{"id":239806,"date":"2008-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-13T02:40:39","modified_gmt":"2018-11-12T21:10:39","slug":"vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit … vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit … vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                      1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n                                Crl. Appeal No.1114-SB of 2001\n                                Date of decision:September 29 , 2008\n\n1.           Vikramjit Singh son of Ranjit Singh\n\n2.           Gurvinder Singh son of Lal Singh\n\n             both residents of Village Mardan Khera,Distt. Karnal.\n\n\n                                     ....... Appellants\/accused\n\n                                Versus\n             State of Haryana\n                                                  ........ Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER\n\nPresent:           Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak\n                   Garg, Advocate, for the appellants.\n\n                   Mr. A.K.Jindal,AAG,Haryana,\n                   for the respondent.\n\n\nSham Sunder, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                     This appeal is directed against the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction dated 30.9.2000 and the order of sentence dated 3.10.2000,<\/p>\n
rendered by the Judge,Special Court, Karnal, vide which, he convicted the<\/p>\n
accused (now appellants ) for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of<\/p>\n
the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
called as ‘the Act’ only) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment, for a period of ten years each , and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac<\/p>\n
each , and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for another period of two and half years each, for having<\/p>\n
been found in possession of six bags each containing 40 kgs poppy husk.<\/p>\n
2.           The facts, in brief, are that on 26.7.1999 SI\/SHO Jarnail Singh<\/p>\n
alongwith other Police officials, was checking the traffic in Kaithal Chowk,<\/p>\n
Assandh, in a Government Jeep, where he received a secret information
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
that   Vikramjit Singh and Gurvinder Singh, accused were habitual of<\/p>\n
dealing with poppy husk. It was also informed that they had concealed six<\/p>\n
gunny bags of poppy husk, in the kotha of         tubewell of Vikramjit Singh,<\/p>\n
and if a raid was conducted, they could be apprehended. On receipt of the<\/p>\n
information, Chet Ram, Tehsildar, was summoned through Constable<\/p>\n
Satbir Singh and associated with the raiding party. Thereafter, the police<\/p>\n
party conducted raid on the          kotha of tubewell of accused Vikramjit<\/p>\n
Singh,where both the accused were found sitting, on the gunny bags. Both<\/p>\n
of them were apprehended. On inquiry, they disclosed their identity. The<\/p>\n
gunny bags were six in number. On search, each bag was found containing<\/p>\n
40 kgs of poppy husk. A sample of 200 grams was separated from each of<\/p>\n
the bags. The remaining poppy husk was kept in the same bags. The<\/p>\n
samples and the remaining poppy husk were converted into parcels, duly<\/p>\n
sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa<\/p>\n
was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was<\/p>\n
registered. The accused were arrested. Site plan was prepared. The<\/p>\n
statements of the witnesses, were recorded. After the completion of<\/p>\n
investigation, the accused were challaned.\n<\/p>\n
3.           On their appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents,<\/p>\n
relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused.         Charge<\/p>\n
under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against them, to which they<\/p>\n
pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.\n<\/p>\n
4.           The prosecution, in support of its case, examined      HC Daya<\/p>\n
Nand, PW1, HC Inder Singh,PW2, Chet Ram, PW3, SI Azad Singh, PW4<\/p>\n
and SI Jarnail Singh, PW5. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State<\/p>\n
closed the prosecution evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.            The statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,<\/p>\n
were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances,<\/p>\n
appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
implication. However, they produced Kartar Singh, DW1, and Rati Ram<\/p>\n
DW2, in their defence.\n<\/p>\n
6.           After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel<\/p>\n
for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial<\/p>\n
Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.<\/p>\n
7.           Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the<\/p>\n
order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed<\/p>\n
by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
8.           I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have<\/p>\n
gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.<\/p>\n
9.           The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted<\/p>\n
that though a secret information was received that the accused was sitting<\/p>\n
on the gunny bags, containing poppy husk, in the kotha of tubewell<\/p>\n
belonging to one of them and if a raid was conducted, heavy quantity of<\/p>\n
contraband, could be recovered , yet the same was neither reduced into<\/p>\n
writing nor sent to the Officer superior, immediately, as a result whereof,<\/p>\n
the trial, conviction and sentence stood vitiated. The submission of the<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It<\/p>\n
is, no doubt, true that the secret information was not reduced into writing<\/p>\n
nor immediately sent to the Officer superior. It was, on account of the<\/p>\n
reason that urgency was involved. The secret informer informed SI Jarnail<\/p>\n
Singh that if the raid was conducted immediately in the kotha of tubewell<\/p>\n
of   Vikramjit Singh,accused, he alongwith other accused could be<\/p>\n
apprehended, with a big haul of poppy husk. Had the Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
consumed time,       in reducing     into writing, the secret information, the<\/p>\n
possibility of leakage of the same, and escape of the accused, thereby<\/p>\n
defeating the very purpose of raid, would not have been ruled out. It was,<\/p>\n
under these circumstances, that the secret information could not be<\/p>\n
reduced into writing and sent to the Officer superior immediately. However,
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
as soon of the recovery was effected from the accused, ruqa was sent to<\/p>\n
the Police Station on the basis whereof FIR was registered and copies<\/p>\n
thereof in the form of special reports, were sent to the superior Officers, as<\/p>\n
also the Ilaqa Magistrate. The ruqa contained all the details with regard to<\/p>\n
search and seizure and arrest of the accused. There was, thus substantial<\/p>\n
compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. In Sajan Abraham<\/p>\n
Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 692, a case decided<\/p>\n
by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in somewhat similar<\/p>\n
circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that substantial compliance<\/p>\n
with the provisions of Section 42 would be sufficient, and the strict<\/p>\n
compliance should not be insisted upon. The facts of Sajjan Abraham’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) were to the effect that HC (PW-3), got information at about 7<\/p>\n
PM, that the appellant was selling injectable narcotic drugs, at a particular<\/p>\n
place. When he proceeded for the Police Station, to give this information,<\/p>\n
to his immediate superior, Sub Inspector of the Police (PW-5), he found<\/p>\n
him (PW-5) along with his Police Party, which was on patrol duty coming,<\/p>\n
and hence the said information was communicated there by PW-3 to PW-<\/p>\n
5. Thereafter, PW-5, along with his police party, and, PW-3, proceeded<\/p>\n
immediately towards the place, where the appellant was standing, and<\/p>\n
apprehended him.       It was contended that PW-5 had not reduced into<\/p>\n
writing,   the   information,   given   by   PW-3,   with   respect   to       the<\/p>\n
accused\/appellant’s involvement, before proceeding to arrest him, nor he<\/p>\n
had communicated it to his immediate superior, which constituted violation<\/p>\n
of Section 42. The said contention of the Counsel for the appellant, was<\/p>\n
repelled by the Apex Court, holding that, PW-5, could not have recorded<\/p>\n
the information given by, PW-3, and communicate the same, to his<\/p>\n
superior, while he was in motion, being on patrol duty, in a jeep, before<\/p>\n
proceeding to apprehend the accused. Had he not acted immediately, the<\/p>\n
appellant would have escaped. On these facts, it was held by the Apex
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
Court, that no inference could be drawn, that there had been any violation<\/p>\n
of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. In these circumstances, in the<\/p>\n
said authority, it was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “In construing any facts to find, whether the prosecution has<\/p>\n
             complied with the mandate of any provision which is<\/p>\n
             mandatory, one has to examine it with a pragmatic approach.<\/p>\n
             The law under the aforesaid Act being stringent to the persons<\/p>\n
             involved in the field of illicit drug traffic and drug abuse, the<\/p>\n
             legislature time and again has made some of its provisions<\/p>\n
             obligatory for the prosecution to comply with, which the courts<\/p>\n
             have interpreted it to be mandatory. This is in order to balance<\/p>\n
             the stringency for an accused by casting an obligation on the<\/p>\n
             prosecution for its strict compliance.       The stringency is<\/p>\n
             because of the type of crime involved under it, so that no such<\/p>\n
             person escapes from the clutches of the law.          The court<\/p>\n
             however while construing such provisions strictly should not<\/p>\n
             interpret the same so literally as to render their compliance,<\/p>\n
             impossible.   However, before drawing such an inference, it<\/p>\n
             should be examined with caution and circumspection. In other<\/p>\n
             words, if in a case, the following of a mandate strictly, results<\/p>\n
             in delay in trapping an accused, which may lead the accused<\/p>\n
             to escape, then the prosecution case should not be thrown<\/p>\n
             out.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.          In the instant case, the Police Party was in motion, while on<\/p>\n
patrol duty, when the secret information was received by Jarnail Singh, S.I.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, it could not be expected to waste even a single<\/p>\n
minute, in reducing into writing the secret information and sending the<\/p>\n
same to the superior Officer immediately as in the meanwhile, the accused<\/p>\n
would have escaped. Since, there was substantial compliance, with the
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
provisions of Section 42 of the Act, it could not be said that there was<\/p>\n
intentional and deliberate non-compliance thereof strictly. On account of<\/p>\n
this reason, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out.           The<\/p>\n
principle of law, laid down in Sajan Abraham’s case (supra), a case<\/p>\n
decided by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, is, thus, fully applicable<\/p>\n
to the facts of the present case.      The trial Court was, thus, right in<\/p>\n
recording conviction and awarding sentence, to the accused. The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without<\/p>\n
merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
11.          The case can be looked at, from another angle also. The<\/p>\n
recovery, in this case, was effected in the presence of Chet            Ram,<\/p>\n
Tehsildar-cum- Executive Magistrate,      duly empowered       Officer under<\/p>\n
Section 41 of the    Act. If the search was conducted and recovery was<\/p>\n
effected either by the Gazetted Officer, duly empowered under Section 41<\/p>\n
of the Act, or in his presence, then the compliance of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 42 of the Act, is not required to be made. In Union of India<\/p>\n
V.Satrohan 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 803 SC it was held that if the<\/p>\n
empowered Gazetted Officer himself conducts the search and seizes the<\/p>\n
contraband, or these acts are done in his presence, then such an Officer<\/p>\n
could be said to be duly empowered, under Section 41 of the Act, and in<\/p>\n
those circumstances, compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act<\/p>\n
is not required to be made. The principle of law, laid down in Satrohan’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these<\/p>\n
circumstance, non strict compliance with the provisions of Section 42 of<\/p>\n
the Act did not at all cast any doubt on the case of the prosecution, nor<\/p>\n
any prejudice was caused to the accused on account of this reason. The<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without<\/p>\n
merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
12.          It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that no
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence was collected, during the course of investigation as to whom the<\/p>\n
kotha of tubewell belonged. It was further submitted that only oral evidence<\/p>\n
came, in this regard, that it belonged to Vikramjit Singh,accused.   It was<\/p>\n
further submitted that when the documentary evidence could be collected<\/p>\n
to prove the ownership of the kotha, the oral evidence, was of no<\/p>\n
significance. He further submitted that in the absence of the documentary<\/p>\n
evidence to whom the kotha of tubewell belonged, it could not be said that<\/p>\n
the accused was in conscious possession of the contraband recovered.<\/p>\n
The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, does not appear to be<\/p>\n
correct. The accused were found sitting on six bags containing poppy husk.<\/p>\n
It was heavy recovery. It within the special means of knowledge of the<\/p>\n
accused, as to how they were found sitting on the bags, containing poppy<\/p>\n
husk, wherefrom the said poppy husk was brought to that kotha of the<\/p>\n
tubewell; and to which place the same was to be transported. They were<\/p>\n
required to explain these circumstances. However, they did not furnish any<\/p>\n
explanation in this regard. Under these circumstances, their possession<\/p>\n
stood proved, in respect of the bags, containing poppy husk. Once the<\/p>\n
possession of the accused, in relation to the bags, containing poppy-husk<\/p>\n
was proved, statutory presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act,<\/p>\n
operated against him, that they were in conscious possession thereof.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, it was for the accused, to rebut the statutory presumption,<\/p>\n
operating against them. They only took up the plea that they were falsely<\/p>\n
implicated.    The accused, however, failed to rebut the statutory<\/p>\n
presumption aforesaid. In Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (4)<\/p>\n
RCR (Criminal) 319, on 22.2.1993, three persons were found sitting, on<\/p>\n
the gunny bags, containing poppy husk. The appellant was arrested, while<\/p>\n
the other two fled. 25 bags containing poppy husk, were found, at the spot,<\/p>\n
which were seized. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial<\/p>\n
Court, and the appeal filed by him, was also dismissed by the High Court.
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
The Apex Court, upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant,<\/p>\n
observing that he was in conscious possession.         The word ‘conscious’<\/p>\n
means awareness about a particular fact. It is the state of mind, which is<\/p>\n
deliberate or intended. It was further held that possession, in a given case,<\/p>\n
need not be physical possession, but can be constructive, having power<\/p>\n
and control over the article, while the person whom the               physical<\/p>\n
possession, is given, holds it subject to that power or control. It, therefore,<\/p>\n
could not be said that the accused was not aware of the bags, containing<\/p>\n
poppy-husk. It was not a small quantity of poppy-husk. Keeping in view<\/p>\n
the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, the provisions of<\/p>\n
Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, and the evidence produced, on record, the<\/p>\n
trial Court, in my opinion, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the<\/p>\n
accused was in conscious possession of the bags, containing poppy-husk.<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants,<\/p>\n
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
13.           It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that<\/p>\n
the presence of Chet Ram, Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,           at the<\/p>\n
time of search, and seizure, was highly doubtful. He further submitted that<\/p>\n
had he been present, at the time of search and seizure, he would have<\/p>\n
put his seal, on the sample parcels. He further submitted that he did not<\/p>\n
affix his seal on the case property and the sample parcels which clearly<\/p>\n
made his presence doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants, in this regard does not appear to be correct. The mere fact that<\/p>\n
Chet Ram, did not affix his seal on the case property and the sample<\/p>\n
parcels did not mean that he was not present, at the time of search and<\/p>\n
seizure. Chet Ram appeared as, PW3. He in clear-cut terms stated that in<\/p>\n
his presence search and seizure in this case was effected. He further<\/p>\n
stated that the case property and the sample parcels were duly sealed with<\/p>\n
the seal bearing impression ‘JS’ belonging to Jarnail Singh. After use the
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
seal was handed over to Chet Ram. It was also proved from the evidence<\/p>\n
of Jarnail Singh, PW5, that Chet Ram, Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate<\/p>\n
was present with him, at the time of search and seizure. In the presence of<\/p>\n
cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of both these witnesses, it could<\/p>\n
not be said that Chet Ram,PW3, was not present at the time of search and<\/p>\n
seizure. He might not have been in possession of his own seal at the time<\/p>\n
of search and seizure, and that was why he could not affix the same, on<\/p>\n
the case property, and the sample parcels. In this view of the matter, the<\/p>\n
submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without<\/p>\n
merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n
14.          It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that the<\/p>\n
bags containing poppy husk, when produced, in the Court were in torn<\/p>\n
condition and, as such, the case property did not stand connected with<\/p>\n
the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this<\/p>\n
regard, does not appear to be correct. It is a matter of common experience<\/p>\n
that the case property of a number of cases is kept in the Malkhana. If on<\/p>\n
account of irresponsible handling of the same or during the course of<\/p>\n
transit, damage is caused to the bags, containing the contraband,that does<\/p>\n
not mean that the case property is not connected with the case. The only<\/p>\n
obligation, upon the prosecution, is to produce the case property, to get<\/p>\n
identified the same from the witnesses. In the instant case the case<\/p>\n
property was produced in the Court, and the same, was identified as the<\/p>\n
one as was recovered from the accused at the time of alleged search, and<\/p>\n
seizure, and, as such, the same stood duly connected with the instant<\/p>\n
case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard,<\/p>\n
being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.<\/p>\n
15.          No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
16.          In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based
\n Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same<\/p>\n
do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.<\/p>\n
17.          For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is<\/p>\n
dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 30.9.2000, and the order of<\/p>\n
sentence dated 3.10.2000, are upheld. If the accused\/appellants are on<\/p>\n
bail, their bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Karnal, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due<\/p>\n
promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
428 of the Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 29, 2008                          (SHAM SUNDER)\nsks                                             JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit … vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.1114-SB of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.1114-SB of 2001 Date of decision:September 29 , 2008 1. Vikramjit Singh son of Ranjit Singh 2. Gurvinder Singh son of […]<\/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-239806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit ... vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 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\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit ... vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-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=\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-12T21:10:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit … vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T21:10:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2980,\"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\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit ... vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T21:10:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit … vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 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":"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit ... vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 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\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit ... vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-12T21:10:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit … vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T21:10:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008"},"wordCount":2980,"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\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008","name":"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit ... vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T21:10:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vikramjit-singh-son-of-ranjit-vs-state-of-haryana-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vikramjit Singh Son Of Ranjit … vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 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\/239806","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=239806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}