{"id":167822,"date":"2009-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-12T02:00:45","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T20:30:45","slug":"harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                                   (1)\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CANDIGARH\n\n\n                           Crl Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005\n\n                                        Date of Decision: 14.1.2009\n\n\nHarbans Lal\n                                                 .......Petitioner.\n                           Vs.\n\nState of Punjab and another\n                                                .......Respondents.\n\nCORAM:        HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.\n\n\nPresent:      Mr.H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate, with\n              Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.\n              Mr. KDS Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1.\n              Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.\n                                ***\n\nDaya Chaudhary, J.\n<\/pre>\n
              The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
for quashing of order (Annexure P-3) whereby sanction for prosecution of<\/p>\n
the petitioner in case FIR No. 54 dated 5.11.2003 under Sections 7\/13(2) 88<\/p>\n
of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda Range,<\/p>\n
Bathinda, has been granted.\n<\/p>\n
              Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the year 2003, petitioner<\/p>\n
Harbans Lal       was working as an Accountant in the Head Post Office,<\/p>\n
Faridkot and was also having charge of Assistant Post Master.                Shri<\/p>\n
R.Prince Narula, respondent No.2, a small savings agent, was also working<\/p>\n
at Faridkot. On the complaint filed by respondent No.2, FIR No. 54 dated<\/p>\n
5.11.2003 was registered under Section 7\/13(2) 88 of Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda for acceptance
\n Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                             (2)<\/p>\n
of Rs.500\/- as bribe from him. The investigation of the case was conducted<\/p>\n
into the allegations against the petitioner by Assistant Superintendent of<\/p>\n
Post Office, Faridkot and the petitioner was found innocent. After<\/p>\n
investigation, the vigilance bureau submitted the case for grant of sanction<\/p>\n
for prosecution of the petitioner. The competent authority after considering<\/p>\n
the record of the investigation as well as departmental inquiry conducted by<\/p>\n
Assistant Superintendent, Post Office Faridkot and inquiry conducted by<\/p>\n
District Magistrate, Faridkot, refused to grant sanction vide order dated<\/p>\n
9.3.2004. Later on, on the basis of another reference made, the competent<\/p>\n
authority vide letter dated 28.7.2004 after consulting the inquiry conducted<\/p>\n
by vigilance department as well as District Magistrate and Assistant<\/p>\n
Superintendent, Post Office, Faridkot, found the petitioner innocent.<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, on the directions of Chief Director, Vigilance<\/p>\n
Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), submitted<\/p>\n
cancellation report before the Sessions Judge, which was not accepted.<\/p>\n
             Ultimately, the Superintendent Post Office, granted sanction<\/p>\n
vide order Annexure P-3, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the<\/p>\n
present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
             Shri H.S.Gill, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has<\/p>\n
challenged the sanction order Annexure P-3 on various grounds. He argued<\/p>\n
that senior officers of the Post Office Department i.e. Assistant<\/p>\n
Superintendent conducted the departmental inquiry into the allegations, and<\/p>\n
found the petitioner innocent and in the inquiry report itself, the petitioner<\/p>\n
was found to be a dedicated worker. It has also been mentioned therein that<\/p>\n
complainant Shri R.Prince Narula is a person of bad character and was<\/p>\n
instrumental in getting wrong things done through the petitioner, which the
\n Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                                (3)<\/p>\n
petitioner refused to do so. It was further argued by Mr. Gill that the<\/p>\n
District Magistrate had got the inquiry conducted into         the allegations<\/p>\n
against the petitioner, but it was found that the petitioner was wrongly<\/p>\n
involved in a false case. The matter was put up before the competent<\/p>\n
authority for grant of sanction which was declined by holding that the<\/p>\n
petitioner has falsely been implicated. Subsequently also, the matter was<\/p>\n
referred to the competent authority for grant of sanction, but the same was<\/p>\n
declined vide order Annexure P-2.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Gill, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued that<\/p>\n
grant of sanction for prosecution in such cases is not simply a formality but<\/p>\n
a statutory function and the said power is to be exercised after thorough<\/p>\n
consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and that power<\/p>\n
once exercised cannot be reviewed by the same or another authority. Mr.<\/p>\n
Gill further argued that the trial Court cannot take cognizance of offence<\/p>\n
without grant of valid sanction by the competent authority and, therefore,<\/p>\n
the proceedings before the trial Court are liable to be quashed.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on<\/p>\n
judgments reported in Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and<\/p>\n
another 2001(2) RCR (Crl.) 58; Mallikarjun Basalinagappa Balipadi<\/p>\n
Vs. State of Karnataka 2005(2) RCR (Crl.) 263; Surjit Singh Vs. State<\/p>\n
of Punjab and others 1980(1) ILR (P&H) 11; and Mohammed Iqbal<\/p>\n
Bhatti Vs. State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR (Crl.) 430.\n<\/p>\n
            Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondents, which are on record.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the State argued that DSP Vigilance<\/p>\n
Bureau investigated the matter in compliance of the order dated 19.11.2004
\n Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                               (4)<\/p>\n
passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot, and sanction was<\/p>\n
accorded for prosecution after perusing the evidence on record.<\/p>\n
            In the written statement filed by respondent No.2, it has been<\/p>\n
averred that the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- from the answering respondent. Learned counsel further argued<\/p>\n
that the departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings are two different<\/p>\n
things and it is for the trial Court to see whether the petitioner has<\/p>\n
committed any offence and is liable to be punished under the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act, 1988 or not.      Moreover, the cancellation report     was<\/p>\n
rejected by the learned Sessions Judge as the vigilance bureau failed to<\/p>\n
produce the complete challan, including the sanction order, and it cannot be<\/p>\n
said that the directions were given by the learned Sessions Judge for grant<\/p>\n
of sanction. Mr. R.K.Girdhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has<\/p>\n
placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court reported in State<\/p>\n
of Karnataka through CBI Vs. C. Nagarajaswamy 2005 AIR (SC) 4308.<\/p>\n
            I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties<\/p>\n
and perused the documents on record.\n<\/p>\n
            It is an admitted fact that vide order dated 9.3.2004 (Annexure<\/p>\n
P-1) no sanction was granted by the respondent and it was specifically<\/p>\n
mentioned in the said order that the petitioner is an innocent and honest<\/p>\n
worker and has falsely been implicated in the case at the instance of<\/p>\n
respondent No.2, who wanted to get his wrong work done forcibly under<\/p>\n
threats, whereas the petitioner refused to do his work. Again vide order<\/p>\n
dated 28.7.2004 (Annexure P-2), the competent authority declined the<\/p>\n
sanction by passing a speaking order.\n<\/p>\n
            The sanction has been accorded vide order Annexure P-3
\n Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                               (5)<\/p>\n
without any further investigation or without there being any material<\/p>\n
collected by the concerned authority.       Section 19 of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act, 1988 prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 7,10,13 and 15 except with the previous sanction<\/p>\n
of the concerned Government. When there is no valid sanction, the Court<\/p>\n
cannot take cognizance of the offence.       Therefore, the FIR         and other<\/p>\n
consequential proceedings, including the sanction order, have to be<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
            In case Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,<\/p>\n
(Crl.Misc.No.825-M of 1996) this Court quashed the order of sanction as<\/p>\n
also the subsequent proceedings. The relevant portion of the judgment is<\/p>\n
reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n
                        ” There is nothing to show that he considered the<\/p>\n
                        earlier rejection order or that any fresh material<\/p>\n
                        was placed before him or that he found sufficient<\/p>\n
                        reasons for rejecting the earlier order declining the<\/p>\n
                        permission    and     for reviewing      it.    In these<\/p>\n
                        circumstances, I am of the view that the Special<\/p>\n
                        Secretary who accorded sanction under Annexure<\/p>\n
                        P-8, has not applied his mind at all to the matter in<\/p>\n
                        question before he accorded the sanction. Had he<\/p>\n
                        applied his mind, then we would find mention in<\/p>\n
                        his order about the earlier rejection and the reasons<\/p>\n
                        for his coming to a different conclusion. Therefore,<\/p>\n
                        I am of the view that the sanction (Annexure P-8)<\/p>\n
                        to prosecute the petitioner is not valid…….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                             (6)<\/p>\n
                         Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,<\/p>\n
                         1988, prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of<\/p>\n
                         offences punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 and<\/p>\n
                         15 except with the previous sanction of the<\/p>\n
                         concerned government. Therefore, when there is<\/p>\n
                         no   valid   sanction,   the   Court   cannot   take<\/p>\n
                         cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the FIR and<\/p>\n
                         the other consequential proceedings including the<\/p>\n
                         sanction order have to be quashed. Even if the<\/p>\n
                         charge sheet has been filed, the position will be the<\/p>\n
                         same since the court cannot take cognizance of the<\/p>\n
                         offence without a valid previous sanction and the<\/p>\n
                         absence of a vlid sanction goes to the root of the<\/p>\n
                         matter affecting the very jurisdiction of the Court<\/p>\n
                         to take cognizance of the offence. In the absence<\/p>\n
                         of a valid sanction, the Court is not only prevented<\/p>\n
                         from taking cognizance of the offence, but it<\/p>\n
                         cannot, also convict the accused and, therefore, no<\/p>\n
                         useful purpose will be served by allowing the FIR<\/p>\n
                         concerned and the consequential proceedings to<\/p>\n
                         continue. Hence this petition has to be allowed.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It has been held that case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid ratio<\/p>\n
as in absence of some fresh material or some technical infirmity, or some<\/p>\n
clerical error, the competent authority had no power to review the earlier<\/p>\n
order on merits.\n<\/p>\n
            The provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
\n Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                             (7)<\/p>\n
Act have also been considered by this Court in case of Hamesh Kumar Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 351. In para No.6 of the judgment, it<\/p>\n
has been observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                “After considering the rival contentions of<\/p>\n
                                the parties, I am of the considered opinion<\/p>\n
                                that no prosecution can be launched against<\/p>\n
                                the petitioner as the investigating agency has<\/p>\n
                                not procured the valid sanction from the<\/p>\n
                                competent authority and that order Annexure<\/p>\n
                                P-16 which has been passed by respondent<\/p>\n
                                No.3 does not give him the power to grant<\/p>\n
                                valid sanction under Section 19 of the<\/p>\n
                                Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 19 of<\/p>\n
                                the Act has been incorporated in the Act<\/p>\n
                                with a laudable purpose to safeguard the<\/p>\n
                                interest of public servants so that these<\/p>\n
                                persons may not be harassed unnecessarily<\/p>\n
                                by unscrupulous litigants. The object of<\/p>\n
                                Section 19 is to secure the interest of a<\/p>\n
                                public servant from vexatious and frivolous<\/p>\n
                                litigation so that the sword of tension may<\/p>\n
                                not hang on his neck for years together. That<\/p>\n
                                is the reason the legislature in its wisdom<\/p>\n
                                has categorized the public servants into three<\/p>\n
                                categories and has ultimately vested these<\/p>\n
                                powers to the Central Government, State
\n Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                               (8)<\/p>\n
                            Government or to the authority competent to<\/p>\n
                            remove a public servant from his office. The<\/p>\n
                            scheme of the Act as I understand is that<\/p>\n
                            after     investigating    the        matter,   the<\/p>\n
                            investigating agency has to place the entire<\/p>\n
                            evidence which has been collected during<\/p>\n
                            the course of investigation including the<\/p>\n
                            documents and the statements of the<\/p>\n
                            witnesses before the competent authority<\/p>\n
                            which is supposed to apply its mind in a<\/p>\n
                            quasi-judicious manner so as to arrive at an<\/p>\n
                            independent conclusion as to whether a<\/p>\n
                            public servant has prima facie committed the<\/p>\n
                            offence or not. Of course, the duty upon the<\/p>\n
                            competent authority is onerous as it is to<\/p>\n
                            formulate an opinion in an unbiased mind.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                            But once it formulates an opinion acting in a<\/p>\n
                            quasi-judicious      manner,           then     the<\/p>\n
                            investigating agency cannot set at naught the<\/p>\n
                            decision    so    taken   by     the     competent<\/p>\n
                            authority, the successor authority cannot<\/p>\n
                            review the order once that power has been<\/p>\n
                            exercised\/discharged      by      a      competent<\/p>\n
                            authority at one point of time……”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In the case of Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others<\/p>\n
AIR 2001 SC 43 the Supreme Court while considering the ambit of the
\n Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                             (9)<\/p>\n
power of review to be exercised by the High Court, observed as follows:<\/p>\n
                               “There is no provision in the Code of<\/p>\n
                   Criminal Procedure authorizing the High Court to review<\/p>\n
                   the judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or<\/p>\n
                   revisional; or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power<\/p>\n
                   cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of<\/p>\n
                   Section 482 Cr.P.C.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             It is clear from the above-said judgments and the position of<\/p>\n
law that power of review can be used for correcting a clerical or arithmetical<\/p>\n
error. It cannot be used to correct an erroneous view that may have been<\/p>\n
taken on the facts of a particular case. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court of India has held that even inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
cannot be exercised by the High Court for reviewing its earlier orders.<\/p>\n
Under the prevention of Corruption Act, there are no residuary or inherent<\/p>\n
powers which are vested with the competent authority to review the orders<\/p>\n
time and again. Once the competent authority        has taken    a conscious<\/p>\n
decision on the basis of the relevant material and for relevant<\/p>\n
considerations, the same would not be open to review. Otherwise, the<\/p>\n
protection   granted to the public servant under Section 19 would be<\/p>\n
rendered nugatory. Once the investigating agency has submitted the entire<\/p>\n
material, it has no further role to play and it is only for the competent<\/p>\n
authority to decide whether the sanction for prosecution is to be given or<\/p>\n
not. In the present case, while exercising power, the competent authority<\/p>\n
had   declined to give sanction twice.      This order cannot be reviewed<\/p>\n
subsequently without any material on the record.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005                           (10)<\/p>\n
            In view of the facts mentioned above, this petition is allowed.<\/p>\n
The impugned order Annexure P-3, FIR No. 54 dated 5.11.2003 under<\/p>\n
Sections 7\/13(2) 88 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P. S.Vigilance Bureau,<\/p>\n
Bathinda Range, Bathinda, and all consequential proceedings arising<\/p>\n
therefrom are hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (Daya Chaudhary)
\n                                                Judge
\nJanuary 14, 2009
\nraghav\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009 Criminal Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CANDIGARH Crl Misc. No. M- 41589 of 2005 Date of Decision: 14.1.2009 Harbans Lal …….Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and another …….Respondents. CORAM: […]<\/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-167822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T20:30:45+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T20:30:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2154,\"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\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T20:30:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T20:30:45+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T20:30:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009"},"wordCount":2154,"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\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009","name":"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T20:30:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harbans-lal-vs-state-of-punjab-and-another-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/167822","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=167822"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167822\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}