{"id":132182,"date":"2002-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002"},"modified":"2018-09-07T18:55:57","modified_gmt":"2018-09-07T13:25:57","slug":"dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish &#8230; vs The State on 2 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish &#8230; vs The State on 2 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 721<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  V.S. Aggarwal, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1.<br \/>\nThis is an appeal filed by Dharam Singh<br \/>\n(hereinafter described as the appellant) directed<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and order of sentence passed by<br \/>\nthe Special Judge, Delhi dated 9th November, 2001 and<br \/>\n20th November, 2001 respectively. The learned trial<br \/>\ncourt had held the appellant guilty of the offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drug and<br \/>\nPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act)<br \/>\nand by the subsequent order of sentence awarded him<br \/>\nrigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1<br \/>\nlakh.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are<br \/>\nthat on 22nd June, 1998 Sub Inspector Prem Chandra had<br \/>\nreceived a secret information that one person named<br \/>\nDharam Singh who is a drug peddler would come between<br \/>\n4.30 PM and 5.00 PM via Vishnu Garden, Kyala Delhi.<br \/>\nHe would carry smack. This information was recorded<br \/>\nin daily diary No. 15 and copy of which was sent to<br \/>\nsenior station. The officer in charge, police station<br \/>\ninformed the Assistant Commissioner of Police and<br \/>\ndirections were received to conduct the raid<br \/>\nimmediately.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. A raiding party was organized comprising of Sub<br \/>\nInspector Prem Chandra, Inspector P. Chaubey, ASI<br \/>\nSetbir Singh, head constable Bharat Singh and others.<br \/>\nAt about 3.30 PM they left the police station with the<br \/>\nsecret informer in a government vehicle. Departure<br \/>\nentry was made by sub Inspector Prem Chandra. They<br \/>\nreached Khyala Road, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. The<br \/>\nvehicle was parked at a distance.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The investigating officer Sub Inspector Prem<br \/>\nChandra asked five\/six persons who were passing nearby<br \/>\nand shopkeepers to join the raiding party but they<br \/>\nrefused to join the same. Thereupon the official<br \/>\nstaff was briefed. They held the picket and at about<br \/>\n4.40 PM at the pointing of the secret informer the<br \/>\nappellant was apprehended while coming from S Block.<br \/>\nVishnu Garden. Contents of the secret information was<br \/>\ndisclosed to the appellant. He was served with the<br \/>\nnotice under Section 50 of the Act that he has a right<br \/>\nand he was given an option that if he likes his person<br \/>\ncan be searched before a magistrate or a gazetted<br \/>\nofficer. The appellant refused to exercise the<br \/>\noption. His refusal was recorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Thereafter from the right side pocket of the<br \/>\npant of the appellant a polythene packet was<br \/>\nrecovered. It had another two packets which contained<br \/>\nlight brown colour smack. Contents were weighed and<br \/>\nfound to be 20 gms. 5 gms was taken as the sample.<br \/>\nThe representative sample and the rest of the smack<br \/>\nwere converted into sealed parcels and sealed with the<br \/>\nseal of PCK. Rukka was sent to the police station on<br \/>\nbasis of which formal first information was recorded.<br \/>\nThe seizure memo and the sealed articles were produced<br \/>\nbefore Inspector Mahesh Sharma who affixed the seal of<br \/>\nMCS on all those packets. The appellant had been<br \/>\narrested. Report under Section 57 of the Act was<br \/>\nfurther sent. The recovered article had been<br \/>\ndeposited in malkhana and representative sample<br \/>\nwas subsequent sent to the Central Forensic Scientific<br \/>\nLaboratory. On receipt of the report that it was<br \/>\nsmack the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. The learned trial court had framed a charge with<br \/>\nrespect to the offence punishable under Section 21 of<br \/>\nthe Act to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and<br \/>\nclaimed a trial. The prosecution in support of its<br \/>\ncase had examined 10 witnesses before the evidence was<br \/>\nclosed by virtue of the statement of the public<br \/>\nprosecutor. When examined under Section 313 Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure the appellant denied recovery of<br \/>\nsmack from his person. He stated that he was lying in<br \/>\nhis house on 22nd June, 1998 when a person came with<br \/>\nthe police. The appellant was arrested and falsely<br \/>\nimplicated.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence<br \/>\nconcluded that it has been proved that smack was<br \/>\nrecovered weighing 20 gms from the person of the<br \/>\nappellant and with these basic findings the above said<br \/>\njudgment and order of sentence had been passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. In order to establish that the appellant was<br \/>\nfound in possession of the smack the prosecution has<br \/>\nexamined Prem Chandra, PW-4. He had deposed in terms<br \/>\nof the prosecution case as has been recited above.<br \/>\nAfter disclosing about sending of the daily diary<br \/>\nentry to the senior officers he stated that picket had<br \/>\nbeen held and at 4.40 PM at the instance of the secret<br \/>\ninformer the appellant was apprehended. The appellant<br \/>\nwas informed about the secret information and notice<br \/>\nunder Section 50 of the Act was served. The appellant<br \/>\nhad refused and his refusal too was recorded followed<br \/>\nby search of the appellant whereupon 20 gms of smack<br \/>\nwas recovered from the appellant. The witness had not<br \/>\nbeen cross-examined. In addition to that Inspector<br \/>\nPrem Chaubey, PW-6 too has supported the prosecution<br \/>\nversion but he also was not cross-examined followed by<br \/>\nconstable Manoj Kumar, PW-7 and Sub Inspector Satbir<br \/>\nSingh, PW-10.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. When a witness is not examined in that event<br \/>\nunless the court finds other cogent reasons ordinarily<br \/>\nthere would be little ground to discredit the<br \/>\ntestimony. Of course the court can always scrutinise<br \/>\nthe evidence and come to a conclusion irrespective of<br \/>\nthe fact whether evidence is cross examined or not.<br \/>\nBut in the present case in hand the evidence of the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses is consistent. There is no<br \/>\nground to discredit or disbelieve them. When evidence<br \/>\nby itself is trustworthy and consistent it must follow<br \/>\nthat the prosecution had successfully proved that 20<br \/>\ngms of smack was recovered from the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. A feeble attempt was made to urge that provision<br \/>\nof Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. There is no over-emphasizing that the provisions<br \/>\nof Section 50 of the Act are mandatory in nature. But<br \/>\nin the present case notice Ex. PW 4\/C was served on<br \/>\nthe appellant giving him the right that if he likes<br \/>\nhis person can be sent searched before a gazetted officer<br \/>\nor a magistrate. The appellant had refused vide PW<br \/>\n4\/T. In other words, the right enshrined under<br \/>\nSection 50 of the Act was conveyed but not exercised.<br \/>\nThere is nothing else on the record to indicate that<br \/>\nany prejudice as such had been caused. The argument<br \/>\ntherefore must be repelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. In that event the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant argued that in any case sentence awarded by<br \/>\nthe learned trial court is excessive. According to<br \/>\nthe learned counsel the trial court had ignored the<br \/>\namendment effected in Section 21 of the Act. Section<br \/>\n21 of the Act, had been amended with effect from 2nd<br \/>\nOctober, 2001. Under Section 21(b) if the<br \/>\ncontravention involves quantity less than commercial<br \/>\nquantity but more than small quantity, the punishment<br \/>\ncould extend up to 10 years and with fine which could<br \/>\nextend up to Rs. 1 lakh. The expression &#8220;commercial<br \/>\nquantity&#8221; too was inserted in Section 2 of the Act and<br \/>\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(viia) &#8220;Commercial quantity&#8221;, in relation to<br \/>\nnarcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,<br \/>\nmeans any quantity greater than the quantity<br \/>\nspecified by the Central Government by<br \/>\nnotification in the Official Gazette&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In pursuance of the said provision a Government of<br \/>\nIndia notification has been issued and in case of<br \/>\nsmack if the weight of the contraband is 20 gms it<br \/>\nwould be less than the commercial quantity.<br \/>\nTherefore, Section 20(b) of the Act would come into<br \/>\nplay.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. By virtue of the amendment of the Narcotic Drugs<br \/>\nand Psychotropic substances Act of the year 2001<br \/>\nSection 41 had been enacted which is being reproduced<br \/>\nbelow for the sake of facility:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;41. Application of this Act to pending<br \/>\ncases. -(1) Notwithstanding anything<br \/>\ncontained in Sub-section (2) of Section 1, all<br \/>\ncases pending before the Courts or under<br \/>\ninvestigation at the commencement of this Act<br \/>\nshall be disposed of in accordance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of the principal Act as amended by<br \/>\nthis Act and accordingly, any person found<br \/>\nguilty of any offence punishable under the<br \/>\nprincipal Act, as it stood immediately before<br \/>\nsuch commencement, shall be liable for a<br \/>\npunishment which is lesser than the punishment<br \/>\nfor which he is otherwise liable at the date<br \/>\nof the commission of such of offence:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that nothing in this section shall<br \/>\napply to cases pending in appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby<br \/>\ndeclared that no Act or omission on the part<br \/>\nof any person shall be punishable as an<br \/>\noffence which would not have been so<br \/>\npunishable if this Act has not come into<br \/>\nforce.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Under the relevant provision reproduced above, the<br \/>\namended provisions including the amendment to Section<br \/>\n21 would govern even all the pending cases. It came<br \/>\ninto force on 19th October, 2001. In other words, the<br \/>\namendment had come into force before the present<br \/>\njudgment and the order of sentence in question had<br \/>\nbeen pronounced. Therefore the matter was to be<br \/>\ngoverned by the amended Section 21 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. Taking note of this fact it was contended that<br \/>\nas already referred to above the sentence should be<br \/>\nsuitably reduced.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. In face of the aforesaid and the fact that 20<br \/>\ngms as such had been recovered the interest of justice<br \/>\nshall be fully met if the sentence is reduced to four<br \/>\nyears rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000\/-.<br \/>\nIn default of payment of fine the appellant would<br \/>\nundergo further simple imprisonment for one year.<br \/>\nsubject to the said modification in the sentence the<br \/>\nappeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish &#8230; vs The State on 2 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 721 Author: V Aggarwal Bench: V Aggarwal JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Dharam Singh (hereinafter described as the appellant) directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed [&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-132182","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>Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish ... vs The State on 2 August, 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\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish ... vs The State on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-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=\"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-07T13:25:57+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\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharam Singh S\\\/O Sh. Jagdish &#8230; vs The State on 2 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T13:25:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1560,\"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\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Dharam Singh S\\\/O Sh. Jagdish ... vs The State on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T13:25:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharam Singh S\\\/O Sh. Jagdish &#8230; vs The State on 2 August, 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":"Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish ... vs The State on 2 August, 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\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish ... vs The State on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-07T13:25:57+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\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish &#8230; vs The State on 2 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T13:25:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002"},"wordCount":1560,"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\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002","name":"Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish ... vs The State on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T13:25:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-so-sh-jagdish-vs-the-state-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharam Singh S\/O Sh. Jagdish &#8230; vs The State on 2 August, 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\/132182","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=132182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}