{"id":179698,"date":"2009-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-15T10:09:02","modified_gmt":"2017-08-15T04:39:02","slug":"om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009<\/div>\n
           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n                       -1-\n\nIn the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.\n\n                   Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n\n                   Date of decision:3-3-2009.\n\nOm Parkash Sharma.\n\n                                                ...Appellant.\n\n            Versus\n\nState of Punjab.\n\n                                                ...Respondent.\n\n            ...\n\nCoram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri.\n\n            ...\n\nPresent:    Mr.Puneet Jindal Advocate for the appellant.\n\n            Mr. K. S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab.\n\n            ...\n\nK. C. Puri, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
            This is a Criminal Appeal and has been directed against<\/p>\n
the judgment dated 13.3.2000 passed by Shri Gurdev Singh,<\/p>\n
Special Judge, Jalandhar, convicting the appellant under Section 7<\/p>\n
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,<\/p>\n
1988 ( in short the Act) and vide order of same date, was sentenced
\n           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to<\/p>\n
pay a fine of Rs.5,000\/- and in default thereof, to further undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.<\/p>\n
              The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.8.1997,<\/p>\n
Harish Kumar, DSP received information from reliable source that<\/p>\n
the accused, who was employed as Junior Engineer in the Fisheries<\/p>\n
Department, Jalandhar went to village Jajja Khurd in connection<\/p>\n
with taking measurements of the Fish Pond of Kulwinder Kaur and<\/p>\n
for getting a subsidy of Rs.20,000\/- for Kulwinder Kaur and her<\/p>\n
son Bhawan Singh, demanded a sum of Rs.6,000\/- as bribe. The<\/p>\n
said bribe amount of Rs.6,000\/- was given to him on his demand<\/p>\n
on 5.10.1995 by Bhawan Singh and Pal Singh. On the basis of said<\/p>\n
information, the DSP sent his ruqqa Exhibit PE to the Police<\/p>\n
Station on the basis of which formal FIR, Exhibit PE\/1 was<\/p>\n
recorded against the accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)<\/p>\n
of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
              During investigation, it transpired that Kulwinder Kaur<\/p>\n
had land in village Jajja Khurd for establishing a Fish Farm in two<\/p>\n
killas of her land. She applied for a loan to the Land mortgage<\/p>\n
Bank, Goraya. On 28.9.1995, she applied to the Chief Executive<\/p>\n
Officer, Fishery Department, Jalandhar for obtaining subsidy vide
\n           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
application, Exhibit PD. In the same month, the accused visited the<\/p>\n
land for checking the Fish Pond and taking measurements thereof.<\/p>\n
After taking the measurements, he told her in the presence of her<\/p>\n
son that they would be paid Rs.20,000\/- as subsidy and for getting<\/p>\n
the same sanctioned, demanded a sum of Rs.6,000\/-. She withdrew<\/p>\n
a sum of Rs.5,000\/- from her account No.25876\/38 in Punjab<\/p>\n
National Bank Goraya and obtained Rs.1,000\/- as loan from Pal<\/p>\n
Singh. She handed over a sum of Rs.6,000\/- to her son Bhawan<\/p>\n
Singh and that amount was paid by him on 5.10.1995 to the<\/p>\n
accused in his office where he had gone along with Pal Singh. The<\/p>\n
said amount was paid by them to the accused on his demand.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, Kulwinder Kaur came to know that she was not<\/p>\n
required to pay any such amount for obtaining subsidy. Then, she<\/p>\n
made a complaint against the accused to the Vigilance Bureau<\/p>\n
Department, Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n
             After the completion of investigation, the accused was<\/p>\n
challaned.\n<\/p>\n
             The accused was charge-sheeted accordingly to which<\/p>\n
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
             In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined<\/p>\n
PW-1 Nanthan Lal, Senior Assistant, PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur, PW-3
\n             Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Bhawan Singh, PW-4 Vidya Sagar, Chief Executive Officer, PW-5<\/p>\n
Pal Singh and PW-6 Harish Kumar, SP.\n<\/p>\n
             After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused<\/p>\n
was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the<\/p>\n
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. He<\/p>\n
stated that he was working as J.E in the Fishery Department and<\/p>\n
the entire State of Punjab was his working field. In that connection,<\/p>\n
he was neither the recommending or administrative authority to<\/p>\n
sanction\/recommend          the    loans.    He   was   only   to   submit<\/p>\n
measurements reports wherever Fish Ponds were constructed and<\/p>\n
on    the      basis      of      those     measurement    reports,    the<\/p>\n
sanctioning\/administratrative authority sanctioned a loan @<\/p>\n
Rs.1,000\/- per Kanal. Kulwinder Kaur was not known to him<\/p>\n
personally. The case made against him is false and has been<\/p>\n
prompted by some of his colleagues named Nanthan Lal and<\/p>\n
Makhan Singh, driver. Nanthan Lal has demanded some money<\/p>\n
from his pay or T.A. Bills which he never paid whereas Makhan<\/p>\n
Singh driver was departmentally dealt with on a complaint for<\/p>\n
stealing petrol. Both of them were inimical towards him.They have<\/p>\n
been giving applications against him directly or indirectly in order<\/p>\n
to harass him. His services have been appreciated by the
\n           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
department.\n<\/p>\n
           When called upon to enter his defence, the accused<\/p>\n
produced DW-1 Raj Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, DW-2<\/p>\n
Nirmal Singh, Senior Fishery Officer and DW-3 M.C.Aggarwal,<\/p>\n
Assistant Director.\n<\/p>\n
           After the conclusion of trial, the accused was convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced, as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment.<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that<\/p>\n
according to the prosecution, the amount of bribe is stated to have<\/p>\n
been paid on 5.10.1995. The FIR, in question, was recorded after<\/p>\n
about two years of the occurrence. The motive, for the occurrence,<\/p>\n
was stated to be regarding payment of subsidy for setting up a<\/p>\n
Fishery Pond. The appellant was simply working as a Junior<\/p>\n
Engineer and his duty was only to make measurements of the<\/p>\n
Fishery Pond. He was neither the sanctioning authority nor<\/p>\n
disbursing authority and as such there was no question of payment<\/p>\n
of bribe to him.\n<\/p>\n
           It is further contended that two enquiries were<\/p>\n
conducted, one by the department and the other by he Public<\/p>\n
Grievance Officer. In both those enquiries, the allegations of<\/p>\n
payment of Rs.6,000\/- as illegal gratification were held to be not
\n           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
proved. The complainant has kept quiet for more than six months<\/p>\n
in making complaints for the first time. Her complaints were duly<\/p>\n
investigated by the department and the Public Grievance Officer<\/p>\n
and they found the allegations to be false. In spite of that, the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on flimsy grounds.<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant has further<\/p>\n
contended that sanction for the prosecution under Section 19 of the<\/p>\n
Act is not merely a formality. The prosecution is required to prove<\/p>\n
that the competent authority has duly applied its mind before<\/p>\n
granting sanction for the prosecution. The immunity of the public<\/p>\n
servant from prosecution has been incorporated keeping in view<\/p>\n
his duty. Unless, the competent authority applies its mind, there<\/p>\n
cannot be valid sanction. In the present case, there is nothing on<\/p>\n
the file that enquiries Exhibits DA and DB, proved on the file were<\/p>\n
put up before the competent authority. So, in these circumstances,<\/p>\n
there cannot be valid sanction.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant has further<\/p>\n
contended that to prove the ingredients of offence under Sections 7<\/p>\n
and 13 of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove the factum<\/p>\n
of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification. It is<\/p>\n
contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that illegal
\n          Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
gratification was recovered from the accused as it is not a case of<\/p>\n
trap. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the demand and<\/p>\n
acceptance of illegal gratification. In the present case, PW-2<\/p>\n
Kulwinder Kaur has stated that illegal gratification of Rs.6,000\/-<\/p>\n
was demanded by the accused in the office. In the cross-<\/p>\n
examination, she has stated that she was also present at the time of<\/p>\n
payment of illegal gratification. However, according to the<\/p>\n
prosecution case, Rs.6,000\/- were paid by Bhawan Singh in the<\/p>\n
presence of Pal Singh, PW-5. Bhawan Singh is the son of the<\/p>\n
complainant. Pal Singh is a criminal type of person and he was<\/p>\n
produced in the Court in the hand-cuff on the date of recording of<\/p>\n
his testimony. The appellant has brought on the file the glaring<\/p>\n
discrepancy inter-se between the testimony of PW-2 Kulwinder<\/p>\n
Kaur, PW-3 Bhawan Singh and PW-5 Pal Singh. The learned trial<\/p>\n
Court has ignored those discrepancies regarding demand and<\/p>\n
acceptance on the ground that these are minor discrepancies.<\/p>\n
           It is further submitted that according to PW-2<\/p>\n
Kulwinder Kaur, Om Parkash, JE and Shri Vidya Sagar, Chief<\/p>\n
Executive Officer, came to the village on 29.9.1995, for making<\/p>\n
measurements. PW-4 Vidya Sagar, Chief Executive Officer has<\/p>\n
categorically stated that no complaint was brought to his notice
\n          Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                     -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
that any amount of illegal gratification was demanded by the<\/p>\n
accused at any occasion. It is further contended that from the<\/p>\n
record, it is revealed that the work of the complainant was done<\/p>\n
smoothly. The accused has sent the completion certificate on<\/p>\n
28.9.1995. So, there was no occasion for him to demand or accept<\/p>\n
illegal gratification on 5.10.1995. The only job attributed to the<\/p>\n
accused was regarding measurements which have been made by<\/p>\n
him on 28.9.1995. It is clear from the back side of document,<\/p>\n
Exhibit PA, produced by the prosecution. Fishery Extension<\/p>\n
Officer, has sent the case recommending subsidy of Rs.18,000\/- on<\/p>\n
11.10.1995 and ultimately the Chief Executive Officer has<\/p>\n
sanctioned subsidy of Rs.18,000\/- to the appellant on 17.10.1995.<\/p>\n
The draft was prepared on 19.10.1995 and credited to the account<\/p>\n
of Kulwinder Kaur on 26.10.1995 as is clear from Exhibits PB and<\/p>\n
PC, produced by the prosecution itself.\n<\/p>\n
          It is further contended that DSP has mentioned in the<\/p>\n
FIR that from the reliable source it has come to his notice that<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- were paid as illegal gratification to the accused. The<\/p>\n
FIR is not based on the complaint of Kulwinder Kaur. The FIR was<\/p>\n
registered on the same day. It is mentioned in the FIR that demand<\/p>\n
for illegal gratification was made in the month of September,1995.\n<\/p>\n
           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
No specific date has been given. It is not mentioned in the FIR as<\/p>\n
to what were the sources of the DSP for acquiring the knowledge<\/p>\n
of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. So, it is<\/p>\n
contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case.<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon<\/p>\n
the following authorities:-\n<\/p>\n
           1. Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of<\/p>\n
                Gujarat, AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 3400.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. State of T.N.Versus M.M.Rajendran, (1998) 9<\/p>\n
                Supreme Court Cases 268.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3. State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan., AIR<\/a> 2008 SC<\/p>\n
                108.<\/span><\/p>\n
           4. State     of    Karnataka        through   CBI   Versus<\/p>\n
                M.K.Vijay Lakshmi, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases<\/p>\n
                370<\/span><\/p>\n
           5.     K.Radhal v. C.B.I, Cochin Unit, AIR<\/a> 2008 SC<\/p>\n
                111.<\/span><\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant has further<\/p>\n
contended that Kulwinder Kaur has stated that the accused has not<\/p>\n
deposited the subsidy cheque till bribe money was paid to him.<\/p>\n
According to the record, subsidy cheque was deposited in the
\n           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
account of Kulwinder Kaur on 26.10.1995 whereas according to<\/p>\n
the prosecution, the amount of Rs.6,000\/- was paid on 5.10.1995.<\/p>\n
So, the prosecution has failed to reconcile the fact when the<\/p>\n
amount of illegal gratification was paid. The documentary<\/p>\n
evidence produced by the prosecution belies the testimony of<\/p>\n
Kulwinder Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned State counsel has supported the judgment of<\/p>\n
the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
            I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival<\/p>\n
submissions made by both sides and have gone through the record<\/p>\n
of the case.\n<\/p>\n
            Section 19 of the Act has been enacted to give<\/p>\n
protection to the public servants against unwarranted and uncalled<\/p>\n
for complaints. The very purpose of enacting the said provision of<\/p>\n
law is that a public servant should not be harassed by unwarranted<\/p>\n
and uncalled for elements while discharging his duties. Generally,<\/p>\n
a public servant is involved for the offence under the Act by<\/p>\n
conducting a raid or in respect of illegal gratification or in respect<\/p>\n
of disproportionate assets. In the case of a raid, there is full proof<\/p>\n
evidence as Phenol-phthalein Powder is applied on the notes. The<\/p>\n
complainant and the shadow witness visit the accused and that the
\n           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused accepts illegal gratification on demand and thereafter the<\/p>\n
hand wash or pocket wash of the Government servant is conducted<\/p>\n
and in case the same proves positive, in that case, no scope is left<\/p>\n
regarding the involvement of the accused. In those cases also, the<\/p>\n
Courts insist on direct proof of demand,acceptance and recovery of<\/p>\n
illegal gratification. In the case of disproportionate assets, the<\/p>\n
income of the accused during the check period is taken into<\/p>\n
account and then compared with the expenditure and in case the<\/p>\n
expenditure is more, in that case he is found guilty of offence<\/p>\n
under the Act. That case is also to be proved according to the<\/p>\n
mathematical calculations and there is no error in that eventuality.<\/p>\n
           So far as the present case is concerned, it hinges on the<\/p>\n
oral testimony of three witnesses. No doubt, the testimony of<\/p>\n
witnesses should not ordinarily be discarded but when there is a<\/p>\n
scope of creating doubt in the prosecution version, in that case, the<\/p>\n
Court should be slow in convicting the accused under Sections 7<\/p>\n
and 13 of the Act. If there are allegations of corruption against a<\/p>\n
Government servant, the same amounts to civil death of that<\/p>\n
Government servant. On that count, Section 19 of the Act has been<\/p>\n
enacted to give protection to the Government servant. In the<\/p>\n
present case, illegal gratification is alleged to have been paid on
\n           Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                      -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
5.10.1995 but the case has been registered in August, 1997 and<\/p>\n
that, too, on the basis of secret information. The complainant made<\/p>\n
a complaint against the accused after about six months regarding<\/p>\n
which one enquiry was conduced by the department and the other<\/p>\n
by Public Grievance Officer and the enquiry reports have been<\/p>\n
proved on the file as Exhibits DA and DB. In both these enquiries,<\/p>\n
the accused has been exonerated. In the present case, the<\/p>\n
Investigating Agency should have taken into account those enquiry<\/p>\n
reports. The grant of sanction for the prosecution is not merely a<\/p>\n
formality. There is nothing on the file to prove the fact that the<\/p>\n
above-said enquiries were taken into account by the competent<\/p>\n
authority before granting sanction for the prosecution of the<\/p>\n
accused. Authorities in cases Manshukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan,<\/p>\n
M.M. Rajendran, Ameer Jan. and M.K.Vijay Lakshmi (supra)<\/p>\n
relate to grant of sanction against public servants. In all these<\/p>\n
authorities, it has held that valid sanction could only be considered<\/p>\n
if it is brought on the file that the sanctioning authority has applied<\/p>\n
its mind. Ignoring the previous enquiries, Exhibits DA and DB,<\/p>\n
would lead to the conclusion that the sanctioning authority has not<\/p>\n
applied its mind properly.\n<\/p>\n
           In a bribery case, demand and acceptance of illegal
\n          Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                     -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
gratification has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the<\/p>\n
perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it is revealed that<\/p>\n
discrepancies regarding demand and acceptance of illegal<\/p>\n
gratification were brought to the notice of the trial Court but the<\/p>\n
same have been ignored on the ground that the same are minor in<\/p>\n
nature However, glaring discrepancies go to the root of the case.<\/p>\n
           According to Kulwinder Kaur, complainant, she was<\/p>\n
also present when illegal gratification was alleged to have been<\/p>\n
paid to the accused but according to PW-3 Bhawan Singh, his son<\/p>\n
and PW-5 Pal Singh, the complainant was not present. This is not a<\/p>\n
minor discrepancy. The testimony of PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur in<\/p>\n
respect of payment of illegal gratification on 5.10.1995 is<\/p>\n
contradicted by her own testimony. During cross-examination, she<\/p>\n
stated that the accused had not handed over the cheque till the<\/p>\n
payment of illegal gratification was made by her. According to the<\/p>\n
record produced by the prosecution itself, the cheque was credited<\/p>\n
in the account of the complainant on 26.10.1995 whereas it is the<\/p>\n
specific case of all the prosecution witnesses that illegal<\/p>\n
gratification was paid on 5.10.1995. Kulwinder Kaur, PW-2 has<\/p>\n
stated that on 28.9.1995, Om Parkash, JE and Vidya Sgar, Chief<\/p>\n
Executive Officer came for the measurements of the Fish Pond.\n<\/p>\n
          Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                     -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
PW-4 Vidya Sagar, Chief Executive Officer,has categorically<\/p>\n
stated that the accused made measurements of the pond in his<\/p>\n
presence. He has further stated that no complaint of demand of<\/p>\n
illegal gratification of any type was made to him on that day.<\/p>\n
According to PW-2 Kulwinder Kaur, illegal gratification of<\/p>\n
Rs.6,000\/- was paid 10 days prior to 5.10.1995. So, according to<\/p>\n
this calculation, the alleged demand of Rs.6,000\/- was made prior<\/p>\n
to 28.9.1995. So, in case there was any demand of illegal<\/p>\n
gratification, Kulwinder Kaur and other PWs. must have narrated<\/p>\n
this fact to Vidya Sagar, being officer of the Fishery Department<\/p>\n
on 28.9.1995. He is a witness for the prosecution itself. So, this<\/p>\n
fact goes a long way in deciding the case of the accused. Bhawan<\/p>\n
Singh being son of Kulwinder Kaur is interested in the success of<\/p>\n
the case and Pal Singh was produced in custody. No doubt, the<\/p>\n
testimony of a convicted person cannot be discarded on the ground<\/p>\n
of his conviction but he seems to be interested being friend of<\/p>\n
Bhawan Singh. Moreover, no positive explanation has been given<\/p>\n
by the prosecution for not registering the case for about 1 year and<\/p>\n
10 months of the alleged giving of bribe.\n<\/p>\n
           Although the enquiry reports, Exhibits DA and DB, one<\/p>\n
by the department and the other by the District Vigilance Officer
\n          Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                     -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
itself are not sufficient to throw the prosecution story but when<\/p>\n
there is such discrepancy regarding the demand and acceptance and<\/p>\n
there is defective sanction, in that case, conviction cannot be<\/p>\n
maintained. The delay in lodging the FIR also assumes importance<\/p>\n
in these circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
           Therefore, keeping in view above discussion, the appeal<\/p>\n
is accepted. The impugned judgment of trial Court stands set aside<\/p>\n
and the accused stands acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.<\/p>\n
           A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for<\/p>\n
strict compliance.<\/p>\n
\n\nMarch 3rd ,2009.                              ( K. C. Puri )\nJaggi                                              Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009 Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No.300-SB of 2000. Date of decision:3-3-2009. Om Parkash Sharma. …Appellant. Versus State of Punjab. …Respondent. … Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. […]<\/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-179698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nOm Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 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\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-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=\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-15T04:39:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T04:39:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2925,\"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\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T04:39:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 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":"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 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\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-15T04:39:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T04:39:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009"},"wordCount":2925,"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\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009","name":"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T04:39:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/om-parkash-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Om Parkash Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 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\/179698","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=179698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}