{"id":152596,"date":"1988-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988"},"modified":"2018-02-28T11:58:40","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T06:28:40","slug":"ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (2) 800, \t 1988 SCC (1) 541<\/div>\n
Author: B Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nASHOK KUMAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nOZA, G.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 SCR  (2) 800\t  1988 SCC  (1) 541\n JT 1988 (1)   235\t  1988 SCALE  (1)194\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 22(5) and (6).\n     Conservation of  Foreign  Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities  Act, 1974. Section 3. Detention order-\nCertain\t documents   though  placed   before  the  Detaining\nAuthority for consideration not supplied to detenu-Effective\nrepresentation could  not be  submitted by  detenu-Detention\norder-Quashed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     The appellant  was arrested and detained on 21st March,\n1987 pursuant to an order of detention made under s. 3(1) of\nthe Conservation  of  Foreign  Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities  Act, 1974.  He  was  served  with\t the\ngrounds of  detention by  the Detaining\t Authority.  In\t the\ngrounds it  was stated that the appellant had been indulging\nin illegal  sale and  purchase of foreign currency, and also\nin the\tsale and  purchase of  gold of\tforeign origin\ton a\nlarge scale,  and that\tin three premises connected with the\nappellant search  was carried  out on  10th  December,\t1986\nunder s. 33 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.\n     On\t  6th\tApril,\t 1987\tthe   appellant\t  made\t two\nrepresentations; one  to the  Detaining Authority-the second\nrespondent, and\t another to the Central Government-the first\nrespondent. In\tthese representations  the appellant  stated\nthat he\t had no\t concern whatsoever  as regards the premises\nwhere search was carried out, and US $ and primary gold were\nrecovered as  the said\tpremises did  not belong  to him but\nbelonged to  his sister-in-law,\t and that  if  the  relevant\ndocuments on the basis of which the detaining authority came\nto its subjective satisfaction are not given it would not be\npossible to make any effective representation. On 2nd April,\n1987 the  appellant also  made a  representation before\t the\nAdvisory Board.\n     The appellant was produced before the Advisory Board on\n29th April,  1987 and  the  Board  heard  the  appellant  in\nrespect of  his representation.\t Me received a communication\ndated 7th May, 1987 from\n801\nrespondent  No.\t l  stating  that  his\tdetention  had\tbeen\nconfirmed with\teffect from 21st March, 1987 for a period of\none year.\n     The appellant  challenged the  order of  detention in a\nwrit petition  and also\t prayed for  quashing  of  the\tsaid\norder. It  was contended on his behalf: (1) that the grounds\nof detention  were supplied  on 21st March, 1987 whereas the\nvital documents were supplied as late as on 24th April, 1987\nand that  this was a clear infringement of the provisions of\ns. 3(3)\t of the\t COFEPOSA Act.\t(2) That the appellant could\nnot make  an effective\trepresentation against\tthe order of\ndetention in  accordance with  the mandatory  provisions  of\nArticle 22(5)  of the  Constitution of\tIndia. The  order of\ndetention was  also challenged on the ground: that the order\nof confirmation\t of detention did not give any indication as\nto why\tthe  Government\t had  specified\t or  determined\t the\nmaximum period of detention of one year, that there had been\nan inordinate  delay in considering the representation dated\n6th April,  1987, that\tit was\tdisposed of  by the  Central\nGovernment on  29th April,  1987, and  that this delay of 23\ndays had  not been  satisfactorily explained.  This  unusual\ndelay in  the disposal\tof the\trepresentation also rendered\nthe order of detention bad.\n     The  writ\t was  contested\t by  the  first\t and  second\nrespondents by\tsubmitting in  their counter affidavits that\nat the\ttime of\t the search of the premises several personal\ndocuments of  the detenu  like driving\tlicence, his and his\nwife's bank  passbooks, HUF  passbooks, account\t books\twere\nseized from  the searched premises, and that in pursuance of\nhis representation  dated 6th  April, 1987  the\t detenu\t was\nsupplied with  more documents  numbering 150  pages on\t24th\nApril, 1987  although the  same had  not been relied upon in\nforming\t the   subjective  satisfaction\t  of  the  Detaining\nAuthority.\n     The High  Court dismissed\tthe writ petition in view of\nthe affidavit  filed by\t the Detaining\tAuthority-Respondent\nNo. 2 that all the documents seized though placed before the\ndetaining authority  he did  not rely on them in forming his\nsubjective satisfaction\t in making  the order  of detention,\nand as\tsuch the non-supply of certain documents seized from\nthe premises  after search  to the  detenu  along  with\t the\ngrounds\t of  detention\tcannot\tbe  said  to  amount  to  an\ninfringement  of   the\tprovisions  of\tArt.  22(5)  of\t the\nConstitution rendering\tthe order  of detention\t illegal and\nbad.\n     Allowing the Appeal, the Court,\n802\n^\n     HELD: l.  It is  crystal clear  that certain  documents\nthough\t placed\t  before   the\t Detaining   Authority\t for\nconsideration were  not sup plied to the appellant within 15\ndays from  the date  of the  order of  detention as provided\nunder s.  3(3) of  the COFEPOSA Act. It is also evident that\non the\trequest of  the appellant by his representation made\non 6th\tApril, 1987  the documents  were supplied  to him on\n24th April,  1987. The\trepresentation of  the appellant was\ndisposed of  by the  Advisory Board  on 29th April, 1987. In\nthese circumstances, it cannot be denied that the failure on\nthe part  of the Detaining Authority to supply the aforesaid\nmaterial documents  prevented the  appellant from  making an\neffective  representation   against  the   grounds  of\t his\ndetention, and as such the mandatory provision of Art. 22(5)\nhad not\t been complied\twith. The  order  of  detention\t is,\ntherefore, illegal  and bad  and the  same is  liable to  be\nquashed. [807C-E]\n     2. It  is necessary  for the  valid continuance  of the\ndetention  that\t  subject  to\tArt.  22(6)  copies  of\t the\ndocuments, statements and other materials relied upon in the\ngrounds of  detention should  be  furnished  to\t the  detenu\nalongwith the grounds of detention or in any event not later\nthan five  days and  in exceptional  circumstances  and\t for\nreasons to  be recorded\t in writing  not later\tthan fifteen\ndays from  the date of detention. There are no exceptions or\nqualifications provided to this rule and if this requirement\nof Art.\t 22(5)\tread  with  s.\t3(3)  COFEPOSA\tAct  is\t not\nsatisfied the  continued detention  order of detenu would be\nillegal\t and   void.  Appellant\t  directed  to\tbe  released\nforthwith. [807G-H; 808A-B, C]\n     Smt. Icchu\t Devi Choraria\tv. Union  of India and Ors.,<\/a>\n[1980] 4  SCC 531  and Kamla Kanahiyalal Khushalani v. State\nof Maharashtra and Another, [1981] 2 SCR 459 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal No .
\n54 of 1988 .\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated  9.10.1987  of\t the
\nDelhi High Court in Crl. W.P. No. 262 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     Soli J.  Sorabjee Hukam  Chand, Mrs.  Nisha  Bachi\t and
\nVijay K. Verma for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     B. Datta,\tAdditional Solicitor General, P. Parmeswaran
\nAshok K. Srivastava, A. Subha Rao and C.V. Subba Rao for the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
803<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RAY, J. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
\n     This appeal  by special  leave is\tdirected against the
\njudgment and  order dated  9th October,\t 1987 passed  by the
\nHigh Court  of Delhi  in Criminal  Writ Petition  No. 262 of
\n1987 discharging the rule and rejecting the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  was arrested and detained on 21st March,
\n1987 from  his residence  at Dahiwali  Gali, Karola  Market,
\nNaya Laxman  Mandir, Bharatpur by an order of detention made
\nunder Section  3(1) of\tConservation of Foreign Exchange and
\nPrevention of  Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to
\nprevent him  from acting  in any  manner prejudicial  to the
\naugmentation of\t foreign currency  and also  with a  view to
\nprevent him  from engaging  and keeping\t smuggled gold.\t The
\nappellant was  served with  the grounds\t of detention by the
\nDetaining Authority,  Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the
\nGovernment of  India. It  had been  stated therein  that the
\nappellant may  make any representation to the Advisory Board
\nagainst his detention.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  grounds of\t detention it  was inter alia stated
\nthat on\t the basis of the secret information received in the
\noffice of  the Assistant  Director, Enforcement Directorate,
\nAgra, the  appellant had  been indulging in illegal sale and
\npurchase of  foreign currency  and  also  in  the  sale\t and
\npurchase of gold of foreign origin on a large scale and that
\nsearch\tof   the  following   premises\tconnected  with\t the
\nappellant was  carried out  on\t10th  December,\t 1986  under
\nSection 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (i)  Premises situated  in Purana  Laxman  Mandir,
\n\t       opposite Dr. Ram Kumar, Bharatpur.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) Premises\t situated in  Daniwali Gali,  Karola
\n\t       Market, Naya Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iii)Business premises  of M\/s  Madanlal, Mohanlal
\n\t       and  Baldev   Singh,  Karola,  Laxman  Mandir
\n\t       Crossing, Near Bata Shop, Bharatpur.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On\t 6th   April,\t1987,\tthe   appellant\t  made\t two
\nrepresentations;  one\tto  the\t  Detaining  Authority,\t 2nd
\nrespondent and\tanother to  the Central\t Government, the Ist
\nrespondent. In the representation to the Detain-\n<\/p>\n
804<\/span><\/p>\n
ing Authority,\tthe appellant  stated that he had no concern
\nwhatsoever as  regards the  residential premises situated at
\nPurana Laxman  Mandir, opp.  Dr. Ram  Kumar, Bharatpur where
\nthe search was conducted and on such search US $ and primary
\ngold were recovered, as the said premises does not belong to
\nhim  but  belongs  to  his  sister-in-law.  The\t appellant’s
\nresidential premises  is situated  in Dahiwali\tGali, Karola
\nMarket, Naya  Laxman Mandir,  Bharatpur. It  had  also\tbeen
\nstated therein\tthat the  relevant documents on the basis of
\nwhich  the   detaining\tauthority  came\t to  the  subjective
\nsatisfaction were  not supplied\t to him\t and unless the said
\ndocuments are  given to\t him it will not be possible for him
\nto make\t any effective representation against the grounds of
\ndetention. In  the second  representation to  the Secretary,
\nGovernment of India dated 6th April, 1987 also the appellant
\nwhile reiterating  the same facts stated that even the house
\nfrom where the alleged recovery of foreign currency and gold
\nwas  made  is  not  his\t residential  premises\tbut  is\t the
\nresidence of  his sister-in-law.  The appellant\t also stated
\nthat he\t was innocent and he should be released forthwith by
\nrevoking the  order of\tdetention. The appellant also stated
\nthat the  Detaining  Authority\tsupplied  him  the  relevant
\ndocuments and  also the\t information asked for in his letter
\ndated  6th  April,  1987  only\ton  24th  April,  1987.\t The
\nappellant also\tmade a\trepresentation before  the  Advisory
\nBoard on 27th April, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant was produced before the Advisory Board on
\n29th April,  1987 and the Advisory Board heard the appellant
\nin respect  of his  representation. The appellant received a
\ncommunication dated  7th May, 1987 from the respondent No. 1
\nstating therein\t that his  detention had been confirmed with
\neffect from 21st March, 1987 for a period of one year.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant   thereafter  challenged  the  order  of
\ndetention by a writ petition and also prayed for quashing of
\nthe said  order of  detention on  the ground inter alia that
\nthe documents  relied upon  by the  Detaining  Authority  in
\ncoming to  his subjective  satisfaction for making the order
\nof detention  in question which were required to be supplied
\nto him\talong  with  the  grounds  of  detention,  were\t not
\nsupplied to  him. The  grounds of detention were supplied to
\nhim on\t21st March,  1987 whereas  the vital  documents were
\nsupplied  to   him  as\tlate  as  on  24th  April,  1987  in
\ninfringement of\t the  provisions  of  Section  3(3)  of\t the
\nConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
\nActivities Act\tto be  hereinafter called  as the  said Act.
\nThis vitiated  the entire  detention order in as much as the
\nappellant could not make an effective representation against
\nhis order of detention in accordance
\n805<\/span>
\nwith the  mandatory  provisions\t of  Article  22(S)  of\t the
\nConstitution of\t India. The  order  of\tdetention  was\talso
\nchallenged on  the ground  that the order of confirmation of
\ndetention  did\tnot  give  any\tindication  as\tto  why\t the
\nGovernment had specified or determined the maximum period of
\ndetention of  one year.\t The detention\torder is, therefore,
\nillegal. It  had also  been stated in the writ petition that
\nthere  had   been  inordinate\tdelay  in   considering\t the
\nrepresentation\tsent   on  6th\t April,\t 1987\tthrough\t the
\nSuperintendent of  Jail to  the Detaining  Authority and the
\nCentral Government.  The said representation was disposed of
\nby the\tCentral Government  on 29th  April, 1987 and as such
\nthere was  delay of  23 days  which had\t not been explained.
\nThis  unusual\tdelay  in   the\t disposal  of  the  detenu’s
\nrepresentation renders the order of detention bad.\n<\/p>\n
     A counter\taffidavit was  filed on behalf of respondent
\nNos. 1\tand 2  affirmed by  one Shri  S.K. Chaudhary,  Under
\nSecretary, Ministry  of Finance,  Department of\t Revenue. In
\npara 4\tof the said affidavit it was stated that “it is also
\npertinent to  submit that  at the  time\t of  search  several
\npersonal documents  of the  petitioner like  copy of driving
\nlicence, his  and his  wife’s bank passbooks including a HUF
\npassbook, account books were seized from the said premises.”
\nIt was\talso stated in para 7 of the said affidavit that the
\ninformation sought  in the representation of 6th April, 1987
\nreceived in  the office\t of the\t Detaining Authority on 15th
\nApril, 1987 was totally irrelevant for the purpose of making
\nany representation.  In para 10 of the said affidavit it had
\nbeen stated that the detenu was supplied with more documents
\nnumbering 150  pages on 24th April, 1987 in pursuance of his
\nrepresentation dated 6th April, 1987, although the same were
\nnot relied  upon in  forming the  subjective satisfaction of
\nthe Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority, Shri Tarun
\nRoy, Joint  Secretary to the Government of India, Department
\nof Revenue,  Ministry of Finance, New Delhi in paras 3 and 4
\nof his affidavit stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3 ……  That  I  was  aware  that\tno  separate
\n\t  statement  had   been\t recorded   by\tthe   Custom
\n\t  authorities and  as such  there was no question of
\n\t  suppressing the  same. The  result of\t the seizure
\n\t  was  also   placed  before  me  as  given  in\t the
\n\t  panchanama which were placed before me.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  4. That although all the documents seized from the
\n\t  premises of  the petitioner  were before me but, I
\n\t  had not  relied  on  all  of\tthose  documents  in
\n\t  forming my  subjective satisfaction. I have relied
\n\t  only on those documents which
\n806<\/span>
\n\t  are  mentioned   to  be  relied  in  the  list  of
\n\t  documents annexed with the grounds of detention.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  learned  Judge  of  the  Delhi  High\tCourt  while
\ndismissing the\twrit petition  observed that  in view of the
\naffidavit filed\t by the\t Detaining Authority, the respondent
\nNo. 2,\tthat all  the documents\t seized though placed before
\nhim, he\t did  not  rely\t on  all  of  them  in\tforming\t his
\nsubjective satisfaction in making the order of detention and
\nas such\t the non-supply of those documents to the petitioner
\nalong with  the grounds\t of detention,\tcannot\tbe  said  to
\namount to infringement of the provisions of Article 22(5) of
\nthe Constitution  rendering the\t order of  detention illegal
\nand bad.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.  Soli J.  Sorabji, learned  counsel  appearing  on
\nbehalf of  the detenu has submitted with much vehemence that
\nnon-supply of  the vital  documents which were considered by
\nthe  Detaining\t Authority   in\t  forming   his\t  subjective
\nsatisfaction violates the provisions of Article 22(5) of the
\nConstitution as\t the appellant\twas  prevented\tfrom  making
\neffective representation to the grounds of detention. It has
\nbeen submitted\tby the\tlearned counsel that those documents
\nwhich comprised of the 3 bank passbooks of the appellant and
\nhis wife  and one driving licence of the appellant which had
\nbeen  seized   and  taken   possession\tof  by\tthe  Customs
\nDepartment will clearly show that the residential address of
\nthe appellant  mentioned therein  is the  house in  Dahiwali
\nGali, Karola  Market, Naya  Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur and not
\nin Purana Laxman Mandir, opp. Dr. Ram Kumar, Bharatpur which
\nhouse does not belong to the appellant but to his sister-in-
\nlaw. The  foreign currency  i.e. US $ as well as the primary
\ngold which were found out on search from the house in Purana
\nLaxman Mandir  cannot be  connected with the appellant as he
\nhad specifically stated in his representation that he is not
\nthe owner  of the  said house. It has also been submitted in
\nthis connection\t that in  spite of  the\t specific  objection
\ntaken by the appellant in his representation, no attempt was
\nmade on\t behalf of  the Detaining Authority to ascertain who
\nis the\towner of  the said house. The non-supply of the said
\ndocuments had greatly handicapped the appellant in making an
\neffective representation  against the  rounds  of  detention
\nserved on him.\n<\/p>\n
     This submission  of the learned counsel was tried to be
\nrepelled by  the Additional  Solicitor General by contending
\nthat in\t view  of  the\taffidavit  filed  by  the  Detaining
\nAuthority, Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government
\nof India,  Department of Revenue, Ministry  of Finance, that
\nhe did not consider those documents though the same
\n807<\/span>
\nwere  placed   before  him   in\t  forming   his\t  subjective
\nsatisfaction in\t making the  order of  detention and so non-
\nsupply\tof   those  documents  along  with  the\t grounds  of
\ndetention to  the appellant  did not  vitiate the  order  of
\ndetention. It  was also submitted that the appellant and his
\nrelation, Manoj Kumar were present at the time of the search
\nand the appelLant subsequently fled away go to show that the
\nhouse  in  Purana  Laxman  Mandir  from\t where\tthe  foreign
\ncurrency and  primary gold  were recovered  belonged to\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     After considering\tthe submission,\t it is crystal clear
\nthat  the  aforesaid  documents\t though\t placed\t before\t the
\ndetaining Authority  for his consideration were not supplied
\nto the\tappellant within  15 days from the date of the order
\nof detention as provided under Section 3(3) of the said Act.
\nIt  is\t also  evident\tfrom  the  affidavit  of  Shri\tS.K.
\nChaudhary, Under  Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department
\nof Revenue,  New Delhi\tthat on the request of the appellant
\nby his\trepresentation dated  6th April, 1987, the documents
\nwere supplied to him on 24th April, 1987. The representation
\nof the\tappellant was  disposed of  by the Advisory Board on
\n29th April,  1987. In  these  circumstances,  it  cannot  be
\ndenied that  the  failure  on  the  part  of  the  Detaining
\nAuthority  to\tsupply\tthe   aforesaid\t material  documents
\nprevented   the\t  appellant   from   making   an   effective
\nrepresentation against\tthe grounds of detention and as such
\nthe mandatory  provisions of  Article 22(5)  have  not\tbeen
\ncomplied with.\tThe order  of detention\t in  our  considered
\nopinion, is  therefore, illegal\t and bad  and  the  same  is
\nliable to  be quashed. As the appeal succeeds on this ground
\nalone we  do not  deem it  necessary to\t consider the  other
\nobjections raised against the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  pertinent to  refer here to the decision of this
\nCourt in  Smt. Icchu  Devi Choraria  v. Union  of India\t and
\nors.<\/a>, [1980]  4 SCC  531 wherein  it has  been held that the
\nright to be supplied the copies of the documents, statements
\nand other  materials relied upon in the grounds of detention
\nwithout any  undue  delay  flows  directly  as\ta  necessary
\ncorollary from\tthe right  conferred on\t the  detenu  to  be
\nafforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation
\nagainst the  detention, because\t unless the  former right is
\navailable, the\tlatter cannot  be meaningfully exercised. It
\nhas been  further held\tthat it\t is necessary  for the valid
\ncontinuance of\tdetention  that\t subject  to  Article  22(6)
\ncopies of  the documents,  statements  and  other  materials
\nrelied upon  in the grounds of detention should be furnished
\nto the\tdetenu along with the grounds of detention or in any
\nevent  not   later  than   five\t days\tand  in\t exceptional
\ncircumstances and for reasons to he recorded in writing,
\n808<\/span>
\nnot later  than fifteen\t days from  the date  of  detention.
\nThere are  no exceptions  or qualifications provided to this
\nrule and  if this  requirement of  Article 22(S)  read\twith
\nSection 3(3) of COFEPOSA Act is not satisfied, the continued
\ndetention of  the detenu  would be illegal and void. Similar
\nobservations have been made in the case of Kamla Kanahiyalal
\nKhushalani v. State of Maharashtra and Another, [1981J 2 SCR\n<\/p>\n
459.
\n     For the  reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set
\naside the judgment and order of the High Court and quash the
\norder of  detention. We direct the Government to release the
\nappellant from\tjail forthwith. There will be no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n809<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (2) 800, 1988 SCC (1) 541 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: ASHOK KUMAR Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1988 BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) OZA, […]<\/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-152596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988 - 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\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-28T06:28:40+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T06:28:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2260,\"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\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988\",\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T06:28:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988 - 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\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-28T06:28:40+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988","datePublished":"1988-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T06:28:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988"},"wordCount":2260,"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\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988","name":"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T06:28:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-january-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 1988"}]},{"@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\/152596","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=152596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152596\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}