{"id":238577,"date":"2006-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006"},"modified":"2015-02-27T14:12:17","modified_gmt":"2015-02-27T08:42:17","slug":"harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n                               1\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                    DATED  :  21-12-2006\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n                             AND\n       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR\n                              \n            HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.750 OF 2006\n                              \nHarpinder Singh\nS\/o. Gurudev Singh                      ..  Petitioner\n\n\n                    Vs.\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   Rep. by the Secretary to the\n   Government, Public (SC)\n   Department, Fort St. George,\n   Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. The Union of India, rep. by\n   the Secretary to the Government,\n   Ministry of Finance,\n   Department of Revenue (Cofeposa Unit),\n   New Delhi.\n\n3. The Superintendent,\n   Central Prison,\n   Chennai 600 003.                     ..  Respondents\n\n     Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia for the issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus calling  for\nthe   records   relating   to   the   detention   order   in\nG.O.No.S.R.1\/532-2\/2006 dated 28.7.2006 passed by the  first\nrespondent and quash the same and direct the respondents  to\nproduce  the  body  of  the person of  the  detenu,  namely,\nHarpinder Singh, son of Gurudev Singh before this Court, now\ndetained  under  Section 3(1) of the  COFEPOSA  Act  in  the\nCentral Prison, Chennai and set him at liberty.\n\n\n          For Petitioner      :  Mr.B. Kumar,\n                                 Senior Counsel for\n                                 Mr. Palani Kumar\n\n          For Respondents     :  Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran\n                                 Addl. Public Prosecutor\n\n                              \n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
P.K. MISRA, J<\/p>\n
           The  detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition<\/p>\n
challenging the order of detention dated 28.7.2006 passed by<\/p>\n
the  Government  of Tamil Nadu detaining  the  detenu  under<\/p>\n
Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange  and<\/p>\n
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52<\/p>\n
of 1974), hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.<\/p>\n
           2.  The order of detention has been passed on the<\/p>\n
following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      On  26.6.2006,  the  detenu arrived  at  Chennai  from<\/p>\n
Bangkok  by  flight.   When he was  questioned,  the  detenu<\/p>\n
produced five Baggage Claim Tags, out of which 4 were in the<\/p>\n
name of the detenu.  The detenu declared that the checked in<\/p>\n
baggage  as  well  as hand baggage were containing  clothes,<\/p>\n
cosmetics  and  personal belongings and all the  checked  in<\/p>\n
baggage  were  held  up  at Bangkok.   Examination  of  hand<\/p>\n
baggage  resulted  in  recovery  of  1040  nos  of  512   MB<\/p>\n
Multimedia Cards, value of which was Rs.6,24,000\/-  and  the<\/p>\n
said  goods  were seized.  In the voluntary  statement,  the<\/p>\n
detenu confessed about the aforesaid aspects.  By attempting<\/p>\n
to  smuggle 512 MB Multimedia Cards by way of misdeclaration<\/p>\n
with  an  intention to evade customs duty  in  violation  of<\/p>\n
Sections 72 and 79 of the Customs Act, the detenu was liable<\/p>\n
to  be  prosecuted under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs<\/p>\n
Act  as  well as Section 112 of the Customs Act.  On further<\/p>\n
verification  it was found that the checked in  baggage  had<\/p>\n
been sent to Chennai along with passenger and no baggage was<\/p>\n
pending  in the custody of airways either in Chennai  or  in<\/p>\n
Bangkok.    From  the  above  basic  materials,  the   State<\/p>\n
Government  being satisfied that the detenu had involved  in<\/p>\n
smuggling goods, considered necessary to pass the  order  of<\/p>\n
detention.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           3.  In  the  Habeas Corpus Petition as originally<\/p>\n
filed  and  as  per the additional grounds permitted  to  be<\/p>\n
taken, the following contentions are raised :-<\/p>\n
      (1)  The detenu was arrested on 27.6.2006 and when  he<\/p>\n
was  produced  before the Magistrate,  he  was  remanded  to<\/p>\n
judicial  custody  till  11.7.2006, which  was  subsequently<\/p>\n
extended  upto 8.12.2006, and the detenu was in  custody  at<\/p>\n
the  time  when the order of detention was passed  and  thus<\/p>\n
there  was  no reason or compelling necessity  to  pass  the<\/p>\n
order  of detention and such order has been passed  on  non-<\/p>\n
application of mind.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  The  incident  took place on  26.6.2006  and  the<\/p>\n
detention  order was passed on 28.7.2006, after a  lapse  of<\/p>\n
about  five  weeks,  which  indicated  that  there  was   no<\/p>\n
compelling necessity to pass the order of detention.<\/p>\n
     (3) While passing the order of detention, the detaining<\/p>\n
authority has taken into consideration the market  value  of<\/p>\n
the  goods, but the detaining authority has failed to supply<\/p>\n
the relied on documents for the purpose of ascertaining such<\/p>\n
value.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (4)  In the telegram sent on 27.6.2006, it was  stated<\/p>\n
that  the  detenu was produced before the learned Additional<\/p>\n
Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I,  Egmore<\/p>\n
on  27.6.2006  and  was  remanded and  detained  in  Central<\/p>\n
Prison,  but the initial order of remand indicates that  the<\/p>\n
detenu  was produced before the Magistrate at his  residence<\/p>\n
and,  therefore, there was contradiction between  those  two<\/p>\n
documents,  by which the detenu and his family members  were<\/p>\n
confused.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (5) The detenu’s mother tongue was Punjabi and he knows<\/p>\n
only  Punjabi  and Hindi and he does not know  to  read  and<\/p>\n
understand  English, but the order of detention, grounds  of<\/p>\n
detention  and  the  booklet  supplied  to  the  detenu   on<\/p>\n
29.7.2006 and 1.8.2006 were in English and since the  detenu<\/p>\n
had  no working knowledge in English, he was handicapped  in<\/p>\n
making an effective and meaningful representation.<\/p>\n
      (6)  The  detenu  had  sent  a  retraction  letter  on<\/p>\n
5\/6.7.2006.    Subsequently,  he   made   a   representation<\/p>\n
requesting  the  detaining  authority  to  supply  all   the<\/p>\n
documents in the language known to him, but such request was<\/p>\n
not  complied with.  The sole incident cannot be taken as  a<\/p>\n
ground for passing the order of detention.<\/p>\n
      (7)  The  representation dated 4.8.2006  sent  by  the<\/p>\n
brother-in-law  of the detenu to the Central Government  and<\/p>\n
the  State  Government  through  speed  post  had  not  been<\/p>\n
considered and there was unexplained and unreasonable delay.<\/p>\n
        (8)    The   detenu   had   sent   a   pre-detention<\/p>\n
representation\/retraction letter on  7.7.2006  addressed  to<\/p>\n
the   Law  Minister  of  the  State,  Chennai  through   the<\/p>\n
Superintendent  of  Central Prison, but  such  pre-detention<\/p>\n
representation  had  not been placed  before  the  detaining<\/p>\n
authority  while passing the detention order.  Subsequently,<\/p>\n
many representations were sent to the Advisory Board and the<\/p>\n
State   Government,  which  were  received,  but  were   not<\/p>\n
considered.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
Respondent  No.1,  sworn  to  by  the  Deputy  Secretary  to<\/p>\n
Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, it  has  been<\/p>\n
stated inter alia that the order of detention was passed  on<\/p>\n
the  materials  available on record and  on  application  of<\/p>\n
mind.   It has been stated that the detenu had received  the<\/p>\n
copy  of  the  seizure list by signing in  English  and  the<\/p>\n
voluntary  statement had also been made  by  the  detenu  in<\/p>\n
English and such statement had been made voluntarily and not<\/p>\n
by  force.  It has been further stated that even though  the<\/p>\n
petitioner was a remand prisoner at the time of passing  the<\/p>\n
order of detention, there is possibility of the detenu being<\/p>\n
released on bail and, therefore, there was necessity to pass<\/p>\n
the  order.  There is no delay in passing the order and  the<\/p>\n
detaining  authority had considered all the  aspects  before<\/p>\n
passing the order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Regarding   the  grounds  taken  in  the   additional<\/p>\n
affidavit,   it   has   been   stated   that   pre-detention<\/p>\n
representation  of the detenu dated 8.7.2006  (7.7.2006  was<\/p>\n
corrected  as  8.7.2006  by  the detenu)  addressed  to  the<\/p>\n
Minister  of  Law  was  in Hindi.  This  representation  was<\/p>\n
forwarded  to  the  Minister for  Revenue  and  Law  by  the<\/p>\n
Superintendent,  Central Prison and it was received  by  the<\/p>\n
Office  of  the  Minister  on 10.7.2006  and  the  same  was<\/p>\n
forwarded  to  the Tamil Development and Culture  Department<\/p>\n
(Translation   Wing)   for   translation   of   the    Hindi<\/p>\n
representation  into  English.   Home  Department  got   the<\/p>\n
representation translated into English and came to know that<\/p>\n
the   subject   relates  to  COFEPOSA  and   forwarded   the<\/p>\n
representation  to Public (Law and Order)  Department.   The<\/p>\n
Public  Department received the representation with  English<\/p>\n
translation   on  19.10.2006  and  rejected  the   same   on<\/p>\n
3.11.2006,  which was subsequently served on the  detenu  on<\/p>\n
4.11.2006.  The other representations made by the detenu had<\/p>\n
been   duly  considered  and  rejected  by  the  appropriate<\/p>\n
authorities.   Since  the pre-detention representation  with<\/p>\n
translation  was received only on 19.10.2006, there  was  no<\/p>\n
possibility  of  placing  the  pre-detention  representation<\/p>\n
before  the detaining authority.  Further details have  been<\/p>\n
furnished regarding the disposal of other representations.<\/p>\n
           5.  At  the  time  of  hearing,  learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner has concentrated on the  aspect<\/p>\n
relating   to   non-consideration   of   the   pre-detention<\/p>\n
representation and thereafter careless delay in dealing with<\/p>\n
such representation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           6. By a series of decisions of Madras High Court,<\/p>\n
it  has been held that any pre-detention representation made<\/p>\n
by  the detenu or on his behalf should be considered by  the<\/p>\n
detaining  authority  and  if for  some  reason  it  is  not<\/p>\n
possible to consider such representation before the order of<\/p>\n
detention   is   passed,  such  representation   should   be<\/p>\n
thereafter considered as expeditiously as possible.<\/p>\n
           7. In (1992)2 CTC 490 (T.M. SYED ALI v . STATE OF<\/p>\n
TAMIL  NADU),  a  Division Bench of  this  Court  held  that<\/p>\n
representation  made  denying  the  very  occurrence  before<\/p>\n
passing  of  the  order  of  detention  is  required  to  be<\/p>\n
considered by the detaining authority.  In the said case  it<\/p>\n
was  also  indicated that it is the duty of the  functioning<\/p>\n
authority  to forward such representation to the  Government<\/p>\n
and  failure  to consider such representation would  vitiate<\/p>\n
the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            8.  Similar  view  has  been  taken  in  several<\/p>\n
decisions  subsequently and it is not necessary to  multiply<\/p>\n
the  authorities save and except referring to a very  recent<\/p>\n
Division   Bench  decision  of  this  Court  in   (2006)   1<\/p>\n
M.L.J.(Crl.)131 (P.M.S. MOHIADEEN SAHIB v.  STATE  OF  TAMIL<\/p>\n
NADU),<\/a> wherein the ratio of the decision in (1992)2 CTC  490<\/p>\n
(cited supra) has been followed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            9.  In  the  present  case,  such  pre-detention<\/p>\n
representation was admittedly received in the Office of  the<\/p>\n
Law  Minister on 10.7.2006.  It is of course true that  such<\/p>\n
representation was in Hindi.  According to the learned Addl.<\/p>\n
Public  Prosecutor, since such representation was  in  Hindi<\/p>\n
and  since at the time of receipt of the representation  the<\/p>\n
detenu  was  a  remand  prisoner,  such  representation  was<\/p>\n
forwarded to the Home Department and thereafter the  English<\/p>\n
translation  of such representation was made available  only<\/p>\n
on  19.10.2006 and as such there was no occasion to consider<\/p>\n
such representation before 28.7.2006.  He has also contended<\/p>\n
that  the  representation was addressed to the Law Minister,<\/p>\n
which was not appropriate.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           10. From the materials on record, it appears that<\/p>\n
the  detenu had emphasised about such earlier representation<\/p>\n
in his further representations dated 4.8.2006 and 23.9.2006.<\/p>\n
Such subsequent representations dated 4.8.2006 and 23.9.2006<\/p>\n
were  rejected  on 18.9.2006 and 9.10.2006  respectively  by<\/p>\n
stating  that  no  pre-detention  representation  had   been<\/p>\n
received.       It  appears  that except  stating  that  the<\/p>\n
representation  received in the office of the  Law  Minister<\/p>\n
was forwarded to the Home Department and the Home Department<\/p>\n
forwarded  the  same  to the Tamil Development  and  Culture<\/p>\n
Department  for translation and the English translation  was<\/p>\n
made  available on 19.10.2006 (after a gap of about 3 months<\/p>\n
and  10  days),  nothing  has  been  indicated  as  to  what<\/p>\n
transpired between 10.7.2006 and 19.10.2006.<\/p>\n
           11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents<\/p>\n
has  placed reliance upon the decision reported in (2006)  2<\/p>\n
M.L.J.(Crl.)  745  (D.  ANURADHA  v.  JOINT  SECRETARY   AND<\/p>\n
ANOTHER).   In  the<\/a>  said case, the order of  detention  was<\/p>\n
under  Conservation of Foreign Exchange  and  Prevention  of<\/p>\n
Smuggling Activities Act.  Several representations had  been<\/p>\n
made  by or on behalf of the detenu from time to time.  Four<\/p>\n
of  the  representations had been disposed  of  without  any<\/p>\n
unreasonable or unexplained delay.  However, there was delay<\/p>\n
of  119 days in disposing of fifth representation, which had<\/p>\n
been  made  to the Central Government in Tamil.   By  taking<\/p>\n
note   of  the  explanation  furnished,  the  Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
observed   that  delay  was  caused  mainly  due   to   non-<\/p>\n
availability  of  the translated copy of the  representation<\/p>\n
which  has been made in Tamil and it had been taken about  3<\/p>\n
months  for  getting translated.  As soon as the  translated<\/p>\n
copy was received, the authorities had taken urgent steps to<\/p>\n
dispose of the same within a very short period.<\/p>\n
            12.   It  is  no  doubt  true  that  since   the<\/p>\n
representation was written in Hindi, it was required  to  be<\/p>\n
translated and the translation may take some time.  However,<\/p>\n
it  was  incumbent  upon the respondents  to  explain  those<\/p>\n
aspects  by  giving  more particulars  and  even  by  giving<\/p>\n
affidavits  of  the persons concerned.  It is  difficult  to<\/p>\n
envisage  that  it took more than 3 months  to  translate  a<\/p>\n
representation of about 3 pages.  It is of course true  that<\/p>\n
initially  at the time when the representation was  received<\/p>\n
the  detenu was a remand prisoner and there was no order  of<\/p>\n
detention  and  the authorities might have taken  their  own<\/p>\n
time.    However,   it  is  apparent  from  the   subsequent<\/p>\n
representations  dated 4.8.2006 and 23.9.2006  that  it  had<\/p>\n
been emphasised about the pre-detention representation.   At<\/p>\n
that  stage, at least the authorities should have  tried  to<\/p>\n
find   out   as   to  what  happened  to  the  pre-detention<\/p>\n
representation  dated 7\/8.7.2006.  On the  other  hand,  the<\/p>\n
authorities  rejected   such  subsequent  representation  by<\/p>\n
simply stating that no such pre-detention representation had<\/p>\n
been  received.      Instead of bothering to find about  the<\/p>\n
pre-detention  representation, of which  representation  was<\/p>\n
made  repeatedly by the detenu, the authorities exhibited  a<\/p>\n
rather  careless and indifferent attitude by simply  stating<\/p>\n
that pre-detention representation had not been received.<\/p>\n
           13. In several decisions of the Supreme Court  as<\/p>\n
well  as  the Division Bench of this Court it has been  laid<\/p>\n
down  that  a  representation made by or on  behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
detenu  must receive a real and proper consideration.   Many<\/p>\n
of  such  decisions have been noticed and  followed  by  the<\/p>\n
Division Bench in (2006) 1 M.L.J.(Crl.) 131 (already cited),<\/p>\n
wherein   after  noticing  such  authorities  it  has   been<\/p>\n
observed:-\n<\/p>\n
          “13. In the light of the above principles, we
\n     are  of  the view that though the detenu has  made
\n     pre-detention  representation on  4.7.2005,  which
\n     was   received  by  the  Superintendent,   Central
\n     Prison, Chennai-9, and forwarded to the addressee,
\n     Law Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu on 5.7.2005
\n     itself, in view of the fact that the same had been
\n     reiterated  in the representation dated 21.7.2005,
\n     the detaining authority ought to have verified the
\n     earlier representation and passed the order  after
\n     due  consideration.   We are  satisfied  that  the
\n     detaining  authority  failed  to  consider   these
\n     relevant  aspects and the detenu  is  entitled  to
\n     succeed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          14. In view of the above, keeping in view the well<\/p>\n
settled  principle  that  a  representation  (whether   pre-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
detention or post-detention) is required to be considered by<\/p>\n
application  of  mind, we are constrained  to  come  to  the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the order of detention got vitiated.<\/p>\n
           15.  Apart from the above, learned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner has raised the contention relating to non-<\/p>\n
supply  of  documents in the language known to  the  detenu,<\/p>\n
namely, Hindi.  This aspect has been challenged by the State<\/p>\n
Government  by stating that the detenu himself  has  written<\/p>\n
the  voluntary statement in English.  It is contended by the<\/p>\n
Senior  Counsel that the detenu was not very much conversant<\/p>\n
with  English  and  he  had merely copied  certain  type  of<\/p>\n
questions in capital letters in English which would indicate<\/p>\n
that  the  voluntary statement was extracted and also  would<\/p>\n
indicate  that the detenu was not very much conversant  with<\/p>\n
English.   However,  since the order of detention  has  been<\/p>\n
found  to  be  vitiated on account of  the  fact  that  pre-<\/p>\n
detention  representation had not  been  placed  before  the<\/p>\n
appropriate authority and thereafter it has been  considered<\/p>\n
belatedly, it is not necessary to go into this aspect.<\/p>\n
           16.  In  course of hearing, learned Addl.  Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor  has  submitted that the detenu has  deliberately<\/p>\n
filed the representation in Hindi with a view to mislead the<\/p>\n
authorities   and  take  advantage  which  should   not   be<\/p>\n
permitted.   In  this  connection, he has  referred  to  the<\/p>\n
decision  of  the  Supreme Court reported in  (2006)  M.L.J.<\/p>\n
(Crl.) 745 (D. ANURADHA v. JOINT SECRETARY AND ANOTHER).<\/a><\/p>\n
          17. Admittedly, the detenu is a resident of Punjab<\/p>\n
and  even  according to his confessional  statement  he  had<\/p>\n
studied only upto class X.  It is obvious that his knowledge<\/p>\n
in  English may not be of high order.  Naturally  one  would<\/p>\n
expect  that  the  detenu would make representation  in  the<\/p>\n
language  in  which  he  is  more familiar  rather  than  in<\/p>\n
English.   Such representation had been made by  the  detenu<\/p>\n
himself.   It  is no doubt true that some of the  subsequent<\/p>\n
representations   were  in  English   made   through   other<\/p>\n
relations.   But,  merely because  the  detenu  had  made  a<\/p>\n
representation in Hindi it cannot be concluded that  he  was<\/p>\n
adopting  a tactic of misleading the State to take advantage<\/p>\n
of  any  loophole in future.  The decision  of  the  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  relied  upon  by the State was passed  on  completely<\/p>\n
different set of facts and the ratio of such decision cannot<\/p>\n
be made applicable to the present case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           18.  For the aforesaid reasons, the Habeas Corpus<\/p>\n
Petition is allowed and the order of detention is set  aside<\/p>\n
and  the  detenu is directed to be set at liberty  forthwith<\/p>\n
from  the  custody unless he is required in connection  with<\/p>\n
any other case.\n<\/p>\n
dpk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
\n   Rep. by the Secretary to the
\n   Government, Public (SC)
\n   Department, Fort St. George,
\n   Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Secretary to the Government,
\n   The Union of India,
\n   Ministry of Finance,
\n   Department of Revenue (Cofeposa Unit),
\n   New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Superintendent,
\n   Central Prison,
\n   Chennai 600 003.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21-12-2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.750 OF 2006 Harpinder Singh S\/o. Gurudev Singh .. Petitioner […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-238577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006 - 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\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-27T08:42:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-27T08:42:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2548,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-27T08:42:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006 - 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\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-27T08:42:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-27T08:42:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006"},"wordCount":2548,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006","name":"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-27T08:42:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harpinder-singh-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harpinder Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/238577","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=238577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}