{"id":253344,"date":"2009-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-22T23:46:15","modified_gmt":"2017-09-22T18:16:15","slug":"gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)                      1\n\n       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                          Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)\n                          Date of decision: 2.4. 2009\n\n\nGulab Rai                                              ......Petitioner\n\n                           Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana and another\n                                                    .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:     Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate,\n             for the petitioner.\n\n             Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.\n\n             Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,\n             for respondent No.2.\n                   ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This petition has been filed by Gulab Rai under Section<\/p>\n
482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C<\/a>. for short) for<\/p>\n
quashing of FIR No. 235 dated 11.12.2004, under Sections<\/p>\n
409<\/a>\/420<\/a>\/468<\/a>\/471<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC<\/a>” for short),<\/p>\n
registered at Police Station Sadardadri, District Bhiwani.<\/p>\n
             The petitioner was working as a Lab Assistant in M & P<\/p>\n
Lab, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani in Dakshan Haryana Bijli Vitran<\/p>\n
Nigam.\n<\/p>\n
             As per the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner had
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted his claim for Leave Travel Concession (‘LTC’ for short) in<\/p>\n
the month of March, 1998 for              travelling from Charkhi Dadri to<\/p>\n
Trivendrum along with his family through               Nagaland Tourism<\/p>\n
Department. Payment of Rs.19,950\/- was made to the petitioner<\/p>\n
against his claim for Rs.20,000\/-. During inquiry conducted by the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Department, it was found that the bus bearing No.UIIF-<\/p>\n
9784 had never gone on the route alleged by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in<\/p>\n
terms of Rule 2.2 of the Haryana Civil Services Rules (for short ‘the<\/p>\n
Rules’) no action could be taken against the petitioner with regard to<\/p>\n
an incident, which had occurred four years before institution of the<\/p>\n
criminal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
             In support of his arguments,         learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner has placed reliance on K.C.Duggal vs. State of Punjab<\/p>\n
(P&H) 1989 (2) RSJ, 513,            Sardul Singh vs. State of Punjab,<\/p>\n
(P&H)1993 (2) RCR (Criminal), 417,               R.C.Gupta vs. P.S.E.B.<\/p>\n
(P&H<\/a>), 2002(1) RSJ, 509, Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H)<\/p>\n
2004 (2) RSJ, 325, O.P.Kharab vs. HVPN Ltd. and others (P&H)<\/p>\n
2007(2) RSJ, 314 and Baldhir Singh vs. State of Punjab and<\/p>\n
others (P&H) 2009 (1) RSJ, 351<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
has submitted that so far Rule 2.2 of the Rules is concerned, the<\/p>\n
same is not applicable to the criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
             In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent has placed reliance on         State of Punjab vs. Kailash<\/p>\n
Nath<\/a> 1989 (1) SCC 321 and Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab<\/p>\n
(P&H) 2001(4) SCT 1089.\n<\/p>\n
             Rule 2.2(b) proviso 3 of the Rules reads as under:-<\/p>\n
             “No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the<\/p>\n
             officer was in service, whether before this retirement or<\/p>\n
             during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of<\/p>\n
             a cause of action which arose or an event which took<\/p>\n
             place more than four years before such institution;”<\/p>\n
             In the present case, admittedly, the criminal proceedings<\/p>\n
were initiated against the petitioner after four years of the alleged<\/p>\n
incident of withdrawal of the LTC.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on<\/p>\n
judgments of this Court in K.C.Duggal’s case (supra) and Sardul<\/p>\n
Singh’s case (Supra) wherein it was held that criminal proceedings<\/p>\n
could not be initiated in respect of the allegations which related to a<\/p>\n
period exceeding four years in terms of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil<\/p>\n
Services Rules, Volume II.         The other judgments relied upon by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner relate to departmental proceedings<\/p>\n
sought to be initiated after four years of the incident in question and it<\/p>\n
was held that departmental proceedings initiated after more than four<\/p>\n
years of the incident were liable to be set aside. The legal position<\/p>\n
is, however, no longer res integra.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
             The Apex Court in Kailash Nath’s case supra has held<\/p>\n
as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “7. In the normal course what falls within the purview of<\/p>\n
             the term “conditions of service” may be classified as<\/p>\n
             salary or wages including subsistence allowance during<\/p>\n
             suspension, the periodical increments, pay -scale, leave,<\/p>\n
             provident     fund,    gratuity,   confirmation,       promotion,<\/p>\n
             seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or<\/p>\n
             premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing<\/p>\n
             the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary<\/p>\n
             proceedings.      Whether or not a government servant<\/p>\n
             should be prosecuted for an offence committed by him<\/p>\n
             obviously cannot be treated to be something pertaining to<\/p>\n
             conditions of service.         Making a provision that a<\/p>\n
             government servant, even if he is guilty of grave<\/p>\n
             misconduct or negligence which constitutes an offence<\/p>\n
             punishable either under the Penal Code<\/a> or Prevention of<\/p>\n
             Corruption Act<\/a> or an analogous law should be granted<\/p>\n
             immunity from such prosecution after the lapse of a<\/p>\n
             particular period so as to provide incentive for efficient<\/p>\n
             work would not only be against public policy but would<\/p>\n
             also be counter productive. It is likely to be an incentive<\/p>\n
             not for efficient work but for committing offences including<\/p>\n
             embezzlement and misappropriation by some of them at
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
             the fag end of their tenure of service and making an effort<\/p>\n
             that the offence is not detected within the period<\/p>\n
             prescribed for launching prosecution or manipulating<\/p>\n
             delay in the matter of launching prosecution. Further,<\/p>\n
             instances are not wanting where a government servant<\/p>\n
             may escape prosecution at the initial stage for want of<\/p>\n
             evidence but during the course of prosecution of some<\/p>\n
             other person evidence may be led or material may be<\/p>\n
             produced which establishes complicity and guilt of such<\/p>\n
             government servant.          By that time period prescribed, if<\/p>\n
             any, for launching prosecution may have expired and in<\/p>\n
             that event on account of such period having expired the<\/p>\n
             government      servant      concerned    would   succeed    in<\/p>\n
             avoiding prosecution even though there may be sufficient<\/p>\n
             evidence of an offence having been committed by him.<\/p>\n
             Such a situation, in our opinion, cannot be created by<\/p>\n
             framing a rule under Article 309<\/a> of the Constitution laying<\/p>\n
             down an embargo on prosecution as a condition of<\/p>\n
             service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             8. There is another cogent ground on account of which<\/p>\n
             the submission that giving a government servant peace of<\/p>\n
             mind after his retirement in his old age can be a good<\/p>\n
             ground to grant him immunity from prosecution cannot be<\/p>\n
             accepted. This would on the face of it be discriminatory
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
             and thus arbitrary inasmuch as if peace of mind in old age<\/p>\n
             can be a good ground for immunity from prosecution for<\/p>\n
             offences committed by a person, there seems to be no<\/p>\n
             reason why such immunity may not be available to all old<\/p>\n
             persons and should be confined only to government<\/p>\n
             servants.    On the face of it, the government servants<\/p>\n
             cannot constitute a class by themselves so as to bring<\/p>\n
             their       cases    within   the   purview   of       reasonable<\/p>\n
             classification, if the purpose of granting immunity from<\/p>\n
             prosecution is ensuring peace of mind in old age.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             9. Even on a plan reading of Rule 2.2, it is apparent that<\/p>\n
             the intention of framing the said rule was not to grant<\/p>\n
             immunity from prosecution to a government servant, if the<\/p>\n
             conditions mentioned the rein are satisfied.             As seen<\/p>\n
             above, Rule 2.2 is in chapter II of the Punjab               Civil<\/p>\n
             Service Rules which deals with ordinary pension. There<\/p>\n
             can be no manner of doubt that making provision with<\/p>\n
             regard to pension falls within the purview of “conditions of<\/p>\n
             service”. The embargo on prosecution spelt out by the<\/p>\n
             High Court is not to be found in the main rule 2.2 but in<\/p>\n
             the third proviso to the said rule. It is the third proviso<\/p>\n
             which enjoins that no judicial proceedings, if not instituted<\/p>\n
             while the officer was in service, whether before his<\/p>\n
             retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted
\n Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M)                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
             in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event<\/p>\n
             which took place more than four years before such<\/p>\n
             institution. The scope of a proviso is well settled.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             19.It was then urged by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
             respondents that the third proviso to clause (b) of Rule<\/p>\n
             2.2 is in the nature of a beneficent legislation and in case<\/p>\n
             of doubt has to be interpreted in favour of the person for<\/p>\n
             whose benefit the Rule has been framed. In our opinion,<\/p>\n
             keeping in view the scope of the power to frame a rule<\/p>\n
             under Article 309<\/a> and the purpose of Rule 2.2, there is<\/p>\n
             no doubt with regard to the interpretation of the said rule.<\/p>\n
             By applying the rule of interpretation with regard to a<\/p>\n
             beneficent legislation, a benefit never intended to be<\/p>\n
             conferred cannot be conferred.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             Thus, no immunity can be granted to a Government<\/p>\n
servant for prosecution after four years have passed when the cause<\/p>\n
of action had occurred in terms of proviso to Rule 2.2 of the relevant<\/p>\n
Rules.\n<\/p>\n
             No other contention          has been raised.       Hence, no<\/p>\n
interference is called for.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                        (SABINA)
\n                                                         JUDGE
\nApril 02, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009 Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-25982 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.4. 2009 Gulab Rai ……Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE […]<\/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-253344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-22T18:16:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-22T18:16:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1437,\"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\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-22T18:16:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-22T18:16:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-22T18:16:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009"},"wordCount":1437,"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\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009","name":"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-22T18:16:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gulab-rai-vs-state-of-haryana-and-another-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gulab Rai vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/253344","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=253344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253344\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}