{"id":172814,"date":"2009-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-29T07:52:06","modified_gmt":"2017-09-29T02:22:06","slug":"samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                            JODHPUR.\n\n\n                             O R D E R\n\n\n\n    Samrath Singh             v.       State of Rajasthan & Anr.\n\n\n\n               S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8249\/2007\n               under Article 226 of the Constitution\n               of India.\n\n\n\n    Date of Order             ::             30th September, 2009\n\n\n\n                           P R E S E N T\n\n                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR\n\n\n    Mr. PP Choudhary, for the petitioner.\n    Mr. GR Kalla, for the respondents.\n\n                               ....\n\n\n    BY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
REPORTABLE<\/p>\n
               The petitioner, an Additional Block Primary<\/p>\n
    Education Officer, was trapped for alleged involvement<\/p>\n
    in corrupt practices and, therefore, a criminal case<\/p>\n
    was registered against him for the offences punishable<\/p>\n
    under    different   provisions     of   the   Prevention   of<\/p>\n
    Corruption Act, 1988. He was also arrested and was<\/p>\n
    kept in judicial custody for a period of more than 48<\/p>\n
    hours. The incident of trap occurred in the month of<\/p>\n
    April, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
               The      Commissioner,                 Secondary           Eduction,<\/p>\n
Government       of    Rajasthan,              Bikaner,      while    exercising<\/p>\n
powers under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services<\/p>\n
(Classification,          Control              &     Appeal)       Rules,      1958<\/p>\n
(hereinafter         referred       to         as    “the    Rules    of     1958”)<\/p>\n
passed     the        order        dated           11.10.2007      placing        the<\/p>\n
petitioner       under         suspension             w.e.f.       3.4.2007.      To<\/p>\n
question       validity        of     the           order       aforesaid,     this<\/p>\n
petition for writ is preferred on following grounds:-<\/p>\n
(1)      the     order    impugned             is     bad    being    passed      in<\/p>\n
         mechanical exercise of powers; and<\/p>\n
(2)      the      order        placing              the     petitioner        under<\/p>\n
         suspension           is     bad            being       essentially       an<\/p>\n
         administrative order, that could have not been<\/p>\n
         passed with retrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               As per counsel for the petitioner, the order<\/p>\n
impugned placing the petitioner under suspension was<\/p>\n
passed without examining the need to do so. It is<\/p>\n
asserted       that      the       suspension             though     is     not    a<\/p>\n
punishment but is required to be effected with due<\/p>\n
caution and vigilance and a civil servant could not be<\/p>\n
placed    under       suspension         without          due    application      of<\/p>\n
mind and without examining the need to do so. Reliance<\/p>\n
is    placed     by     counsel       for           the   petitioner       upon    a
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Dashora<\/p>\n
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition<\/p>\n
No.473\/2007,<\/a>       decided      on    29.4.2008,        holding   therein<\/p>\n
that “in every case, where the government servant is<\/p>\n
facing    trial       for     criminal       charges,    including       the<\/p>\n
charges relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act,<\/p>\n
suspension       is    not    must.       The    competent     authority,<\/p>\n
before    placing      an     incumbent      under    suspension,       must<\/p>\n
consider its necessity. The unwarranted suspension of<\/p>\n
a government servant not only deprives the employer<\/p>\n
from utilizing his services but also put a burden on<\/p>\n
public    fund    in    the    form    of    payment     of   subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance. The Government must review the suspension<\/p>\n
of the government servant time to time, and if it is<\/p>\n
found that the suspension is not required, it should<\/p>\n
be revoked.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The argument is also substantiated by the law<\/p>\n
laid down by this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in<\/p>\n
Vishnu    Kumar       Gupta    v.    State      of   Rajasthan    &   Ors.,<\/p>\n
SBCivil     Writ       Petition       No.5350\/2006,<\/a>           decided    on<\/p>\n
23.1.2009, laying down therein that “when there is no<\/p>\n
allegation against petitioners that they had in any<\/p>\n
manner at all delayed the progress in criminal case or<\/p>\n
their continuance under suspension is requisite for a<\/p>\n
fair trial of criminal case pending against them and<\/p>\n
more-so there is no departmental proceeding initiated<\/p>\n
against them while at the same time, the authority has<\/p>\n
failed to exercise its powers U\/r 13(5) of the CCA
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
Rules to review its decision for sufficient long time<\/p>\n
of     4    &     half       years     having        elapsed       by      now     and<\/p>\n
petitioners            are        continuously            attending        criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings in court concerned where they have been<\/p>\n
requesting not to adjourn the case for one or the<\/p>\n
other reason but where after challan being filed long<\/p>\n
back on 06\/05\/06, charges have not yet been framed,<\/p>\n
there appears to be no reasonable justification from<\/p>\n
any angle which may considerably require to continue<\/p>\n
their suspension any further.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 By placing reliance upon the judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court in Chandan Mal Nawal v. State of Rajasthan &<\/p>\n
Anr., reported in RLR 1987(1) 47, it is also argued<\/p>\n
that       the   order       of    suspension        is     an   administrative<\/p>\n
order and no effect to that could have been given<\/p>\n
retrospectively.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 In reply, the stand of the respondents is<\/p>\n
that       as    per   Rule       13(2)       of    the    Rules      of    1958    a<\/p>\n
government servant who is detained in custody whether<\/p>\n
on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period of<\/p>\n
exceeding         48   hours,        shall     be    deemed      to     have     been<\/p>\n
suspended with effect from the date of detention, by<\/p>\n
an     order      of     the      authority         competent      to      place    a<\/p>\n
government servant under suspension and shall remain<\/p>\n
under suspension until further orders. In view of the<\/p>\n
provision aforesaid the petitioner as a matter of fact<\/p>\n
was facing suspension since remaining under judicial
\n                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
custody for a term beyond 48 hours. It is also stated<\/p>\n
that    the    Government       of    Rajasthan        vide       its    circular<\/p>\n
dated 11.10.2007 instructed that if a civil servant is<\/p>\n
caught    red-handed          while      taking       bribe       by    the     anti<\/p>\n
corruption          bureau,     he       should        be        placed        under<\/p>\n
suspension without any exception and the petitioner<\/p>\n
was placed under suspension as per the thrust of the<\/p>\n
circular aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               I have considered rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
               Precisely the issue deserves consideration in<\/p>\n
the    instant       matter    is     that       whether         the    competent<\/p>\n
authority       under   Rule     13       of    the    Rules       of    1958       is<\/p>\n
mandatorily         required    to       place    a    government            servant<\/p>\n
under suspension on lodging a case for the offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act or the<\/p>\n
competent       authority      is     required        to    apply       its     mind<\/p>\n
objectively before taking any such action?<\/p>\n
               In    general         sense       suspension            means,       a<\/p>\n
temporary deprivation of the employee’s functions or<\/p>\n
right    to    discharge       his       duties,      but     that      does       not<\/p>\n
amount    to    lower    down       or       reduction      of    his     rank      or<\/p>\n
status.       Such   employee,        though      continuous            to    be    in<\/p>\n
employment but he is not permitted to work and is paid<\/p>\n
only a subsistence allowance which is less than salary<\/p>\n
and    other    admissible       allowances           for   which        he    would<\/p>\n
have been entitled in normal course. The suspension is
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
an interlocutory disciplinary measure to ensure free<\/p>\n
and fair conduct of the inquiry or the prosecution, as<\/p>\n
the case may be. It would be appropriate to place a<\/p>\n
person under suspension if, (i)his continuance to the<\/p>\n
office is likely to prejudice inquiry, investigation<\/p>\n
or trial; or (ii)where his continuance in office is<\/p>\n
likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office<\/p>\n
concerned; (iii)where his continuance in the office<\/p>\n
will be against the wider public interest; (iv)where a<\/p>\n
prima   facie    case   is     found    to   initiate    criminal\/<\/p>\n
departmental proceedings which are likely to lead to<\/p>\n
his conviction and\/or dismissal, removal or compulsory<\/p>\n
retirement from service; or (v)where he is suspected<\/p>\n
to have engaged himself in activities prejudicial to<\/p>\n
the interest of the security of the State.<\/p>\n
          Beside      the    above   general      eventualities,   a<\/p>\n
public servant may also be suspended for misdemeanor<\/p>\n
like;   (i)     an   offence    or     conduct    involving     moral<\/p>\n
turpitude;       (ii)       corruption,          embezzlement      or<\/p>\n
misappropriation of the government funds, possession<\/p>\n
of disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers;<\/p>\n
(iii) serious negligence in discharging duty resulting<\/p>\n
in considerable loss to the government or public at<\/p>\n
large; (iv) desertion from duty; or (v) refusal or<\/p>\n
deliberate failure to carry out return or other just<\/p>\n
orders of the superior officers.\n<\/p>\n
                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
              The concept of suspension during the inquiry<\/p>\n
or    trial   is    an    important             and    larger       objective      of<\/p>\n
ensuring free and fair conduct of proceedings. Where<\/p>\n
serious allegations of misconduct are imputed or the<\/p>\n
employee is undergoing trial for the grave charges, it<\/p>\n
may   be   undesirable       in       the        interest       of    service      to<\/p>\n
continue      him   on     the     post.         In     such    circumstances,<\/p>\n
suspension is a mode for fair and free inquiry as<\/p>\n
otherwise     it    would    be       difficult          to    facilitate        free<\/p>\n
investigation. However, in every case of suspension<\/p>\n
its desirability is required to be examined by the<\/p>\n
competent      authority         by        taking        into       consideration<\/p>\n
existing      facts.      Although             the    suspension       is    not    a<\/p>\n
punishment specified, an order of suspension is not<\/p>\n
required to be passed lightly or mandatorily in every<\/p>\n
case of the circumstances referred above. Suspension<\/p>\n
is not required to be resorted unless the allegations<\/p>\n
against government servant are so serious that those<\/p>\n
shakes     public        confidence            in     governance,       if       such<\/p>\n
employee      is    permitted         to       continue        in    office      till<\/p>\n
establishment       of     his     innocence.            Before       placing      an<\/p>\n
incumbent under suspension, various eventualities are<\/p>\n
required      to    be     taken       into           consideration         by   the<\/p>\n
competent authority.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              With the conceptual philosophy of suspension<\/p>\n
as discussed above its application under Rule 13 of<\/p>\n
the Rules of 1958 is required to be examined. As per<\/p>\n
Rule 13-\n<\/p>\n
                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
“1.the Appointing Authority or any authority to which<\/p>\n
it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by<\/p>\n
the Government in that behalf may place a Government<\/p>\n
Servant under suspension:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(a)    where    a       disciplinary      proceeding           against      him    is<\/p>\n
contemplated or is pending, or<\/p>\n
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal<\/p>\n
offence    is       under    investigation           or    trial       :   Provided<\/p>\n
that    where       the    order     of       suspension       is    made    by    an<\/p>\n
authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such<\/p>\n
authority       shall       forthwith         report      to   the     Appointing<\/p>\n
Authority      the       circumstances          in   which       the      order   was<\/p>\n
made. [Government of Rajasthan’s Decision–In exercise<\/p>\n
of the powers conferred by sub-rule(1) of Rule 13 of<\/p>\n
the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control<\/p>\n
&   Appeal)     Rules,       1958     the       State     Government         hereby<\/p>\n
empowers the authority competent to impose any one of<\/p>\n
the minor penalties specified in Rule 14 of the said<\/p>\n
rules to place a Government Servant under suspension.<\/p>\n
2.A    Government         Servant    who       is    detained        in    custody,<\/p>\n
whether    on       a     criminal    charge         or   otherwise,         for   a<\/p>\n
period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to<\/p>\n
have    been    suspended          with       effect      from      the    date    of<\/p>\n
detention, by an order of the Authority competent to<\/p>\n
place a Government Servant under suspension under sub-
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
rule(1)    and    shall      remain          under       suspension            until<\/p>\n
further orders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory<\/p>\n
retirement    from     Service      imposed            upon     a    government<\/p>\n
servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on<\/p>\n
review under these rules and the case is remitted for<\/p>\n
further    inquiry      or     action             or     with       any        other<\/p>\n
directions,      the   order      of       his     suspension         shall       be<\/p>\n
deemed to have continued in force on and from the date<\/p>\n
of   the   original       order        of        dismissal,         removal      or<\/p>\n
compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until<\/p>\n
further orders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory<\/p>\n
retirement    from     service      imposed            upon     a    Government<\/p>\n
servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in<\/p>\n
consequence or by a decision of a Court of law and the<\/p>\n
disciplinary     authority,       on        a     consideration           of    the<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further<\/p>\n
inquiry against him on the allegations in which the<\/p>\n
penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement<\/p>\n
was originally imposed, the Government servant shall<\/p>\n
be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the<\/p>\n
Appointing    Authority      from          the    date    of    the    original<\/p>\n
order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement<\/p>\n
and shall continue to remain under suspension until<\/p>\n
further orders.\n<\/p>\n
                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
5.An order of suspension made or deemed to have been<\/p>\n
made under this rule may at any time be revoked by the<\/p>\n
authority which made or is deemed to have made the<\/p>\n
order   by   any    authority        to     which    that   authority        is<\/p>\n
subordinate.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Sub-rule(1)       of     Rule    13     empowers     competent<\/p>\n
authority     with       a    broad        discretion       to    place      a<\/p>\n
government servant under suspension in the event of<\/p>\n
contemplation of pendency of disciplinary proceedings<\/p>\n
or where a case against him in respect of criminal<\/p>\n
offences under investigation or trial. The Government<\/p>\n
of    Rajasthan     by   circular          dated    10.8.2001         provided<\/p>\n
certain instructions to the competent authorities to<\/p>\n
exercise powers under Rule 13 referred above. As per<\/p>\n
circular dated 10.8.2001, it is clarified that if a<\/p>\n
public servant is caught red-handed accepting bribe by<\/p>\n
the Anti Corruption Bureau, then he should be placed<\/p>\n
under    suspension          without       any      exception     and       the<\/p>\n
suspension     of    such      public        servant     should       not   be<\/p>\n
revoked till his exoneration by the competent court.<\/p>\n
The circular further provides that in any case where<\/p>\n
sanction     is     granted     for        prosecution      of    a    public<\/p>\n
servant in a case relating to corruption, such public<\/p>\n
servant should be placed under suspension compulsorily<\/p>\n
and   that    should     not    be     revoked       till    pendency       of<\/p>\n
criminal case before the court concerned. According to<\/p>\n
circular dated 10.8.2001 a public servant should be<\/p>\n
mandatorily placed under suspension, if a challan has
\n                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
been     filed       before        the        competent             court        by     the<\/p>\n
prosecution against him relating to the offences of<\/p>\n
murder, dowry, dowry death, rape and other offences<\/p>\n
involving       moral       turpitude            and     the        public       servant<\/p>\n
placed       under    suspension             for       the    reasons        aforesaid<\/p>\n
should be continued as such till his exoneration.<\/p>\n
              It     is     pertinent            to     note        here    that       the\n\ncircular       in     question          at       the     one        hand     restricts\n\n<\/pre>\n
discretion of the competent authority as given under<\/p>\n
Rule 13 to place an incumbent under suspension and at<\/p>\n
the same time also snatches away the power of the<\/p>\n
competent       authority          to    revoke          such        suspension         as<\/p>\n
prescribed under Rule 13(5) of the Rules of 1958. True<\/p>\n
it     is,     suspension          of        a     civil        servant          is     an<\/p>\n
administrative            action    and          the    government          is    having<\/p>\n
ample    power       to    provide       necessary            guidelines         to     the<\/p>\n
competent      authorities          for          exercising         powers       as     per<\/p>\n
Rule 13, but at the same time it is also well settled<\/p>\n
that    the    administrative            instructions               can     always       be<\/p>\n
given to fill up the unoccupied field, however, such<\/p>\n
instructions         in    no    way     encroach             the    space       already<\/p>\n
under occupation of an statute. In the present case<\/p>\n
the     circular           dated        10.8.2001             nowhere           provides<\/p>\n
instructions         to    the     competent            authority          as    to     how<\/p>\n
powers under Rule 13 are required to be exercised, but<\/p>\n
it     imposes       mandate       upon           the        discretion          of    the<\/p>\n
competent authority. Such imposition of a mandate over<\/p>\n
statutory          discretion           is        not        permissible              under
\n                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
administrative         jurisprudence.           The        State    Government<\/p>\n
would have been right in providing guidelines or a<\/p>\n
mode to exercise discretion under Rule 13 of the Rules<\/p>\n
of   1958.      The     State        Government        could       have        given<\/p>\n
instances and instructions to the competent authority<\/p>\n
to exercise its discretion to place an incumbent under<\/p>\n
suspension       in    particular          circumstances           but    not    an<\/p>\n
order     to   place     government          servant       under    suspension<\/p>\n
mandatorily in specific cases. It is for the competent<\/p>\n
authority to examine facts of each and every case and<\/p>\n
to   settle     desirability          to    place     an    incumbent          under<\/p>\n
suspension       by     applying           objective       discretion.           The<\/p>\n
suspension of an employee, looking to the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case may be desired urgently or<\/p>\n
on emergent basis but in those circumstances also the<\/p>\n
competent authority must record its satisfaction for<\/p>\n
exercising powers under Rule 13. If such satisfaction<\/p>\n
is not recorded and suspension is made merely on basis<\/p>\n
of the instructions given in circulars or merely by a<\/p>\n
word of mouth or by slip of pen, then that is nothing<\/p>\n
but colourable exercise of power. In the present case<\/p>\n
it   is   nowhere      said     by    the     respondents          that    before<\/p>\n
placing        the      petitioner           under         suspension            the<\/p>\n
desirability to do so was objectively considered. It<\/p>\n
is specific case of the competent authority that he<\/p>\n
placed     the        petitioner       under        suspension            as     per<\/p>\n
instructions of the Government of Rajasthan.
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
            From the averments made in reply to the writ<\/p>\n
petition it also appears that the respondents simply<\/p>\n
acted upon the circular dated 11.10.2007 and placed<\/p>\n
the petitioner under suspension. It also appears that<\/p>\n
the   order       impugned          was     passed         with      retrospective<\/p>\n
effect     by   treating        the       petitioner            under    suspension<\/p>\n
from the date he was arrested by the Anti Corruption<\/p>\n
Bureau.    As     a    matter       of     fact      the       deeming    provision<\/p>\n
under Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1958 is having no<\/p>\n
role in present case as the petitioner after getting<\/p>\n
released from judicial custody was permitted to resume<\/p>\n
the   duties.      The       work    done       by    the       petitioner       while<\/p>\n
holding     the       post     could        not      be     undone       by     giving<\/p>\n
retrospective effect to the suspension. Beside that,<\/p>\n
no order placing the petitioner under suspension was<\/p>\n
passed by the competent authority when the petitioner<\/p>\n
was   in    judicial         custody        or       immediately         after     his<\/p>\n
release     and       before        resuming         the       duties.     In      such<\/p>\n
circumstances, the deeming provision as relied upon by<\/p>\n
the respondents is having no consequence.<\/p>\n
            In        view    of     whatever           discussed        above,      it<\/p>\n
appears     that       the     order        impugned           has   been       passed<\/p>\n
without proper application of mind. Consequently, this<\/p>\n
petition for writ succeeds and further continuation of<\/p>\n
the   petitioner        under       suspension            in    pursuant      to    the<\/p>\n
order dated 11.10.2007 is declared unwarranted. The<\/p>\n
respondents are directed to revoke suspension of the<\/p>\n
petitioner        forthwith.          It        shall      be     open     for     the
\n                                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
competent    authority        to     examine     all   the   existing<\/p>\n
circumstances    and     to        place   the    petitioner    under<\/p>\n
suspension by proper exercise of the powers as per<\/p>\n
Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, if so is desirable and<\/p>\n
required in interest of service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            No order to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.\n<\/p>\n
kkm\/ps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Samrath Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8249\/2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order :: […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172814","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nSamrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 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\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-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=\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-29T02:22:06+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-29T02:22:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2640,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-29T02:22:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 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\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-29T02:22:06+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-29T02:22:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009"},"wordCount":2640,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009","name":"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-29T02:22:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samrath-singh-vs-state-anr-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samrath Singh vs State & Anr on 30 September, 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:\/\/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\/172814","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=172814"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172814\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}