{"id":19662,"date":"1987-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987"},"modified":"2015-10-20T04:47:15","modified_gmt":"2015-10-19T23:17:15","slug":"ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987","title":{"rendered":"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1646, \t\t 1987 SCR (3)\t 84<\/div>\n
Author: V B Eradi<\/div>\n
Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAJMER SINGH ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1646\t\t  1987 SCR  (3)\t 84\n 1987 SCC  (3) 340\t  JT 1987 (2)\t290\n 1987 SCALE  (1)953\n\n\nACT:\n   Code\t of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.  428--Applicability\nof  to proceedings before the Court-Martial under  the\tArmy\nAct.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Section 167 of the Army Act, 1950 provides that whenever\na  person is sentenced by a Court-Martial  to  imprisonment,\nthe  term of his sentence shall be reckoned to\tcommence  on\nthe day on which the original proceedings were signed by the\nPresiding Officer. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal  Proce-\ndure  lays  down that nothing contained in  the\t Code  shall\naffect any special or local law or any special\tjurisdiction\nor power or any special form of procedure prescribed by\t any\nother  law in. force. Section 428 of the Code  provides\t for\nset  off of the period of detention undergone by an  accused\nperson\tduring the investigation, inquiry or  trial  against\nthe  term  of imprisonment. Section 475 of the\tCode  states\nthat  when  any person is brought before  a  Magistrate\t and\ncharged\t with an offence for which he is liable to be  tried\neither\tby a Court to which the Code applies or by a  Court-\nMartial,  such Magistrate shall in proper cases deliver\t him\ntogether  with\ta statement of the offence, of which  he  is\naccused,  to the commanding officer of the unit to which  he\nbelongs.\n    The appellants who were convicted by the General  Court-\nMartial for offences under the Army Act are undergoing their\nsentences of imprisonment. Their petitions claiming grant of\nbenefit of the provision for set off contained in s. 428  of\nthe  Code having been dismissed by the High Court they\tpre-\nferred\tthese appeals by certificate under Article  13-A  of\nthe Constitution of India.\n    It\twas contended on their behalf that the Army  Act  is\nsilent with respect to the topic as to the date with  effect\nfrom  which the period of imprisonment covered by  the\tsen-\ntence  is  to be reckoned, and that since s. 5 of  the\tCode\nonly  lays down that nothing contained therein shall  affect\nany  special  or local law, in the absence of  any  specific\nprovision  in the Army Act the provisions of the Code  would\nget attracted.\nDismissing the appeals, the Court,\n    85\n    HELD:  1. The provision for set off contained in s.\t 428\nof  the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted  in\t the\ncase of persons convicted and sentenced by Court-Martial  to\nundergo imprisonment. [91F]\n    2.\tThe  Army Act, the Navy Act and the  Air  Force\t Act\nconstitute  special laws in force conferring special  juris-\ndiction\t and  powers on Courts-Martial. They embody  a\tcom-\npletely\t self  contained comprehensive code  specifying\t the\nvarious\t offences and prescribing the procedure\t for  deten-\ntion, custody, investigation and trial of the offenders, the\npunishment  to be awarded, confirmation and revision of\t the\nsentences  imposed, the execution of such sentences and\t the\ngrant  of pardons, remissions and suspensions in respect  of\nsuch sentences. Section 5 of the Code renders the provisions\nof  the Code inapplicable in respect of all matters  covered\nby such special law. [87G-88B]\n    3.\tSection 167 of the Army Act specifically  lays\tdown\nthat  whenever a person is sentenced by a  Court-Martial  to\nimprisonment, the term of his sentence shall be reckoned  to\ncommence  on the day on which the original proceedings\twere\nsigned\tby the Presiding Officer. In the race of this  cate-\ngorical\t provision  it cannot be said that the Army  Act  is\nsilent with respect to the topic as to the date with  effect\nfrom  which the period of imprisonment covered by  the\tsen-\ntence is to be reckoned. [88G; 89AB]\n    4.\tThe distinction made in s. 475 of the  Code  between\n\"trial\tby  a  Court to which this Code applies\"  and  by  a\nCourt-Martial'\tconclusively indicates that  Parliament\t in-\ntended to treat the Court-Martial as a forum to the proceed-\nings  before which the provisions of the Code will  have  no\napplication. [90F]\n   5.  There is also intrinsic indication contained  in\t the\nvery  wording of s. 428 of the Code that it cannot have\t any\napplication  in\t respect of persons tried and  sentenced  by\nCourt-Martial. There is no 'investigation' conducted by\t any\npolice officer under the Code or by any person authorised by\nMagistrate  in that behalf in the case of persons  tried  by\nthe Court-Martial. No inquiry is conducted under the Code by\nany Magistrate or Court in respect of offences committed  by\npersons\t which are tried by the Court-Martial. The trial  is\nalso  not conducted by the Court-Martial under the Code\t but\nonly in accordance with the special procedure prescribed  by\nthe  Army Act. There is, therefore, absolutely no scope\t for\ninvoking the aid of s. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure\nin respect of prisoners convicted by Court-Martial under the\nAct. [90G; 91D; E; 89C]\n86\n    P.P.  Chandrasekaran  v.  Government of  India  &  Ors.,\n[1977]\tCri. L.J. 677; T.S. Ramani v. The Superintendent  of\nPrisons,  [1982] Cri. L.J. 892 and F.R. Jesuratnam v.  Chief\nof Air Staff, [1976] Cri. L.J. 65, approved.\n    Subramanian v. Officer Commanding Armoured Static  Work-\nshop,  [1979] Cri. L.J. 617.and Anand Singh Bishit v.  Union\nof India & Ors., [1986] Cri. L.J. 563, overruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 532
\nof 1976. etc.
\n    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated 9.2.  1976  of\t the
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Writ No. 13 1 of 1975.
\n    Baldev Atrey, K.B. Rohtagi, R.A. Gupta, V.K. Jain,\tS.K.
\nGupta and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the Appellant.
\n    M.S. Rao, R.S. Sodhi, B. Parthasarathi and Ms. A. Subha-
\nshini for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. These four appeals have been filed
\nagainst\t judgments of the High Court of Punjab\tand  Haryana
\nrejecting  the claims of the appellants who have  been\tcon-
\nvicted\tby the General Court-Martial for offences under\t the
\nArmy Act and are undergoing their sentences of varying terms
\nof  imprisonment  for the grant of benefit to  them  of\t the
\nprovision  for set off contained in Section 428 of the\tCode
\nof  Criminal Procedure. The High Court has granted  certifi-
\ncates of fitness under Article 134A of the Constitution\t and
\nit  is\ton  the strength of those  certificates\t that  these
\nappeals have been preferred to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The common question of law that arises in these  appeals
\nconcerns  the  applicability of Section 428 of the  Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure to persons sentenced to undergo imprison-
\nment by General Court-Martial under the Army Act. The  posi-
\ntion  under  the Army Act will equally govern  persons\tsen-
\ntenced\tto undergo imprisonment by Court-Martial  under\t the
\nNavy Act and the Air Force Act.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe judgments under appeal, the High Court has\tfol-
\nlowed an earlier ruling of a Division Bench of the same High
\nCourt in Ram
\n\t  87<\/span>
\nLabhaya\t Sharma\t v. Union of India and Others,<\/a>\tin  Criminal
\nWrit No. 40 of 1975 decided on December 12, 1975 wherein  it
\nwas  held that the benefit under Section 428 of the Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure  is not available to convicts,  who\t are
\ntried, convicted and sentenced by Court-Martial.
\n    There  is a divergence of views between  different\tHigh
\nCourts\ton this question. The High Court of Madras  in\tP.P.
\nChandrasekaran v. Government of India and Ors., [1977]\tCri.
\nL.J. 677 (a case of courtmartial under the Navy Act) and  in
\nT.S.  Ramani v. The Superintendent of Prisons,\t[1982]\tCri.
\nL.J.  892 (court-martial under the Army Act) has  taken\t the
\nview that the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure  cannot be claimed by persons convicted by  Court-
\nMartial.  The same view has been taken by the High Court  of
\nDelhi in F.R. Jesuratnam v. Chief of Air Staff, [1976]\tCri.
\nL.J.  65 dealing with a case of court-martial under the\t Air
\nForce Act.\n<\/p>\n
    A Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala has  however,
\ntaken  a contrary view in Subramanian v. Officer  Commanding
\nArmoured Static Workshop, [1979] Cri. L.J. 617 and the\tsaid
\ndecision was referred to and followed by a Division Bench of
\nthe Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Singh Bishit v.
\nUnion of India and Ors., [1986] Cri. L.J. 563.
\n    An examination of the relevant provisions of the Code of
\nCriminal  Procedure and the Army Act (as well as the  corre-
\nsponding  provisions in the Navy Act and the Air Force\tAct)
\nmakes  it abundantly clear that Section 428 of the  Criminal
\nProcedure  can have no applicability whatever in respect  of
\npersons convicted and sentenced by Court Martial.
\n    Section  5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  lays\tdown
\nthat  nothing contained in the said Code shall, in  the\t ab-
\nsence  of a specific provision to the contrary,\t affect\t any
\nspecial\t or  local law for the time being in force,  or\t any
\nspecial jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form
\nof procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being
\nin  force. The relevant Chapters of the Army Act,  the\tNavy
\nAct and the Air Force Act embody a completely self-contained
\ncomprehensive  Code  specifying the various  offences  under
\nthose  Acts and prescribing the procedure for detention\t and
\ncustody of offenders, investigation and trial of the offend-
\ners by Court-Martial, the punishments to be awarded for\t the
\nvarious offences, confirmation and revision of the sentences
\nimposed by Court-Martial, the execution of such
\n88<\/span>
\nsentences  and the grant of pardons, remissions and  suspen-
\nsions in respect of such sentences. These enactments, there-
\nfore,  constitute a special law in force conferring  special
\njurisdiction and powers on Courts-Martial and prescribing  a
\nspecial\t form  of procedure for the trial  of  the  offences
\nunder  those  Acts. The effect of Section 5 of the  Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure is to render the provisions of the\tCode
\nof Criminal Procedure inapplicable in respect of all matters
\ncovered by such special law. Since in the four cases  before
\nus  we are concerned with convictions by General  Court-Mar-
\ntial  under the provisions of the Army Act, we\tshall  refer
\nspecifically  to  the relevant provisions contained  in\t the
\nArmy Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’).\n<\/p>\n
    Sections  34  to 68 contained in Chapter VI of  the\t Act
\nspecify\t the different categories of offences under the\t Act
\nincluding abetment of offences under the Act. Chapter VII of
\nthe  Act which comprises Sections 71 to 89 of the Act  deals
\nwith  the punishments awardable by Court-Martial in  respect
\nof the different offences. Sections 10 1 to 107 contained in
\nChapter\t IX of the Act deal with the arrest and\t custody  of
\noffenders and the proceedings prior to the trial. Chapter  X
\nof  the Act describes in Sections 108 to 118, the  different
\nkinds of court-martial, the authorities competent to convene
\nthem,  their composition, and respective powers. In  Chapter
\nXI  consisting\tof  Sections 128 to 152,  we  find  detailed
\nprovisions  laying  down  the procedure to  be\tfollowed  by
\nCourt-Martial in conducting the trial of offenders.  Chapter
\nXII  contains provisions relating to confirmation and  revi-
\nsion  of the findings entered and sentences imposed  by\t the
\ndifferent  categories of courtmartial. Sections 166  to\t 176
\ncontained  in Chapter XIII deal with the execution  of\tsen-
\ntences\tand  the establishment and  regulation\tof  military
\nprisons etc. The subject of granting pardons, remissions and
\nsuspensions  of sentences is dealt with in Sections  179  to
\n190  comprised in Chapter XIV of the Act. Thus we find\tthat
\nthe  Act  contains elaborate  and  comprehensive  provisions
\ndealing\t with all the stages commencing from the  investiga-
\ntion  of  offences  and the apprehension  and  detention  of
\noffenders  and terminating with the execution  of  sentences
\nand the grant of remissions. suspensions etc.
\n    Section  167  of  the Act specifically  lays  down\tthat
\nwhenever a person is sentenced by a Court-Martial under\t the
\nAct to imprisonment, the term of his sentence shall, whether
\nit  has been revised or not, be reckoned to commence on\t the
\nday  on\t which the original proceedings were signed  by\t the
\nPresiding  Officer or, in the case of a\t summary  Court-Mar-
\ntial,  by the Court. In the face of this categorical  provi-
\nsion laying down that the sentence of imprisonment shall be
\n 89<\/span>
\ndeemed\tto  have commenced only on the day when\t the  court-
\nmartial proceeding was signed by the Presiding Officer or by
\nthe Court as the case may be, it is in our opinion futile to
\ncontend\t that  the Army Act is silent with  respect  to\t the
\ntopic  as to the date with effect from which the  period  of
\nimprisonment  covered by the sentence is to be reckoned.  We
\nstate  this only for the reason that an\t ingenious  argument
\nwas  advanced  before us by Counsel for the  appellant\tthat
\nSection\t 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only lays\tdown
\nthat nothing in the Code shall “affect” any special or local
\nlaw  and hence in the absence of any specific  provision  in
\nthe  special  or local law covering the\t particular  subject
\nmatter, the provisions of the Code would get attracted. Even
\nif  this  argument  is to be assumed to\t be  correct  (which
\nassumption  we shall presently show iS wholly  unwarranted),
\ninasmuch  as Section 176 of the Act specifically deals\twith
\nthe  topic  of the date of commencement of the\tsentence  of
\nimprisonment, there is absolutely no scope for invoking\t the
\naid  of\t Section 428 of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  in
\nrespect\t of prisoners convicted by Court-Martial  under\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
    As we have already indicated, we are unable to accept as
\ncorrect\t the narrow and restricted interpretation sought  to
\nbe placed on Section 5 of the Code by the Counsel  appearing
\non  behalf of the appellants. In our opinion the  effect  of
\nSection 5 of the Code is clearly to exclude the applicabili-
\nty  of the Code in respect of proceedings under any  special
\nor  local law or any special jurisdiction or form of  proce-
\ndure  prescribed  by  any other law.  Whatever\tdoubt  might
\notherwise have existed on this point is totally set at\trest
\nby  Section  475  of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  which
\nfurnishes a conclusive indication that the provisions of the
\nCode  are  not intended to apply in  respect  of  proceeding
\nbefore\tthe Court-Martial. That Section is in the  following
\nterms:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “475.  Delivery  to  commanding  officers\t  of
\n\t      persons\t  liable    to\t  be\ttried\t  by
\n\t      Court-martial–(1) The Central Government\t may
\n\t      make  rules consistent with this Code and\t the
\n\t      Army  Act,  1950 (46 of 1950), the  Navy\tAct,
\n\t      1957 (62 of 1957), and the Air Force Act, 1950
\n\t      (45  of 1950) and any other law,\trelating  to
\n\t      the  Armed Forces of the Union, for  the\ttime
\n\t      being  in force, as to cases in which  persons
\n\t      subject  to military, naval or air force\tlaw,
\n\t      or  such other law, shall be tried by a  Court
\n\t      to  which this Code applies or by a  Courtmar-
\n\t      tial; and when any person is brought before  a
\n\t      Magistrate  and  charged with an\toffence\t for
\n\t      which  he\t is liable to be tried either  by  a
\n\t      Court  ‘to  which this Code applies  or  by
\n\t      a\t Court-martial, such Magistrate\t shall\thave
\n\t      regard to such
\n\t      90<\/span>
\n\t      rules, and shall in proper cases deliver\thim,
\n\t      together\twith a statement of the\t offence  of
\n\t      which he is accused, to the commanding officer
\n\t      of  the  unit to which he belongs, or  to\t the
\n\t      commanding  officer of the  nearest  military,
\n\t      navel  or air force station, as the  case\t may
\n\t      be,  for\tthe  purpose of\t being\ttried  by  a
\n\t      Court-martial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation–In this section–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     (a) “unit” includes a regiment,  corps,
\n\t      ship, detachment, group, battalion or company,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     (b) “Court-martial” includes any tribu-
\n\t      nal  with\t the powers similar to\tthose  of  a
\n\t      Court-martial  constituted under the  relevant
\n\t      law  applicable  to the Armed  Forces  of\t the
\n\t      Union.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)  Every  Magistrate shall, on\treceiving  a
\n\t      written  application for that purpose  by\t the
\n\t      commanding  officer  of any unit\tor  body  of
\n\t      soldiers,\t sailors  or  airmen  stationed\t  or
\n\t      employed\tat  any such place, use\t his  utmost
\n\t      endeavors\t to apprehend and secure any  person
\n\t      accused of such offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3) A High Court may, if it thinks fit, direct
\n\t      that a prisoner detained in any jail  situated
\n\t      within  the State be brought before  a  Court-
\n\t      martial  for trial or to be examined  touching
\n\t      any matter pending before the Court-martial.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  distinction  made in the Section between  “trial  by  a
\nCourt  to  which this Code applies” and by  a  Court-Martial
\nconclusively indicates that Parliament intended to treat the
\nCourt-Martial as a forum to the proceedings before which the
\nprovisions of the Code will have no application.\n<\/p>\n
     Further,  there is also intrinsic indication  contained
\nin  the very wording of Section 428 of the Code of  Criminal
\nProcedure  that the section cannot have any  application  in
\nrespect\t of  persons tried and sentenced  by  Court-Martial.
\nSection 428 of the Code reads–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “428.  Period of detention  undergone
\n\t      by  the  accused to be  set  off\tagainst\t the
\n\t      sentence\tof  imprisonment–Where\t an  accused
\n\t      person  has, on conviction, been sentenced  to
\n\t      imprisonment  for a term, not being  imprison-
\n\t      ment in
\n\t      91<\/span>
\n\t      default  of  payment of fine,  the  period  of
\n\t      detention, if any, undergone by him during the
\n\t      investigation,  inquiry or trial of  the\tsame
\n\t      case  and before the date of such\t conviction,
\n\t      shall be set off against the term of imprison-
\n\t      ment,  imposed on him on such conviction,\t and
\n\t      the  liability of such person to\tundergo\t im-
\n\t      prisonment  on  such conviction shall  be\t re-
\n\t      stricted to the remainder, if any, of the term
\n\t      of imprisonment imposed on him.”
\n    The section provides for set off of the period of deten-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tion  undergone by an accused person during “the  investiga-
\ntion, inquiry or trial” of the same case before the date  of
\nconviction. The expression “investigation” has been  defined
\nin Section 2(h) of the Code as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2.(h)  “investigation” includes all the\tpro-
\n\t      ceedings under this Code for the collection of
\n\t      evidence\tconducted by a police officer or  by
\n\t      any  person (other than a Magistrate)  who  is
\n\t      authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the case of persons tried by Court-Martial there  is  no
\ninvestigation conducted by any police officer under the Code
\nor by any person authorised by Magistrate in that behalf.
\n    Similarly, the expression “inquiry” has been defined  in
\nSection\t 2(g) of the Code as meaning “every  inquiry,  other
\nthan  a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate  or
\nCourt.” No inquiry is conducted under the Code by any Magis-
\ntrate  or  Court  in respect of the  offences  committed  by
\npersons\t which are tried by the Court-Martial. The trial  is
\nalso  not conducted by the Court-Martial under the Code\t but
\nonly in accordance with the special procedure prescribed  by
\nthe Act. Such being the position, the provision for set\t off
\ncontained  in Section 428 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure
\ncan never be attracted in the case of persons convicted\t and
\nsentenced by Court-Martial to undergo imprisonment.
\n    In\tthe light of the foregoing discussion we  uphold  as
\ncorrect\t the  view  taken by the High Court  of\t Punjab\t and
\nHaryana\t in the judgments under appeal. We also\t approve  of
\nthe  decisions of the High Courts of Madras and Delhi  cited
\nabove  wherein the view has been taken that the\t benefit  of
\nSection\t 428  of the Code of Criminal  Procedure  cannot  be
\nclaimed by persons tried and sentenced by the Court-Martial.
\nThe decision in Subramanian v. Officer Commanding Armoured
\n92<\/span>
\n Static Workshop (supra) rendered by a learned Single  Judge
\nof the High Court of Kerala does not contain any  discussion
\nof the relevant provisions of the two concerned statutes and
\nwhat  little  reasoning is found in the\t judgment  does\t not
\nappeal to us as correct or sound. The Division Bench of\t the
\nCalcutta High Court in its decision in Anand Singh Bishit v.
\nUnion  of  India and Ors. (supra) has merely  followed\t the
\naforesaid  ruling of the Single Judge of the High  Court  of
\nKerala. We hold that these two decisions do not lay down the
\ncorrect law.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t follows  from the foregoing discussion\t that  these
\nappeals are devoid of merits and they will accordingly stand
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed.\n93<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1646, 1987 SCR (3) 84 Author: V B Eradi Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J) PETITIONER: AJMER SINGH ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/04\/1987 BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAjmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987 - 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\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-19T23:17:15+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T23:17:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2431,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987\",\"name\":\"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T23:17:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987 - 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\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-19T23:17:15+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987","datePublished":"1987-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T23:17:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987"},"wordCount":2431,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987","name":"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T23:17:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajmer-singh-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-29-april-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajmer Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1987"}]},{"@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\/19662","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=19662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}