{"id":167398,"date":"2008-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-30T17:56:58","modified_gmt":"2019-03-30T12:26:58","slug":"sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                   1\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                        CHANDIGARH\n\n                                            Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998\n                                            Date of Decision : July 30, 2008\n\n\nSat Pal Singh S\/o Raja Ram,                           ...Appellant\nR\/o Village Moonak, District Sangrur.\n\n                                 Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab                                   ....Respondent\n\n                                            Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998\n\nHarwinder Singh S\/o Bant Singh,                       ...Appellant\nR\/o Village Moonak, District Sangrur.\n\n                                 Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab                                   ....Respondent\n\n                                            Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998\n\nSurjit Singh S\/o Raj Singh,                           ...Appellant\nR\/o Village Moonak, District Sangrur.\n\n                                 Versus\n\nThe State of Punjab                                   ....Respondent\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Sr. Advocate, with\n         Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate,\n         for the appellant, in Crl. Appeal No. 73-SB of 1998.\n\n          None for the appellant, in Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998.\n\n          Mr. A.S.Kalra, Advocate,\n          for the appellant, in Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998.\n\n          Mr. S.S.Bhullar, DAG, Punjab,\n          for the respondent, in all the appeals.\n\n\nSHAM SUNDER, J.\n<\/pre>\n
          This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.73-SB of 1998,
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                               2<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
filed by Sat Pal Singh, Criminal Appeal No.87-SB of 1998, filed by Harwinder<\/p>\n
Singh, and Criminal Appeal No.167-SB of 1998, filed by Surjit Singh, accused<\/p>\n
(now appellants), arising out of the judgment of conviction, and the order of<\/p>\n
sentence dated 16.1.1998, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Sangrur, vide which it convicted Surjit Singh and Sat Pal Singh,<\/p>\n
accused\/appellants, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 and Harwinder<\/p>\n
Singh, accused\/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 25 of the<\/p>\n
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the<\/p>\n
Act’ only) and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period<\/p>\n
of ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment<\/p>\n
of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of two years<\/p>\n
each.\n<\/p>\n
2.        The facts, in brief, are that on 16.1.1996, Chanan Singh, ASI,<\/p>\n
alongwith other police officials, was going to village Rampur, in connection<\/p>\n
with patrol duty, and when the police reached, at a distance of half kilometer<\/p>\n
from village Rampur, towards village Kundni, one Eicher Tractor, bearing<\/p>\n
Registration No.PB-11-4451, came from the side of village Kundni. It was<\/p>\n
signalled to stop. Surjit Singh, accused, was driving the Tractor, and Sat Pal<\/p>\n
Singh, accused, was sitting, in the trolley. They tried to run away, but were<\/p>\n
apprehended, on suspicion. The search of the Tractor-Trolley, was conducted,<\/p>\n
in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof, four gunny bags,<\/p>\n
containing poppy-husk were recovered.        Three gunny bags were found<\/p>\n
containing 34 Kgs. 500 grams poppy-husk each, whereas, the fourth gunny bag<\/p>\n
was found containing 15 Kgs. Poppy-husk Two samples of 250 grams were<\/p>\n
taken out, of each bag, and the remaining poppy-husk, was put into the same<\/p>\n
bags. The samples, and the bags, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were<\/p>\n
converted into parcels, duly sealed with the seals, and taken into possession,
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                 3<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
vide a separate recovery memo, alongwith the Tractor Trolley. Ruqa was sent<\/p>\n
to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. Rough<\/p>\n
site plan of the place of recovery, with correct marginal notes, was prepared.<\/p>\n
The accused were arrested. On 2.2.1996, Harwinder Singh, accused, owner of<\/p>\n
the Tractor Trolley, aforesaid, was arrested.          After the completion of<\/p>\n
investigation, the accused were challaned.\n<\/p>\n
3.          On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon<\/p>\n
by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of<\/p>\n
the Act, was framed against Surjit Singh and Sat Pal Singh, and charge under<\/p>\n
Section 25 of the Act, was framed against Harwinder Singh, accused, to which<\/p>\n
they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.          The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Gurmail Singh, HC<\/p>\n
(PW-1), Chanan Singh, ASI (PW-2), Ram Parkash, Inspector (PW-3), Karnail<\/p>\n
Singh, Constable (PW-4), Surinder Kumar, MHC (PW-5), and Gurdial Singh,<\/p>\n
(PW-6).     Thereafter, the Addl. P.P. for the State, closed the prosecution<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.          The statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were<\/p>\n
recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing<\/p>\n
against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication.<\/p>\n
6.          It was stated by Surjit Singh, accused, in his statement, recorded<\/p>\n
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that there the Sarpanch of Surjan Bhaini, was<\/p>\n
murdered, his co-accused Sat Pal was arrested, in that case, who was produced<\/p>\n
by the Sarpanch of Village Fatehpur, and at that time Mohinder Singh, Ex-<\/p>\n
Sarpanch, Balran, Harnek Singh, Sarpanch of Gehlan, and Major Singh were<\/p>\n
present. He further stated that Major Singh was also in police custody. He<\/p>\n
further stated that Sat Pal was a servant of Major Singh, while he was a servant<\/p>\n
of Kundan Singh, Moonak Wala. He further stated that he had a dispute with
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                 4<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
him, and, thus, was falsely implicated, in the instant case, at the instance of<\/p>\n
Kundan Singh.\n<\/p>\n
7.         Sat Pal, accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., also took up the same plea.\n<\/p>\n
8.         Harwinder Singh, accused, in his statement, recorded under Section<\/p>\n
313 Cr.P.C. stated that affidavit dated 16.11.1995 had been procured by Chanan<\/p>\n
Singh, ASI, to falsely implicate him, in the present case. He further stated that<\/p>\n
in fact, the Tractor was purchased by him, from Gurdial Singh etc. on<\/p>\n
22.1.1996, and, thereafter, he had obtained it on sapurdari, from the Court at<\/p>\n
Sunam.    He further stated that the Tractor involved, in this case, was<\/p>\n
transferred, in his name on 11.12.1996.\n<\/p>\n
9.         The accused, however, examined Boria Singh (DW-1), Dharminder<\/p>\n
Singh (DW-2), and Mohinder Singh (DW-3), in their defence. Thereafter, they<\/p>\n
closed their defence evidence.\n<\/p>\n
10.        After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court,<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced the accused\/appellants, as stated hereinbefore.<\/p>\n
11.        Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order<\/p>\n
of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeals, were filed by the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellants.\n<\/p>\n
12.        Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Deepak Garg,<\/p>\n
Advocate, came present, in Criminal Appeal No.87-SB of 1998, and submitted<\/p>\n
that earlier he was the Counsel, on behalf of the appellant, in this appeal, but<\/p>\n
later on, the appellant took away the brief, from his office. Since, the appellant<\/p>\n
was released on bail, in this case, and also engaged Counsel, though he took<\/p>\n
away the brief from him, it could be said that he had a due notice, regarding the<\/p>\n
fixation of appeal, for final hearing. Under these circumstances, no alternative
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                   5<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
was left with the Court, than to peruse the record, the evidence, judgment of the<\/p>\n
trial Court, hear the Counsel for the appellants, in two other appeals, as well as<\/p>\n
the Counsel for the respondent, and decide the appeal, on merits, as per the ratio<\/p>\n
of law, laid down, in Dharampal Vs. State of U.P. 2008 (1) Law Herald (SC)<\/p>\n
225.<\/p>\n
13.        I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, in Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeals No.73-SB of 1998 and 167-SB of 1998, the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent, in all the appeals, and have gone through the evidence and record,<\/p>\n
of the case, carefully.\n<\/p>\n
14.        The Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal, appellants, at the very<\/p>\n
outset, contended that the prosecution failed to prove the conscious possession<\/p>\n
of these appellants, in respect of poppy-husk, referred to above. They further<\/p>\n
submitted that the mere fact that one of them, was allegedly driving the Tractor-<\/p>\n
Trolley, and the other was allegedly sitting therein, did not mean that they were<\/p>\n
in conscious possession of the contraband. It may be stated here that, as many<\/p>\n
as, four bags, out of which three containing 34 Kgs. and 500 grams poppy-husk<\/p>\n
each, and the fourth bag containing 15 Kgs. 500 grams poppy-husk, were lying<\/p>\n
in the tractor trolley. It was a big quantity of poppy-husk, which was being<\/p>\n
carried in the tractory-trolley. It, therefore, could not be said that Surjit Singh,<\/p>\n
driver of the same, and Sat Pal, who was sitting in the trolley, were not aware of<\/p>\n
the existence of bags, containing poppy-husk, in the said tractor- trolley. They<\/p>\n
were having special means of knowledge, as to how, and, under what<\/p>\n
circumstances, these bags containing poppy-husk, were lying in the trolley.<\/p>\n
They were, thus, found in possession of the bags, containing poppy-husk. Once<\/p>\n
the possession of the accused, and their control over the contraband was proved,<\/p>\n
then statutory presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, operated<\/p>\n
against them, that they were in conscious possession thereof. Thereafter, it was
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                  6<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
for them, to rebut the statutory presumption, by leading cogent and convincing<\/p>\n
evidence.    However, the appellants failed to rebut that presumption, either<\/p>\n
during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by<\/p>\n
leading defence evidence. In these circumstances, the trial Court was right, in<\/p>\n
holding that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. Section 54 of<\/p>\n
the Act ibid reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                      “Presumption from possession of illicit articles:- In trials<\/p>\n
                      under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the<\/p>\n
                      contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an<\/p>\n
                      offence under this Act, in respect of:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      a)         any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or\n\n                      controlled substance;\n\n                      b)         any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant\n\n                      growing on any land which he has cultivated;\n\n                      c)         any apparatus specially designed or any group\n\n<\/pre>\n
                      of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any<\/p>\n
                      narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controller<\/p>\n
                      substance; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      d)         any materials which have undergone any<\/p>\n
                      process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or<\/p>\n
                      psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any<\/p>\n
                      residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug<\/p>\n
                      or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has<\/p>\n
                      been manufactured,<\/p>\n
                      for the possession of which he fails to account<\/p>\n
                      satisfactorily.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14-A.       Section 35 which relates to the presumption of culpable mental state,
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                  7<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
is extracted as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                       “Presumption of culpable mental state:-       (1)   In any<\/p>\n
                       prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires<\/p>\n
                       a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall<\/p>\n
                       presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be<\/p>\n
                       a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no<\/p>\n
                       such mental state with respect to the act charged as an<\/p>\n
                       offence in that prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                       Explanation:-    In this section “culpable mental state”<\/p>\n
                       includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief<\/p>\n
                       in, or reason to believe, a fact.\n<\/p>\n
                       (2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be<\/p>\n
                       proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a<\/p>\n
                       reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is<\/p>\n
                       established by a preponderance of probability.”\n<\/p>\n
14-B.      From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 54 and 35,<\/p>\n
referred to hereinbefore, it becomes abundantly clear, that once an accused, is<\/p>\n
found to be in possession of a contraband, he is presumed to have committed<\/p>\n
the offence, under the relevant provisions of the Act, until the contrary is<\/p>\n
proved. According to Section 35 of the Act ibid, the Court shall presume the<\/p>\n
existence of mental state, for the commission of an offence, and it is for the<\/p>\n
accused to prove otherwise. In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H. P.<\/p>\n
2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                     The word “conscious” means awareness about a
\n                     particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or
\n                     intended.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 Once possession is established, the person who
\n                     claims that it was not a conscious possession has to
\n                     establish it, because how he came to be in possession is
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                 8<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
                    within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a
\n                    statutory recognition of this position because of the
\n                    presumption available in law. Similar is the position in
\n                    terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to
\n                    be drawn from possession of illicit articles.”\n<\/p>\n
15.        The facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra) in brief, were that accused<\/p>\n
Manjit Singh was driving the Car, and the remaining four accused, were sitting<\/p>\n
therein. One steel container (dolu) in a black coloured bag, was recovered from<\/p>\n
the said Car, which contained 820 gms. charas. All the accused were convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced by the trial Court, holding that they were found in conscious<\/p>\n
possession of charas, despite the fact, that one of the accused, admitted his<\/p>\n
conscious possession, of the contraband. The Apex Court held that the trial<\/p>\n
Court was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were found in<\/p>\n
conscious possession of charas, as they had failed to explain, as to how they<\/p>\n
were travelling in a Car together, which was not a public vehicle. The Apex<\/p>\n
Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In the instant<\/p>\n
case, the accused failed to explain, as to how, four bags, containing poppy-husk<\/p>\n
were found in the tractor trolley, which was being driven by one of them. The<\/p>\n
facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra) are similar and identical to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case. The principle of law, laid down, in Madan Lal’s case (supra) is<\/p>\n
fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, in their<\/p>\n
statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused\/appellants took up the plea,<\/p>\n
only of false implication. As stated above, the accused, thus, miserably failed to<\/p>\n
rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above.      Thus,   their conscious<\/p>\n
possession, in respect of the contraband, was proved, and, as such, the<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and<\/p>\n
the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
16.        The Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal, appellants, however,
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                   9<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR (Criminal)<\/p>\n
300 (D.B.) (P&H), and Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(1) PLR 425<\/p>\n
(F.B.) (P&H), to contend that the conscious possession of poppy-husk, lying in<\/p>\n
the tractor trolley, in respect of these accused, was not proved. It may be stated<\/p>\n
here that, in both these cases, Madan Lal’s case (supra), decided by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court, was not adverted to. The facts of Madan Lal’s case (supra), as stated<\/p>\n
above, are completely identical to the facts, of the instant case. It was for the<\/p>\n
accused to explain, as to how, they were found travelling in the same tractor<\/p>\n
trolley, in which, four bags, containing poppy-husk, were lying.           Sat Pal,<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant did not take up the plea that he was merely a passenger, and<\/p>\n
took lift for going to a particular place. He also did not take up the plea, that he<\/p>\n
was merely a labourer, engaged for loading and unloading the bags, and, as<\/p>\n
such, was not in conscious possession of the poppy-husk. Surjit Singh, driver,<\/p>\n
of the Tractor trolley also did not take up the plea, that he was merely driving<\/p>\n
the same, on the directions of the owner, namely Harwinder Singh,<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant. He also did not take up the plea, that the bags, containing<\/p>\n
poppy-husk, actually belonged to Harwinder Singh, accused\/appellant, on<\/p>\n
whose directions, he was carrying the same, and he did not know, as to what<\/p>\n
was contained therein.    In view of the principle of law, laid down, in Madan<\/p>\n
Lal’s case (supra), decided by the Apex Court, the principle of law, laid down,<\/p>\n
to the contrary in Tarsem Singh’s and Mohan Singh’s cases (supra), decided<\/p>\n
by this Court, shall not hold the field. In this view of the matter, the submission<\/p>\n
of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same<\/p>\n
stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
17.        It was next submitted by the Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal,<\/p>\n
appellants, that no independent witness, was joined, despite availability, and, as<\/p>\n
such, the case of the prosecution, became doubtful. It may be stated here, that it
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                    10<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
was a chance recovery. No secret information had been received, against the<\/p>\n
accused, that they were bringing poppy-husk, in the tractor trolley. There is<\/p>\n
nothing, on the record, that at the time of recovery, any independent witness,<\/p>\n
was available, at the spot, but was not deliberately joined. It was, under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, that no independent witness, could be joined. It is settled<\/p>\n
principle of law, that the evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be distrusted<\/p>\n
and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status. Their evidence, is as<\/p>\n
good, as that of any other independent witness. In the face of the evidence of<\/p>\n
the official witnesses only, the Court is required to scrutinize the same, carefully<\/p>\n
and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny, if the Court comes to the<\/p>\n
conclusion, that the same does not suffer from any serious infirmity, the same<\/p>\n
can be believed. The evidence of the official witnesses, in the instant case, has<\/p>\n
been subjected to indepth scrutiny, and nothing came to the fore, which may go<\/p>\n
to discredit the same. In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297<\/p>\n
(S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled that the evidence of search or<\/p>\n
seizure, made by the police, will not become vitiated, solely for the reason that<\/p>\n
the same was not supported by an independent witness. In State of NCT of<\/p>\n
Delhi Vs. Sunil (2000)I S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:-<\/p>\n
              “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer, should<\/p>\n
              be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing<\/p>\n
              at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the<\/p>\n
              Police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption<\/p>\n
              that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of<\/p>\n
              law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official<\/p>\n
              acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise<\/p>\n
              principle   of   presumption     and   recognized    even    by   the<\/p>\n
              Legislature.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
17-A.      In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it<\/p>\n
was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an<\/p>\n
independent witness had not been examined, by the prosecution. It was further<\/p>\n
held, in the said authority, that the civilized people, are generally insensitive,<\/p>\n
when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the<\/p>\n
victims’ side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away<\/p>\n
from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a<\/p>\n
civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves, in it.<\/p>\n
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable<\/p>\n
to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, mere non-joining of an<\/p>\n
independent witness, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has been<\/p>\n
held to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and reliable, and there was no<\/p>\n
reason, on their part to falsely implicate the accused, no doubt, is cast on the<\/p>\n
prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
18.         It was next submitted by the Counsel for Surjit Singh and Sat Pal,<\/p>\n
appellants, that the link evidence was missing. They further submitted that<\/p>\n
according to Chanan Singh, ASI (PW-2), the Investigating Officer, the SHO<\/p>\n
deposited the case property, and the sample parcels, with the MHC, whereas,<\/p>\n
Ram Parkash, Inspector (PW-3), stated that it was Chanan Singh, ASI, who<\/p>\n
deposited the case property with the MHC. Surinder Kumar, MHC, however,<\/p>\n
stated that it was Chanan Singh, ASI, who deposited the case property, with<\/p>\n
him. He further stated that Chanan Singh, ASI, produced the case property,<\/p>\n
sample parcels, and the accused, before the SHO. He further stated that the<\/p>\n
SHO verified the same. Chanan Singh was also posted in the same Police<\/p>\n
Station, in which the SHO was posted. The case property, apparently was<\/p>\n
deposited by Chanan Singh, ASI, in the presence of the SHO, with the MHC. It
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                   12<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
was, under these circumstances, that such a discrepancy occurred. However,<\/p>\n
this discrepancy did not, in any way, prove the non-completion of the link<\/p>\n
evidence, as there is sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution, to the<\/p>\n
effect, that none tampered with the sample parcels, till the same reached the<\/p>\n
office of the Chemical Examiner. The link evidence was, therefore, complete.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must<\/p>\n
fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
19.        The next limb of the argument of the Counsel for the appellants, that<\/p>\n
the link evidence was incomplete, was to the effect, that the seals remained with<\/p>\n
the subordinate officials, after use, and, as such, the chances of tampering with<\/p>\n
the case property could not be ruled out. They placed reliance on State of<\/p>\n
Punjab Vs. Nachhattar Singh @ Bania 2007(3) RCR (Criminal)1040, in this<\/p>\n
regard. The mere fact that the seals were handed over to the subordinate<\/p>\n
officials, could not be said to be sufficient, to entertain a doubt, that the sample<\/p>\n
parcels were tampered with, at any stage.        The evidence produced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution, in this case, is cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy. From<\/p>\n
the evidence, it was proved, that none tampered with the sample parcels, till the<\/p>\n
same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. Above all, there is report<\/p>\n
of the Chemical Examiner, to the effect, that the seals, on the exhibits, were<\/p>\n
intact, on arrival, and agreed with the specimen seals sent. The link evidence,<\/p>\n
was, therefore, complete. In Piara Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1982 C.L.R.<\/p>\n
(2) 447, a case decided by a Full Bench of this Court, the seal affixed on the<\/p>\n
sample of illicit liquor, recovered from the accused, was not entrusted to an<\/p>\n
independent person forthwith.         Similarly, the independent person, though<\/p>\n
entrusted with the seal, by the Investigating Officer, later on, was not produced<\/p>\n
as a witness. In these circumstances, it was held that this fact alone, was not<\/p>\n
sufficient to affect the merits of the trial, and the prosecution case, could not be
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                   13<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
thrown out, on that score alone. It was further held, in this case, that it was not<\/p>\n
incumbent upon the Police Officer, to hand over the seal, to a third person<\/p>\n
forthwith, and even, in cases, where he had done so, it was not obligatory for<\/p>\n
him, to produce such person, as a witness, during trial, as there was no statutory<\/p>\n
requirement, whatsoever, to this effect. The principle of law, laid down, in the<\/p>\n
aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view<\/p>\n
of the principle of law, laid down, in Piara Singh’s case (supra), decided by a<\/p>\n
Full Bench of this Court, the principle of law, laid down in State of Punjab’s<\/p>\n
case (supra), decided by a Division Bench, on the same point, to the contrary,<\/p>\n
shall not hold the field.    No help, therefore, from State of Punjab’s case<\/p>\n
(supra), can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellants. Non-entrustment of<\/p>\n
seal to an independent witness, by the Investigating Officer, as none could be<\/p>\n
joined, in view of the cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy evidence,<\/p>\n
produced by the prosecution, regarding the completion of link evidence, did not<\/p>\n
at all affect the merits of the case. In this view of the matter, the finding of the<\/p>\n
trial Court, is endorsed.\n<\/p>\n
20.        Now coming to the appeal of Harwinder Singh, appellant, it may be<\/p>\n
stated here, that one of the grounds, taken up by him, in the grounds of appeal,<\/p>\n
was that he was not the owner of the tractor-trolley, on the date, when the<\/p>\n
alleged recovery was effected, and, as such, could not be held guilty for the<\/p>\n
offence, punishable under Section 25 of the Act. It may be stated here, that this<\/p>\n
ground taken up in the grounds of appeal, by this appellant, does not appear to<\/p>\n
be correct. Gurdial Singh (PW-6), was the earlier joint owner of the tractor,<\/p>\n
with Balwinder Singh. It was stated by him, that they had sold the tractor to<\/p>\n
Harwinder Singh S\/o Bant Singh R\/o Moonak, and gave affidavit, Ex.PK. This<\/p>\n
affidavit is dated 16.11.1995. In relation to the sale of movable property, the<\/p>\n
element of receipt of consideration, by the vendor, and delivery of possession of
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                    14<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
the property, to the vendee, is sufficient to complete the sale. The affidavit<\/p>\n
dated 16.11.1995, clearly proved that the tractor-trolley, was sold to Harwinder<\/p>\n
Singh by Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh, who were the joint owner thereof<\/p>\n
earlier. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statement of Gurdial<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-6), and the affidavit, Ex.PK, dated 16.11.1995, in this regard. The<\/p>\n
recovery, in this case, was effected on 16.1.1996. It means that Harwinder<\/p>\n
Singh, accused, was the owner of the tractor-trolley, much earlier to the date of<\/p>\n
recovery. This ground, therefore, does not hold good, and stands rejected.<\/p>\n
21.        The next ground taken up, by Harwinder Singh, appellant, in the<\/p>\n
memorandum of appeal, was to the effect, that the prosecution miserably failed<\/p>\n
to prove that he knowingly permitted the use of the Tractor trolley for<\/p>\n
transporting poppy-husk, and, as such, he did not commit any offence,<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 25 of the Act. It is not that the prosecution is required<\/p>\n
to produce only the direct evidence, to the effect, that the owner knowingly<\/p>\n
permitted the use of the vehicle for transporting the contraband. From the<\/p>\n
circumstancial evidence also, such an inference can be drawn, by the Court. It<\/p>\n
may be stated here, that Harwinder Singh, himself took the Tractor on sapurdari,<\/p>\n
on the basis of the affidavit Ex.PK, dated 16.11.1995. When Harwinder Singh,<\/p>\n
was the owner of the tractor, it was for him, to explain, as to under what<\/p>\n
circumstances it came into the possession of Sat Pal and Surjit Singh, accused.<\/p>\n
There is no doucment, on the record, that Sat Pal and Surjit Singh, accused, had<\/p>\n
taken tractor, on payment, of hire charges, and, as such, Harwinder Singh, did<\/p>\n
not know as to whethere the tractor, in question, was being used for transporting<\/p>\n
the contraband.    The provisions of Section 35 of the Act, relating to the<\/p>\n
presumption    of culpable mental state of the accused, have been extracted<\/p>\n
above. The culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a<\/p>\n
fact, and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. It is evident, from the provisions
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                   15<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
of Section 35 that, in any prosecution, for an offence, under this Act, which<\/p>\n
requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the<\/p>\n
existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove<\/p>\n
the fact that he had no such mental state, with respect to the act, charged, as an<\/p>\n
offence, in that prosecution. Once the offence was committed under the Act,<\/p>\n
for being found in conscious possession of the contraband, referred to above, by<\/p>\n
Sat Pal and Surjit Singh, accused, culpable mental state of Harwinder Singh,<\/p>\n
accused, stood proved, that he knowingly permitted the use of the tractor trolley<\/p>\n
by both these accused, for carrying the contraband. No evidence, whatsoever,<\/p>\n
was led by him, to rebut this statutory presumption, that, in fact, the tractor<\/p>\n
trolley was being used for carrying the contraband, without his knowledge, or<\/p>\n
that he did not permit the use thereof, for this purpose. This ground, therefore,<\/p>\n
does not hold good, and the same stand rejected.\n<\/p>\n
22.        No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
23.        In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on<\/p>\n
the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not<\/p>\n
warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.<\/p>\n
24.        For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, all the three appeals, referred<\/p>\n
to hereinbefore, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of<\/p>\n
sentence dated 16.1.1998, are upheld. If the appellants are on bail, their bail<\/p>\n
bonds, shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, shall take<\/p>\n
necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in<\/p>\n
view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure. Compliance report be sent within two months.<\/p>\n
25.        It is evident, from the judgment of the trial Court, that it ordered that<\/p>\n
separate proceedings, regarding the confiscation of tractor-trolley be started.
\n Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998                                                 16<\/span>
\nCrl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998
\nCrl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998<\/p>\n
The trial Court is directed to complete the same, if already not completed, and<\/p>\n
send compliance report, within three months, that the tractor-trolley has actually<\/p>\n
been confiscated, subject, however, to the happening of any supervening events.<\/p>\n
July 30, 2008                                          (SHAM SUNDER)\nVimal                                                      JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008 Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 1 Crl. Appeal No.87-SB of 1998 Crl. Appeal No.167-SB of 1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.73-SB of 1998 Date of Decision : July 30, 2008 Sat Pal […]<\/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-167398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 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\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-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=\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-30T12:26:58+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-30T12:26:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4727,\"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\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-30T12:26:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 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":"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 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\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-30T12:26:58+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-30T12:26:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008"},"wordCount":4727,"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\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008","name":"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-30T12:26:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sat Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 30 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\/167398","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=167398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}