{"id":153393,"date":"2008-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-21T16:15:33","modified_gmt":"2016-07-21T10:45:33","slug":"chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008<\/div>\n
             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n                       -1-\n\nIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.\n\n                         Criminal Appeal No.600-SB of 1998.\n\n                         Date of decision:14-8-2008\n\nChand Ram.\n\n                                             ...Appellant.\n\n            Versus\n\nState of Haryana.\n\n            `                                ...Respondent.\n\n            ...\n\nCoram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.\n\n            ...\n\nPresent:    Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arshwinder\n            Singh, Advocate for the appellant.\n\n            Mr.Dinesh Arora, AAG Haryana.\n\n            ...\n\nK. C. Puri, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment\/order dated<\/p>\n
24.7.1998 passed by Shri Virendra Singh, the then Special Judge,<\/p>\n
Sonepat whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and sentenced him to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.5,000\/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
           Concisely, the prosecution case is that the complainant<\/p>\n
approached Shri Samay Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police<\/p>\n
(Headquarters), Sonepat in his office on 5.3.1997 and presented before<\/p>\n
him a written complaint about the harassment caused to him by Chand<\/p>\n
Ram, Junior Engineer. The complainant has alleged that he had<\/p>\n
constructed house No.1531 in Sector 15, three or four years earlier but<\/p>\n
completion certificate was not supplied to him. Chand Ram, Junior<\/p>\n
Engineer, who is an accused in this case, had already pocketed a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- for the purpose and was further demanding Rs.5,000\/-<\/p>\n
more for giving completion certificate to him. He had constructed yet<\/p>\n
another house bearing No.395 in Sector 15. The accused was<\/p>\n
demanding a sum of Rs.40,000\/- for the issuance of completion<\/p>\n
certificate to him. He requested for taking necessary action against the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
           The written complaint was immediately sent to Police<\/p>\n
Station City, Sonepat through Constable Rajender Singh, No.478 for<\/p>\n
the registration of a case. The            Information was sent to the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police who made a request to the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Sonepat for deputing an Executive Magistrate to join<\/p>\n
the raiding party. Thereupon, Shri Rajinder Singh Gehlaut, Naib<\/p>\n
Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate arrived in the office of Deputy<\/p>\n
Superintendent   of    Police,    under    the    orders   of   the   Deputy
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner. All the witnesses were introduced to Shri Mohan Lal<\/p>\n
Madan, complainant who was asked to hand over currency notes to the<\/p>\n
police which he had brought with him for payment as illegal<\/p>\n
gratification to the accused. Shri Ravinder Kumar, District Inspector,<\/p>\n
Sonepat was also joined in the raiding party.\n<\/p>\n
           Complainant Mohan Lal Madan was directed to visit<\/p>\n
HUDA office and call Chand Ram, accused out of his office and pay<\/p>\n
the amount of illegal gratification to him. The complainant possessed a<\/p>\n
mobile phone. He was required to use the phone by giving a call at the<\/p>\n
other phone retained by the DSP immediately after the amount was<\/p>\n
received by the appellant. The second party was required to wait in a<\/p>\n
car parked at some distance from the HUDA office. Inspector Ravinder<\/p>\n
Kumar was required to travel with the complainant in his Maruti car<\/p>\n
bearing registration No.HR-10B-1942. The police party waited in<\/p>\n
another car. The DSP received the signal on his phone through the<\/p>\n
phone bell upon which he took his car to the gate of the office and<\/p>\n
rounded up the appellant. The DSP offered himself for search to the<\/p>\n
accused and then carried out the search of the appellant and retrieved<\/p>\n
the same duly initialled eighty currency notes of the denomination of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- each from the pocket of the pants of the appellant. The<\/p>\n
currency notes were washed in Sodium Carbonate solution and the<\/p>\n
residue was collected in a bottle. The hands of the appellant were also<\/p>\n
washed in Sodium Carbonate solution and the residue was collected in
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
a separate bottle. The pocket of the pants was also similarly washed in<\/p>\n
the solution and the residue was collected in another bottle. The<\/p>\n
currency notes, the pants and the residue collected in the bottles were<\/p>\n
duly sealed. All the sealed parcels were taken into possession through a<\/p>\n
memo duly attested by the witnesses present at the spot. The seal, after<\/p>\n
use, was handed over to Shri Rajinder Singh Gehlaut, Executive<\/p>\n
Magistrate. Investigation in the case was conducted and ultimately the<\/p>\n
accused was challaned.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused was charge-sheeted for commission of offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to<\/p>\n
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
           During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 HC Sitar<\/p>\n
Singh, PW-2 Inderpal, Draftsman, PW-3 Sudeep Singh Dhillon, PW-4<\/p>\n
Mohan Lal Madan, PW-5 Inspector Ram Kishan, PW-6 Samay Singh,<\/p>\n
PW-7 Inspector Ravinder Kumar, PW-8 Rajbir Singh and PW-9<\/p>\n
Rajinder Singh Gehlaut.\n<\/p>\n
           Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was<\/p>\n
recorded in which he pleaded that he was implicated in a totally false<\/p>\n
case. Mohan Lal Madan had offered to purchase a Revolver for a sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.40,000\/-. He went to his office on 5.3.1997 and paid the amount<\/p>\n
to him. As he was in the process of handing over the Revolver to the<\/p>\n
complainant, some persons nabbed him and framed him in this case.<\/p>\n
There was no question of demanding illegal gratification from Mohan
\n                Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Lal Madan as he had already completed all the formalities within his<\/p>\n
power approximately two months prior to the alleged incident. Even<\/p>\n
the file had been sent by the Estate Officer to the Administrator at<\/p>\n
Faridabad for assessing the composition fee. He was no where in the<\/p>\n
picture after he had recorded his note on 18.1.1997. It was a false<\/p>\n
against him.\n<\/p>\n
            The accused did not lead any evidence in defence.<\/p>\n
            The learned trial Court, after conclusion of trial, has<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced the appellant, as noticed in the earlier part of<\/p>\n
this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in the<\/p>\n
present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in<\/p>\n
order to prove offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the<\/p>\n
prosecution is required to establish the following ingredients:-<\/p>\n
            (a)     There is a demand of illegal gratification.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (b)     The Government servant           has accepted illegal<\/p>\n
            gratification.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            \u00a9       That the recovery of illegal gratification has been<\/p>\n
            effected from the accused.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It has been submitted that without proving the demand of<\/p>\n
illegal gratification, offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act is not made out. The complainant is the best witness to
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
prove the demand of illegal gratification by the accused. The<\/p>\n
prosecution examined PW-4 Mohan Lal Madan who is the<\/p>\n
complainant, in the present case. This witness has not supported the<\/p>\n
case of the prosecution and has stated that he had paid Rs.40,000\/-to<\/p>\n
the accused not in connection with the demand of illegal gratification<\/p>\n
but has paid him Rs.40,000\/- on account of purchase of Revolver from<\/p>\n
him. The testimony of Shri Ram Kishan, Inspector Welfare, in this<\/p>\n
regard, cannot be taken into account.\n<\/p>\n
           I have carefully considered the said submission but do not<\/p>\n
find any force in the same.\n<\/p>\n
           Complainant Mohan Lal Madan moved application Exhibit<\/p>\n
PA complaining that Rs.15,000\/- have already been paid to the<\/p>\n
accused. He has categorically mentioned in his application, Exhibit PA,<\/p>\n
that Rs.40,000\/- have been demanded by the accused in connection<\/p>\n
with the issuance of completion certificate in respect of his house. It<\/p>\n
has been further mentioned in Exhibit PA that the accused has<\/p>\n
threatened the complainant that in case illegal gratification of<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- was not paid, the said certificate would not be supplied.<\/p>\n
The statement made by this witness to the effect that an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- was paid to the accused in connection with the purchase of<\/p>\n
Revolver is an attempt to save the accused from legal punishment and<\/p>\n
does not appeal to reason. In case the amount of Rs.40,000\/- was to be<\/p>\n
paid in connection with the purchase of Revolver, in that case, he
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
would not have approached the police department to arrange for a raid.<\/p>\n
The complainant would not have arranged a raid by tendering<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- from his own pocket.          PW-4 Mohan Lal Madan was<\/p>\n
declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n
            PW-5 Ram Kishan, Welfare Inspector, has categorically<\/p>\n
stated that on 5.3.1997, he went to the office of Deputy Superintendent<\/p>\n
of Police (Headquarters). He further stated that Mohan Lal Madan,<\/p>\n
complainant who was present there, disclosed in his presence, that he<\/p>\n
had already paid Rs.15,000\/- to the accused in connection with the<\/p>\n
completion certificate. He has further stated that the complainant<\/p>\n
tendered 80 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500\/- before the<\/p>\n
DSP on which Phenol-phthalein Power (in short P. Powder) was<\/p>\n
applied. Moreover, the complainant or the accused had not produced<\/p>\n
the licence for keeping the arms. The Court can take judicial notice of<\/p>\n
the fact that only a person having arms licence could purchase the<\/p>\n
Revolver. Non-production of the licence clearly shows that the story<\/p>\n
propounded by the accused regarding payment of Rs.40,000\/- in<\/p>\n
connection with Revolver has been concocted on the expert advice.<\/p>\n
            The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted<\/p>\n
that mere recovery of Rs.40,000\/- is not sufficient to prove the guilt of<\/p>\n
the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. To<\/p>\n
support this contention, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon<\/p>\n
the following authorities:-\n<\/p>\n
             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (a) Sarwan Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR<\/p>\n
           (Criminal) 368.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (b) Subash Parbat Sonvane Versus State of Gujarat,<\/p>\n
           2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 541.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           \u00a9 Criminal Appeal No.2242-SB of 2003 titled Phool<\/p>\n
           Kumar Versus State of Haryana, decided on 7.12.2007.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           It has been further submitted that presumption under<\/p>\n
Section 4 of the unamended Prevention of Corruption Act<\/p>\n
corresponding to Section 20 of the present Act can only be attracted<\/p>\n
when demand of illegal gratification is proved. To support this<\/p>\n
contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon<\/p>\n
authorities in case V.Venkata Subbarao Versus State represented by<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police, A.P, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 175 and Sita Ram<\/p>\n
Versus The State of Rajasthan, 1975 SCC 9 (Crl.) 491.<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted that according to all the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses, the notes were washed after recovery. This fact itself creates<\/p>\n
a doubt in the prosecution version as normally the notes are never<\/p>\n
washed after alleged recovery.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been further submitted that the prosecution has failed<\/p>\n
to prove the motive. The alleged recovery has taken place on 5.3.1997.<\/p>\n
The completion certificate in respect of one house was already<\/p>\n
recommended by the accused on 18.1.1997 and sent to the concerned<\/p>\n
authority on 29.1.1997. So far as the said certificate in respect of
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
second house is concerned, there was no request for the same.<\/p>\n
According to the prosecution, the request for completion of second<\/p>\n
house was made on 17.7.1997 i.e after the alleged recovery.<\/p>\n
           The learned State counsel has supported the judgment of<\/p>\n
the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that the hands of the<\/p>\n
accused were washed and the solution turned pink. The said solution<\/p>\n
was analyzed from the Laboratory and there was a report that it<\/p>\n
contained P.Powder. The washing of notes does not create any dent in<\/p>\n
the prosecution version as the accused has not disputed the recovery of<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/-. A prayer has been made by the State counsel for the<\/p>\n
dismissal of the appeal. The State counsel has relied upon authority in<\/p>\n
case M. Narsinga Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001(1)<\/p>\n
R.C.R (Criminal) 95 equivalent to 2001 A.I.R (SC) 318.<\/p>\n
           In this case, the accused has not disputed the acceptance of<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- and has also not disputed the factum of recovery of<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- from him. Otherwise also, PW-5 Ram Kishan, Inspector<\/p>\n
Welfare, shadow witness, PW-6 DSP Same Singh, PW-7 Inspector<\/p>\n
Ravinder Kumar and PW-9 Rajinder Singh Gehlaut, Tehsildar have<\/p>\n
supported the prosecution version. All of them have supported the fact<\/p>\n
that Mohan Lal Madan presented 80 currency notes of the<\/p>\n
denomination of Rs.500\/- before DSP. Further, Sh.Rajinder Singh<\/p>\n
Gehlaut, then working as Naib Tehsildar put his signatures on those<\/p>\n
currency notes. P. Powder was applied. The number of notes were
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
noted in the memo. These currency notes were handed over to Mohan<\/p>\n
Lal Madan for making payment of the same to the accused on his<\/p>\n
demand. Inspector Ravinder Kumar was appointed as a shadow<\/p>\n
witness. The complainant and Ravinder Kumar went to the office of<\/p>\n
HUDA in a car whereas the other party stayed outside the office. The<\/p>\n
complainant handed over the cash amount to the accused on his<\/p>\n
demand. On receiving signal on his mobile phone by the DSP, the<\/p>\n
raiding party reached the HUDA office and apprehended the accused.<\/p>\n
The currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the pants of<\/p>\n
accused. The hand wash of the accused in Sodium Carbonate turned the<\/p>\n
solution pink. The pocket of the pants was also washed in the solution<\/p>\n
of Sodium Carbonate and that solution also turned pink. The accused in<\/p>\n
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C stated that Mohan Lal Madan<\/p>\n
was well known to him prior to the occurrence. He had offered to<\/p>\n
purchase his Revolver for a sum of Rs.40,000\/-. He came to his office<\/p>\n
on 5.3.1997 and paid the amount to him. As he was in the process of<\/p>\n
handing over the Revolver to the complainant, some persons nabbed<\/p>\n
him and framed him in this false case. He has further stated that he did<\/p>\n
not demand illegal gratification and the Estate Officer had sent the file<\/p>\n
to the Administrator at Faridabad for assessing the composition fee on<\/p>\n
18.1.1997. So, from his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the<\/p>\n
trend of cross-examination of witnesses, it is revealed that the accused<\/p>\n
has not disputed the factum of receiving Rs.40,000\/- from Mohan Lal
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
Madan and the recovery of the said amount from him. As discussed<\/p>\n
above, the demand of Rs.40,000\/- also stands proved beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
           The Hon’ble Apex Court in authority in case M. Narsinga<\/p>\n
Rao (supra), relied upon by the State counsel summed up legal position<\/p>\n
in respect of application of 20 of the Act corresponding to Section 4 of<\/p>\n
unamended Act as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “(i) Expressions “may presume” and ” shall presume” are<\/p>\n
           defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act. The presumptions<\/p>\n
           falling under the former category are compendiously<\/p>\n
           known     as “factual       presumptions”     or   “discretionary<\/p>\n
           presumptions” and those falling under the latter as “legal<\/p>\n
           presumptions” or “compulsory presumptions”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii)Such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during<\/p>\n
              trial, it should be proved that the accused has accepted or<\/p>\n
              agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not<\/p>\n
              say that the said condition should be satisfied through<\/p>\n
              direct evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (iii) A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the<\/p>\n
              matters before it, the Court either believed it to exist, or<\/p>\n
              consider its existence so probable that a prudent man<\/p>\n
              ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to<\/p>\n
              act upon the supposition that it exists.
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (iv) Law gives absolute discretion to the court to presume<\/p>\n
              the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have<\/p>\n
              happened. In that process the court may have regard to<\/p>\n
              common course of natural events, human conduct, public<\/p>\n
              or private business vis-a-vis the facts of the particular<\/p>\n
              case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114<\/p>\n
              of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (v) Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from<\/p>\n
              other proved facts. While inferring the existence of fact<\/p>\n
              from another, the court is only applying a process of<\/p>\n
              intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man<\/p>\n
              would do under similar circumstances.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (vi) Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or<\/p>\n
              rebutted, the court can treat the presumption as<\/p>\n
              tantamounting to proof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (vii) It may be unsafe to use that presumption to draw yet<\/p>\n
              another discretionary presumption unless there is a<\/p>\n
              statutory compulsion. 1998(4) RCR (Crl.) 433 (SC)<\/p>\n
              relied.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           So, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that direct evidence is<\/p>\n
not required to prove that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept<\/p>\n
illegal gratification. The circumstances of each case are to be seen. The<\/p>\n
recovery, in the present case, has been effected by the DSP in the
\n             Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                      -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
presence of a Gazetted Officer and Naib Tehsildar. The factum of<\/p>\n
demand is mentioned by the complainant in his application Exhibit PA.<\/p>\n
The story of purchase of Revolver does not appeal to reason. So, I have<\/p>\n
no hesitation in confirming the finding of the learned trial Court<\/p>\n
regarding the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
            So far as authorities in cases Sarwan Singh , Subash<\/p>\n
Parbat, Phool Kumar, V.Venkata Subbarao and Sita Ram (supra),<\/p>\n
relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are concerned, in all these<\/p>\n
authorities, the demand of illegal gratification was not proved and there<\/p>\n
were other circumstances which militated against the case of<\/p>\n
prosecution. In the present case, as discussed above, the demand of<\/p>\n
illegal gratification stands proved and there is no material on the file<\/p>\n
which creates a doubt in the prosecution version. Mere fact that<\/p>\n
application for completion certificate was made, after the occurrence,<\/p>\n
does not create a doubt in the prosecution version. From application,<\/p>\n
Exhibit PA, which is supported by the other prosecution witnesses, it is<\/p>\n
proved that the complainant has previously paid Rs.15,000\/- also for<\/p>\n
getting completion certificate. The complainant was having two houses<\/p>\n
and completion certificate in respect of one house was not issued prior<\/p>\n
to the day of occurrence. PW-8 Rajbir Singh, Estate Officer, in his<\/p>\n
cross-examination has stated that the accused was required to check the<\/p>\n
building before issuance of completion certificate. It was only on the<\/p>\n
recommendation of the accused that a completion certificate was to be
\n               Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
                        -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
issued. That was a motive for the demand of illegal gratification.The<\/p>\n
washing of notes does not create any doubt in prosecution version as<\/p>\n
recovery of tainted currency notes has not been disputed by the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
            The prayer for reduction of sentence, to the extent already<\/p>\n
undergone, cannot be accepted as corruption is eating the fibre of<\/p>\n
Society. In case, the corrupt officials are not hauled up with an iron<\/p>\n
hand, the disease of corruption shall spread in the Society. At the same<\/p>\n
time, keeping in view the fact that the accused is undergoing the agony<\/p>\n
of trial for the last 11 years, his sentence is reduced to two years instead<\/p>\n
of four years awarded by the learned trial Court.<\/p>\n
            With above modification in the sentence part of the<\/p>\n
judgment, this appeal stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
            The accused is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds<\/p>\n
stand cancelled. He be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining<\/p>\n
part of his sentence.\n<\/p>\n
            A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict<\/p>\n
compliance.\n<\/p>\n
August 14th ,2008                        ( K. C. Puri )\nJaggi                                       Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.600- SB of 1998. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No.600-SB of 1998. Date of decision:14-8-2008 Chand Ram. …Appellant. Versus State of Haryana. ` …Respondent. … Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-21T10:45:33+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\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T10:45:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3100,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-21T10:45:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008 - 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\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-21T10:45:33+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\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T10:45:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008"},"wordCount":3100,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008","name":"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-21T10:45:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chand-ram-vs-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chand Ram vs ` on 14 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/153393","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=153393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}