{"id":14637,"date":"2002-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-08-02T18:30:08","modified_gmt":"2017-08-02T13:00:08","slug":"avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P V Reddi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.Rajendra Babu, P.Venkatarama Reddi.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  2082 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nAvtar Singh &amp; Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Punjab\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nS.Rajendra Babu &amp; P.Venkatarama Reddi.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Five persons including the three appellants herein were charged<br \/>\nunder Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs &amp; Psychotropic Substances Act,<br \/>\n1985 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;Act&#8217;) for having conscious possession of<br \/>\n640 Kgs. of poppy husk on 7.8.1989 without valid permit or licence.<br \/>\nAccording to the prosecution case, they were all travelling in a truck<br \/>\nbelonging to accused No.5 in the small hours of 7.8.1989.  The vehicle<br \/>\nwas checked at canal bridge near the village Dhange at about 1.30 A.M.<br \/>\nby PW 2 ASI who was on the patrolling duty along with PW 4 (Head<br \/>\nConstable) and two other constables.  The vehicle was carrying 16 bags<br \/>\nof poppy husk.\t  Balbir Chand\tappellant No.3 herein was driving the<br \/>\nvehicle.  One person who was sitting in the front seat by the side of the<br \/>\ndriver and another person sitting on the back side of the truck ran away<br \/>\nleaving the vehicle.  These two persons are said to be Swarna Ram<br \/>\nAccused No.3 and Swatantra Kumar (since deceased).  The other two<br \/>\nsitting at the back i.e., appellants 1 and 2  and the driver of the vehicle &#8211;<br \/>\nAppellant No.3 were apprehended on the spot.  16 gunny bags of poppy<br \/>\nhusk were recovered.  250 gms was taken out as sample from each bag<br \/>\nand sealed.  The remaining bags were weighed after sealing and each<br \/>\nbag was found to contain 39 Kgs and 750 gms.  The sealed bags and<br \/>\nsample were sent to the concerned Police Station.   On the search of<br \/>\nperson of each of the accused, nothing incriminating was found.\t PW 5,<br \/>\nwho was SHO at Police Station Goraya, made further investigation.<br \/>\nAccording to him, ASI Darbari Lal (PW 2) produced the three<br \/>\nappellants herein along with the case property of 16 bags of poppy husk<br \/>\nand 16 samples when he was at the bus stand Goraya for patrolling.  He<br \/>\naffixed the seals on the bags and sent the samples to the chemical<br \/>\nexaminer.  The report of the chemical examiner is Ex. P X, according to<br \/>\nwhich the contents are &#8216;Poppy head&#8217; containing morphine.    The sealed<br \/>\nbags were produced in court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jallandhar, acquitted<br \/>\nSwarna Ram for the reason that his identity was not established and<br \/>\nalso acquitted Amrik Singh the owner of the vehicle on the ground that<br \/>\nthere was no proof that he knowingly allowed the vehicle to carry the<br \/>\noffensive stuff.  Each of the appellants was convicted under Section 15<br \/>\nand sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine<br \/>\nof Rs.1 lakh and in default to undergo RI  for a further period of two<br \/>\nyears.\tOn appeal, the High Court confirmed the verdict of the trial<br \/>\ncourt.\tThe contention that Section 50 (1) of the Act has not been<br \/>\ncomplied with was rightly negatived by both the courts on the facts of<br \/>\nthe case and no contention has been advanced before us in this regard.<br \/>\nThe contention that independent witnesses were not examined was also<br \/>\nnegatived holding that at that hour and place, it was difficult to expect<br \/>\nany independent witness to be present there.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe more important contention raised before the High Court was<br \/>\nthat from the mere fact that  the appellants were  sitting in the truck,  it<br \/>\ncannot be held that they were in possession of poppy husk.   The High<br \/>\nCourt observed that the appellants did not come forward with the case<br \/>\nthat they  were merely passengers and that they were unaware of what<br \/>\nwas contained in the bags.  The reason for travelling at that odd hour<br \/>\nwith the offending goods was not stated by any of the accused.<br \/>\nTherefore, the High Court concluded that &#8220;their close connection of<br \/>\nbeing in possession of the poppy husk must be held to have been<br \/>\nestablished&#8221;.\tThe High Court also pressed into service the presumption<br \/>\nunder S. 35 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn this appeal, the learned senior counsel, apart from commenting<br \/>\non the artificiality of the prosecution case and the discrepancies in the<br \/>\nevidence regarding the police officer to whom the seized bags were<br \/>\nhanded over, mainly concentrated on the point that the possession,<br \/>\nmuch less conscious  possession, of the bags of poppy husk, has not been<br \/>\nestablished and the accused were not even questioned about it.\tWe find<br \/>\nforce in the contention of the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 15 provides for punishment if any person in contravention<br \/>\nof any provision of the Act or any rule or order made or condition of a<br \/>\nlicence granted thereunder, produces, possesses, transports, imports<br \/>\ninter-State, exports inter-State  sells, purchases, uses or omits to<br \/>\nwarehouse poppy straw or removes or does any act in respect of<br \/>\nwarehoused poppy straw.\t  Section 8 enacts a prohibition against<br \/>\nproduction, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport,<br \/>\nwarehousing, use, consumption, import and export or transshipment of<br \/>\nany narcotic drug or psychotropic substance except for medical or<br \/>\nscientific purposes and\t to the extent and in the manner permitted by<br \/>\nthe provision of the Act or Rules or Orders made thereunder or in<br \/>\naccordance with the term of licence or permit, if any.\t We are here<br \/>\nconcerned with possession and transportation.  However, the charge is<br \/>\nconfined to possession in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Possession is the core ingredient to be established before the<br \/>\naccused in the instant case are subjected to the punishment under<br \/>\nSection 15.  If the accused are found to be in possession of poppy straw<br \/>\nwhich is a narcotic drug within the meaning of Clause (xiv) of S. 2, it is<br \/>\nfor them to account for such possession satisfactorily; if not, the<br \/>\npresumption under Section 54 comes into play.  We need not go into the<br \/>\naspect whether the possession must be conscious possession.  Perhaps<br \/>\ntaking clue from the decision of this Court in Inder Sain Vs. State of<br \/>\nPunjab (1973 (2) SCC 372) arising under the Opium Act,\tthe learned<br \/>\ntrial Judge charged the accused of having conscious possession of poppy<br \/>\nhusk.\tAssuming that poppy husk comes within the expression poppy<br \/>\nstraw, the question, however, remains whether the prosecution<br \/>\nsatisfactorily proved  the fact that the accused were in possession of<br \/>\npoppy husk.  Accepting the evidence of PW 4  the Head constable, it is<br \/>\nseen that appellant No.3 (Accused No.4) was driving the vehicle loaded<br \/>\nwith bags of poppy husk.  Appellants 1 and 2 (Accused Nos. 1 and 2)<br \/>\nwere sitting on the bags placed in the truck.  As soon as the vehicle was<br \/>\nstopped by ASI (PW 2), one person sitting in the cabin by the side of the<br \/>\ndriver and another person sitting in the back of the truck fled.  No<br \/>\ninvestigation has been directed to ascertain the role played by each of<br \/>\nthe accused and the nexus between the accused and the offending goods.<br \/>\nThe word &#8216;possession&#8217; no doubt has different shades of meaning and it<br \/>\nis quite elastic in its connotation.  Possession and ownership need not<br \/>\nalways go together but the minimum requisite element which has to be<br \/>\nsatisfied is custody or control over the goods.\t Can it be said, on the<br \/>\nbasis of the evidence available on record, that the three appellants  one<br \/>\nof whom was driving the vehicle and other two sitting on the bags, were<br \/>\nhaving such custody or control?\t It is difficult to reach such conclusion<br \/>\nbeyond reasonable doubt.  It transpires from evidence that the<br \/>\nappellants were not the only occupants of the vehicle.\tOne of the<br \/>\npersons who was sitting in the cabin and another person sitting at the<br \/>\nback of the truck made themselves scarce after seeing the police and the<br \/>\nprosecution could not establish their identity.\t It is quite probable that<br \/>\none of them  could be the custodian of goods whether or not he was the<br \/>\nproprietor.  The persons who were merely sitting on the bags, in the<br \/>\nabsence of proof of anything more, cannot be presumed to be in<br \/>\npossession of the goods.  For instance, if they are labourers engaged<br \/>\nmerely for loading and unloading purposes and there is nothing to show<br \/>\nthat the goods were at least in their temporary custody,  conviction<br \/>\nunder Section 15 may not be warranted.\tAt best, they may be abettors,<br \/>\nbut, there is no such charge here.  True, their silence and failure to<br \/>\nexplain the circumstances in which they were traveling in the vehicle at<br \/>\nthe odd hours, is one strong circumstance that can be put against them.<br \/>\nA  case of drawing presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act<br \/>\ncould perhaps be made out then to prove the possession of the accused,<br \/>\nbut, the fact remains that in the course of  examination under Section<br \/>\n313 Cr.P.C,  not even a question was asked that they were the persons in<br \/>\npossession of poppy husk placed in the vehicle.\t The only question put to<br \/>\nthem was that as per the prosecution evidence, they were sitting on the<br \/>\nbags of poppy husk.  Strangely enough, even the driver was questioned<br \/>\non the same lines.  The object of examination under S.313, it is well<br \/>\nknown, is to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the<br \/>\ncircumstances appearing in the evidence against him.   It is unfortunate<br \/>\nthat no question was asked about the possession of goods.  Having<br \/>\nregard to the charge of which appellants were accused, the failure to<br \/>\nelicit their answer on such a crucial aspect as possession, is quite<br \/>\nsignificant.   In this state of things, it is not proper to raise a<br \/>\npresumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act nor is it safe to<br \/>\nconclude that the prosecution\testablished beyond reasonable doubt<br \/>\nthat the appellants were in possession of poppy husk which was being<br \/>\ncarried by the vehicle.\t  The High Court resorted to the presumption<br \/>\nunder Section 35 which relates to culpable state of mind, without<br \/>\nconsidering the aspect of possession.  The trial court invoked the<br \/>\npresumption under S.54 of the Act without addressing itself to the<br \/>\nquestion of possession.\t The approach of both the courts is erroneous in<br \/>\nlaw.   Both the courts rested their conclusion on the fact that the<br \/>\naccused failed to give satisfactory explanation for travelling in the<br \/>\nvehicle containing poppy husk at an odd hour.  But, the other relevant<br \/>\naspects pointed out above were neither adverted to nor taken into<br \/>\naccount by the trial court and the High Court.\tNon-application of mind<br \/>\nto the material factors has thus vitiated the judgment under appeal.<br \/>\nComing to the case of the third appellant who was driving  the<br \/>\nvehicle, there is one more infirmity in the prosecution case.  He would<br \/>\nhave been charged alternatively for transporting the offensive goods<br \/>\nwithout permit or authorization as required by law; but, such a charge<br \/>\nwas not laid.  There was not even reference to Section 8 of the Act.  The<br \/>\nresult is, he too goes scot free.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the above reasons, we set aside the conviction and sentence of<br \/>\nthe appellants and allow the appeal.  The appellants shall be set at<br \/>\nliberty forthwith, if they are in jail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002 Author: P V Reddi Bench: S.Rajendra Babu, P.Venkatarama Reddi. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 2082 of 1996 PETITIONER: Avtar Singh &amp; Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Punjab DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/09\/2002 BENCH: S.Rajendra Babu &amp; P.Venkatarama Reddi. JUDGMENT: J U D [&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-14637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 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\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-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=\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-02T13:00:08+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-02T13:00:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1814,\"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\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-02T13:00:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 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":"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 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\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-02T13:00:08+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-02T13:00:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002"},"wordCount":1814,"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\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002","name":"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-02T13:00:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/avtar-singh-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-on-18-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Avtar Singh &amp; Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 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\/14637","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=14637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}