{"id":14875,"date":"2009-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-30T19:30:51","modified_gmt":"2016-08-30T14:00:51","slug":"gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                                           REPORTABLE\n       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 992       OF 2009\n               (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 6705\/2006)\n\n\n\n       GURMEJ SINGH                          .. APPELLANT\n\n                 vs.\n\n       STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       JUD\n                                                                     GMENT\n\n\n                                                                         Dr.\n                                                                    ARIJIT\n                                                                    PASAYAT,J.\n<\/pre>\n
        Application for impleadment is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
        Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned
\nsingle Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court which gave certain
\ndirections qua the present appellant who was the investigating officer.
\nOne Sanjiv Kumar filed an appeal against the judgment dated 17\/7\/2005
\npassed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the said
\naccused Sanjiv Kumar was convicted for the offences punishable under
\nSections 395, 450, 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC’).
\n            The complainant Sukhraj Singh     also filed a revision for
\npayment of compensation. The prosecution version was that the
\naccused Sanjiv Kumar was posted as ASI in Police Station City
\nPhagwara. On 23\/2\/2002 at<\/p>\n
                                  -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
about 7.30 p.m. he along with 4-5 unidentified persons had committed an
\noffence of trespass by entering into building of M\/s. Wadhawan Forex
\n(P) Limited Phagwara. He allegedly committed dacoity by robbing
\nSukhraj Singh Director of that Company of the Indian currency and
\nforeign currency.    There were other aspects highlighted by the
\nprosecution in the trial. We are not concerned with those presently.\n<\/p>\n
             The present appellant appeared as DW.1 and supported
\nthe version given in FIR No.19 dated 23\/2\/2002 registered by Gurmej
\nSingh Inspector SHO. The High Court was of the view, while dealing
\nwith the appeal of Sanjiv Kumar, that it would have been fair and proper
\nto involve the present appellant and all the persons named in FIR No.19
\nand to prosecute them and that if they had been present in the Court
\nthen the witnesses could say whether they were the other persons or<\/p>\n
not.   It was also observed that when the other persons were not
\nchallaned or shown then the witnesses could always say about Sanjiv
\nKumar ASI and 4-5 unidentified persons. With these observations and
\nafter discussing the evidence, the High Court upheld the conviction of
\nthe accused -Sanjiv Kumar for offence punishable under Sections 395,
\n450 and 342 IPC.    High Court was of the view that the sentence of
\nimprisonment
\n                                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
imposed on the appellant Sanjiv Kumar was on the higher side
\nespecially when the appellant herein who was the main person involved
\nin the matter had not been prosecuted. The Home Secretary of the State
\nand the DGP were directed to look into the matter and take steps to
\nprosecute the appellant herein in the appeals atleast for the offences for
\nwhich Sanjiv Kumar appellant has been charged or at least for preparing
\nfalse documents involving Sukhraj Singh and keeping him wrongfully
\nconfined.\n<\/p>\n
             Though various points were argued, the main contention
\nmade for the appellant was that the observations and directions were
\ngiven even without issuance of notice to the appellant. In other words
\nhe has been condemned without even hearing him. According to the
\nlearned counsel, the basic principles of natural justice have been
\nviolated.   Learned counsel for the State fairly accepted that no
\nopportunity was granted during hearing of the appeal by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
             Principles of natural justice are those rules which have<\/p>\n
been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the
\nrights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be
\nadopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while
\nmaking an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to
\nprevent such authority from doing injustice.\n<\/p>\n
                                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
              What is meant by the term ‘principles of natural justice’ is
\nnot easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton, L.J.) in Ray v. Local
\nGovernment Board (1914) 1 KB 160 at p.199:83 LJKB 86) described the
\nphrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical<\/p>\n
Education & Registration of U.K. v. Sanckman (1943 AC 627: (1948) 2 All
\nER 337), Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt ‘to
\nforce it into any procusteam bed’ and mentioned that one essential
\nrequirement was that the Tribunal should be impartial and have no
\npersonal interest in the controversy, and further that it should give ‘a full
\nand fair opportunity’ to every party of being heard.\n<\/p>\n
              Lord Wright referred to the leading cases on the subject.
\nThe most important of them is the Board of Education v. Rice (1911 AC
\n179:80 LJKB 796), where Lord Loreburn, L.C. observed as follows:
\n              “Comparatively recent statutes have extended, if
\nthey   have   originated,   the    practice   of   imposing   upon
\ndepartments or offices of State the duty of deciding or
\ndetermining questions of various kinds. It will, I suppose
\nusually be of an administrative kind, but sometimes, it will
\ninvolve matter of law as well as matter of fact,<\/p>\n
                                  -5-<\/span>
\n      or even depend upon matter of law alone. In such cases, the
\n      Board of Education will have to ascertain the law and also to
\n      ascertain the facts. I need not and that in doing either they
\n      must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides for that is
\n      a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything. But I do not
\n      think they are bound to treat such a question as though it were
\n      a trial….The Board is in the nature of the arbitral tribunal, and a
\n      Court of law has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the
\n      determination either upon law or upon fact. But if the Court is
\n      satisfied either that the Board have not acted judicially in the<\/p>\n
      way I have described, or have not determined the question
\n      which they are required by the Act to determine, then there is a
\n      remedy by mandamus and certiorari”.\n<\/p>\n
             Lord Wright also emphasized from the same decision the
\nobservation of the Lord Chancellor that the Board can obtain information
\nin any way they think best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who
\nare parties to the controversy for correcting or contradicting any
\nrelevant statement prejudicial to their view”. To the same effect are the
\nobservations of Earl of Selbourne, LO in Spackman v. Plumstead District
\nBoard of Works (1985 (10) AC 229:54 LJMC 81), where the learned and
\nnoble Lord Chancellor observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                  -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
                  “No doubt, in the absence of special provisions as
\n     to how the person who is to decide is to proceed, law will imply
\n     no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall
\n     not be violated. He is not a judge in the proper sense of the
\n     word; but he must give the parties an opportunity of being
\n     heard before him and stating their case and their view. He must
\n     give notice when he will proceed with the matter and he must
\n     act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some
\n      other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by
\n      law. There must be no malversation of any kind. There would
\n      be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were
\n      anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Lord Selbourne also added that the essence of justice
\nconsisted in requiring that all parties should have an opportunity of
\nsubmitting to the person by whose decision they are to be bound, such
\nconsiderations as in their judgment ought to be brought before him. All
\nthese cases lay down the very important rule of natural justice contained<\/p>\n
in the oft-quoted phrase ‘justice should not only be done, but should be
\nseen to be done’.\n<\/p>\n
                                       -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
               Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of
\nchange in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied
\nalways expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be
\nimplied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute.\n<\/p>\n
What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its
\ncontext should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the
\nfact and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the statute under
\nwhich the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and
\nan administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order
\nwhich involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of
\nnatural justice. Expression ‘civil consequences’ encompasses infraction
\nof not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material
\ndeprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes
\neverything that affects a citizen in his civil life.
\n             Natural justice has been variously defined by different
\nJudges. A few instances will suffice. In Drew v. Drew and Lebura
\n(1855(2) Macg. 1.8, Lord Cranworth defined it as ‘universal justice’. In
\nJames Dunber Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen (1877-78(3) App.Case
\n614, 623 JC) Sir Robort P. Collier, speaking for the judicial committee of
\nPrivy council, used the phrase ‘the requirements of substantial justice’,
\nwhile in Arthur John Specman v.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Plumstead District Board of Works (1884-85(10) App.Case 229, 240), Earl
\nof Selbourne, S.C. preferred the phrase ‘the substantial requirement of
\njustice’. In Vionet v. Barrett (1885(55) LJRD 39, 41), Lord Esher, MR
\ndefined natural justice as ‘the natural sense of what is right and wrong’.
\nWhile, however, deciding Hookings v. Smethwick Local Board of Health
\n(1890(24) QBD 712), Lord Fasher, M.R. instead of using the definition
\ngiven earlier by him in Vionet’s case (supra) chose to define natural
\njustice as ‘fundamental justice’. In Ridge v. Baldwin (1963(1) WB 569,\n<\/p>\n
578), Harman LJ, in the Court of Appeal countered natural justice with
\n‘fair-play in action’ a phrase favoured by Bhagawati, J. in Maneka Gandhi<\/p>\n
v. Union of India<\/a> (1978 (2) SCR 621). In re R.N. (An Infaot) (1967(2) B617,\n<\/p>\n
530),Lord Parker, CJ, preferred to describe natural justice as ‘a duty to
\nact fairly’. In fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secretary to State for
\nEnvironment (1976 WLR 1255) Lord Russell of Willowan somewhat
\npicturesquely described natural justice as ‘a fair crack of the whip’ while
\nGeoffrey Lane, LJ. In Regina v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex
\nParte Hosenball (1977 (1) WLR 766) preferred the homely phrase
\n‘common fairness’.\n<\/p>\n
             How then have the principles of natural justice been
\ninterpreted in the Courts and within what limits are they to be confined?
\nOver the years by a process of<\/p>\n
                                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the
\nprinciples of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi
\njudicial and administrative process.\n<\/p>\n
             They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having
\ntheir roots in the innate sense of man for fair-play and justice which is
\nnot the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in
\ncommon by all men. The first rule is ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ or ‘nemo
\ndebet esse judex in propria causa sua’ as stated in (1605) 12 Co.Rep.114
\nthat is, ‘no man shall be a judge in his own cause’. Coke used the form
\n‘aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa quia non potest esse
\njudex at pars’ (Co.Litt. 1418), that is, ‘no man ought to be a judge in his
\nown case, because he cannot act as Judge and at the same time be a
\nparty’. The form ‘nemo potest esse simul actor et judex’, that is, ‘no one
\ncan be at once suitor and judge’ is also at times used. The second rule is
\n‘audi alteram partem’, that is, ‘hear the other side’. At times and<\/p>\n
particularly in continental countries, the form ‘audietur at altera pars’ is
\nused, meaning very much the same thing. A corollary has been deduced
\nfrom the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule,
\nnamely ‘qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit,
\nhaud acquum facerit’ that is, ‘he who shall decide anything without the
\nother side having
\n                                    -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been
\nwhat is right’ (See Bosewell’s case (1605) 6 Co.Rep. 48-b, 52-a) or in<\/p>\n
other words, as it is now expressed, ‘justice should not only be done but
\nshould manifestly be seen to be done’. Whenever an order is struck
\ndown as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is
\nno final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left upon. All
\nthat is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent
\ndefect, but the proceedings are not terminated.\n<\/p>\n
        Above being the position in law the observations and directions
\ngiven by the High Cort qua the present appellant cannot be maintained
\nand stand quashed.\n<\/p>\n
             The appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ……………. .J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                                         ……………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                       (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
\nNew Delhi,
\nApril 28, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009 Author: Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 6705\/2006) GURMEJ SINGH .. APPELLANT vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. […]<\/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-14875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009 - 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\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-30T14:00:51+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T14:00:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2056,\"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\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T14:00:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009 - 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\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-30T14:00:51+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T14:00:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009"},"wordCount":2056,"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\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009","name":"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T14:00:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurmej-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-anr-on-28-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurmej Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 28 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/14875","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=14875"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14875\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}