{"id":85258,"date":"1997-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997"},"modified":"2018-08-16T08:12:28","modified_gmt":"2018-08-16T02:42:28","slug":"sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Madan Mohan Punchhi, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t24\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nMADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nTHOMAS. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appellant was  one of  the candidates before the Punjab<br \/>\nPublic Service\tCommission for\tselection to  the  cadre  of<br \/>\nDeputy Superintendent  of Police.  He was  found fit  in all<br \/>\nrespects except\t the height  factor for\t which he  was found<br \/>\ndeficient  by\t1.20  cms.   However,  he  was\tselected  as<br \/>\nGovernment of  Punjab relaxed  the requirement\tof  physical<br \/>\nfitness\t as   for  him\t in  special  consideration  of\t the<br \/>\nmeritorious service  rendered by  his  brother\t(one  Satish<br \/>\nKumar Sharma, IPS) during the time when State Government was<br \/>\ninvolved in  a massive\texercise for containing terrorism in<br \/>\nPunjab. Third respondent challenged the said selection as he<br \/>\ncould secure only a post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail. A<br \/>\nDivision Bench\tof the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed<br \/>\nthe selection  of the  appellant as Deputy Superintendent of<br \/>\nPolice and  directed the  Government to\t make appointment in<br \/>\nthe consequential vacancy from among the candidates who have<br \/>\nbeen selected.\tThe said  judgment is  now  under  challenge<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Some more\tfacts are  necessary to\t decide the question<br \/>\nraised before us. Punjab public Service Commission published<br \/>\nan advertisement  on 12.6.1996 as follow up of a requisition<br \/>\nmade by\t the Government of Punjab, inviting applications for<br \/>\n20 posts  of Deputy  Superintendent of Police and 6 posts of<br \/>\nDeputy Superintendents\tof Jail\/District  Probation Officer.<br \/>\nappellant  and\tthird  respondent  were\t among\tthe  various<br \/>\ncandidates who\tsubmitted  applications\t for  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nposts. In  the written test conducted on 25.2.1994 appellant<br \/>\nwas found  short in  height by\t1.20 cms.  In the meanwhile,<br \/>\nGovernment formulated  a policy\t on 6.2.1994 to show special<br \/>\nconsideration towards  &#8220;relatives of  those who\t have either<br \/>\nsuffered due to terrorism or have faced terrorism boldly and<br \/>\nhave contributed  towards overcoming  it&#8221;. It  appears\tthat<br \/>\nGovernment felt\t that &#8220;on  account of  their background\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances  such   individuals  are\t bound\tto  be\tmore<br \/>\ndedicated and committed&#8221;. When appellant was found deficient<br \/>\nto fit in with the requirements very marginally he moved the<br \/>\nGovernment for\trelaxation of  the  Specification  regarding<br \/>\nheight in his case. Government passed an order on 14.5.1994,<br \/>\nthe operative part of which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     In this  view of  the matter it has<br \/>\n     been  considered\tto  give   minor<br \/>\n     relaxation\t in  physical  standard,<br \/>\n     provided\tsuch   persons\t possess<br \/>\n     prescribed\t   qualifications    and<br \/>\n     qualify   in   the\t  written   test<br \/>\n     conducted\tby   the  Punjab  Public<br \/>\n     Service Commission and are suitable<br \/>\n     in all  other respects.  The latest<br \/>\n     request  dated  13.5.1994\tof  Shri<br \/>\n     Sandeep   Kumar   Sharma\t(younger<br \/>\n     brother  of   Shri\t  Satish   Kumar<br \/>\n     Sharma,  IPS)   who  is   presently<br \/>\n     posted as\tSSP, Ferozepur\tand  who<br \/>\n     has  rendered   useful  service  in<br \/>\n     tackling  terrorism   and\t brining<br \/>\n     normalcy for  giving relaxation  in<br \/>\n     height 1.20 cms. for recruitment to<br \/>\n     the post  of Deputy  Superintendent<br \/>\n     of Police\thas been  considered and<br \/>\n     acceeded to.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Thereupon,, appellant  was called\tfor vivavoce  and he<br \/>\nwas included  in the  list of  selected candidates  and\t was<br \/>\nlater  appointed  as  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  on<br \/>\n10.8.1994. Third  respondent was selected with first rank in<br \/>\nthe  list   for\t the   post   of   Deputy   Superintendents,<br \/>\nJail\/District Probation\t Officers and  he was  appointed  as<br \/>\nDeputy Superintendent, Jail on 8.9.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Third respondent  and  another  person  challenged\t the<br \/>\nselection and  appointment of  the appellant before the High<br \/>\nCourt mainly on the ground that appellant did not fulfil the<br \/>\nrequirement enumerated in the advertisement issued by Punjab<br \/>\nPublic Service\tCommission and\tthat the  Government have no<br \/>\npower  to  relax  without  specifically\t indicating  in\t the<br \/>\nadvertisement itself  that specifications  are liable  to be<br \/>\nrelaxed.  Another   ground  taken   up\twas  that  power  of<br \/>\nrelaxation contained  in Rule  14 of  Punjab Police  Service<br \/>\nRules 1959  (`Service Rules&#8217; for short) cannot be invoked in<br \/>\nthe case of one individual.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Division  Bench of the High Court Examined the file<br \/>\nrelating to the impugned selection and found that relaxation<br \/>\nwas granted  by the Government only in the case of appellant<br \/>\nand that  the policy was evolved by the Government solely to<br \/>\nhelp the  appellant which  is nothing  but an  act of  sheer<br \/>\nfavoritism. Learned  Judges of\tthe High Court observed that<br \/>\nRule 7\tand Rule  14 of the Service Rules cannot be regarded<br \/>\nas empowering the Government to grant relaxation in physical<br \/>\nstandard as  a measure\tof favoritism. On the above premises<br \/>\nthe Division  Bench quashed  the selection  of the appellant<br \/>\nand directed  the State\t Government to\tfill up\t the vacancy<br \/>\nwithin thirty days.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before we\tproceed to  consider the merits of the case,<br \/>\nwe may point out that none of the parties before us disputed<br \/>\nabout  the   worthiness\t in  formulating  a  policy  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  of\tPunjab\tfor  showing  recognisition  to\t the<br \/>\nservices rendered  by those  police  personnel\twho  bravely<br \/>\nfaced the dastardly acts unleashed by the terrorists. If so,<br \/>\nthere is nothing improper in giving special consideration to<br \/>\nthe kith  and kins  of such policemen and those who suffered<br \/>\non account  of terrorists&#8217; activities. We may also point out<br \/>\nthat before  the High  Court neither  the Government nor the<br \/>\nthird respondent  disputed the\tfactual position that Satish<br \/>\nKumar Sharma,  (appellant&#8217;s brother)  had rendered efficient<br \/>\nand  useful   service  as   a  Police  Officer\tin  tackling<br \/>\nterrorists&#8217; menace.  (of course, a faint attempt was made by<br \/>\nthe third  respondent before us to dispute that fact, but as<br \/>\nhe did\tnot raise  any dispute\tus to dispute on that aspect<br \/>\nbefore the  High Court,\t we are\t not inclined to countenance<br \/>\nthe said contention now).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule  7   of   the\t  Service   Rules   stipulates\t the<br \/>\nqualifications\tnecessary  for\tdirect\trecruitment  to\t the<br \/>\nservice. Sub-clause  (iii) of  clause (i) of Rule 7 requires<br \/>\nthat the  candidate should  have &#8220;a  minimum height of 5&#8242; 7&#8243;<br \/>\n(167.5\tcms)  and  normal  chest  measurement  of  33&#8221;\twith<br \/>\nexpansion of  1 1\/2.  The second  proviso to  clause (i)  is<br \/>\nimportant and it is extracted :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     Provided further  that the physical<br \/>\n     standard prescribed  in  sub-clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iii) shall  not be relaxed without<br \/>\n     special\t sanction     of     the<br \/>\n     Government.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Rule 14  contains the  general power  of Government  to<br \/>\nrelax rules. It reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;General  power   to  relax  rules;<br \/>\n     Where  the\t Government  is\t of  the<br \/>\n     opinion that  it  is  necessary  or<br \/>\n     expedient\tso  to\tdo,  it\t may  by<br \/>\n     order, for\t reasons to  be recorded<br \/>\n     in\t writing   relax  any\tof   the<br \/>\n     provisions\t of   these  rules  with<br \/>\n     respect to any class or category of<br \/>\n     persons.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It is clear that while Rule 14 permits relaxation for a<br \/>\nclass  or   a  category\t  of  persons,\t Rule  7   preserves<br \/>\nGovernment&#8217;s  power   to  relax\t the  physical\tstandard  in<br \/>\nindividual  cases.  In\tthe  present  case  Rule  7  is\t the<br \/>\nappropriate Rule  and it was not necessary to embark on Rule<br \/>\n14 at  all. But we have noticed that the Deputy secretary of<br \/>\nHome (Government  of Punjab  who had  sworn to\tthe counter-<br \/>\naffidavit before the High Court for the State Government has<br \/>\nsought to  justify the\trelaxation  made  by  Government  by<br \/>\nconfining to  Rule 14 of the Service Rules alone. Why did he<br \/>\nadopt such  a stand  when there\t is a  specific\t Rule  which<br \/>\nempowered the  Government to give relaxation of the physical<br \/>\nstandard, is  something we  cannot understand or appreciate.<br \/>\nWhy should  the deponent  have by-passed  Rule 7 which is so<br \/>\nexplicit in  the context?  Any way  since the  appellant has<br \/>\nreferred to  Rule 7 as the relevant rule we are not disposed<br \/>\nto consider the amplitute of Rule 14 in the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court seems  to have  taken the view that the<br \/>\nonly  beneficiary   of\tthe   aforesaid\t relaxation  is\t the<br \/>\nappellant and hence considered it an act of favoritism shown<br \/>\nto him.\t According to  the  learned  Judges  &#8220;the  so-called<br \/>\npolicy was  formulated after  the result of the written test<br \/>\nwas announced with the sole object of securing selection and<br \/>\nappointment  of\t the  aforesaid\t candidate  because  without<br \/>\nclearing the  standard of physical fitness he could not have<br \/>\nbeen interviewed by the Commission. This, in our opinion, is<br \/>\nnothing but an act of sheer favoritism&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appellant cannot be blamed for being the only candidate<br \/>\navailable  at\tpresent\t seeking   relaxation  of   physical<br \/>\nstandards. The same benefit could also have enured to anyone<br \/>\nelse situated  in the  same position  as the  appellant\t had<br \/>\nthere been any. Policy-wise it is not possible to think that<br \/>\nappellant would have been the only kith and kin of those who<br \/>\nsuffered on  account of\t the activities of the terrorists in<br \/>\nPunjab or  those who  faced terrorism  bravely. Perhaps,  in<br \/>\nthis particular\t selection appellant happened to be the only<br \/>\nbeneficiary of\tthe policy.  Nor can  we find any mala fides<br \/>\nmerely because government evolved the policy on the occasion<br \/>\nwhen appellant\tapproached for\trelaxation of  the standard.<br \/>\nThe occasion  would  have  provided  to\t the  government  an<br \/>\nopportunity to\trecapitulate the  events and  thus to remind<br \/>\nthemselves of  the plight  of those  families which suffered<br \/>\ntraumatic  experiences\t when  their   kith  and   kin\twere<br \/>\nrelentlessly involved  in continued  operations fighting the<br \/>\nterrorists  who\t using\thideouts  to  strike  blitz  against<br \/>\ninnocent people\t as well as the police force intermittantly.<br \/>\nA government  may have\tto act on some occasion for chalking<br \/>\nout a  particular policy.  If any  particular  occasion\t has<br \/>\nalerted the  government to the necessity for taking a policy<br \/>\ndecision it  is hardly\tsufficient to attribute mala fide of<br \/>\nfavoritism to the government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/796002\/\">In\t Atlas\tCycle  Industries  Ltd.\t Sonepat  vs.  Their<br \/>\nWorkmen<\/a>: [1962]\t Suppl. 3  SCR 89;  a Constitution  Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court considered the question whether a policy taken in<br \/>\nthe wake  of an individual&#8217;s case would offend Article 14 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution  as the  object then  would  have  been  to<br \/>\nbenefit a  particular person.  In that\tcase  Government  of<br \/>\nPunjab\traised\tthe  age  of  retirement  of  the  Presiding<br \/>\nOfficers of  Industrial Tribunals from 65 to 67 on 3.6.1957.<br \/>\nOne incumbent  Sri A.N.Gujral would have attained the age of<br \/>\n65 on  4.6.1957). The  Bench  repelled\tthe  contention\t and<br \/>\nobserved thus: &#8220;the occasion which inspired the enactment of<br \/>\nthe  statute  might  be\t the  impending\t retirement  of\t sri<br \/>\nA.N.Gujral. But\t that is not a ground for holding that it is<br \/>\ndiscriminatory and  contravenes Article\t 14, when  it is, on<br \/>\nits terms, of general application.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  useful to refer to the interpretation given to a<br \/>\nsimilar relaxation clause in service law by a Bench of three<br \/>\njudges of  this Court  that it must be liberally considered.<br \/>\n(vide JC  Yadav and ors. vs. State of Haryana and ors. [1990<br \/>\n(1) SCR\t 470]. The  power of  relaxation even  if  generally<br \/>\nincluded in  the service  rules\t could\teither\tbe  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose of  mitigating hardships  or  to  meet\tspecial\t and<br \/>\ndeserving situations.  Such rule mus be construed liberally,<br \/>\naccording  to\tthe  learned  Judges.  Of  course  arbitrary<br \/>\nexercise of such power must be guarded against. But a narrow<br \/>\nconstruction  is  likely  to  deny  benefit  to\t the  really<br \/>\ndeserving cases.  We too  are of  the view  that the rule of<br \/>\nrelaxation must get a pragmatic construction so as policy of<br \/>\nthe government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for the  third respondent has referred<br \/>\nto the\tdecisions of  this Court  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1757111\/\">District  Collector and<br \/>\nChairman, Vizianagram  vs. Tripura  Sundari Devi<\/a> [JT 1990(2)<br \/>\nSC 169\tand <a href=\"\/doc\/1623342\/\">Hoshiar  Singh vs.\tState of  Haryana  and\tors.<\/a><br \/>\n[JT1993 (5)  SC 63.  The former is relied on by the Division<br \/>\nBench of  the High  Court  in  the  latter  decision.  Those<br \/>\ndecisions relate  to cases  where relaxation of the Rule was<br \/>\nmade by\t the selection\tboard. This Court observed that when<br \/>\nadvertisement was  silent about\t relaxation of the standards<br \/>\nprescribed therein  for selection it was not permissible for<br \/>\nthe selection  board to\t relax such standards. Those are not<br \/>\ncases  where  relaxation  was  made  by\t the  Government  in<br \/>\nexercise of  any statutory rule and hence the ratio in those<br \/>\ntwo decisions  is of no use to support the contention of the<br \/>\nthird respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have  no doubt that if government had thought it fit<br \/>\nto afford  marginal relaxation\tin the case of the appellant<br \/>\nin terms  of Rule  7 in particular and Rule 14 in general by<br \/>\nwas of\timplementation of  the policy evolved in recognising<br \/>\nthe services  rendered by  the police  personnel during\t the<br \/>\nfrightful days,\t it warrants  no interference  from judicial<br \/>\nside. High  Court should not have upset the appointment made<br \/>\nin marginal  relaxation of the physical standards prescribed<br \/>\nin the case of this appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We, therefore,  allow this\t appeal and  set  aside\t the<br \/>\njudgment under challenge. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997 Author: Thomas. Bench: Madan Mohan Punchhi, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/1997 BENCH: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&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-85258","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>Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997 - 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\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-16T02:42:28+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T02:42:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2019,\"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\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997\",\"name\":\"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T02:42:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997 - 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\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-16T02:42:28+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T02:42:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997"},"wordCount":2019,"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\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997","name":"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T02:42:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sandeep-kumar-sharma-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-24-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 1997"}]},{"@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\/85258","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=85258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}