{"id":17338,"date":"2002-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002"},"modified":"2015-08-24T23:04:37","modified_gmt":"2015-08-24T17:34:37","slug":"jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 45, 97 (2002) DLT 782, 2002 (62) DRJ 805<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Khan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B Khan, V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  Khan, J.   <\/p>\n<p> 1. Petitioner is challenging externment order passed<br \/>\nby Additional DCP dated 16.5.2001 asking him to remove<br \/>\nhimself outside Delhi and Lt. Governor&#8217;s order dated<br \/>\n18.7.2001 rejecting his appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. A show-cause notice was issued to petitioner under<br \/>\nSection 50 of Delhi Police Act on 25.10.2000 charging him<br \/>\nof including in illegal activities and criminal offences<br \/>\npunishable under Chapter XII IPC, resorting to force and<br \/>\nviolence, causing danger and alarm to person and property.<br \/>\nHe was also informed that six FIRs (Nos. 594, 605, 628, 647,<br \/>\n440 and 756) under Section 379 IPC stood registered against<br \/>\nhim and that witnesses were not willing to come forward to<br \/>\nopenly depose against him.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Petitioner replied to this notice on 13.11.2000<br \/>\ndenying the allegations. He also led some defense evidence<br \/>\nto show that he was engaged in lawful business along with<br \/>\nhis father who was the President of Fruit &amp; Vegetable<br \/>\nWholesalers Association, Tilak Nagar and was not involved<br \/>\nin any criminal activity prior to his arrest on 2.9.2000 in<br \/>\none of the cases. Additional DCP rejected his explanation<br \/>\nholding amongst other things that he was involved in six<br \/>\ncases punishable under Chapter XII IPC and that he had<br \/>\npersonally examined some witnesses in camera who had<br \/>\nrefused to depose against him in the open for their safety<br \/>\nand passed the impugned externment order. Petitioner took<br \/>\nappeal against this but failed. Hence this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Petitioner&#8217;s case is that he was a law abiding<br \/>\ncitizen engaged in lawful business. His father was also a<br \/>\nrespectful person and President of an Association. He had<br \/>\nno past criminal record and was not engaged in any criminal<br \/>\nactivity prior to his arrest on 2.9.2002 or after his<br \/>\nrelease on bail in one of the cases. He also asserts that<br \/>\npolice had on their own asked for his discharge in three<br \/>\nout of six cases registered against him taking away the<br \/>\nvery basis of the externment order. The LG&#8217;s order<br \/>\nrejecting his appeal also suffered from non-application of<br \/>\nmind as it did not deal with the pleas raised by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Respondent has justified the order of externment<br \/>\nreiterating that petitioner was involved in six criminal<br \/>\ncase under Section 397 IPC. Even though he was discharged<br \/>\nin three cases, he had continued his criminal activity<br \/>\njustifying the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Section 47 of DPA empowers the Police Commissioner<br \/>\nto remove a person outside Delhi limits when it appears to<br \/>\nhim that (a) his movements were causing or were calculated<br \/>\nto cause danger, alarm or harm to the person or property;<br \/>\nor (b) where he had reasonable ground to believe that he<br \/>\nhad engaged or was about to engage himself in commission of<br \/>\noffences involving force or violence or offences punishable<br \/>\nunder Chapters XII, XVI, XVII, XXII of IPC; or (c) if such<br \/>\nperson was so desperate and dangerous as to render his<br \/>\nbeing at large hazardous to the community; or (d) was<br \/>\nhabitually intimidating to other persons by acts of<br \/>\nviolence or by show of force; or (e) was habitually<br \/>\ncommitting affray, alarm or breach of peace or riot, or was<br \/>\nthreatening people for illegal gains for himself and<br \/>\nothers; or (f) was passing indecent remarks against women<br \/>\nand girls AND   in the opinion of the Commissioner, witnesses<br \/>\nwere not willing to come forward to give evidence in public<br \/>\nagainst such person by reason of apprehension on their part<br \/>\nas regards the safety of their person or property.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The power was exercisable by the Police<br \/>\nCommissioner or the competent delegatee on anyone of the<br \/>\nprescribed grounds and on formation of opinion that<br \/>\nwitnesses were not willing to come forward to depose<br \/>\nagainst such person for fear of danger to their person and<br \/>\nproperty. Though his satisfaction was subjective, it was<br \/>\nto be based on some material but its sufficiency or<br \/>\notherwise was not subject to judicial scrutiny. In other<br \/>\nwords, Commissioner&#8217;s satisfaction was to arise from any<br \/>\none of the situations contemplated by provisions of Section<br \/>\n47 accompanied by his opinion that witnesses were not<br \/>\nwilling to come forward to depose against the person sought<br \/>\nto be externed. If his order was based on no material or<br \/>\nmere apprehension and failed to reflect formation of any<br \/>\nopinion regarding unwillingness of witnesses to come<br \/>\nforward to depose against such person concerned, it would<br \/>\nnot sustain.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Dealing with corresponding Sections of Bombay<br \/>\nPolice Act, Supreme Court held in   Hari v. Dy. Commissioner<br \/>\nof Police    as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;These are all matters which can&#8217;t be examined<br \/>\nby this court in an objective way when the<br \/>\nlegislature has provided for subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the authorities or officers who<br \/>\nhave been entrusted with the duty of enforcing<br \/>\nthose special provisions of the Act&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p> It is not for us to examine afresh the<br \/>\nmaterial and to be satisfied that the order<br \/>\nimpugned is correct. But the materials placed on<br \/>\nthe record of this case shown at least one thing<br \/>\nnamely that the  petitioner had not been a victim<br \/>\nof an arbitrary order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Later the Apex Court held in   <a href=\"\/doc\/840202\/\">Prem Chand v. Union<br \/>\nof India<\/a>    as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;Section 47 and 50 have to be read strictly.<br \/>\nAny police apprehension is not enough. Some<br \/>\nground or the other is not adequate. There must<br \/>\nbe a clear and present danger based upon credible<br \/>\nmaterial which makes the movements and acts of the<br \/>\nperson in question alarming or dangerous or<br \/>\nfraught with violence. Likewise, there must be<br \/>\nsufficient reason to believe that person proceeded<br \/>\nagainst is so desperate and dangerous that his<br \/>\nmere presence in Delhi or any part thereof is<br \/>\nhazardous to the community and its safety. We are<br \/>\nclear that easy possibility of abuse of power to<br \/>\nthe detriment of fundamental freedom of citizens<br \/>\npersuades us to insist that stringent test must be<br \/>\napplied. We are clear that natural justice must<br \/>\nfairly be complied with and vague allegation and<br \/>\nsecret hearings are gross violations of<br \/>\nconstitutional guarantees.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Tested on all this, it does not appear to us that<br \/>\nimpugned externment order was passed arbitrarily or had no<br \/>\nbasis. Petitioner wants to be left off the hook merely<br \/>\nbecause he had earned acquittal in three out of six<br \/>\ncriminal cases. But that by itself was not enough to<br \/>\ninvalidate the externment order so long as it satisfied the<br \/>\nrequirements of Sections 47 and 50 of DPA. An acquittal<br \/>\ncould result in various circumstances and could not be<br \/>\ntaken as a proof of accused having shed his criminal past<br \/>\nor propensity. This court in   Kaushalya v. State   1989<br \/>\nC.C. Cases 110 (HC) observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The acquittal in the cases could be because<br \/>\nof the reason that there may not be sufficient<br \/>\nevidence to bring the charge home to the accused.<br \/>\nThe witnesses may not be available or willing to<br \/>\ndepose in open court against the accused. A<br \/>\njudicial notice can be taken of the fact that in<br \/>\ncases where the accused is a bad character, the<br \/>\nwitnesses are terrified and they are not willing<br \/>\nto become witnesses to the crime and even if they<br \/>\nbecome witnesses, they are not willing to testify<br \/>\nagainst the accused in the open court. Our<br \/>\nexperience is that in a case where a bad character<br \/>\nis involved, even if the witnesses come they on<br \/>\nmaterial facts do not support the prosecution<br \/>\ncase.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Therefore, all told, it can&#8217;t be said or held that<br \/>\nimpugned order was passed in excess or abuse of the power<br \/>\nconferred on the Commissioner or in breach of the relevant<br \/>\nstatutory provisions. It is also not petitioner&#8217;s case<br \/>\nthat requisite safeguards guaranteed under relevant<br \/>\nprovisions of DPA were not observed by the Authority. The<br \/>\nimpugned order which we found to be a reasoned and detailed<br \/>\none could not be upset even if it was assumed that<br \/>\nAppellate Authority had failed to deal with all the issues<br \/>\nraised by petitioner in his Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IVAD Delhi 45, 97 (2002) DLT 782, 2002 (62) DRJ 805 Author: Khan Bench: B Khan, V Aggarwal JUDGMENT Khan, J. 1. Petitioner is challenging externment order passed by Additional DCP dated 16.5.2001 asking him to [&hellip;]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-24T17:34:37+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-24T17:34:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1331,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-24T17:34:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-24T17:34:37+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-24T17:34:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002"},"wordCount":1331,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002","name":"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-24T17:34:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-pal-vs-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-on-3-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Pal vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/17338","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=17338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}