{"id":272400,"date":"2009-03-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6"},"modified":"2016-04-14T02:03:06","modified_gmt":"2016-04-13T20:33:06","slug":"indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6","title":{"rendered":"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                                [1]\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB                           AND HARYANA AT\n               CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n\n                                          Criminal Revision No.691 of 1997\n\n                                          Date of Decision: 5 - 3 - 2009\n\n\n\nIndian Overseas Bank                                           .....Petitioner\n\n\n                                   v.\n\n\n\nS. Radhakrishanan                                              .....Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA\n\n\n                                   ***\n\nPresent:      Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate\n              for the petitioner.\n\n              None for the respondent.\n\n\n                                   ***\n\n\nKANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
              S. Radhakrishnan, Gandhi Kumar and S. Sahi Nath @ A. Yusuf<\/p>\n
@ C.P.Nagrajan were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,<\/p>\n
Gurgaon in a case arising out of FIR No.74 dated 16.2.1982 registered at<\/p>\n
Police     Station   City      Gurgaon     under    Sections     420<\/a>,468<\/a>,467<\/a>,109<\/a>,<\/p>\n
471<\/a>,409<\/a>,411<\/a>,419<\/a>, 120-B<\/a> IPC.\n<\/p>\n
              The    learned    trial    Court   convicted   and     sentenced   S.<\/p>\n
Radhakrishnan and S.Sahi Nath @ A.Yusuf @ C.P.Nagrajan for various
\n Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                          [2]<\/p>\n
offences.     However,     accused   Gandhi   Kumar     was    acquitted.    S.<\/p>\n
Radhakrishnan and S.Sahi Nath @ A.Yusuf @ C.P.Nagrajan had filed an<\/p>\n
appeal.     Same was heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Gurgaon.      The Appellate Court accepted the appeal preferred by S.<\/p>\n
Radhakrishnan. However, appeal of S. Sahi Nath was dismissed.<\/p>\n
              The present revision petition has been filed by the complainant-<\/p>\n
Bank against acquittal of S. Radhakrishnan.\n<\/p>\n
              Against the acquittal of S. Radhakrishnan, no State appeal has<\/p>\n
been filed.\n<\/p>\n
              Co-accused      S. Sahi Nath who was convicted,         had filed<\/p>\n
Criminal Revision No.88 of 1997 wherein his revision petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed but the sentence awarded was reduced. Order of reduction of<\/p>\n
sentence passed by the Co-ordinate Bench read as under:-<\/p>\n
                    “Heard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    No ground to interfere in the concurrent finding recrded<\/p>\n
              by the Courts below.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                    Alternative submission which was raised by the learned<\/p>\n
              counsel for the petitioner is that this Court may treat the<\/p>\n
              petitioner with leniency in the matter of sentence which<\/p>\n
              according to him is on the highly excessive side.        Learned<\/p>\n
              counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused in<\/p>\n
              this case is suffering agony of the trial since 1982. The<\/p>\n
              alternative submission of the learned counsel requires<\/p>\n
              consideration on the part of this court. Keeping in view the<\/p>\n
              totality of the circumstances of the case, the substantive<\/p>\n
              sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced from 5
\n Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                        [3]<\/p>\n
             years to 2\u00bd years. With the above modification in sentence,<\/p>\n
             the revision stands dismissed. All concerned be informed.”<\/p>\n
             In the present case, the FIR was registered on the basis of<\/p>\n
written complaint instituted by K.C.Yadav, Manager of Indian Overseas<\/p>\n
Bank. A perusal of the complaint show that one S.Sahi Nath came to Indian<\/p>\n
Overseas Bank Branch at Old Railway Road, Gurgaon on 17.11.1987. He<\/p>\n
remitted a sum of Rs.2,40,000\/- and got two FDRs worth Rs.1,20,000\/- each<\/p>\n
prepared. S.Sahi Nath projected himself to be one who has come from<\/p>\n
South India to commence business of real estate at Gurgaon. Against two<\/p>\n
aforesaid FDRs, loan of Rs.1,80,000\/- was obtained. The accused made the<\/p>\n
bank officials believe that large remittances from Banglore as well as<\/p>\n
Madras will be received as he is agent of real estate company of repute. A<\/p>\n
credit advice dated 4.12.1981 for Rs.2,75,000\/- was received from one of<\/p>\n
the branch of the Bank at Madras. The amount was adjusted and balance<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.93,887.90 was credited to the saving bank account. The<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.93,800\/- was withdrawn and by depositing Rs.6200\/-, another<\/p>\n
FDR of Rs.One lac was got prepared. Against the FDRs of Rs.3,40,000\/-,<\/p>\n
again loan to the extent of Rs.2,35,000\/- was raised by S. Sahi Nath. On<\/p>\n
22.12.1981, the Bank again received a credit advice from Jaya Nagar<\/p>\n
Branch at Banglore. Lateron the amount was adjusted. Balance amount<\/p>\n
was put in the Saving bank account. This modus operandi was practiced<\/p>\n
and amount was credited in the account of S. Sahi Nath on 13.1.1982. He<\/p>\n
withdrew a sum of Rs.31 lacs and on 3.2.1982 an amount of Rs.1,75,000\/-<\/p>\n
was also withdrawn. When the Bank sought the confirmation of the credit<\/p>\n
advice, correspondence was exchanged and later it dawned upon the bank<\/p>\n
officials that no amount was ever remitted by the Banks from Madras or
\n Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                         [4]<\/p>\n
Banglore. Thus, the accused were put to trial.\n<\/p>\n
             As stated earlier, the revision petition filed by S. Sahi Nath<\/p>\n
was dismissed.     His conviction was maintained by this Court while<\/p>\n
exercising revisional powers and sentence was reduced. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Court below has meticulously adjudged the evidence and had acquitted<\/p>\n
S.Radha Krishnan. Para 8 of the Appellate Court judgment, whereby<\/p>\n
acquittal of S.Radhakrishnan was recorded read as under:-<\/p>\n
             “8.   The case against Radha Krishanan<\/p>\n
                   In order to connect the accused Radha Krishanan with<\/p>\n
             the present crime, the trial court has relied upon the testimony<\/p>\n
             of the bank official PW2 to PW9 and also the statement<\/p>\n
             recorded under section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. of one Mohinder Kumar.<\/p>\n
             The recovery of Rs.1,60,000\/- from the house of Gandhi<\/p>\n
             Bhatnagar has not been relied upon by the trial court for<\/p>\n
             connecting the present accused Radha Krishanan with the<\/p>\n
             offence. The trial court came to the right conclusion that the<\/p>\n
             said recovery in no way could connect the accused with the<\/p>\n
             present offence. The version of recovery had not been proved<\/p>\n
             by creditable evidence and even otherwise, the money<\/p>\n
             recovered was shown to belong to Barari Branch of the Indian<\/p>\n
             Overseas Bank.    The other conclusion of the trial court by<\/p>\n
             which it held Radha Krishanan guilty on the basis of the<\/p>\n
             remaining evidence is not acceptable. The testimonies of PW2<\/p>\n
             to PW9 is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
             beyond all reasonable doubts against accused Radha Krishanan.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             All these witnesses have only stated that on 3.2.82, Radha
\n Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                         [5]<\/p>\n
             Krishanan had come to the bank and after him Sahi Nath had<\/p>\n
             also reached the bank on that day, Sahi Nath had withdrew<\/p>\n
             Rs.1,75,000\/- and it was the last transaction. There-after, the<\/p>\n
             accused did not turn up to operate the said account. PW3 has<\/p>\n
             further stated that he had seen both of them sitting together<\/p>\n
             before C.K.Kohli Accountant. PW4 states that he had heard<\/p>\n
             both of them discussing something in some other language<\/p>\n
             which he thought was Tamil. Similarly, PW6 and PW7 also<\/p>\n
             state that they had seen both of them talking to each other.<\/p>\n
             PW9 SL Sagar, Assistant Manager IOB has stated that in the<\/p>\n
             month of January and February 1982, he was additional officer<\/p>\n
             of IOB Barari District Mathura. Radha Krishanan was then the<\/p>\n
             branch manager.    The credit schedules Es.P12 and Ex.P36<\/p>\n
             relate to Mathura Main Branch of IOB. He further states that<\/p>\n
             their branch at Barari was also collecting stationery from the<\/p>\n
             Mathura main branch of IOB.         In cross-examination, this<\/p>\n
             witness submits that the credit schedules do not remain in the<\/p>\n
             custody of any particular person and remain lying in the open.<\/p>\n
                   The statement of Mohinder Kumar was recorded under<\/p>\n
             Section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. By Shri R.P.Bajaj, the then Addl.CJM,<\/p>\n
             Gurgaon. Shri Bajaj has appeared as PW13 and deposed that<\/p>\n
             on 21.4.82, he had recorded the said statement of Mohinder<\/p>\n
             Kumar. The prosecution has pressed forward the said statement<\/p>\n
             in an attempt to show that the relevant credit schedule bearing<\/p>\n
             serial nos.705401 to 705700 had been handed over to accused<\/p>\n
             Radha Krishanan by the main branch at Mathura. However, the
\n Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                           [6]<\/p>\n
             said evidence can not be relied upon. Shri Mohinder Kumar<\/p>\n
             was never examined as a witness. In absence of the same the<\/p>\n
             said statement under Section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. can not be used as<\/p>\n
             evidence in the case. The counsel for defence has rightly relied<\/p>\n
             upon 1972 Criminal Law Journal 267 Ram Kishan vs. Harmit<\/p>\n
             Kaur<\/a> where the Supreme Court laid down that a statement<\/p>\n
             under Section 164<\/a> Cr.P.C. is not a substantive evidence. It can<\/p>\n
             be used only to corroborate the statement of witnesses or to<\/p>\n
             contradict him. It was also rightly argued that even if, it is<\/p>\n
             accepted that the credit schedule was handed over to Radha<\/p>\n
             Krishanan accused, still it can not be presumed that he was the<\/p>\n
             person who had forged the said credit schedules. There is no<\/p>\n
             evidence on the file to show that Radha Krishanan or as a<\/p>\n
             matter of fact any other manager is supposed to keep under lock<\/p>\n
             and key, the said credit schedules. Rather their own witness<\/p>\n
             PW9 has admitted that the said credit schedules remain lying in<\/p>\n
             the open and are not kept in the exclusive custody of any<\/p>\n
             person. The said credit schedules were within easy access of<\/p>\n
             all the employees of the bank. Merely on the basis of the<\/p>\n
             presence of Radha Krishanan in Gurgaon Branch on 3.2.82 can<\/p>\n
             not be considered as a sufficient material, to connect the<\/p>\n
             accused with the present crime.       On the basis of the said<\/p>\n
             evidence, it can not be said that the case against the accused has<\/p>\n
             been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, strong<\/p>\n
             may be, the suspicion, it can not take the place of proof. So the<\/p>\n
             judgment of the trial court holding the accused Radha
\n Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                         [7]<\/p>\n
             Krishanan guilty is set aside and the conviction and sentence of<\/p>\n
             accused Nagrajan is sustained.”\n<\/p>\n
             No fault can be found with the reasoning given by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court below. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case, this Court has already exercised revisional jurisdiction while<\/p>\n
disposing off Criminal Revision No.88 of 1997 and the sentence awarded<\/p>\n
upon S. Sahi Nath was reduced.        This Court would be hesitant to re-<\/p>\n
appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence when the findings of the<\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court are not perverse.\n<\/p>\n
             This Court had noticed the entire legal position regarding the<\/p>\n
powers vested in this Court while deciding criminal revision against<\/p>\n
acquittal. This Court had passed a judgment in Mohinder Singh v. Mehar<\/p>\n
Singh & others, Criminal Revision No.648 of 1996, decided on 18.2.2008.<\/p>\n
In Mohinder Singh’s case (supra), this Court relied upon a judgment of<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahendra Partap Singh v. Sarju Singh and<\/p>\n
another<\/a>, AIR 1968 SC 707. In Mahendra Partap Singh’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon D.Stephens v. Nosibolla<\/a>, AIR 1951 SC<\/p>\n
196. Hon’ble Apex Court further in Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram<\/a>, AIR<\/p>\n
1973 SC 2145, Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh<\/a>, (1986)3 SCC 444,<\/p>\n
Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others v. Jagannath<\/a>, 1995 SCC(Cri) 181,<\/p>\n
Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and another<\/a>, (1998) SCC(Cri) 1574 and<\/p>\n
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar<\/a>, AIR 2002 SC 2907 has held<\/p>\n
that powers of the revisional Court are not to be exercised in case of<\/p>\n
acquittal until or unless, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or is<\/p>\n
based on grave legal error. In present case, accused-respondent had been<\/p>\n
acquitted by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence. Revisional
\n Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997                                           [8]<\/p>\n
Court is not to re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Therefore,<\/p>\n
there is no other option but to dismiss the present revision petition.<\/p>\n
             For the reasons stated above, the present revision petition is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                               ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
\nMarch 5, 2009.                            JUDGE<\/p>\n
RC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009 Crl.Rev.No.691 of 1997 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.691 of 1997 Date of Decision: 5 – 3 – 2009 Indian Overseas Bank …..Petitioner v. S. Radhakrishanan …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: […]<\/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-272400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 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\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-13T20:33:06+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T20:33:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6\"},\"wordCount\":1769,\"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\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6\",\"name\":\"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T20:33:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 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":"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 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\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-13T20:33:06+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T20:33:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6"},"wordCount":1769,"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\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6","name":"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T20:33:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-overseas-bank-vs-harmit-on-5-march-2009-6#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Overseas Bank vs Harmit on 5 March, 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\/272400","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=272400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}