{"id":128261,"date":"2002-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002"},"modified":"2017-09-19T11:01:05","modified_gmt":"2017-09-19T05:31:05","slug":"mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 710, 98 (2002) DLT 163, 2002 (63) DRJ 17<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Agarwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Agarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> S.K. Agarwal, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India, petitioner has challenged the<br \/>\norder dated 14th July, 1999, passed by the Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge, New Delhi, setting aside the order dated<br \/>\n1.3.1996, of the Metropolitan Magistrate and remanding<br \/>\nback the case with a direction to reconsider the whole<br \/>\ncase and re-frame the charges in case FIR No.571\/93<br \/>\nunder Sections 420\/468\/471, IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. In brief, prosecution allegations are that<br \/>\ncomplainant was running a business of selling of sweets<br \/>\nat Jodhpur and was looking for some alternative<br \/>\nbusiness. One Mr. D.L. Naida r\/o village Singhora,<br \/>\nDistrict Jhunjhun, Rajasthan, a contractor, was known to<br \/>\nthe complainant. He mentioned the name of the accused<br \/>\nand told him that petitioner can get a government supply<br \/>\ncontract through him. Mr. Naida also informed the<br \/>\ncomplainant that he was getting such a big contract<br \/>\nthrough the petitioner. The complainant became<br \/>\ninterested in the project and on 7.11.1993 he came to<br \/>\nDelhi Along with Mr. Naida. Both of them stayed at<br \/>\nUphar Guest House, Green Park. thereafter, the<br \/>\ncomplainant was introduced to the petitioner by Mr.<br \/>\nNaida. Accused at that time claimed himself to be the<br \/>\n&#8220;Indian defense Accounts Officer&#8221; and on deputation to<br \/>\nthe Ministry of defense as Executive Officer. In order<br \/>\nto inculcate faith in the complainant, petitioner showed<br \/>\nhis identity card. He represented that he can get a<br \/>\nvery big supply contract from Ministry of defense at one<br \/>\npercent commission. On this representation, the<br \/>\ncomplainant became more interested in the project. On<br \/>\nhis own, petitioner gave a photocopy of classified<br \/>\nletter dated 23.9.1993 to the complainant, in which the<br \/>\nsupply of goods worth Rs.17.20 crores was to be awarded.<br \/>\nPetitioner informed the complainant that a fee of half<br \/>\npercent of the value which comes to Rs.8.0 lakh has to<br \/>\nbe deposited as security. Petitioner also told him that<br \/>\neverything has to be kept top secret and he is in charge<br \/>\nof the whole project. He also asked the complainant to<br \/>\nbring money on 12.11.1993 and promised that on the same<br \/>\nday the contract will be signed and given to him. On<br \/>\nthis representation, the complainant went back to<br \/>\nJodhpur and arranged a sum of Rs.8.0 lakhs from his<br \/>\nfather-in-law and others. On 11.11.93 the complainant<br \/>\ncame back to Delhi and stayed with his brother Shri D.D.<br \/>\nSingh. The petitioner had given a contact Number<br \/>\n3782609 Extn.2. This telephone was picked up by the<br \/>\npetitioner himself. On telephone the complainant told<br \/>\nhim that he had arranged the money. Accordingly, the<br \/>\npetitioner called the complainant at South Block, Main<br \/>\nGate towards North Block at 2:30 p.m. As per the<br \/>\ninstructions of the petitioner, the complainant<br \/>\nAlong with his brother D.D. Singh went to South Block,<br \/>\nMain Gate. The accused came out from South Block and<br \/>\nmet the complainant. The petitioner with the<br \/>\ncomplainant and his brother sat in a car. They were<br \/>\ntold that the entry in the office was restricted. While<br \/>\nsitting in car petitioner gave two typed letters on<br \/>\nletter head of Govt. of India and asked the complainant<br \/>\nto fill and signed the same. These letters were duly<br \/>\nsigned by the complainant and witnessed by his brother<br \/>\non the asking of the accused. In presence of the<br \/>\ncomplainant and his brother the accused had signed both<br \/>\nthese documents as Executive Officer and endorsed<br \/>\n&#8220;recommend&#8221;. Thereafter, the petitioner went inside the<br \/>\noffice and came out after half an hour and gave<br \/>\nphotocopy of these two letters duly stamped with the<br \/>\nendorsement &#8220;recommended&#8221;. The contract was to be<br \/>\nallegedly signed by some other officer. Thereafter, the<br \/>\naccused told the complainant that the tender has been<br \/>\ninformally accepted. The complainant was asked to<br \/>\ndeposit half percent security, at the residence of P.S.<br \/>\nBadiala, Director General at T-23, Green Park. The<br \/>\ncomplainant and his brother, as per the instructions of<br \/>\nthe accused went there. The petitioner took the<br \/>\nbrief-case containing Rs.8 lakhs from the complainant<br \/>\nand went inside and came after half an hour and informed<br \/>\nthat the complaint would be receiving receipt on<br \/>\n16.11.93 at Room No.-17-B, South Block Along with papers<br \/>\nof the contact. The petitioner also congratulated the<br \/>\ncomplainant and asked that his commission of Rs.17 lakhs<br \/>\nshould be given to him before the start of first<br \/>\npayment, for which the complainant agreed. On 14.11.93,<br \/>\nMr. Naida came to Delhi. Thereafter, to meet Shri Naida<br \/>\nthe complainant came to Uphar Guest House where the<br \/>\npetitioner was to meet but he did not turn up. When the<br \/>\npetitioner did not meet the complainant and Mr. Naida,<br \/>\nthey got suspicious. Next day Mr.Naida informed the<br \/>\ncomplainant that Mr. Mal Singh Choudhary had also cheated<br \/>\nhim for Rs.5 lakhs. At this the complainant tried to<br \/>\nfind out the petitioner at the given address.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. On the basis of the above allegations, the<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate by order dated 1.3.1996 ordered<br \/>\nthat the charge for the offence under Section 420 IPC<br \/>\nonly is made out against the accused. Petitioner filed<br \/>\na revision petition, which was dismissed and the matter<br \/>\nwas remanded back for reconsideration of the charges.<br \/>\nIt was also observed that prima facie offence under<br \/>\nSections 468\/471, IPC is also made out. This order is<br \/>\nunder challenge. I have heard learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner and learned APP for the State.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the<br \/>\noutset, argued that petitioner had filed the revision<br \/>\npetition against the order framing charge against him<br \/>\nunder Section 420, IPC and the order holding that prima<br \/>\nfacie case under Sections 468\/471, IPC, is also made out<br \/>\nand directing reframing of charge against petitioner is<br \/>\nwithout jurisdiction. I am unable to agree. Bare<br \/>\nperusal of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure shows that the superior court can always call<br \/>\nfor and examine the correctness, legality or propriety<br \/>\nof any finding, sentence or order. Merely because the<br \/>\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat prima facie a case under Sections 468\/471, IPC is<br \/>\nalso made out. The impugned order cannot be said to be<br \/>\nwithout jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next<br \/>\nargued that petitioner was earlier also falsely<br \/>\nimplicated in case FIR No. 88\/97, P.S. Maurice Nagar,<br \/>\nunder Sections 25\/54\/59 of the Arms Act and by judgment<br \/>\nand order dated 19.3.1997 he was acquitted because there<br \/>\nwas no public witness and evidence of the public<br \/>\nofficials was not believed. Referring to another order<br \/>\npassed by the Court at Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, learned<br \/>\ncounsel argued that on the basis of the complaint lodged<br \/>\nby one Digambar Lal, petitioner was involved in another<br \/>\ncase under Section 420\/406, IPC. On the revision<br \/>\npetition filed by the petitioner, he was exonerated at<br \/>\nthe stage of framing of the charge itself. She argued<br \/>\nthat the present case is also a part of the same plan<br \/>\nthrough Mr. Nadiad and, therefore, prosecution of the<br \/>\npetitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the<br \/>\nCourt and charge against petitioner is false and<br \/>\nbaseless and that no case is made out against the<br \/>\npetitioner. Learned APP for the State argued to the<br \/>\ncontrary.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. I have considered the rival contentions<br \/>\nand have been taken through the record. As per settled<br \/>\nlaw, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not<br \/>\nrequired to examine the evidence minutely. Even a grave<br \/>\nsuspicion is enough. The Court is required to see<br \/>\nwhether the allegations against the accused, prima<br \/>\nfacie, appear to be true. At this stage, defense of the<br \/>\naccused is not required to be considered. Reference in<br \/>\nthis regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in   <a href=\"\/doc\/1360078\/\">Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar,  and<\/a> several subsequent decisions, wherein it was<br \/>\nheld:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;Thus, on a consideration of the<br \/>\nauthorities mentioned above, the<br \/>\nfollowing principle emerge:\n<\/p>\n<p> (1) That the Judge while considering<br \/>\nthe question of framing the charges under<br \/>\nSection 227 of the Code has the<br \/>\nun-doubted power to sift and weigh the<br \/>\nevidence for the limited purpose of<br \/>\nfinding out whether or not a prima facie<br \/>\ncase against the accused has been made<br \/>\nout;\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) Where the materials placed<br \/>\nbefore the Court disclose grave suspicion<br \/>\nagainst the accused which has not been<br \/>\nproperly explained the Court will be<br \/>\nfully justified in framing a charge and<br \/>\nproceeding with the trial;\n<\/p>\n<p> (3) The test to determine a prima<br \/>\nfacie case would naturally depend upon<br \/>\nthe facts of each case and it is<br \/>\ndifficult to lay down a rule of universal<br \/>\napplication. By and large however if two<br \/>\nviews are equally possible and the Judge<br \/>\nis satisfied that the evidence produced<br \/>\nbefore him while giving rise to some<br \/>\nsuspicion but not grave suspicion against<br \/>\nthe accused, he will be fully within his<br \/>\nright to discharge the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p> (4) That in exercising his<br \/>\njurisdiction under Section 227 of the<br \/>\nCode the Judge which under the present<br \/>\nCode is a senior and experienced Court<br \/>\ncannot act merely as a Post-Office or a<br \/>\nmouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to<br \/>\nconsider  the broad probabilities of the<br \/>\ncase, the total effect of the evidence<br \/>\nand the documents produced before the<br \/>\nCourt, any basic infirmities appearing in<br \/>\nthe case and so on. This however does<br \/>\nnot mean that the Judge should make a<br \/>\nroving enquiry into the pros and cons of<br \/>\nthe matter and weigh the evidence as if<br \/>\nhe was conducting a trial.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Applying the above principles to the facts<br \/>\nof this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that<br \/>\nprima facie no offence against the petitioner is made<br \/>\nout. Any detailed discussion is not necessary lest it<br \/>\nmay prejudice the case of the petitioner or the<br \/>\nprosecution. The reasoning adopted by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision<br \/>\npetition is legal and valid. There is nothing in the<br \/>\nimpugned order to warrant any interference at this<br \/>\nstage.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit<br \/>\nin the petition and the same is dismissed. Any<br \/>\nobservations made in this order shall not affect the<br \/>\nmerits of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 710, 98 (2002) DLT 163, 2002 (63) DRJ 17 Author: S Agarwal Bench: S Agarwal JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-19T05:31:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T05:31:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1682,\"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\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T05:31:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-19T05:31:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T05:31:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002"},"wordCount":1682,"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\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002","name":"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T05:31:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mal-singh-vs-state-of-delhi-on-18-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 18 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/128261","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=128261"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128261\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}