{"id":154958,"date":"2008-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-21T20:55:28","modified_gmt":"2017-09-21T15:25:28","slug":"ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of … vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of … vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008<\/div>\n
             Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997\n                              1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,\n             CHANDIGARH\n\n                                Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997\n                                Date of decision. 23.07.2008\n\nRamzan Mohd. Son of Ibrahim son of Phazaldin age 30\nyears, gujjar, r\/o village Takhar Khurd, P.S. Malerkotla.\n\n                                             ....... Appellant\n                         Versus\nThe State of Punjab\n                                             ........ Respondent\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent:     Mr. Vipin Ghai, Senior Advocate with\n             Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate\n             for the appellant.\n\n             Mr. S.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab\n             for the respondent.\n\n                         ****\n\nSham Sunder, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This appeal is directed against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction    and the order of sentence dated 26.11.1997,<\/p>\n
rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur,<\/p>\n
vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the<\/p>\n
offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and<\/p>\n
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be<\/p>\n
as the ‘Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period<\/p>\n
of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment<\/p>\n
of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period<\/p>\n
of one year, for having been found in possession of 15 bags,<\/p>\n
each containing 30 Kgs poppy husk, without any permit or<\/p>\n
licence.\n<\/p>\n
             Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.                The facts, in brief, are that on 25.03.1991 SI<\/p>\n
Pargat Singh, accompanied by ASI Baldev Singh and some<\/p>\n
other police officials, was holding a picket at T point Sherwani<\/p>\n
Kot, where at about 1.30 AM ( at night ) Jasbir Singh Sandhu,<\/p>\n
S.P. (Operation) along with 4\/5 gunmen also came and joined<\/p>\n
the police party. At about 2.15 AM, truck bearing No. PUG<\/p>\n
-4366 came, which was signalled to stop. It did not stop.<\/p>\n
Thereafter 2\/3 shots were fired to stop the truck. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the truck stopped. Accused Ramzan Mohd. was driving the<\/p>\n
truck. He was not having the documents of the truck. He was<\/p>\n
apprehended. Search of the truck was conducted. 15 bags,<\/p>\n
each containing 30 Kgs of poppy husk, were recovered from<\/p>\n
the truck. A sample of 250 grams of poppy husk, was taken<\/p>\n
out, from each of the bags. Thereafter, the contents of the<\/p>\n
samples were put into small cloth packets, and the remaining<\/p>\n
poppy husk was kept in the same bags. The bags, and the<\/p>\n
samples, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken<\/p>\n
into possession, along with the truck, vide a separate recovery<\/p>\n
memo. The ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis<\/p>\n
whereof the FIR was recorded.      The site plan was prepared.<\/p>\n
The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were<\/p>\n
recorded.   After the completion of investigation, the accused<\/p>\n
was challaned.\n<\/p>\n
                Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.                  On his appearance, in the Court, the accused<\/p>\n
was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the<\/p>\n
prosecution. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed<\/p>\n
against the accused,      to which he pleaded not guilty and<\/p>\n
claimed judicial trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.                   The prosecution, in support of its case,<\/p>\n
examined Malkiat Singh,Constable, (PW-1), Baldev Singh,<\/p>\n
ASI, (PW-2), Pargat Singh, Inspector, (PW-3), Des Raj, Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector, (PW-4), and      Prit Pal Singh, MHC,       (PW-5).<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the Addl. P.P for the State, closed the prosecution<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.                  The statement of the accused, under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded.<\/p>\n
He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing<\/p>\n
against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false<\/p>\n
implication.     He, however, stated that he was arrested from<\/p>\n
his house, in the presence of Ranjhakhan Panch of village<\/p>\n
Takhar Khurd, and nothing was recovered from him. It was<\/p>\n
further stated by him, that Pargat Singh, Inspector, compelled<\/p>\n
him, to provide a truck to him, which belonged to his father.<\/p>\n
He further stated that Pargat Singh, Inspector wanted to use<\/p>\n
the truck for illegal purposes. On account of this reason, there<\/p>\n
was an altercation, between him, and Pargat Singh, Inspector.<\/p>\n
It was further stated by him, that due to that grudge, he
\n              Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
( Pargat Singh, Inspector ) falsely implicated him in the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
5-A          In his defence, the accused examined Ranzha,<\/p>\n
DW1. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed.<\/p>\n
6.                 After   hearing   the   Additional    Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on<\/p>\n
going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court,<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.<\/p>\n
7.                 Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused-appellant.<\/p>\n
8.                 I have heard the Counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n
and have gone through the evidence and record of the case,<\/p>\n
carefully.\n<\/p>\n
9.                 The Counsel for the appellant, at the very<\/p>\n
outset, vehemently, contended that no independent witness<\/p>\n
was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of alleged<\/p>\n
search and seizure. He further submitted that non-joining of<\/p>\n
an independent witness, by the Investigating Officer, at the<\/p>\n
time of alleged recovery, creates a doubt in the prosecution<\/p>\n
story. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this<\/p>\n
regard, does not appear to be correct. The recovery, in this<\/p>\n
case, was effected from the truck, which was being driven by<\/p>\n
the accused, at the dead of night. Under these circumstances,<\/p>\n
it was not at all possible, to join any independent witness, at
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
that odd hour, at the time of search and seizure. There is<\/p>\n
nothing, on record, that any independent witness was<\/p>\n
available at the time of search and seizure. It was under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, that no independent witness could be joined.<\/p>\n
The mere fact that no independent witness, could be joined,<\/p>\n
due to the aforesaid reasons, did not mean that the evidence of<\/p>\n
the prosecution witnesses, became, in any way, doubtful. The<\/p>\n
evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be disbelieved and<\/p>\n
distrusted, merely on account of their official status. In the<\/p>\n
face of the evidence of the official witnesses only, the Court<\/p>\n
is required to be put, on guard, to scrutinize the same,<\/p>\n
carefully and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny,<\/p>\n
if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the same does not<\/p>\n
suffer from inherent infirmities, the same can be believed.<\/p>\n
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has been<\/p>\n
scrutinized carefully. Nothing came to the force, during the<\/p>\n
course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit<\/p>\n
the same.     They stood the test of touch-stone of all<\/p>\n
probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. In<\/p>\n
Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297 (S.C.), it<\/p>\n
was held that, it is now well-settled that the evidence of<\/p>\n
search or seizure, made by the police will not become vitiated,<\/p>\n
solely for the reason that the same was not supported by an<\/p>\n
independent witness. In State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil<\/p>\n
(2000)I S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
              Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
      “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer,<\/p>\n
      should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to<\/p>\n
      start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the<\/p>\n
      documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court cannot<\/p>\n
      start with the presumption that the police records are<\/p>\n
      untrustworthy.     As a proposition of law, the presumption<\/p>\n
      should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police<\/p>\n
      have been regularly performed is a wise principle of<\/p>\n
      presumption and recognized even by the Legislature.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
10.          In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat,<\/p>\n
AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story<\/p>\n
cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent<\/p>\n
witness had not been examined, by the prosecution. It was<\/p>\n
further held, in the said authority, that the civilized people, are<\/p>\n
generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in<\/p>\n
their presence, and they withdraw from the victims’ side, and<\/p>\n
from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away<\/p>\n
from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think<\/p>\n
the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do<\/p>\n
not involve themselves, in it. The principle of law, laid down,<\/p>\n
in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of<\/p>\n
the present case. In these circumstances, merely on account<\/p>\n
of non-joining of an independent witness, when the evidence<\/p>\n
of the prosecution witnesses, has been held to be cogent,<\/p>\n
convincing, creditworthy, and reliable, and there was no
\n              Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
reason, on their part to falsely implicate the accused, no<\/p>\n
doubt, is cast on the prosecution story. In this view of the<\/p>\n
matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being<\/p>\n
without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
11.          It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, that though the alleged recovery was effected in<\/p>\n
this case on 26.03.1991, yet the samples were sent to the<\/p>\n
office of the Chemical Examiner on 01.04.1991 i.e. after the<\/p>\n
delay of five days. He further submitted that there was no<\/p>\n
explanation, with regard to delay in sending the samples to<\/p>\n
the office of the Chemical Examiner. He further submitted<\/p>\n
that, under these circumstances, the possibility of tampering<\/p>\n
with the samples, until the same reached the office of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner, could not be ruled out, especially when<\/p>\n
the seals after use, remained with the police officials. It is, no<\/p>\n
doubt, true that there is no explanation, with regard to the<\/p>\n
delay. However, mere delay, in itself, is not sufficient to<\/p>\n
come to the conclusion, that the sample parcels were tampered<\/p>\n
with, until the same reached the office of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner. Other evidence, produced by the prosecution, has<\/p>\n
been held to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy.<\/p>\n
From the other evidence, it was proved that none tampered<\/p>\n
with the samples until the same reached the office of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner. Even, there is report of the Chemical<\/p>\n
Examiner Ex.PH, which clearly proves that the seals on the
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
exhibits were intact on arrival till the time of their analysis<\/p>\n
and agreed with the specimen impression of the seals. The<\/p>\n
report Ex.PH of the Chemical Examiner is per-se admissible,<\/p>\n
in toto, under Section 293 of the Code of criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
There is no challenge to the report of the Chemical Examiner,<\/p>\n
in this case. In State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo 2004(1)<\/p>\n
RCR (Criminal) 196 (S.C.), it was held that mere delay in<\/p>\n
sending the samples to the Laboratory, is not fatal, where<\/p>\n
there is evidence that the seized articles remained in safe<\/p>\n
custody. Since, it was proved that none tampered with the<\/p>\n
samples, until the same were received in the office of the<\/p>\n
Chemical Examiner, the submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, merely based on conjectures, does not hold good.<\/p>\n
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, is<\/p>\n
fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since it was<\/p>\n
proved that none tampered with the samples, until the same<\/p>\n
reached the office of the Chemical Examiner, the submission<\/p>\n
of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without<\/p>\n
merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
12.         It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, that when the case property was produced, in the<\/p>\n
Court, the seals on some of the bags, were found broken. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that some bags were in torn condition. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that under these circumstances, it could not<\/p>\n
be said that the case property produced in the Court, at the
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
time of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, was the same,<\/p>\n
as was allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could be<\/p>\n
said that no recovery, whatsoever, was effected from the<\/p>\n
accused, but he was falsely implicated in the instant case.<\/p>\n
The bags containing poppy husk Ex.P2 to Ex.P16 were<\/p>\n
produced at the time of evidence   of Inspector Pargat Singh<\/p>\n
( PW3 ) on 21.04.1993, when his examination-in-chief was<\/p>\n
recorded.    His cross-examination       was conducted on<\/p>\n
11.09.1996, when again the case property was produced.<\/p>\n
Some of the bags were found torn and the seals on some of<\/p>\n
the bags were found broken. It may be stated here, that the<\/p>\n
recovery, in this case was effected on 26.03.1991, whereas,<\/p>\n
the case property was in the first instance, produced in the<\/p>\n
Court at the time of the evidence of Pargat Singh, ( PW3 )<\/p>\n
after more than two years and for the second time, during the<\/p>\n
course of cross examination, after more than five years. The<\/p>\n
case property remained lying in the malkhana, where the case<\/p>\n
properties of other cases, were also lying. On account of<\/p>\n
shortage of spaces, in the malkhanas, the case properties of<\/p>\n
the cases, cannot be stacked properly.     If, on account of<\/p>\n
irresponsible handling, lapse of sufficient time, between the<\/p>\n
date of recovery, and production of the case property, in the<\/p>\n
Court, and during the course of transit, seals on some of the<\/p>\n
bags stood broken and some of the bags containing poppy
\n                Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
husk underwent the process of decay that did not mean that<\/p>\n
the case property, produced in the Court, did not stand<\/p>\n
connected with the case. Pargat Singh, Inspector ( PW3 ) in<\/p>\n
clear-cut terms, stated that the bags, containing poppy husk,<\/p>\n
produced, in the Court, were the same, as were recovered<\/p>\n
from the truck, being driven by the accused.         The only<\/p>\n
obligation, upon the prosecution is to produce the case<\/p>\n
property in the Court and get it         identified, from the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses, so as to connect the same with the<\/p>\n
case.   In the instant case, the prosecution produced the<\/p>\n
witnesses, who identified the case property, as the same, as<\/p>\n
was recovered from the accused. Under these circumstances,<\/p>\n
the case property produced in the Court, stood duly connected<\/p>\n
with the case.    In this view of the matter, the submission of<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail,<\/p>\n
and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
13.            It was next submitted by the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant, that according to the prosecution story,      Jasbir<\/p>\n
Singh Sandhu, SP ( Operation ) along with 4\/5 gunmen came<\/p>\n
to the spot, and he also joined the police party. He further<\/p>\n
submitted that no document bears the signatures of Jasbir<\/p>\n
Singh Sandhu.        He further submitted that, Jasbir Singh<\/p>\n
Sandhu, referred to above, was         not examined by the<\/p>\n
prosecution.       He further submitted that under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, it could be said that Jasbir Singh Sandhu, SP,
\n             Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
neither joined the police party nor was present at the time of<\/p>\n
the alleged search and seizure and, as such, the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution became doubtful. It is, no doubt, true that none of<\/p>\n
the documents bears the signatures of Jasbir Singh Sandhu.<\/p>\n
He was also not examined, by the prosecution The mere fact<\/p>\n
that none of the documents was signed by Jasbir Singh<\/p>\n
Sandhu, in itself, did not go to prove that the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution was doubtful. It is for the Public Prosecutor for<\/p>\n
the State, to decide, as to how many witnesses, he wanted to<\/p>\n
examine, to prove his case.      Since the Additional Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor for the State, thought that it was not necessary to<\/p>\n
examine Jasbir Singh Sandhu, SP,        as the other evidence,<\/p>\n
produced by the prosecution, was sufficient to unfold the<\/p>\n
prosecution story, it could not be said that he exercised the<\/p>\n
discretion vested in him arbitrarily or capriciously. The other<\/p>\n
evidence, produced by the prosecution, being sufficient to<\/p>\n
prove the case, non-examination of Jasbir Singh Sandhu, did<\/p>\n
not at all cause any dent, in the prosecution case. In this view<\/p>\n
of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same<\/p>\n
stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
14.          No doubt, Ranza, who was Panch of            Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat, Takhar Khurd, at the relevant time, was examined<\/p>\n
as DW1, by the accused-appellant. He deposed that the police<\/p>\n
was asking the accused to provide the truck of his father , but
\n               Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
he refused to do so, as a result whereof, an altercation took<\/p>\n
place. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, the<\/p>\n
accused was falsely implicated. If the accused had been taken<\/p>\n
away by the police, and falsely implicated in the instant case,<\/p>\n
then Ranzha, DW1, could not be expected to sit silent.       In<\/p>\n
those circumstances, he was required to send an application to<\/p>\n
the Higher Officers, regarding the false implication of the<\/p>\n
accused.     He could also get the resolution passed, in the<\/p>\n
panchayat, that the accused was taken by the police, in his<\/p>\n
presence, and no recovery of contraband was effected from<\/p>\n
him, but he was falsely implicated. However, he did not do so.<\/p>\n
The recovery was effected in the year 1991, whereas, this<\/p>\n
witness appeared in the Court on 26.11.1997. He slept over<\/p>\n
the matter, for more than six and a half years, and, ultimately,<\/p>\n
came to the Court, to depose that the accused was falsely<\/p>\n
implicated, in the instant case. Mere silence, on his part, for<\/p>\n
such a long time, in itself, was sufficient to disbelieve his<\/p>\n
statement.    The trial Court, was right, in disbelieving his<\/p>\n
statement. This Court after re-appraisal of the evidence of the<\/p>\n
witnesses, also comes to the same conclusion. In this view of<\/p>\n
the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in<\/p>\n
this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same<\/p>\n
stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
15.                 No other point, was urged, by the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
             Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
16.                In view of the above discussion, it<\/p>\n
is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of<\/p>\n
sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the<\/p>\n
correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point.<\/p>\n
The same do not warrant any interference. The same<\/p>\n
are liable to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
17.                For     the    reasons     recorded,<\/p>\n
hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment<\/p>\n
of conviction and the order of sentence, dated<\/p>\n
26.11.1997, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his<\/p>\n
bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance<\/p>\n
with the provisions of law, to comply with the<\/p>\n
judgment, within two months, from the date of receipt<\/p>\n
of a certified copy of the judgment, keeping in view<\/p>\n
the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of<\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
18.          No specific order was passed by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, regarding the confiscation or otherwise of the<\/p>\n
truck. The truck, in question, as per the appellant,<\/p>\n
belongs to his father. The trial Court is directed to<\/p>\n
initiate proceedings, regarding confiscation and
\n                 Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997
\n                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
     submit the compliance report within a period of three<\/p>\n
     months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of<\/p>\n
     the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               (SHAM SUNDER)
\n                                                   JUDGE
\nJuly 23, 2008
\ndinesh\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of … vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 974-SB of 1997 Date of decision. 23.07.2008 Ramzan Mohd. Son of Ibrahim son of Phazaldin age […]<\/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-154958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of ... vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of ... vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-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=\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-21T15:25:28+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of … vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-21T15:25:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3015,\"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\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of ... vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-21T15:25:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of … vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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":"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of ... vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of ... vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-21T15:25:28+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of … vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-21T15:25:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"},"wordCount":3015,"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\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008","name":"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of ... vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-21T15:25:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramzan-mohd-son-of-ibrahim-son-of-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramzan Mohd. Son Of Ibrahim Son Of … vs The State Of Punjab on 23 July, 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\/154958","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=154958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}