{"id":65493,"date":"2009-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-21T21:08:20","modified_gmt":"2018-10-21T15:38:20","slug":"surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                           1\n\n\n\n\nIN   THE       HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA                        AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                               Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001\n                               Date of decision 06.7.2009.\n\n\nSurjit Singh\n                                     ...... Appellant.\n\n  versus\n\n\nThe State of Punjab & others\n                                     ...... Respondents.\n\n\nCORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.\n\nPresent :-     Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellant.\n               Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl.AG, Punjab.\n\n\nK.C.PURI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
               This is an appeal directed by accused-appellant-Surjit Singh<\/p>\n
against the judgment dated 4.9.2001 passed by Shri Gurdev Singh, Special<\/p>\n
Judge, Jalandhar, vide which accused Surjit Singh has been convicted under<\/p>\n
Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/p>\n
(hereinafter mentioned as – the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000\/- and<\/p>\n
in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six<\/p>\n
months.\n<\/p>\n
             The factual matrix gathered from the record is that on<\/p>\n
4.11.1999 a fight has taken place between Arjan Singh on one side and<\/p>\n
Amar Singh, complainant (PW-5) and his family members on the other side.
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
In that quarrel, both the parties received injuries resulting in registration of<\/p>\n
FIR against the complainant (herein) and others only, which was being<\/p>\n
investigated by the accused-appellant. On 11.11.1999, the accused came to<\/p>\n
the house of the complainant. The complainant requested him to register a<\/p>\n
cross-case against the other party but, the accused did not pay much heed to<\/p>\n
his request. The accused told him that he would not arrest him, his wife<\/p>\n
and his son and that they should get anticipatory bail from the court, but for<\/p>\n
that he would have to pay Rs.5000\/- as bribe, but ultimately the amount was<\/p>\n
settled at Rs.3000\/- and agreed not to arrest him and his wife. He extended<\/p>\n
a false promise for giving that bribe to the accused, who told that he should<\/p>\n
come with that amount on 13.11.1999 in the house of Manjit Singh (PW-<\/p>\n
10), situated in Bhai Dit Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, who was his close friend.<\/p>\n
The complainant approached Amrik Singh DSP (PW9) and disclosed all<\/p>\n
these facts to him. His statement Ex.PE was recorded by the DSP. He<\/p>\n
produced six currency notes of Rs.500\/- each before the DSP, who smeared<\/p>\n
the same with phenolphthalein powder and after entering the numbers<\/p>\n
thereof in the memo Ex.PK, handed back those currency notes to him with<\/p>\n
the direction that he should hand over the same to the accused only on<\/p>\n
demand and should not shake hands with him.          He was accompanied by<\/p>\n
Sant Singh (PW6).      Sant Singh was constituted as a shadow witness and<\/p>\n
was directed to go to the house of Manjit Singh with the complainant and to<\/p>\n
give signal to the DSP after acceptance of the currency notes by the<\/p>\n
accused. Gurmail Singh, Assistant (PW7) was joined in the raiding party<\/p>\n
as an independent official witness. The DSP made his endorsement Ex.PE\/1<\/p>\n
upon the statement of the complainant Ex.PE and sent the same to the Police
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
Station and on the basis thereof formal FIR Ex.P-E\/2 was recorded against<\/p>\n
the accused. Thereafter this raiding party started for the house of Manjit<\/p>\n
Singh and stopped at some distance from that house. The complainant and<\/p>\n
shadow witness were sent to that house whereas the other members of the<\/p>\n
raiding party scattered there. Both those witnesses went inside the house of<\/p>\n
Manjit Singh, who was present in the drawing room of the house. The<\/p>\n
accused came there after sometime and demanded the bribe of Rs.3000\/-<\/p>\n
from Amar Singh complainant.         The complainant handed over to the<\/p>\n
accused said currency notes, which he put in the right side pocket of his<\/p>\n
trousers, after counting the same. The shadow witness made an excuse and<\/p>\n
came out and gave a signal to the DSP after coming out of the house. On<\/p>\n
the receipt of the signal, the DSP reached the spot and disclosed his identity<\/p>\n
to the accused. The accused was caught hold of by his arms by the members<\/p>\n
of the raiding party. The fingers of both the hands of the accused were<\/p>\n
washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and colour thereof turned pink<\/p>\n
from white. That solution was put in a nip Ex.P8, which was sealed with<\/p>\n
the seal of DSP and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM. On the<\/p>\n
direction of the DSP, the search of the accused was taken by Gurmail<\/p>\n
Singh, upon which six currency notes of Rs.500\/- each were recovered from<\/p>\n
the right side pocket of his trousers. When the numbers of those currency<\/p>\n
notes were compared with the numbers as entered in the memo Ex.PK,<\/p>\n
those tallied with each other. The currency notes Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 were<\/p>\n
taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG. On further search of the accused<\/p>\n
one purse containing Rs.130\/-, identity card and a wrist watch were<\/p>\n
recovered and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. The
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
trousers of the accused were got\/removed and pocket thereof was washed in<\/p>\n
the solution of sodium carbonate, on which colour thereof turned white<\/p>\n
from pink. That solution was put in a nip Ex.P9 which was sealed with the<\/p>\n
seal of the DSP. The trousers of the accused Ex.P7 were also converted into<\/p>\n
parcel and were sealed with the same seal. Both the sealed parcels were<\/p>\n
taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PJ. The DSP prepared rough site plan<\/p>\n
of the place of recovery Ex.PN with correct marginal notes. The police<\/p>\n
diaries were taken into possession from the accused about which memo<\/p>\n
Ex.PO was prepared.       On coming back to the Police Station, the DSP<\/p>\n
deposited the case property with seals intact and without tampering with the<\/p>\n
contents thereof with Varinder Kumar Moharrir Constable (PW1). Out of<\/p>\n
that case property the nip parcels Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 were sent to the Forensic<\/p>\n
Science Laboratory, Punjab Chandigarh on 18.11.1999 through Sucha Singh<\/p>\n
Constable (PW-2) and were delivered at that place with seals intact. After<\/p>\n
analysis, it was reported by the Director of that Laboratory, vide his report<\/p>\n
Ex.PO that the same contained mixture of sodium ion, carbonate ion and<\/p>\n
phenolphthalein. After      getting necessary sanction and completion of<\/p>\n
investigation, challan was put in before the trial Court for trial.<\/p>\n
             On appearance of the accused\/appellant in the Court, copies of<\/p>\n
the documents were supplied to him under rules. Finding a prima facie<\/p>\n
case, charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Act was framed<\/p>\n
against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.<\/p>\n
             Prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused,<\/p>\n
examined Constable Varinder Kumar (PW-1), Constable Sucha Singh (PW-<\/p>\n
2), ASI Rajinder Singh (PW-3), SI Darshan Singh (PW-4), Amar Singh
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
Complainant (PW-5), Sant Singh (PW-6), Gurmail Singh (PW-7) an official<\/p>\n
witness, MHC Nanak Singh (PW-8), DSP Amrik Singh (PW-9) Manjit<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-10) and after tendering report of Forensic Science Laboratory<\/p>\n
Ex.PQ, the evidence was closed by the Public Prosecutor.<\/p>\n
            The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the<\/p>\n
incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the allegations and<\/p>\n
pleaded innocence. He stated that a criminal case was registered in the<\/p>\n
Police Station against the complainant, which was being investigated by<\/p>\n
him. He was required to arrest the complainant in that case, but he had been<\/p>\n
evading his arrest and had been sending messages that a counter case be<\/p>\n
registered against the complainant, to which he did not agree. Then Manjit<\/p>\n
Singh approached him with the request that he would call the complainant<\/p>\n
to his house and that his arrest be effected from that place. Manjit Singh<\/p>\n
also asked him to register a counter case against the complainant party, but<\/p>\n
he refused to do so on the ground that no offence could be made out against<\/p>\n
the complainant party.    He never demanded nor accepted any illegal<\/p>\n
gratification or the amount from the complainant in the house of Manjit<\/p>\n
Singh, on the day of occurrence, he had gone to that house in order to<\/p>\n
effect arrest of the complainant and when he reached inside the house of<\/p>\n
Manjit Singh, the complainant tried to put some money in the pocket of his<\/p>\n
trousers, to which he resisted and the currency notes fell on the sofa set<\/p>\n
lying in that room. He was falsely involved in this case in connivance with<\/p>\n
the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
            The accused was called upon to lead evidence and he examined<\/p>\n
Head Constable Bakshish Lal (DW-1), ASI Jasbir Singh (DW-2) and ASI
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
Gopal Singh (DW-3), in his defence evidence.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned trial Court held the accused guilty under Section 13<\/p>\n
(2) read with Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him as narrated above.<\/p>\n
              Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction, the convict\/accused\/appellant has preferred the instant appeal.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this<\/p>\n
case Amar Singh complainant and Sant Singh shadow witness are the star-<\/p>\n
witnesses beside Manjit Singh, the owner of house where amount of bribe<\/p>\n
has been allegedly paid to the appellant. It is submitted that these witnesses<\/p>\n
have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. To convict the<\/p>\n
accused, under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Act,                the<\/p>\n
prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients :-<\/p>\n
            (1)    the demand of illegal gratification by the accused\/public<\/p>\n
                   servant ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2)   acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused\/public<\/p>\n
                   servant and<\/p>\n
            (3)   recovery of the illegal gratification from the accused\/<\/p>\n
                  public servant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            It is submitted that to prove the ingredients mentioned at No.1<\/p>\n
and 2 mentioned above only complainant, shadow witness or Manjit Singh<\/p>\n
could depose but all these three witnesses have not supported the case of<\/p>\n
prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the<\/p>\n
appellant from the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
            It is further submitted that the mere recovery of tainted<\/p>\n
currency notes is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused under
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Act. To fortify this contention,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Balwant Singh vs. State<\/p>\n
of Punjab 1990(2) RCR 600. It is contended that hand wash and pocket<\/p>\n
wash has been explained by the appellant in his statement under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. The amount was forcibly put into the pocket of the accused. So,<\/p>\n
the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of mere alleged recovery of<\/p>\n
tainted amount from the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
            It is further contended that the material witness Gurmail Singh<\/p>\n
(PW-7) an official witness and DSP Amrik Singh (PW-9) are discrepant<\/p>\n
regarding the recovery of the amount. Gurmail Singh PW7 has stated that<\/p>\n
recovery was made from the purse of the appellant whereas DSP Amrik<\/p>\n
Singh has stated that the recovery of the tainted amount has been effected<\/p>\n
from the pocket of the accused. So, in these circumstances prayer has been<\/p>\n
made for acceptance of the appeal and for acquittal of the accused.<\/p>\n
            Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Sudhir<\/p>\n
Nehra has submitted that recovery of the tainted amount has been taken<\/p>\n
place from the appellant. PW-7 Gurmail Singh and PW-9 Amrik Singh DSP<\/p>\n
have fully supported the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of<\/p>\n
the tainted amount from the accused\/appellant. The pocket wash and hand<\/p>\n
wash turned pink. The said test is a definite test and there was no reason for<\/p>\n
falsely implicating the police official in such a case even no reason has been<\/p>\n
given by the accused for his alleged false implication so prayer has been<\/p>\n
made for dismissal of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone<\/p>\n
through the records of the case.\n<\/p>\n
 Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
            There are three basic ingredients to prove the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Act i.e. demand, acceptance and<\/p>\n
recovery of tainted notes from the possession of the accused. If all the<\/p>\n
ingredients do not co-exist then it cannot be said that offence is made out<\/p>\n
against the accused. In authority in case Mathura Dass Gupta Versus<\/p>\n
State of Haryana 2006(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 566, this Court has held that<\/p>\n
in a bribery case, the prosecution evidence should be clear and specific<\/p>\n
with regard to the important ingredients of offence i.e. demand, acceptance<\/p>\n
and recovery of tainted notes. The material witnesses to prove the demand<\/p>\n
and acceptance of the illegal gratification are the complainant Amar Singh,<\/p>\n
Sant Singh shadow witness and Manjit Singh, owner of the house where<\/p>\n
alleged recovery has been effected from the accused.       All these three<\/p>\n
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they were got<\/p>\n
declared hostile. So far as complainant-Amar Singh is concerned, in the<\/p>\n
cross-examination, he has supported the case to the extent that he went to<\/p>\n
the office of Vigilance Department and handed over the six currency notes<\/p>\n
of the denomination of 500\/- each total Rs.3000\/- to DSP Amrik Singh<\/p>\n
(PW-9). He has also stated that his signatures were obtained on the papers<\/p>\n
but, the same was not read over to him. Regarding material ingredients i.e.<\/p>\n
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, this witness has not<\/p>\n
supported the case of the prosecution. Sant Singh shadow witness has<\/p>\n
totally disowned the prosecution version, including in the cross-<\/p>\n
examination. Manjit Singh PW has also not supported the prosecution case<\/p>\n
regarding demand and acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
            Now, the question arises whether on the basis of recovery of
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
tainted amount from the accused,       whether he can be convicted?        The<\/p>\n
answer to that question has been given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in<\/p>\n
authority Union of India Thr. Inspector, CBI          vs. Purnandu Biswas<\/p>\n
reported in 2005(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 517. In that case, the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Apex Court has held that mere recovery of currency notes from the accused<\/p>\n
is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of offence under the Act. While<\/p>\n
dealing with Section 20 of the Act, it has been laid down that first of all the<\/p>\n
prosecution is required to prove the demand of illegal gratification and only<\/p>\n
thereafter dependency upon the facts of each case presumption under<\/p>\n
Section 20 of the Act, can be drawn.        The trial Court, in this case, has<\/p>\n
convicted   the accused on the basis of testimony of official witnesses<\/p>\n
Gurmail Singh (PW-7) and DSP Amrik Singh (PW-9), who have supported<\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of tainted currency notes<\/p>\n
from the possession of the accused. Statements of these two witnesses also<\/p>\n
contradicted each other. According to Gurmail Singh (PW-7) recovery of<\/p>\n
tainted currency notes has been taken place from the purse of the accused<\/p>\n
whereas according to DSP Amrik Singh (PW-9), the tainted currency notes<\/p>\n
have been made from the pocket of the trousers of the accused. Gurmail<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-7) has also given a different version inasmuch as he has stated<\/p>\n
that Amar Singh and Sant Singh went to the house of Manjit Singh. At that<\/p>\n
time accused was coming out of the house and he was caught hold by DSP.<\/p>\n
In fact, he was caught by two members of raiding party by his arms. He was<\/p>\n
again taken back inside the same house from where he had come out then<\/p>\n
his hands were got washed. This version has not been stated by DSP Amrik<\/p>\n
Singh (PW-9). This discrepancy was brought out in the notice of the trial
\n Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
Court also but the trial Court has not given much importance to the said<\/p>\n
fact.   Regarding hand wash and pocket wash,          the witnesses of the<\/p>\n
prosecution have themselves explained. Complainant has stated that he<\/p>\n
shocked hand with the accused and he tried to put the currency notes in his<\/p>\n
pocket but currency notes fell on the sofa. Similar fact has been stated by<\/p>\n
the shadow witness.     So, the importance of hand wash and pocket wash<\/p>\n
looses its importance, in view of the facts stated by the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses. In authority in the case of Balwant Singh’s (supra) relied on by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant also it has been laid down that where<\/p>\n
complainant and the other witnesses have not supported the case regarding<\/p>\n
demand of illegal gratification, in that case the accused is entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
              So, in view of the above discussion, the judgment of the trial<\/p>\n
Court does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny and consequently, the<\/p>\n
appeal stands accepted and the accused stands acquitted by giving him<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
              The fine, if any, recovered from the accused be refunded to<\/p>\n
him.\n<\/p>\n
              A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict<\/p>\n
compliance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ( K.C.PURI )
\n                                                     JUDGE
\nJuly 06,   2009
\nsv\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1046-SB of 2001 Date of decision 06.7.2009. Surjit Singh …… Appellant. versus The State of Punjab & others …… Respondents. CORAM […]<\/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-65493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 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\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-21T15:38:20+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-21T15:38:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2747,\"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\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-21T15:38:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 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":"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 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\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-21T15:38:20+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-21T15:38:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"},"wordCount":2747,"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\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009","name":"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-21T15:38:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surjit-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab & Others on 6 July, 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\/65493","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=65493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}