{"id":66386,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-09T15:45:30","modified_gmt":"2017-07-09T10:15:30","slug":"mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                   CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                       Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004\n\n                       Date of Decision: February 19, 2007\n\n\nMangat Rai and another\n\n\n                                                    ...Petitioners\n                       VERSUS\n\n\nState of Punjab\n                                                    ...Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH\n\n\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\nPresent:   Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate,\n           for the petitioners.\n\n           Mr.M.C.Berry, Senior DAG, Punjab,\n           for the State.\n\n              *****\nRANJIT SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           This order will dispose of Criminal Misc.Nos.6251-M of 2004<\/p>\n
(Mangat Rai and another v. State of Punjab) and 5719-M of 2004 (Girdhari Lal<\/p>\n
v. State of Punjab). The<\/a> facts are being taken from Crl.Misc.No.6251-M of 2004.<\/p>\n
           Petitioners, accused of mis-appropriating rice belonging to the<\/p>\n
Government, are before      this court seeking quashing of the FIR registered<\/p>\n
against them. This is yet another case of rice scam, but is being given a slightly<\/p>\n
different colour. The counsel has attempted to make the case of second FIR<\/p>\n
and is asking for relief for the petitioners accordingly. It may appear so, but<\/p>\n
deep analysis would belie this contention of the counsel for the petitioners.
\n Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004                     :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
           The facts, in brief, are that District Manager, Punjab<\/p>\n
State Warehousing Corporation, Moga gave an application to the<\/p>\n
Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga for registration of a FIR<\/p>\n
against few of its officers, working as Warehousing Managers. Shri<\/p>\n
SS.Walia, Warehousing Manager, Badhni Kalan was one of the<\/p>\n
accused named in this FIR besides some others. They were accused<\/p>\n
of defalcation of wheat, paddy and rice amounting to Rs.3.80 crores.<\/p>\n
Warehousing Manager is the Principal Officer of the        Warehouse<\/p>\n
and Punjab State Warehousing Corporation is a storage agency for<\/p>\n
storing   notified agricultural commodities   in its warehouse. The<\/p>\n
Corporation is not only responsible for preservation of its stocks,<\/p>\n
accounts, but also for its accurate accounting. Even private parties<\/p>\n
are entitled to store their products with the Warehouses of the<\/p>\n
Corporation. Badhni Kalan office is the bulk depositor of      Food<\/p>\n
Corporation. Its Manager, S.S.Walia absconded      from his duty in<\/p>\n
May, 2000. This followed a check of this centre after breaking open<\/p>\n
the locks by constituting a committee. The committee transferred the<\/p>\n
charge of wheat, paddy, rice lying in the godowns and the plinths<\/p>\n
after counting. As no records were available with the committee,<\/p>\n
accordingly only the stock was counted as was physically available.<\/p>\n
A certificate was obtained from the FCI, Badhni Kalan to know the<\/p>\n
rice, which was lying at Badhni Kalan Warehouse and on the basis of<\/p>\n
the same, shortage of 4779 bags of rice was detected. Besides<\/p>\n
this, it was apprehended that there was likelihood of large scale<\/p>\n
shortage of paddy and other food grains stored at the warehousing<\/p>\n
godowns. On the basis of record, 18332 bags of paddy were with M\/s<\/p>\n
Nauthaira Food Products and 8655 bags of paddy with M\/s Bansal
\n Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004                        :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Rice Mills. Quantity 3689 mts. paddy       was claimed to have been<\/p>\n
delivered to FCI by M\/s Shanker Rice Mills, Badhni Kalan, about<\/p>\n
which no record was available and accordingly this aspect was in<\/p>\n
dispute. These shortages, as detected, were tentative in nature. It<\/p>\n
was noticed that     record at Warehousing Badhni Kalan was not<\/p>\n
maintained properly and was incomplete. Milling Register was not<\/p>\n
maintained     on proper proforma. Shortages        in rice stock were<\/p>\n
detected for the crop years 1998-99 and          1999-2000, for which<\/p>\n
S.S.Walia was held responsible. Overall shortage in wheat for the<\/p>\n
year 1997-98 was also noticed. Certain other serious shortages were<\/p>\n
also noticed in regard to release of stocks without any authorisation<\/p>\n
and total loss to the tune of Rs.38069472\/- was assessed. The<\/p>\n
present FIR No.58 was lodged on 6.9.2001 against the petitioners on<\/p>\n
the basis of an audit report dated 21.7.2000. It is alleged that the<\/p>\n
paddy of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, as per the audit<\/p>\n
report, is not traceable. The earlier FIR, referred to above, was<\/p>\n
lodged against their officials in view of the detailed defalcation.<\/p>\n
             The case set up by the petitioners is that this FIR was<\/p>\n
thoroughly investigated by S.S.P.Moga and it was found that the total<\/p>\n
mis-appropriation has been done by Shri S.S.Walia, the then Branch<\/p>\n
Manager. Said S.S.Walia had died in a road accident during the<\/p>\n
pendency of investigation. It is further mentioned that the Millers, who<\/p>\n
have been named in this FIR, had also filed quashing petitions when<\/p>\n
it was stated on behalf of the prosecution that they were not required<\/p>\n
and accordingly their petitions were disposed of. The petitioners had<\/p>\n
also filed Criminal Misc.No.43964-M of 2000, which was ultimately<\/p>\n
disposed of in this manner on 11.10.2001 being infructuous.
\n Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004                      :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Grievance is that after one year of the complaint, again impugned<\/p>\n
FIR has been registered. Copy of this FIR has been annexed as<\/p>\n
Annexure P-1. The earlier FIR No.66 dated 17.9.2000, which had<\/p>\n
been registered basically against S.S.Walia, contained details of<\/p>\n
mis-appropriation and other     offences against him, whereas the<\/p>\n
present impugned FIR is with the allegation that the Corporation had<\/p>\n
shifted certain quantity of paddy purchased from Mandies at Badhni<\/p>\n
Kalan and had stored the same with the Mills for milling under<\/p>\n
supervision of late Shri S.S.Walia. This was for the crop year 1998-<\/p>\n
99 when 18642 bags were stored. Out of this, 891.62 quintals of<\/p>\n
rice were delivered short by the petitioners Mill. Another shortage of<\/p>\n
2089 bags of paddy was noticed in the custody of the petitioners Mill.<\/p>\n
These details were also found by the audit party, but the<\/p>\n
representatives of the petitioners Mill refused to sign on the audit<\/p>\n
report. Accordingly, allegation of mis-appropriation of paddy valued<\/p>\n
Rs.1860542\/- is made against the petitioners. It would, thus, be seen<\/p>\n
that the present FIR cannot be considered to be a second FIR<\/p>\n
pertaining to the same incident. The first FIR No.66 was against late<\/p>\n
S.S.Walia for the shortages noticed in the warehousing godowns, for<\/p>\n
which he alone was responsible. He was jointly responsible for the<\/p>\n
paddy that has been stocked in the Mills and which the Mills were<\/p>\n
required to return it back to the Government after milling. In case any<\/p>\n
paddy, so entrusted, was not returned after milling or not fully<\/p>\n
returned, the mills cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for the<\/p>\n
same. These two allegations, as such, are entirely different and it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that the two FIRs for the same incident have been<\/p>\n
recorded. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to
\n Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004                        :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
an order dated 20.7.2006 passed in Criminal Misc.No.38676-M of<\/p>\n
2003 (Gopal Krishan and others v. State of Punjab) where an FIR<\/p>\n
was ordered to be quashed on the ground that it was a second FIR of<\/p>\n
the same incident. While so ordering, this court has placed reliance<\/p>\n
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Kerala and others, AIR 2001 2637. These judgments would<\/p>\n
not require discussion in detail as it is being held that the impugned<\/p>\n
FIR is not the second FIR, as noticed above. In the passing, it may<\/p>\n
be said that in the case of T.T.Antony (supra), it was also observed<\/p>\n
that telegram or phone calls giving vague information could not be<\/p>\n
treated as an FIR and only the information entered in the station<\/p>\n
house diary, kept for the purpose by the in charge of the police<\/p>\n
station would be an FIR as postulated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In<\/p>\n
any case, it is found that the impugned FIR is not the second FIR in<\/p>\n
this case and no interference is called for. Even otherwise, it is<\/p>\n
noticed that this rice scam in the State of Punjab was of multi crores<\/p>\n
and multi facet. It is a case where number of Mill owners were able to<\/p>\n
mis-appropriate rice valued at crores of rupees and now seeking<\/p>\n
recourse to a quashing on the ground that this will only give rise to<\/p>\n
civil liability. Number of such petitions have earlier been dealt and<\/p>\n
dismissed by this court observing that civil and criminal liability would<\/p>\n
be distinct and separate.\n<\/p>\n
           Accordingly, no case for interference is made out and the<\/p>\n
present petition is, as such, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
February 19, 2007                              ( RANJIT SINGH )\nramesh                                              JUDGE\n Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004   :6 :<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004 Date of Decision: February 19, 2007 Mangat Rai and another …Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local […]<\/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-66386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-09T10:15:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T10:15:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1316,\"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\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T10:15:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008 - 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\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-09T10:15:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T10:15:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008"},"wordCount":1316,"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\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008","name":"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T10:15:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangat-rai-and-another-vs-state-of-punjab-on-22-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangat Rai And Another vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/66386","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=66386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}