{"id":59471,"date":"1996-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996"},"modified":"2015-05-26T16:00:06","modified_gmt":"2015-05-26T10:30:06","slug":"balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nBALBIR SINGH .\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t26\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nA.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     This appeal  under section\t 19  of\t the  Terrorist\t and<br \/>\nDisruptive Activities  (Prevention)  Act,  1987\t (hereinater<br \/>\ncalled the  &#8216;TADA&#8217;) is\tdirected against  the  judgment\t and<br \/>\norder dated  14th February,  1996 by which the appellant has<br \/>\nbeen convicted for an offence under section 5 of TADA and<br \/>\nsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years<br \/>\nand to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- and in default to undergo<br \/>\nsimple imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  case against  the appellant is that on<br \/>\n6th April, 1992, PW.1 H.C. Maru Ram, who was incharge of PCR<br \/>\nVan No.Victor  79, Maruti  Gypsy bearing  registrtion No.DDV<br \/>\n6920 based  in Kailash\tColony, alongwith  constable Chander<br \/>\nPal and\t driver constaable  Raj Kumar,\t received a wireless<br \/>\nmessage at  about 2.05\tp.m. to\t the effect  that  a  person<br \/>\nwearing green coloured pant, green coloured shoes and having<br \/>\na  green   coloured  bag   was\tpresent\t  in\t  suspicious<br \/>\ncircumstances and  that if  his bag  was searched  it On the<br \/>\nrifle there  was a  sticker with the inscription in Gurmukhi<br \/>\n&#8220;Naam Khummari Nanaka Charri Rahe Din Raat&#8221;. On the magazine<br \/>\nalso there  was a  sticker with\t the inscription &#8220;Raj Karega<br \/>\nKhalsa&#8221; in Gurmukhi. The rifle Ex.p1 alongwith two megazines<br \/>\nEx.P2 and  P3 and the live cartridges numbering 161 (24 live<br \/>\ncartridges in  one megazine  besides 137  cartridges )\twere<br \/>\ntaken into possession and were sealed into different parcels<br \/>\nand sealed  with the  seal of SBS. The other articles, found<br \/>\nfrom the  personal search  and from  the search\t of the bags<br \/>\nwere also  sealed into\tseparate parcels and sealed with the<br \/>\nseal of SBS. The sealed parcels ware deposited with Moharror<br \/>\nMalkhana and  were later  on sent  to the  Central  Forensic<br \/>\nScience Laboratory.  The  report  of  the  Central  Forensic<br \/>\nScience Laboratory  PW9\/F  shows  that\tthe  sealed  parcels<br \/>\ncontaining the\tarms and ammunitions with seal of SBS intact<br \/>\nwere received  in the laboratory and on testing the rifle it<br \/>\nwas found  to be  in a\tworking order. The ballistic  expert<br \/>\nopined that  the rifle\twas an arm within the meaning of the<br \/>\nArms Act. One test cartridge was fired from the rifle and it<br \/>\nwas opined that 161 cartridges which had been recovered were<br \/>\nlive cartridges.  On completion\t of the\t investigation,\t the<br \/>\nappellant was  tried for the offence under section 5 of TADA<br \/>\nand convicted and sentenced as noticed above.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The prosecution  with a  view to connect the  appellant<br \/>\nwith the  crime examined  nine withesses.  It\t produced in<br \/>\nevidence the  affidavit of  Moharror Malkahana\tas also\t the<br \/>\nreports\t from  the  CFSL.  Various  document  including\t the<br \/>\nseizure memos  etc. were  also produced\t at the\t trial.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  in  his  statement  recorded\t under\tsection\t 313<br \/>\nCr.P.C. denied\tthe prosecution\t allegations against him. He<br \/>\nexamined DW.1,\tManjit Singh, in his defence who had given a<br \/>\ncertificate to\tthe effect that the appellant, was bearing a<br \/>\ngood moral character.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  have perused\tthe evidence  with the assistance of<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties and examined the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there<br \/>\nwas a serious flaw in the prosecution case inasmuch as while<br \/>\nPW.1  deposed  that  what  had\tbeen  recovered\t   from\t the<br \/>\nappellant was rifle AK-47, PW.7 in his evidence deposed that<br \/>\nthe weapon recovered was AK-56 and that in question No.l put<br \/>\no the  appellant under\tsection 313 cr.P.C. he was told that<br \/>\nhe had\tbeen found  in possession  of an AK-56 rifle besides<br \/>\nthe live  cartridges. On  this basis  it is  aruged that the<br \/>\nidentity of the weapon has been rendered W a doubtful. There<br \/>\nis indeed  this variance  in the evidence of  PW.1 and PW.7.<br \/>\nThat, however,\tin our\topinion is  not of much consequence.<br \/>\nThe rifle  which was  recovered from  the    appellant\tbore<br \/>\nNo.516275. That\t number was  mentioned in  the seizure\tmemo<br \/>\nprepared at  the spot.\tIt was that weapon which was sent to<br \/>\nthe CFSL  and in  its report  Ext.PW.9\/F the CFSL found that<br \/>\nrifle No.516275,  Ex.P1, was  in working order and conformed<br \/>\nto the\tdescription of\tan arm\tunder the  Arms Act. All the<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses  relating to  recovery of the arms and<br \/>\nammunitions including  PW.1 and PW.7 in the Court identified<br \/>\nrifle bearing  No.516275, Ex.P1, as the rifle which had been<br \/>\nrecovered  from\t  the  appellant   at  the   time   of\t his<br \/>\napprehension. PW.7  also  identified  rifla  Ex.P1  as\tthat<br \/>\nweapon. Nothing therefore turns on as to whether the rifle<br \/>\nwas described as AK-47 by PW.1 and AK-56 by PW.7. During his<br \/>\ncross-examination, PW.7 stated that he had never seen an<br \/>\nAK-56 rifle before and that he had never oprated any such<br \/>\nrifle. He did not even know how the megazine is fitted to an<br \/>\nAK-56 rifle or whether AK-56 is the only rifle which is made<br \/>\nin China. It, therefore, appears to us that describing of<br \/>\nthe rifle  Ex.P.1, bearing  No.516275 as  AK-47 or AK-56, is<br \/>\nnot of\tmuch consequence and does not create any doubt about<br \/>\nthe identity  of the  weapon. There  is no  doubt  from\t the<br \/>\nprosecution evidence that the rifle which recovered from<br \/>\nthe possession of the appellant was rifle Ex.P1 bearing<br \/>\nNo.516275.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for the appellant then  submitted that<br \/>\nthough the  appellant was  arrested from  the t park where a<br \/>\nnumber of  witnesses were  present, the\t prosecution had not<br \/>\nexamined  any  independent  witnesses  and,  therefore,\t the<br \/>\nprosecution case  had been  rendered doubtful.\t  We  cannot<br \/>\nagree. None  of the  prosecution witnesses  who have\tbeen<br \/>\nexamined bore  any ill will or malice against the appellant.<br \/>\nOfcourse, they\tall belong to the police force but merely on<br \/>\nthat account  their evidence  cannot be\t said to be tainted.<br \/>\nSince the  departmental witnesses would be interested in the<br \/>\nsuccess of the prosecution case prudence requires that their<br \/>\nevidence be  scrutinized with  more care. we have critically<br \/>\nand carefully  analysed the  evidence of all the prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses and  find that  despite lengthy  cross examination<br \/>\nnothing has  been brought out which may in any way discredit<br \/>\ntheir testimony\t at all.  These witnesses  had no  reason to<br \/>\nfalsely implicate the appellant. They have stood the test of<br \/>\ncross examination.  The report\tof  the\t CFSL  lends  enough<br \/>\ncorroboration to  their evidence.  It is in the\t evidence of<br \/>\nPW.1 that  when the appellant was over-powered! some persons<br \/>\nwere looking  from a  distance but  none of them came at the<br \/>\nspot. Under  these circumstances  not joining  any  of those<br \/>\nwitnesses  cannot   affect  the\t  credit-worthiness  of\t the<br \/>\nprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     With a  view to  convict an  accused under section 5 of<br \/>\nTADA, the  Constitution Bench  in  sanjay  Dutt\t vs.  State,<br \/>\n(1994) 5  SCC 410 laid down that the prosecution is required<br \/>\nto prove  that the  accused was\t in conscious &#8216;possesssion&#8217;,<br \/>\n&#8216;unauthorisedly&#8217;, in  a notified area of any of the arms and<br \/>\nammunition specified  in Columns  2 and\t 3 of  Category I or<br \/>\nCategory III (a) of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962 or of<br \/>\nbombs, dynamite\t or other  explosive substances\t and that no<br \/>\nfurther nexus  with any\t terrorist or disruptive activity is<br \/>\nrequired to  be proved\tthe  prosecution,  in  view  of\t the<br \/>\nstatutory presumption  and the\tconviction would be valid on<br \/>\nthe strength of the presumption.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  present case  there is  ample evidence  on\t the<br \/>\nrecord\tto   show  that\t  the  appellant  was  in  conscious<br \/>\npossession of  rilfe Ex\t P1 bearing  No.516275 which  weapon<br \/>\nanswered the description of an arm under the Arms Act as per<br \/>\nthe report  of the  CFSL. The  appellant had  no licence for<br \/>\nsuch a\tweapon and was thus in an unauthorised possession of<br \/>\nthe same.  There is  no dispute\t that the  recovery was made<br \/>\nfrom the  area which  was a  declared notified area. All the<br \/>\ningredients  essential\tfor  proving  of  an  offence  under<br \/>\nsection 5  of TADA  stand established  in the  case and\t his<br \/>\nconviction is well merited.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before parting with the case would be relevant to point<br \/>\nout that  even if it could be possible to  say, for the sake<br \/>\nof arguments,  though there  is no  basis for  it, that\t the<br \/>\ndescription of\tthe weapon  put\t to  the  appellant  in\t his<br \/>\nstatement under\t section 313 Cr.P.C. as AK-56 had prejudiced<br \/>\nhim, it would still not affect the prosecution\tcase because<br \/>\nthere is  nothing on the record to show that Rifle Ex.P1 was<br \/>\nnot an\tAK-56 rifle.  Besided in answer to question No.4 put<br \/>\nto the\tappellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.<br \/>\nhis attention  was specifically\t invited to  the recovery of<br \/>\nrifle Ex.P1  besides the  cartridges. Therefore, there could<br \/>\nbe no  possibility of  any prejudice  having\/caused  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant by  the mentioning  of  AK-56\t in  question  No.1.<br \/>\nBesides, 161  live cartridges  were also  recovered from his<br \/>\npossession. The law laid down by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1256540\/\">Paras Ram vs.<br \/>\nState of  Haryana,<\/a> (1992)  4 SCC  662, that  for an  offence<br \/>\nunder Section  5,  the\trecovery  must\tbe  of\t  &#8220;arms\t and<br \/>\nammunitions&#8221; and  not of either arm or &#8220;ammunition&#8221; has been<br \/>\nheld to\t be not good law by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay<br \/>\nDutt&#8217;s\tcase  (supra)  wherein\tit  was\t opined\t that  while<br \/>\ninterpreting  the   expression\tarms  and  &#8220;ammunitions&#8221;  in<br \/>\nsection 5  of TADA,  the words\thave to be read disjuntively<br \/>\nand not\t conjunctively. The  appellant was  found to  be  in<br \/>\npossession   of\t  161\tlive   cartridge   consciously\t and<br \/>\nunauthorisedly in  a notified  area. This recovery by itself<br \/>\nwould attract the provisions of Section 5 of TADA.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The next  question, however,  is  with  regard  to\t the<br \/>\nquantum of sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant  has been  awarded sentence\tof  8  years<br \/>\nrigrous imprisonment  besides a\t fine Or  Rs. 1,000\/. He was<br \/>\nabout 20 years of age. In the facts arc circumstances of the<br \/>\ncase, in  our opinion,\tit would meet the ends of Justice if<br \/>\nthe substantive\t sentence of the appellant is reduced from 8<br \/>\nyears  rigorous\t  imprisonment\t to   six   years   rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment while  maintaining the sentence of fine and the<br \/>\npunishment in default thereof. We make an order accordingly.<br \/>\nWith the  above modifiction in sentence the appeal is partly<br \/>\nallowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996 Bench: A.S. Anand, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: BALBIR SINGH . Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/1996 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R This appeal under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [&hellip;]<\/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-59471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-26T10:30:06+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T10:30:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1650,\"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\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-26T10:30:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-26T10:30:06+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T10:30:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996"},"wordCount":1650,"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\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996","name":"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-26T10:30:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balbir-singh-vs-state-on-26-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balbir Singh vs State on 26 September, 1996"}]},{"@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\/59471","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=59471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}