{"id":129416,"date":"2008-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-03-02T10:08:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T04:38:04","slug":"ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                        -1-\n\n                                   ***\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n              AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                      Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998\n                      Date of decision : 12.9.2008\n\n                                   *****\n\nRavinder Kumar                                     .....Appellant\n\n                      Versus\nState of Haryana                                   ...Respondent\n\n                            ****\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND\n\nPresent:   Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the appellant.\n\n           Ms.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General,Haryana.\n\n                                   *****\n\nS. D. ANAND, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           The appellant was convicted by the then learned Special<\/p>\n
Judge, Jind for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
Act”) and sentenced as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           \"Under Section 7 of To            undergo        rigorous\n           the   Prevention    of imprisonment for a period of two\n<\/pre>\n
           Corruption Act, 1988 years and to pay a fine of
\n                                  Rs.2000\/-. In default of payment
\n                                  of fine to further undergo R.I. For
\n                                  a period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
           “Under Section 13(2) To         undergo        rigorous
\n           of the Prevention of imprisonment for a period of two
\n           Corruption Act, 1988 years and to pay a fine of
\n                                Rs.3000\/-. In default of payment
\n                                of fine to further undergo R.I. For
\n                                a period of six months.”\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ***<\/p>\n
           The    substantive   sentences    were    ordered     to   run<\/p>\n
concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
           The prosecution allegations, upheld at the trial, were as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
           The appellant was posted as Assistant Manager at the<\/p>\n
Safidon Branch of the State Bank of Patiala. In that capacity, he was<\/p>\n
the recommending authority for sanction of (financial) limit. PW-8<\/p>\n
Satish Kumar who was running a glass house at Safidon under the<\/p>\n
name and style of M\/s Vishal Glass House, Safidon, applied for the<\/p>\n
sanction of ‘limit’ for furthering his business. In that context, Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar met the appellant in the bank premises on 22.4.1995. The<\/p>\n
appellant obtained the signatures of Satish Kumar on a blank<\/p>\n
cheque, photocopy whereof is Ex. PE, on a representation that some<\/p>\n
formalities were required to be completed in the context of pending<\/p>\n
request of Satish Kumar PW for sanction of ‘limit’. On the basis of<\/p>\n
the original of Ex. PE, the appellant withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
from the loan account and directed Satish Kumar to meet him again<\/p>\n
on 24.4.1995. When Satish Kumar went over to the appellant, on<\/p>\n
that date, the latter demanded a illegal gratification of Rs.4000\/- for<\/p>\n
the grant and also disbursement of the loan amount aforementioned.<\/p>\n
The appellant further informed Satish Kumar PW-8 that he had<\/p>\n
withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000\/- on 22.4.1995 on the basis of the<\/p>\n
original of Ex. PE and that the amount afore-mentioned was to be<\/p>\n
adjusted towards the amount permissible to be realised under the<\/p>\n
‘limit’. When Satish Kumar told the appellant that he was not inclined
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                         -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ***<\/p>\n
to pay the amount of illegal gratification, the appellant did not allow<\/p>\n
him to withdraw the amount from his loan account. Satish Kumar felt<\/p>\n
frustrated, went to DSP, Safidon and filed an application (Ex. PF)<\/p>\n
against the appellant. Under the direction of DSP, Safidon, PW-8<\/p>\n
Satish Kumar made available currency notes of Rs.3500\/- available.<\/p>\n
When Satish Kumar approached DSP, Safidon, with that amount he<\/p>\n
found that the DSP was available in the office and Sh. Inder Singh,<\/p>\n
Tehsildar was also sitting with him at that point of time.      In the<\/p>\n
presence of PW-6 Inder Singh, PW-8 Satish Kumar handed over<\/p>\n
currency notes of Rs.3500\/- to DSP, Safidon. The amount handed<\/p>\n
over included one currency note of the denomination of Rs.500\/-<\/p>\n
eleven currency notes of Rs.100\/- denomination and the remaining<\/p>\n
thirty-eight currency notes of Rs.50\/- denomination. The DSP noted<\/p>\n
down the number of each currency note. Thereafter, the notes were<\/p>\n
initialled by the DSP and the Tehsildar and phenolphthalein powder<\/p>\n
was applied to the currency notes. The DSP, then, proceeded to<\/p>\n
conduct the personal search of PW-8 Satish Kumar.                 That<\/p>\n
transaction was documented vide memo Ex. PG, which was attested<\/p>\n
by PW-6 Inder Singh, Tehsildar, PW-8 Satish Kumar and PW-9<\/p>\n
Satbir Singh who had been summoned by Satish Kumar under the<\/p>\n
direction of the DSP.    A raiding party was formed.     PW-9 Satbir<\/p>\n
Singh was assigned the role of the shadow witness. PW-8 Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar was directed to give the agreed signal after passing on the<\/p>\n
amount to the appellant. The shadow witness was to further pass on<\/p>\n
the agreed signal to the other members of the raiding party. PW-8
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                         -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ***<\/p>\n
Satish Kumar went inside the cabin of the appellant in the bank at<\/p>\n
about 4.45 P.M.     Shadow witness PW-9 Satbir Singh stationed<\/p>\n
himself at a window near that cabin; while the other members of the<\/p>\n
raiding party stayed over at a Panwala shop         situated near the<\/p>\n
premises afore-mentioned. Once he was inside the cabin, Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar informed the appellant that he could pay up the illegal<\/p>\n
gratification of only Rs.3500\/-. The appellant insisted that he would<\/p>\n
accept only the originally demanded amount of Rs.4000\/- After a<\/p>\n
haggling that lasted about 10-15 minutes, the appellant accepted<\/p>\n
the currency notes of Rs.3500\/- from Satish Kumar and put the same<\/p>\n
in side a pocket of the bag lying on his table. On getting the agreed<\/p>\n
signal from Satish Kumar, PW-9 Satbir Singh passed on the agreed<\/p>\n
signal to the other members of the party which swooped upon the<\/p>\n
appellant.   Satish Kumar, on being queried      by the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer about whether he had paid the amount of illegal gratification,<\/p>\n
owned it up. After informing the appellant, that the party was inclined<\/p>\n
to search the bag, the party proceeded to do so. The person of the<\/p>\n
appellant, and also contents of the bag, were searched. Currency<\/p>\n
noties of Rs.3500\/- ( Ex. P5 to Ex. P54) were recovered from the bag<\/p>\n
Ex. P4.\n<\/p>\n
             The hand wash of the accused was obtained in a jug.<\/p>\n
The jug water was, thereafter, made into a sealed nip. Then, the<\/p>\n
inside of pocket of the bag (Ex. P4) was also washed and the water<\/p>\n
turned light pink. That wash was also put in a nip and was sealed<\/p>\n
with that very seal. Thereafter, the currency notes were washed in
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ***<\/p>\n
that jug water which also turned light pink.\n<\/p>\n
           The prosecution examined PW-1 Rajinder Singh, PW-2<\/p>\n
HC Ram Niwas, PW-3 Constable Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 S.S.Thind,<\/p>\n
PW-5 M.L.Aggarwal, PW-6 Inder Singh, PW-7 S. Srinivasan, PW-8<\/p>\n
Satish Kumar, PW-9 Satbir Singh, PW-10 ASI Daya Nand and PW-<\/p>\n
11 H.K.Kalson, DSP in support of its plea at the trial.<\/p>\n
           The appellant raised a pure and simple plea of innocence<\/p>\n
when he was examined         in the course of    the statement under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He alleged false implication by averring in that<\/p>\n
statement as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “I have been involved in this fase case because Satish<\/p>\n
           Kumar was annoyed with me on account of my telling him<\/p>\n
           that stocks were insufficient for recommending the loan of<\/p>\n
           Rs.85000\/- and he had to manage the stocks by<\/p>\n
           purchase or by loan and as such he managed to secure<\/p>\n
           the services for obliging DSP.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Learned Trial Judge placed implicit reliance upon the<\/p>\n
prosecution presentation, declined appellant’s plea of innocence and<\/p>\n
proceeded to record the impugned finding of conviction( and order<\/p>\n
on point of sentence).\n<\/p>\n
           The appellant is in appeal before this Court.<\/p>\n
           I have heard Dr. Surya Parkash, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.S.MOr, learned<\/p>\n
Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and have carefully gone
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***<\/p>\n
through the file.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following<\/p>\n
items of grievance in support of his plea for invalidation of the<\/p>\n
impugned finding of conviction:-\n<\/p>\n
            1)      There is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the<\/p>\n
                    recovery of tainted currency notes was effected<\/p>\n
                    from the person of the appellant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2)      The prosecution presentation does not inspire<\/p>\n
                    confidence inasmuch as it is not supported by the<\/p>\n
                    testimony of an independent witness;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3)      The prosecution presentation is not free from doubt<\/p>\n
                    in view of the fact that there is no evidence to prove<\/p>\n
                    that   the   sample    seal\/seal    impression   were<\/p>\n
                    deposited with the MHC and\/or were forwarded to<\/p>\n
                    the FSL. In the absence of that evidence, the<\/p>\n
                    argument proceeded, would            prove that the<\/p>\n
                    prosecution had not been able to prove the<\/p>\n
                    intactness of the case property ( hand wash, bag<\/p>\n
                    wash and currency notes wash till analysis thereof<\/p>\n
                    by the FSL). In that very context, learned counsel<\/p>\n
                    found fault with the FSL report as well by pointing<\/p>\n
                    out that one of the sealed nips        purporting   to<\/p>\n
                    contain the bag wash was described by the FSL<\/p>\n
                    as “some dirty solution with sediments approx. 50<\/p>\n
                    ml. Stated to be “bag-wash”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  ***<\/p>\n
           The pleas advocated on behalf of the appellant do not<\/p>\n
merit acceptance. The reasons therefor are indicated as under:-<\/p>\n
           The grievance indicated at item no. 1 is neither here nor<\/p>\n
there. Infact, it was no where the prosecution presentation that the<\/p>\n
appellant had put the currency notes into his pocket.       The very<\/p>\n
allegation by the prosecution was that the appellant, after receiving<\/p>\n
the tainted money, put the same inside the pocket of a bag which<\/p>\n
was lying near him. The fact that it was the appellant who received<\/p>\n
the tainted money was proved by the testimony on oath of Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar PWE-8       The result   of the   hand wash, bag wash and<\/p>\n
currency notes wash was all confirmed that fact.<\/p>\n
           In the face of the advancement of the case law and the<\/p>\n
awareness on the part of the citizenry in the relevant behalf, the<\/p>\n
corrupt public servants have been found to have displayed rare<\/p>\n
sense of ingenuity. There are a number of cases in which it is found<\/p>\n
that the corrupt public servant would require the tainted money to be<\/p>\n
put in side the drawer of his table or under a file which may be lying<\/p>\n
upon the table.     That ingenuity is      aimed at disproving the<\/p>\n
prosecution presentation that the corrupt public servant had himself<\/p>\n
accepted the tainted money.       Ofcourse, the Courts have been<\/p>\n
aborting such acts of ingenuity by recording a finding in the given<\/p>\n
circumstances of a particular case that the tainted money had, infact,<\/p>\n
been received by the corrupt public servant and it could not wriggle<\/p>\n
out of accountability in the relevant behalf just by adducing evidence<\/p>\n
to the effect that money had not been recovered from his person and
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***<\/p>\n
that the money had been recovered from elsewhere. In this case<\/p>\n
too, the appellant appears to have displayed a touch of ingenuity in<\/p>\n
having received the tainted money which he put into the side pocket<\/p>\n
of a bag. This aspect has to be appreciated in view of the result of<\/p>\n
hand wash, bag wash and currency notes wash.              The plea shall<\/p>\n
stand negatived accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
            Insofar as the defence offered by the appellant is<\/p>\n
concerned, it is plainly brittle. If there was even an iota of truth in the<\/p>\n
plea taken up by the appellant in the course of statement under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C., there is no reason why he would not have<\/p>\n
adduced evidence to prove that he did make a report to the<\/p>\n
competent authority that the stocks available with the complainant,<\/p>\n
as security for the ‘limit’ applied for by him, were in adequate or<\/p>\n
deficit. It is only on proof of that fact that he could be allowed to<\/p>\n
urge motive on the part of the first informant\/complainant to falsely<\/p>\n
implicate him.\n<\/p>\n
            Apart from the above noticed items of grievance, at the<\/p>\n
hands of learned counsel for the appellant, he also argued that there<\/p>\n
is no reason why the first informant would have agreed to pay the<\/p>\n
amount of illegal gratification to the appellant because the latter was<\/p>\n
not the sanctioning authority and          his role was only that of a<\/p>\n
recommending authority. “The plea is too feeble to be accepted. A<\/p>\n
common man, particularly a business man in need of funds, would<\/p>\n
not be in the know of the fact about who exactly is the sanctioning<\/p>\n
authority. Even if the first informant is inferred to have had notice of
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                           -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ***<\/p>\n
that fact, it is not even denied on behalf of the appellant that he was<\/p>\n
the recommending authority which would, obviously, have a pivotal<\/p>\n
role to play in the sanction of ‘limit’. The plea shall stand negatived<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
            The other count of grievance ( with regard to non-joining<\/p>\n
of independent witness) is also illogical.      No doubt PW-9 Satbir<\/p>\n
Singh conceded that he is a first cousin of Satish Kumar PW-8, his<\/p>\n
testimony does not attract the tag of a biased witness. It is matter of<\/p>\n
common observation that the members of public are reluctant to<\/p>\n
associate themselves, with a such like exercise.          It may be on<\/p>\n
account of fear of reprisal at the hands of an accused or it could be<\/p>\n
on account of the obvious “I do not care’ attitude of the citizenry.<\/p>\n
The statement that public witness avoid association with the police<\/p>\n
investigation in order to avoid harassment on account of repeated<\/p>\n
visits to the police station and the Courts is also not far from truth. In<\/p>\n
that prevalent scenario, there is nothing unnatural if only an<\/p>\n
acquaintance would assist investigating agency in the matter. The<\/p>\n
reliance placed by the learned counsel upon G.V.Nanjundiah Vs.<\/p>\n
State (Delhi Administration) 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases<\/p>\n
266 is misconceived. In that case, the Investigating Officer had<\/p>\n
associated two trap witnesses. One out of them had already joined<\/p>\n
the police exercise 3-4 times. The other was a colleague of that<\/p>\n
witness. It was under those circumstances that the Apex court held<\/p>\n
that none of them could be termed as independent witness. In the<\/p>\n
present case, however, there is no averment that PW-9 Satbir Singh
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                            -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ***<\/p>\n
had any prior connection with the police. In that view of things, I<\/p>\n
have no hesitation in discarding the appellant’s plea tarring Satbir<\/p>\n
Singh PW-9 to be a man of biased character.\n<\/p>\n
            In support of the last indicated item of grievance, the<\/p>\n
learned counsel placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal (1998) 8<\/p>\n
Supreme Court Cases 449.\n<\/p>\n
            The reliance placed upon that judicial pronouncement is<\/p>\n
thoroughly misconceived. That was a case under the NDPS Act. In<\/p>\n
such type of cases, there is certain amount of compulsive sanctity<\/p>\n
attached to sealing of the case property. Even otherwise, the plea<\/p>\n
advocated is oblivious of the fact that the FSL noticed in the report<\/p>\n
itself that “the seals were intact and tallied with the sample seal as<\/p>\n
per forwarding authority’s letter.”\n<\/p>\n
            In that view of things, I have no hesitation in negativing<\/p>\n
the relevant plea put forward on behalf of the appellant.<\/p>\n
            Insofar as the other part of the last indicated item of<\/p>\n
grievance is concerned, it too is           without any force.   The FSL<\/p>\n
recorded a categorical finding that              Sodium carbonate and<\/p>\n
phenolphthalein were detected          in exhibit-1, 2 and 3 and that<\/p>\n
phenolphthalein was detected in exhibits 4 and 5. Even at the cost of<\/p>\n
repetition, it may be noticed here that Exhibits 1,2 and 3 purported<\/p>\n
to be hand wash, bag wash and currency notes wash respectively.<\/p>\n
Item No. 4 was rexion bag itself and item no. 5 was a sealed parcel<\/p>\n
containing the currency notes. The appellant, cannot, thus, draw any<\/p>\n
sustenance from the FSL report to indicate a case for exoneration
\n Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998                            -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     ***<\/p>\n
from liability.\n<\/p>\n
             In the light of the fore-going discussion, the appeal is held<\/p>\n
to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
September 12, 2008                                 (S. D. ANAND)\nPka                                                    JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 Date of decision : 12.9.2008 ***** Ravinder Kumar …..Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T04:38:04+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T04:38:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2539,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T04:38:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T04:38:04+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T04:38:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008"},"wordCount":2539,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008","name":"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T04:38:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravinder-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 12 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129416","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=129416"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129416\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}