{"id":139142,"date":"2004-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004"},"modified":"2017-01-31T05:34:41","modified_gmt":"2017-01-31T00:04:41","slug":"madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  821 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nMadhu Garg\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India &amp; Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B. Sinha\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>With<br \/>\nCRL. APPEAL No. 822 of 2004<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n<p> These appeals arising out of the judgments and orders dated<br \/>\n04.04.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh<br \/>\nin Criminal Writ Petition Nos.1397 and 1432 of 2003 involving similar<br \/>\nquestions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being<br \/>\ndisposed of by this common judgment.  However, the factual matrix of the<br \/>\nmatter is being noticed from Criminal Appeal No.821 of  2004.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe Appellant is the wife of the detenu Vinod Kumar Garg who was<br \/>\ndetained by an order dated 20th October, 2003 passed by the Joint Secretary<br \/>\nto the Government of India, Ministry of Revenue, New Delhi purported to<br \/>\nbe under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and<br \/>\nPrevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short &#8216;the COFEPOSA<br \/>\nAct&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe grounds of detention indicate that the said order of detention was<br \/>\npassed primarily on two allegations, viz.,:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tthe export consignment was misdeclared stating it to be alloy steel<br \/>\nforging (machined) although actually the same was a metal scrap;<br \/>\nand\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tthe goods were over invoiced as the value thereof was declared by<br \/>\nthe exporter to be Rs. 170-175 per kg instead and place of its actual<br \/>\nvalue being only Rs. 4-5 per kg.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe allegations in support of the said grounds of detention were<br \/>\nprimarily based on the self-inculpatory statement of the detenu recorded by<br \/>\nthe Directorate of Revenue Intelligence purported to be in terms of Section<br \/>\n108 of the Customs Act.  The said statements, however, were retracted by<br \/>\nthe detenu before the learned ACMM on or about 26th August, 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe learned ACMM in his order dated 20th August, 2003 also<br \/>\nrecorded the statement that the detenu had made his statement involuntarily<br \/>\nand had also been tortured.  It was directed:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;At the request of accused it is directed to the I.O.<br \/>\nSh. Mukesh Gaur to allow the accused person to<br \/>\ntalk to their family members on STD\/Telephone.<br \/>\nAccused have also stated that at this moment their<br \/>\nadvocates are not present hence they may be<br \/>\nremanded to J.C. till morning so that they can take<br \/>\nthe services of their advocates.\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;I have gone through the file, produced before me<br \/>\nby the I.O. S.S.P. made a request for 14 days J.C.<br \/>\nof both the accused.  However after considering all<br \/>\nthe statements made before me by the accused<br \/>\npersons, they have been remanded till 2 p.m. on<br \/>\n26\/8\/2003 in J.C. with the directions to produce<br \/>\nboth the accused in the court bw 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \tAlong with the said Vinod Kumar Garg, orders of detention were also<br \/>\npassed against his brother Narsi Dass Garg and their manager, Mudit Kumar<br \/>\nTiwari.  However, when the matter was placed before the Central Advisory<br \/>\nBoard in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, the<br \/>\nBoard although approved the order of detention of Vinod Kumar Garg and<br \/>\nNarsi Dass Garg, the detention of Mudit Kumar Tiwari was not approved.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tQuestioning the said order of detention, the Appellant herein as also<br \/>\nthe aforementioned Narsi Dass Garg filed two writ petitions before the<br \/>\nPunjab and Haryana High Court.  Both the petitions were dismissed by<br \/>\nreason of the impugned order.  Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the Appellant had raised a number of contentions in support of this<br \/>\nappeal.  The learned counsel would firstly submit that from the averments<br \/>\nmade in the show-cause notice dated 20th August, 2004 issued by the<br \/>\nAuthorities upon the detenue it would be evident that the goods of the<br \/>\nexporter were made up of alloy steel and in that view of the matter the order<br \/>\nof detention cannot be sustained only on the basis of his purported self-<br \/>\ninculpatory statement recorded by the official of Directorate of Revenue<br \/>\nIntelligence under Section 108 of the Customs Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tThe learned counsel would further submit that keeping in view of the<br \/>\nfact that the self-inculpatory statement has been retracted, the same could<br \/>\nnot have been the basis for issuing the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tMr. Subramaniam would contend that having regard to the fact that<br \/>\nthe grounds of detention both in relation to the detenu as also his brother<br \/>\nNarsi Dass Garg being the verbatim copy of each other, non-application of<br \/>\nmind on the part of the detaining authority is apparent.  In any event, as the<br \/>\nrelevant documents relating to the duty drawback cash incentive scheme and<br \/>\nparticularly the reply of the detenu forming part of adjudication proceedings<br \/>\nwere not placed before the detaining authority, the impugned order of<br \/>\ndetention is vitiated in law.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tMudit Kumar Tiwari who had also been detained on the ground of<br \/>\nhatching a conspiracy with the detenu and his brother but the order of<br \/>\ndetention against him having been revoked, there is absolutely no reason,<br \/>\nMr. Subramaniam would contend, as to why the detaining authority had not<br \/>\nrevoked the order of detention passed against the detenu.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIt was also contended that no purported illegal activity at the hands of<br \/>\nthe detenu in future is possible as he had already surrendered his &#8216;exporter<br \/>\nimporter code&#8217; before the authorities incapacitating himself from doing<br \/>\nexport import business.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tMr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nRespondents, however, supported the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIn view of the fact that we find force in the first contention of Mr.<br \/>\nSubramaniam, it may not be necessary for us to advert to the other<br \/>\nsubmissions advanced by the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIt is not in dispute that one of the allegations made against the detenu<br \/>\nin the grounds of detention was that he had exported consignment upon<br \/>\nmisdeclaration to the effect that alloy steel forging (machined) was being<br \/>\nexported whereas actually the same was metal scrap.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tHowever, it is not denied that the detenu had been served with a<br \/>\nshow-cause notice dated 20th August, 2004 by the Directorate of Revenue<br \/>\nIntelligence, New Delhi; the paragraph 48 whereof reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;48. Two samples drawn from the seized export<br \/>\nconsignment of M\/s National Steel Products Co.<br \/>\nwere sent to CRCL, New Delhi for chemical<br \/>\nanalysis.  CRCL, vide its test report No. 35-\n<\/p>\n<p>Chem\/Cus\/2002\/CL\/197-198 DRI dated<br \/>\n23.10.2003, informed that the samples were made<br \/>\nup of alloy steel.  The test report, however, could<br \/>\nnot throw any light as to whether the goods were<br \/>\nforgings (machined), as declared by the exporter.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \tIn the said notice, the detenu had been asked to show cause inter alia<br \/>\non the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;58(i) M\/s National Steel Products Co, New Delhi<br \/>\nexported the goods by willfully mis-\n<\/p>\n<p>stating\/misdeclaring the FOB value as Rs.\n<\/p>\n<p>7,60,88,864\/- (the details of which are given in<br \/>\nAnnexure-A annexed to this Show Cause Notice)<br \/>\nand by suppressing the actual value with a<br \/>\nmalafide intention to defraud the Government by<br \/>\nfraudulently claiming\/ availing undue DEPB<br \/>\ncredits to the tune of Rs. 1,70,01,015\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>Misdeclaration in value has, therefore, rendered<br \/>\nthe exported goods liable to confiscation under<br \/>\nsection 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act,<br \/>\n1962 read with section 50(1) of the Customs Act,<br \/>\n1962 as well as Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign<br \/>\nTrade (Regulation) Rules, 1993.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> \tA bare perusal of the aforementioned averments in the said notice do<br \/>\nnot leave any manner of doubt whatsoever that upon chemical analysis of<br \/>\nmaterials, it was found that the samples were made up of alloy steel.  It has<br \/>\nnot been disputed before us that that the alleged goods which are subject<br \/>\nmatter of the export were seized in presence of the detenu and were sent for<br \/>\nchemical analysis before CRCL.  Upon obtaining a report dated 23.10.2003,<br \/>\nit appears, that the samples were made up of alloy steel although the test<br \/>\nreport could not throw any light as to whether the goods were alloy steel<br \/>\nforging (machined), as declared by the exporter.  The subject matter of the<br \/>\nconsignment, therefore, was not scrap metal.  Had the detaining authority<br \/>\nwaited for the results of the said chemical analysis before issuing the<br \/>\nimpugned order of detention, the first ground stated therein could not have<br \/>\nbeen made a basis therefor.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe order of detention, therefore, in our considered opinion, was<br \/>\npassed in haste without there being adequate materials.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tMr. Doabia, however, contended that the allegation against the detenu<br \/>\nas regard over invoicing of the goods is the subject matter of the<br \/>\nadjudication proceedings.  That may be so but it is now well-settled that<br \/>\nwhen one of the grounds of detention is found to be based on irrelevant<br \/>\nmaterials not germane for passing the order of detention, the entire order of<br \/>\ndetention shall stand vitiated in law.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tFor the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the<br \/>\nimpugned orders of detention cannot be sustained which are set aside<br \/>\naccordingly.  These appeals are allowed with aforementioned observations.<br \/>\nNo costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 821 of 2004 PETITIONER: Madhu Garg RESPONDENT: Union of India &amp; Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/2004 BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde &amp; S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004 - 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\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-31T00:04:41+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\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-31T00:04:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1491,\"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\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-31T00:04:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004 - 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\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-31T00:04:41+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\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-31T00:04:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004"},"wordCount":1491,"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\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004","name":"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-31T00:04:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhu-garg-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-21-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhu Garg vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 21 September, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/139142","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=139142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}