  or  not.  If\t the
\ndisciplinary authority\tcomes to  the  conclusion  that\t the
\nstatement was  indeed voluntary\t and true,  he may  well  be
\nentitled  to   act  upon   the\tsaid  statement.  Here,\t the
\nauthorities say\t that they were satisfied about the truth of
\nthe appellant’s\t confession. There  is undoubtedly  no other
\nmaterial. There is also the fact that the appellant has been
\nacquitted by  the designated  court. We\t must say  that\t the
\nfacts of  this case  did present us with a difficult choice.
\nThe fact,  however, remains  that the  High Court has opined
\nthat  there  was  enough  material  before  the\t appropriate
\nauthority  upon\t  which\t it   could  come  to  a  reasonable
\nconclusion that it was not reasonable practicable to hold an
\nenquiry as  contemplated  by  clause  (2)  of  Article\t311.
\nNothing has been brought to our notice to persuade us not to
\naccept the  said finding  of the  High Court. Even a copy of
\nthe counter  filed by  the respondents\tin the High Court is
\nnot placed  before us. Once proviso (b) is held to have been
\nvalidly invoked,  the government  servant concerned  is left
\nwith no\t legitimate  ground  to\t impugn\t the  action  except
\nperhaps to  say that  the facts\t said  to  have\t been  found
\nagainst him  do not warrant the punishment actually awarded.
\nSo far\tas the\tpresent case  is concerned,  if one believes
\nthat the  confession made by the appellant was voluntary and
\ntrue, the punishment awarded cannot be said to be excessive.
\nThe appellant  along with some other caused the death of the
\nSuperintendent of  Police and  a few other police officials.
\nIt must\t be remembered\tthat we are dealing with a situation
\nobtaining in  Punjab during the years 1990-91. Moreover, the
\nappellate authority  has also  agreed with  the disciplinary
\nauthority that\tthere were  good grounds  for coming  to the
\nconclusion that\t it was not reasonably practicable to hold a
\ndisciplinary enquiry  against the  appellant  and  that\t the
\nappellant was guilty of the crime confessed by him. There is
\nno allegation  of malafides  levelled against  the appellate
\nauthority. The\tdisciplinary and  the appellate\t authorities
\nare the\t men on\t the spot  and we  have no reason to believe
\nthat their decision has not been arrived at fairly. The High
\nCourt is  also satisfied  with the  reasons  for  which\t the
\ndisiciplinary enquiry was dispensed with. In the face of all
\nthese circumstances,  it is  not possible  for us  to take a
\ndifferent view\tat this\t stage. It is not permissible for us
\nto go  into the\t question whether the confession made by the
\nappellant is  voluntary or not, once it has been accepted as
\nvoluntary by  the disciplinary\tauthority and  the appellate
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t accordingly  fails  and  is  dismissed.  No
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: KULDIP SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/09\/1996 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-119751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996 - 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\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-12T14:17:03+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\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-12T14:17:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2421,\"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\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-12T14:17:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996 - 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\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-12T14:17:03+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\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-12T14:17:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996"},"wordCount":2421,"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\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996","name":"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-12T14:17:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuldip-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-ors-on-16-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kuldip Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 1996"}]},{"@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\/119751","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=119751"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119751\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}