{"id":269790,"date":"2007-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007"},"modified":"2017-05-12T03:36:37","modified_gmt":"2017-05-11T22:06:37","slug":"darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  745 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nDarshan Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Punjab\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20477 of 2005]<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
\n8.4.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil
\nRevision No. 2569 of 1996 whereby the High Court allowed the Civil
\nRevision filed by the respondent-State of Punjab.  The appellant joined
\nthe PWD Department of State of Punjab as Clerk on 2.2.1953.  He was
\npromoted as a Sub-Divisional Clerk in the year 1957 and thereafter as
\nAccounts Clerk in April 1965.\n<\/p>\n
\tA case of embezzlement and misappropriation of Government
\nfunds was made against him and the department filed an appeal against
\nthe Respondent and he was put under suspension vide office order No.
\n57\/E dated 24.5.1965.  A criminal case was initiated against the
\nAppellant which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the Appellant vide
\njudgment and order dated 9.8.1973 passed by the Additional Sessions
\nJudge, Amritsar.  No departmental action was taken against the Appellant
\nand he was merely kept under suspension.  The Appellant was reinstated
\nvide order dated 12.4.1978 and it was ordered that period of his
\nsuspension be treated on duty for all intents and purposes.  The Appellant
\nwas given proforma promotion as Officiating Head Clerk w.e.f.
\n24.9.1972 vide office order No. 55\/E dated 27.4.1978.  The Appellant
\nretired after attaining the age of superannuation as Superintendent
\nGrade-IV on 28.2.1989.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Appellant filed Suit No. 898 of 14.5.1990 for declaration and
\nmandatory injunction seeking full pay and allowances for the period
\n25.5.1965 to 28.4.1978 and also claimed that he was entitled to cross
\nefficiency bar w.e.f. 1.9.1981 and consequential relief thereof i.e.
\nproficiency step up increments, increase in leave encashment, pension
\nand gratuity etc. with interest at 18% per annum.  The Appellant sought
\nmandatory injunction for payment of the aforementioned dues with
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe suit of the Appellant was partly allowed by the trial court
\nholding him entitled for an amount of Rs.60,586.75 along with interest at
\n12% per annum from the date the amount became due till its actual
\npayment.  The claim for crossing the efficiency bar was, however,
\nrejected by the Trial Court being time barred.\n<\/p>\n
\tAn appeal was filed by the Appellant which was allowed by the
\nFirst Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.11.1993 and the appeal
\nfiled by the Respondent\/State was dismissed.  The Appellant was held to
\nbe entitled for consideration of crossing the efficiency bar.\n<\/p>\n
\tTwo second appeals which were filed by the Respondent against
\nthe common judgment of the Appellate Court were dismissed by the
\nHigh Court on 12.9.1994.  Thereafter the Appellant filed execution
\npetition in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Amritsar on 31.10.1994.
\nThe Respondent\/State filed its objections.  The Respondent\/State
\nthereupon filed Special Leave Petition Nos. 1527-1528 of 1995 in this
\nCourt and the same was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.1995.  The
\nAppellant replied to the objections of the State in the execution
\nproceedings.  Office Order No. 100 dated 24.3.1995 was issued by the
\nRespondent whereby the Appellant was allowed to cross the efficiency
\nbar.  Vide Office Order No. 103\/95 dated 30.3.1995, the Appellant was
\nalso granted one additional increment on consolidation of 8 years’ service
\nin the form of proficiency step up w.e.f. 1.1.1986.  The Executing Court
\ndismissed the objections filed by the Respondent\/State and held that the
\nAppellant is entitled for interest at 12% per annum with yearly rest.  The
\nCivil Revision Petition filed by the State against the order dated
\n15.5.1996 of the Executing Court was allowed holding that the Appellant
\nis entitled to an amount of Rs.60,586.75 from 9.12.1992, namely, the date
\nof decree upto the date of actual payment.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Satinder S. Gulati, the learned counsel for the Appellant
\nsubmitted that in terms of the decree which has attained finality, the High
\nCourt in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction passed an order, could not
\nhave ordered\/varied the terms of the decree in view of the law laid down
\nby this Court in various judgments.  The learned counsel further
\nsubmitted that the High Court was under an apparent error in granting
\ninterest from 9.12.1992 though the decree specifically stated that the
\ninterest is liable to be paid by the Respondent from the date of the
\namount became due and payable to the Appellant.  The learned counsel
\nalso addressed on the question that the Executing Court cannot go behind
\nthe terms of a decree passed by a Court of a competent jurisdiction.  He
\nhas further submitted that the Respondent has already held Appellant
\nentitled for crossing the efficiency bar and had made payment against the
\nsame to the Appellant, but the High Court had passed the impugned
\njudgment as if the Appellant is yet to be considered for crossing the
\nefficiency bar.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted that the Appellant had made a representation to
\nthe department for his reinstatement to Superintending Engineer
\n(Construction Cell), Amritsar which was kept under consideration for
\ntwo years, thereafter the Appellant was reinstated vide Order No.
\n17\/F&K dated 12.4.1978 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD.  It was
\nordered by the Chief Engineer for his reinstatement and the period of
\nsuspension was ordered to be treated on duty for all intents and purposes.
\nIt was further submitted that in pursuance and in continuation of the
\naforesaid order dated 12.4.1978 passed by the Chief Engineer, the
\nAppellant was given proforma promotion as Officiating Head Clerk
\nw.e.f. 24.9.1972 on the orders issued by the Superintending Engineer,
\nAmritsar, PWD dated 27.4.1978 and that the Appellant was posted as
\nOfficiating Head Clerk in Bridge Investigating Division and where the
\nAppellant joined the duty on 28.4.1978.  Thus, it is seen that in view of
\nthe aforementioned facts and circumstances the whole suspension period
\nof the Appellant was regularized by the department as duty period for all
\nintents and purposes, therefore, the Appellant became entitled for whole
\narrears of pay and emoluments and the suspension period stood
\ncondoned.  But the High Court vide order dated 8.4.2005 allowed the
\nCivil Revision filed by the Respondent setting aside the order dated
\n15.5.1996 passed by the Executing Court.  It is submitted that the
\nimpugned order is apparently erroneous for the reasons that the High
\nCourt held in it that the amount of Rs.60,586.75 is payable to the
\nAppellant along with interest @ 12% per annum from 9.12.1992 till the
\ndate of payment, instead from the date the amounts became due and
\npayable to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
\nRespondent did not lead any evidence to their objections but on behalf of
\nthe Appellant two witnesses were examined and the Respondent did not
\nlead any evidence to show that the Appellant was not entitled to the
\ninterest @ 12% per annum with yearly rest as Appellant raised in the
\nexecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was also brought to our notice that an Office Order No. 100
\ndated 24.3.1995 was passed by the Superintending Engineer, Central
\nWorks Circle, PWD allowing the Appellant to cross the efficiency bar
\nw.e.f. 1.9.1981 at the stage of Rs.850\/- in the pay scale of Rs.620-20-
\n700\/25-850\/30-1000\/40-1200 and his pay was raised from Rs.850\/- to
\nRs.880\/- per month.  The Respondent vide Office Order No. 103 dated
\n30.3.1995 granted the Appellant one additional increment on
\nconsolidation of 8 years’ in the form of proficiency step-up w.e.f.
\n1.1.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 raising his pay from Rs.2100
\nto Rs.2150 per month.  Thus, it is seen that the Respondent has already
\nheld that the Appellant to be entitled for crossing the efficiency bar and
\nhad made the payment to him for the same and the High Court in the
\nimpugned judgment has said that the Respondent should consider the
\nAppellant’s case for crossing the efficiency bar.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of his contention that the Executing Court cannot go
\nbehind the terms of the decree passed by a Court of competent
\njurisdiction, the learned counsel for the Appellant placed strong reliance
\non the judgments in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul
\nRehman & Ors<\/a>. 1970 (1) SCC 670; C. Gangacharan v. C. Narayanan<\/a>
\nreported in 2000 (1) SCC 459 and Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal
\nHeavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises<\/a> 1999 (1) SCC 558.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe shall now consider the above three judgments.
\nVasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors<\/a>.(supra), this
\nCourt in para 6 held the following:-\n<\/p>\n
“A court executing a decree cannot go behind
\nthe decree : between the parties or their
\nrepresentatives it must take the decree
\naccording to its tenor, and cannot entertain
\nany objection that the decree was incorrect in
\nlaw or on facts.  Until it is set aside by an
\nappropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a
\ndecree even if it be erroneous is still binding
\nbetween the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court held that the Executing Court cannot go behind the
\ndecree unless it is shown that it was passed by a Court inherently lacking
\njurisdiction and thus was a nullity.  The aforesaid decision of this  Court
\nsquarely applies to the facts of the present case.  This is not a case in
\nwhich the decree on the face of it was shown to be without jurisdiction.
\nIt is not the case of the Respondent that the Court which passed the
\ndecree was lacking inherent jurisdiction to pass such a decree.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court in the judgment reported in Bhawarlal Bhandari v.
\nUniversal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises<\/a>(supra) and in C.
\nGangacharan vs. C. Narayanan<\/a> (supra) has also taken the same view that
\nthe Executing Court cannot go behind the decree of a Court of competent
\njurisdiction except in the decrees void ab initio without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent, in reply to
\nthe arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant,
\nsubmitted that this Court had issued notice to the Respondent limited to
\nthe question of efficiency bar and also regarding the due date from which
\nthe payments are to be made.  According to him, the High Court has
\ndecided the case after due consideration of all aspects on the due dates for
\nawarding the interest i.e. 9.12.1992 is quite justified and are well within
\nthe provisions of the settled law.  It is further submitted as follows:-
\n“Due date from which the payments are to be
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
i)\tThat Hon’ble High Court orders dated
\n8.4.2005 are in order and as per law.\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tThat the Trial Court decreed the suit filed
\non 9.12.1992 for the 60586.75 with
\ninterest @ 12% per annum from the date,
\nthe amount become due till the date of
\nrealization.\n<\/p>\n
iii)\tThat the amount of Rs.60586.75 was
\nclearly quantified by the Trial Court in his
\norders dated 9.12.1992.\n<\/p>\n
iv)\tThat there is no provision in the decree
\nthat the amount become due in the year
\n1965 when the plaintiff was suspended or
\nthat this amount become due on the date of
\nhis reinstatement on 12.4.1978.\n<\/p>\n
v)\tThat there is no provision of any specific
\ndate in the decree and the award is clearly
\nquantified to Rs.60586.75 paisa and was
\ndeclared on the date of decree i.e.
\n9.12.1992 and thus interest become due
\nonly after that date.\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the above background, the following substantial
\nquestions of law of public importance arose for consideration of this
\nCourt:-\n<\/p>\n
A.\tWhether in terms of the decree which has attained finality,
\nthe High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction
\nagainst the order passed in execution would have
\nadded\/varied terms of decree?\n<\/p>\n
B.\tWhether the High Court was under an apparent error in
\ngranting interest from 9.12.1992 though the decree
\nspecifically stated that the interest would be paid along with
\ninterest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount became
\ndue and payable to the Appellant?\n<\/p>\n
C.\tWhether the impugned directions by the High Court in
\nregard to crossing of efficiency bar by the Appellant are
\nerroneous for the reasons that the Respondent\/State has
\nalready allowed the Appellant to cross the efficiency bar
\nw.e.f. 1.9.1981 by passing an office order No. 100 dated
\n24.3.1995?\n<\/p>\n
We have carefully considered all the orders passed by the Trial
\nCourt, Appellate Court and the High Court and also the order passed by
\nthe Executing Court.  We have also perused the annexures and  the
\nrecords filed along with the SLP.  Our attention was drawn to the relevant
\npassages in the judgments.  Both the learned counsel argued the case at
\nlength.  In our opinion, the order of the High Court is absolutely
\nincorrect.  In the instant case, the Respondent\/State has taken the stand in
\ntheir counter-affidavit before this Court totally contrary to the stand taken
\nbefore the High Court and the courts below.  The Trial Court passed the
\ndecree dated 9.12.1992 in favour of the Appellant holding him entitled to
\ninterest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount became due and
\npayable till realization.  The decree simply meant that the Appellant is
\nentitled for dues and the allowances for the period 25.5.1965 to
\n28.4.1978, thus  Appellant became entitled for the interest on due
\namounts from 25.5.1965 untill the date of realization.  The State of
\nPunjab in their objections to the Execution Petition of the Appellant took
\nerroneous ground that the Appellant became entitled for payment from
\nthe date i.e. 24.4.1978, but before this Court the State of Punjab has taken
\nthe stand in para 5(v) of the counter-affidavit that the Appellant is
\nentitled for interest from the date of decree i.e. 9.12.1992.  It is totally
\ncontrary to the earlier stand taken by them.  Therefore, contradictory
\nstand taken by the State cannot at all be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, the Respondent\/State has already held the
\nAppellant entitled to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1981 and his pay
\nwas raised from Rs.850\/- to Rs.880\/- per month  vide their office order
\nNo. 100 dated 24.3.1985.  The Respondent\/State even granted one
\nadditional increment w.e.f. 1.1.1986 raising his pay from Rs.2100\/- to
\nRs.2150\/- per month vide their office order No. 103 dated 30.3.1995.
\nThe Appellant has been paid the due amounts by the Respondent\/State
\naccording to their aforementioned office orders.  Now, before this Court
\nfor the first time the State has taken the stand in paragraphs (vii) and\n<\/p>\n
(viii) that the order of the High Court for considering the case of the
\nAppellant for crossing the stage of efficiency bar is justified.  This is the
\ncase where the decree passed by the Trial Court and further leave granted
\nby the First Appellate Court in favour of the Appellant were approved by
\nall the Courts up-till this Court.  This Court vide order dated 3.2.1995
\ndismissed the Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 1527-1528 of 1995 filed
\nagainst the judgment dated 12.9.1994 in RSA Nos. 1915-1916 of 1994
\nand thus the decree passed in favour of the Appellant attained finality.  In
\nsuch a case, the stand taken by the State in their counter-affidavit is really
\nunfortunate.  We have already noticed that the High Court in exercise of
\nits revisional jurisdiction cannot vary the terms of the decree in execution
\nin view of the ruling by this Court in 1970 (1) SCC 670 and 1999 (1)
\nSCC 558 and 2000(1) SCC 459.  In our opinion, the High Court has
\ncommitted an apparent error in granting interest from 9.12.1992 though
\nthe interest is liable to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant.  Thus,
\nwe hold that the Appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.60,586.75
\nalong with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount became
\ndue and payable, namely, from 25.6.1965.  We have already pointed out
\nthat the contradictory statements made and taken in the counter affidavit
\nby the State.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the impugned order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the High
\nCourt is totally erroneous and thus not sustainable in law.  We, therefore,
\ndirect the Respondent\/State to pay the said sum of Rs.60,586.75 with
\nsimple interest @ 12% per annum from 25.5.1965 till its realization.  The
\nentire amount due shall be paid within two months from this date failing
\nwhich the Appellant will be entitled for payment with 18% simple
\ninterest per annum.\n<\/p>\n
The Civil Appeal stands allowed.  However, there will be no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 745 of 2007 PETITIONER: Darshan Singh RESPONDENT: State of Punjab DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/02\/2007 BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-269790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDarshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007 - 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\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-11T22:06:37+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T22:06:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2641,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T22:06:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007 - 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\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-11T22:06:37+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T22:06:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007"},"wordCount":2641,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007","name":"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T22:06:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-vs-state-of-punjab-on-13-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/269790","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=269790"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269790\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}