{"id":243108,"date":"1998-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998"},"modified":"2016-08-29T13:12:35","modified_gmt":"2016-08-29T07:42:35","slug":"sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998","title":{"rendered":"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 72 (1998) DLT 371, 1998 (45) DRJ 49, 1998 (100) ELT 344 Del<\/div>\n
Author: Y Sabharwal.<\/div>\n
Bench: Y Sabharwal, D Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Y.K. Sabharwal. J.<\/p>\n
1.      The challenge in this petition is to summons dated 30th April 1994 and 2nd May 1994 issued by Air Customs Superintendent under Section 108 of  the Customs Act, 1962 requiring the attendance of the petitioner in  connection with  the  enquiry being made regarding export by M\/s.  Rancan  Impex.  The petitioner contends that the said summons are violative of Article 20 of the constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties briefly are  that an  FIR dated 30th April 1994 was registered under Section 420, 468 and  471
\nIPC, interalia, stating that on scrutiny of registers and documents it  has come to the notice of Assistant Collector of Customs that three  exporters, namely,  M\/s. Rancan Impex Pvt. Ltd. M\/s NOIDA Medicare Centre Limited  and M\/s  Apollo  Impex  and their custom house agent M\/s  Aditi  Services  have exported  certain  consignments by forging the signatures on  the  shipping bills.  The investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Umesh  Singh. The  petitioner claims that he is being falsely implicated in the case  and he  is neither the employee nor director and\/or owner of any of  the  three companies.  One Ram Niwas, Custom House Agent, was arrested  in  connection with this case. The bail application of Ram Niwas was rejected by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 5th may 1994. The order  of learned  Magistrate,  interalia,  notices  that  co-accused  Sudhir  Gulati (Petitioner) has not yet been arrested and, therefore, it was not found  to be  a  fit case to grant bail to Ram Niwas. The  petitioner  was,  however, granted  anticipatory bail by order dated 16th May 1994 passed  by  learned Additional  Sessions Judge, New Delhi. That order, interalia, notices  that
\naccording  to prosecution Ram Niwas had made a disclosure statement to  the effect  that Sudhir Gulati had handed over shipping bill to him  which  included  the signatures of Assistant Collector. The petitioner was  arrested on  22nd  May  1994 but was released because of  anticipatory  bail  order. According to the petitioner the aforesaid sequence of events show that  the respondents  were clear that the petitioner was an accused and,  therefore, the  issuance  of  the impugned summons contravenes Article  20(3)  of  the
\nconstitution which provides that no person accused in any offence shall  be compelled to be a witness against himself.\n<\/p>\n
 3.   According to respondents Ram Niwas in his voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 30th April 1994, 1st May 1994 and 2nd may 1994 had clearly stated that the petitioner was instrumental in carrying  on clandestine export of goods on forged documents. As  per  case set  up by the respondents, the attendance of the petitioner was  necessary for purposes of enquiry which the Customs Department was making in  connection  with  the smuggling of goods. They say that the petitioner is  not  a person  accused  of any offence and that summons have been  issued  not  to investigate the offences for which FIR was registered but have been  issued in the course of investigation into the violation of the provisions of  the Customs  Act.  They have also pleaded that Ram Niwas had  stated  that  the goods were not in conformity with the papers filed and the same were grossly, over invoiced which indicates that the exporters stood to benefit under the  provisions of DEEC\/Advance Licensing Scheme. According to  respondents there was no constitutional bar in conducting an investigation and  enquiry under the Customs Act for examining the aspect of the smuggling of goods.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  petitioner, in the alternative has sought directions for  permitting  the presence of his lawyer at the time of recording of his  statement pursuant to the impugned summons. Now let us have a look on the law on  the subject.\n<\/p>\n
5.   In  M.P.  Sharma and others vs. Satish Chandra,<\/a>  district  Magistrate, Delhi and others. , while considering the scope of  Article  20(3)  it was held that there is no inherent reason  to  construe  the ambit of this fundamental right as comprising a very wide range. Nor  would it  be legitimate to confine it to the barely literal meaning of the  words used, since it is a recognised doctrine that when appropriate, a  constitutional  provisions has to be liberally construed so as to advance  the  intendment thereof and to prevent its circumvention. The right under  Article 20(3) was held to consist of the following three components :-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  It  is  a  right  pertaining to  a  person  “accused  of  an offence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  It is protection against “compulsion to be a witness”, and <\/p>\n
     (3)  It is a protection against such compulsion resulting in  his giving evidence “against himself.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   Dealing  with mainly scope and connotation of the second of the  three components it was held that protection afforded to an accused insofar as it is  related  to the phrase “to be a witness” is not merely  in  respect  of testimonial  compulsion in the court room but may well extend to  compelled testimony  previously obtained from him. It is available, therefore,  to  a person  against whom a formal accusation relating to commission of  an  offence  has been levelled which in the normal course may result in  prosecution. The Supreme Court further held:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Considered  in  this light, the guarantee  under  Article  20(3) would  be  available in the present cases  to  these  petitioners against  whom  a First Information Report has  been  recorded  as accused  therein. It would extend to any compulsory  process  for ‘production of evidentiary documents which are reasonable  likely to  support  a prosecution against them. The question  then  that arises  next is whether search warrants for the seizure  of  such documents from the custody of these persons are  unconstitutional and  hence illegal on the ground that in effect they  are  tant amount to compelled production of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
7.   It is urged that both search and seizure of a document and a compelled production  thereof on notice or summons serve ; the same purpose of  being available  as evidence in a prosecution against the person  concerned,  and that  any other view would defeat or weaken the protection afforded by  the guarantee of the fundamental right. This line of argument is not altogether without  force  and has the apparent support of the supreme  Court  of  the United States of America in (1884) 116 US 616 (b)”.\n<\/p>\n
8.   In  State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
it was held that in order that a testimony of an accused person may be said to  have been self incriminatory, the compulsion of which comes within  the prohibition of the constitutional provision. It must be of such a character that by itself it should have the tendency of incrimination the accused. If not also of actually doing so. The Supreme Court further held that:-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  “To  be a witness” means imparting knowledge in  respect  of relevant  facts  by an oral statement or a statement  in  writing made or given in Court or otherwise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  “To  be a witness” in its ordinary grammatical  sense  means giving  oral  testimony in Court. Case law has gone  beyond  this strict  literal  interpretation of the expression which  may  now bear  a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in Court or  out of Court by a person accused of an offence, orally or in writing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  To bring the statement in question within the prohibition of Article 20(3), the person accused must have stood in the  character of an accused person at the time he made the statement. It is not  enough that he should become an accused, any time after  the statement has been made.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Both the aforesaid decision were also taken note of in Ramanlal Bhogilal  Shah and another vs. D.K. Guha and others, .  The  Supreme  Court rejected the contention of the government that the  petitioner had  not  been specifically named as an accused in  the  First  Information report  and therefore, he is not entitled to the protection  under  Article
\n20(3). Holding that the petitioner is a person accused of an offence within the  meaning of Article 20(3) the Supreme Court held that the only  protection  that  Article  gives to him is that he cannot be compelled  to  be  a witness against himself but this does not mean that he need not give information  regarding  himself which do not tend to incriminate  him.  In  this view, the Supreme Court declined to set aside the summons and held that the petitioner must appear before the Deputy Director and answer such questions as do not tend to incriminate him.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In the present case it is no doubt true that no one has been named  as an accused in the FIR recorded on 30th April 1994 at PS IGI Airport on  the basis  of written application filed by Devender Singh, Assistant  Collector of  Customs (Export), Air CARGO Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi. But  that  by itself  does  not mean that the petitioner was not an accused of  any  ‘offence’  when impugned summons were issued. From the order of learned  Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as also of Learned Additional Sessions Judge,  referred  to  above, and also the counter affidavit  filed  by  the respondents, it appears that, according to respondents, the petitioner  was an  accused of an offence in respect of which FIR as lodged on  30th  April 1994.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In  Poolpandi etc. Vs. Superintendent, Central excise and others  etc. , following Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah’s case  it  was  again reiterated  that such questions which do not tend to incriminate  a  person are required to be answered. Further the contention that the appellant  was within his right to insist on presence of lawyer on the basis of Article 21
\nof  the Constitution was rejected. It was held that there was no  force  in the argument that if a person is called away from his house and  questioned in the atmosphere of Customs office without the assistance of his lawyer or friends, his constitutional right under Article 21 is violated.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner is accused of an offence in respect of the FIR noticed  hereinbefore within the meaning of Article 20(3) and cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. But the scope of offence under the aforesaid FIR and scope of  enquiry under Customs Act, 1962 is different. An enquiry under  Customs Act primarily relates to the smuggling of goods. Section 108 confers upon a Gazetted  officer  of  the Customs the powers to summon  any  person  whose attendance he considers necessary to give evidence or to produce a document
\nor  any other thing in any enquiry which such officer is making in  connection with the smuggling of goods. The person so summoned is bound to attend and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined  or makes  statements  and produce such documents and other things  as  may  be required.  Therefore, the impugned summons cannot be set aside.  The  petitioner is required to appear and answer such questions and give such information regarding himself which do not tend to incriminate him. In our  view the  petitioner is also not entitled to assistance of a lawyer at the  time
\nof recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Thus, the petition is partly allowed and it is declared that the petitioner  is  a person accused of an offence within the  meaning  of  Article 20(3) but he is bound to appear before the concerned officer under  Section 108  of the Customs Act to answer such questions which do not tend  to  incriminate him. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms  leaving parties to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998 Equivalent citations: 72 (1998) DLT 371, 1998 (45) DRJ 49, 1998 (100) ELT 344 Del Author: Y Sabharwal. Bench: Y Sabharwal, D Jain ORDER Y.K. Sabharwal. J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to summons dated 30th April 1994 and 2nd […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998 - 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\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-29T07:42:35+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T07:42:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1922,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998\",\"name\":\"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T07:42:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998 - 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\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-29T07:42:35+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998","datePublished":"1998-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T07:42:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998"},"wordCount":1922,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998","name":"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T07:42:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudhir-gulati-vs-union-of-india-on-20-february-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudhir Gulati vs Union Of India on 20 February, 1998"}]},{"@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\/243108","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=243108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}