{"id":226857,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-15T16:10:21","modified_gmt":"2018-03-15T10:40:21","slug":"present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal … on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal … on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n
               Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008\n                                                                  1\n\n\n                   Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008\n                               ----\n<\/pre>\n
                   State of Haryana<\/p>\n
                         Versus<\/p>\n
                   Jagraj Singh and another<\/p>\n
                   —\n<\/p>\n
Present:-   Mr. A.K. Jindal, Assistant Advocate
\n            General, Haryana, for the applicant-appellant.<\/p>\n
                         —\n<\/p>\n
                   The aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous<\/p>\n
Application has been filed by the State, under Section 378(3)<\/p>\n
of the Code of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( amended up<\/p>\n
to date ) seeking leave of the Court to file an appeal against<\/p>\n
the judgment of acquittal dated 15.02.2008, rendered by the<\/p>\n
Special Judge, Sirsa.\n<\/p>\n
2.                 The facts, in brief, are that 26.05.2006, at<\/p>\n
about 6.15 PM, a Police party headed by Arun Kumar, Sub<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police Station Odhan, was present, on the road,<\/p>\n
leading from village Jandwala to Rajpura, for patrolling and<\/p>\n
detection of crime. In the meanwhile, a motorcycle was seen<\/p>\n
coming. The rider thereof, tried to reverse the same with a<\/p>\n
view to escape. However, the rider and the pillion rider were<\/p>\n
apprehended, along with the motorcycle.          Jagraj Singh,
\n                Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008
\n                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
accused, was driving the motorcycle, and Gurpreet Singh was<\/p>\n
the pillion rider thereof. The Investigating Officer suspected<\/p>\n
that they were carrying some contraband. The search of the<\/p>\n
accused, was conducted in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
law, as a result whereof, 200 grams opium milk, from the<\/p>\n
person of Jagraj Singh and 100 grams opium milk, from the<\/p>\n
person of Gurpreet Singh, were recovered. Two samples of<\/p>\n
10 grams each, from the opium milk, recovered from the<\/p>\n
accused-respondents, were taken out and the remaining opium<\/p>\n
milk was put into separate containers. The samples and the<\/p>\n
containers, containing the    remaining opium milk,      were<\/p>\n
converted into parcels,      duly sealed, and taken into<\/p>\n
possession, vide a separate recovery memo. The motorcycle<\/p>\n
was also taken into possession, vide a separate recovery<\/p>\n
memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis<\/p>\n
whereof,   the FIR     was recorded, against the accused-<\/p>\n
respondents.   The site plan was prepared. The accused were<\/p>\n
arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After<\/p>\n
the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.<\/p>\n
3.                On their    appearance, in the Court,        the<\/p>\n
accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by<\/p>\n
the prosecution. Charge under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs<\/p>\n
and Psychotropic Substances Act, was framed against the
\n                Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008
\n                                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial<\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.                  The prosecution, in support of its case,<\/p>\n
examined Inderjeet, H.C.,       (PW-1), Tajinder Singh, C.,<\/p>\n
(PW-2), Arun Kumar, S.I., (PW-3), Kuldeep Kumar, EHC,<\/p>\n
(PW-4), Mahinder Singh, HC, (PW-5), and Vinod Kumar,<\/p>\n
Inspector, ( PW6 ). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the<\/p>\n
State, closed the prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.                 The statements of the accused, under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were<\/p>\n
recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances,<\/p>\n
appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They<\/p>\n
pleaded false implication. They, however, did not produce<\/p>\n
any evidence in defence, and closed the same.<\/p>\n
6.                 The trial Court, after hearing the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the parties and on going through the evidence, produced<\/p>\n
by the prosecution, acquitted the accused-respondents, on the<\/p>\n
grounds that no independent witness was joined by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer, despite availability and as such the<\/p>\n
possibility of planting the alleged minor recovery of opium<\/p>\n
milk, could not be ruled out; that there was a delay of six days<\/p>\n
in sending the sample parcels to the office of the Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory, which remained unexplained, and as such
\n                 Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008
\n                                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
the possibility of tampering with the same could not be ruled<\/p>\n
out when     there was no other evidence to prove the link<\/p>\n
evidence; that the statement of Vinod Kumar, Inspector,<\/p>\n
( PW-6 ), before whom the case property and the sample<\/p>\n
parcels were allegedly produced, was not recorded by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer and, as such, it could be said that the<\/p>\n
same were not produced before him; that no effort was made,<\/p>\n
to trace the owner of the motorcycle, so as to ascertain the<\/p>\n
origin of the opium milk; that the material contradictions,<\/p>\n
cropped up in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,<\/p>\n
which remained unexplained and, as such, its case became<\/p>\n
doubtful; that the prosecution case was unnatural and<\/p>\n
improbable; and that no valid offer under Section 50 of the<\/p>\n
Act was given.\n<\/p>\n
7.           I have heard the Counsel for the applicant-<\/p>\n
appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of<\/p>\n
the case, carefully.\n<\/p>\n
8.           The       Counsel   for   the   applicant-appellant<\/p>\n
submitted that the grounds, taken up by the trial Court, for<\/p>\n
acquitting the accused-respondents, cannot be said to be valid.<\/p>\n
He further submitted that the trial Court fell into an error, in<\/p>\n
acquitting the accused-respondents, on the basis of flimsy<\/p>\n
grounds.     He further submitted that non-joining of an
\n                Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008
\n                                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
independent witness, did not at all affect the merits of the<\/p>\n
case. He further submitted that, even the delay, in sending the<\/p>\n
sample    parcels, to the office of the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory, did not cause any dent, in the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. He further submitted that the offer given in this<\/p>\n
case, was valid.   It was also submitted by him that non-<\/p>\n
recording of the statement of Vinod Kumar, SI\/SHO ( PW-6 ),<\/p>\n
did not at all affect the merits of the case.      He further<\/p>\n
submitted that non-tracing the owner of the motorcycle, also<\/p>\n
did not cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that the contradictions which cropped up,<\/p>\n
in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as noted by the<\/p>\n
trial Court in its judgment, could not be said to be material,<\/p>\n
but, on the other hand, were natural and, as such, the case of<\/p>\n
the prosecution, did not become doubtful.    Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
prayer referred to above, in para 1 above, was made.<\/p>\n
9.          After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the<\/p>\n
contentions, raised by the Counsel for the applicant-appellant,<\/p>\n
in my considered opinion, the same do not carry any<\/p>\n
substance. The perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, the<\/p>\n
evidence, and record of the case clearly goes to reveal that<\/p>\n
the same is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and<\/p>\n
law on the point. Since the recovery allegedly effected from
\n                 Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008
\n                                                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused-respondents, in the instant case, could be<\/p>\n
characterized as minor and the chances of plantation of the<\/p>\n
same could not be ruled out, keeping in view the stringent<\/p>\n
punishment, provided by the Act, the trial Court, was right in<\/p>\n
coming to the conclusion, that, on account of the infirmities,<\/p>\n
referred to above, it was a fit case, in which the acquittal of<\/p>\n
the accused-respondents, should be recorded. The judgment<\/p>\n
of the trial Court, being based on the correct appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence, led by the prosecution, and law on the point, does<\/p>\n
not suffer from serious infirmity.          The contradictions,<\/p>\n
cropping up, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,<\/p>\n
could not be said to be minor, in nature, or insignificant. The<\/p>\n
other points, taken up by the trial Court, in recording acquittal<\/p>\n
of the accused-respondents, could also be said to be valid,<\/p>\n
persuading this Court, to come to the same conclusion, as was<\/p>\n
arrived at by the trial Court. It is settled principle of law, that<\/p>\n
the Appellate Court, while deciding the application for grant<\/p>\n
or refusal of leave to institute an appeal, against the judgment<\/p>\n
of acquittal, is required to see, as to whether, the same suffers<\/p>\n
from perversity mis-reading or mis-appreciation of the<\/p>\n
evidence produced, inherent infirmities and lacunae. If the<\/p>\n
two conclusions are possible, on the basis of the evidence,<\/p>\n
one going in favour of the accused-respondents, and the other
\n                 Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008
\n                                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
in favour of the prosecution, then the former is required to<\/p>\n
prevail over the latter. In those circumstances, no leave can be<\/p>\n
granted to institute an appeal, against the judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal, rendered by the trial Court.      The judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal, recorded by the trial Court, does not suffer from<\/p>\n
inherent infirmities, lacunae, perversity,     irregularities or<\/p>\n
illegalities, persuading the Court, to differ from the<\/p>\n
conclusion, arrived at, by it. In this view of the matter, no<\/p>\n
ground is made out, for the grant of leave to file an appeal,<\/p>\n
against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.02.2008, rendered<\/p>\n
by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
10.          For the reasons recorded herein-before, criminal<\/p>\n
miscellaneous No. 198-MA of 2008 is dismissed.<\/p>\n
October 22 ,2008                             ( Sham Sunder )\n     dinesh                                       Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal … on 22 October, 2008 Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008 1 Crl. Misc. No. 198- MA of 2008 —- State of Haryana Versus Jagraj Singh and another — Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the applicant-appellant. — The aforesaid […]<\/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-226857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPresent:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal ... on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal ... on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-15T10:40:21+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\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal … on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T10:40:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1380,\"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\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal ... on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T10:40:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal … on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal ... on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal ... on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-15T10:40:21+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\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal … on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T10:40:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008"},"wordCount":1380,"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\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008","name":"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal ... on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T10:40:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-mr-a-k-jindal-vs-the-aforesaid-criminal-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Present:- Mr. A.K. Jindal vs The Aforesaid Criminal … on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/226857","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=226857"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226857\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}