{"id":91850,"date":"1995-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995"},"modified":"2016-11-04T11:15:31","modified_gmt":"2016-11-04T05:45:31","slug":"sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995","title":{"rendered":"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (2) 570, \t JT 1995 (2)\t 18<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHAMAN LAL GOYAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/01\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (2) 570\t  JT 1995 (2)\t 18\n 1995 SCALE  (1)390\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
1.   Leave granted.  Heard counsel for the   parties.\n<\/p>\n
2.Under the order impugned herein, the High Court of  Punjab
\nand Haryana has quashed the memo of charges communicated  to
\nthe   respondent-writ  petitioner  as  well  as\t the   order
\nappointing  the\t enquiry  officer  to  enquire\tinto   those
\ncharges.   A  further direction has been given\tto  the\t ap-
\npellants,  viz.,  the State of Punjab  and  its\t authorities
\n(respondents  in the writ petition) to consider the case  of
\nthe   respondent  for  promotion  according  to\t law.\t The
\ncorrectness of the said order is questioned by the State  of
\nPunjab and its authorities in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3.The  respondent-writ petitioner was the Superintendent  of
\nNabha  High Security Jail in the year 1986, On his  transfer
\nfrom the said post, he gave charge of his office on December
\n26,  1986.  On the night intervening 1st\/2nd January,  1987,
\ncertain\t inmates, said to be terrorists, made an attempt  to
\nescape.\t  In that connection, two of the inmates  attempting
\nto  escape and one jail official died in the shooting  which
\ntook  place,.  Six terrorists made good their  escape.\t The
\nInspector  General  of\tPrisons\t immediately  inspected\t the
\nprison\tand  made a report to the Government on\t January  9,
\n1987.  He reported inter alia that the said incident was the
\ncumulative  result of lax administration,  indiscipline\t and
\nlack  of  control over the prisoners.  He  reported  further
\nthat  the  respondent “followed the  policy  of\t appeasement
\ntowards\t the  extremists.   He yielded\tto  each  and  every
\nillegal\t demand\t of the extremists.  As\t a  result,  detenue
\nGurdev\t Singh,\t assumed  the  leadership  of\tthe   prison
\npopulation and dictated terms to the administration.   There
\nwas  a total breakdown of the classification of the  inmates
\nin  the\t different wards of the jail.  It is  quite  evident
\nfrom  the  fact that three escapees Balwinder  Singh,  Major
\nSingh  and  another Balwinder Singh were permitted  to\tstay
\ntogether alonwith detenue Kulwant Singh life prisoner  Major
\nSingh  and three adolescent undertrials Ram  Singh,  Kulwant
\nSingh and Surinder Singh in a single cell in utter disregard
\nof  the\t Punjab Jail Manual…… It has been  told  by\t the
\nmembers\t of  the staff that the\t Superintendent\t Jail,\tShri
\nChamal Lal Goyal, did not inspect the barracks\/wards of\t the
\njail  during the month of December as he was expecting,\t the
\npromotion orders shortly….. Shri Chaman Lal Goyal accepted
\na  farewell  party from the most  dreadful  terrorist  viz.,
\nTarsem Singh Gill, Col.Kahlon, Giani Roshan Singh and others
\non the receipt of his promotion orders which is against\t the
\nconduct rules and the
\n21<\/span>
\nprovisions   of\t the  Punjab  Jail  Manual.    The   injured
\nterrorists  were  interrogated by the police and  they\thave
\nconfessed that they had been planning this escape for  about
\na  month.  He recommended that “the  Deputy  Superintendent,
\nShri   Surinder\t  Singh\t  and\tShri   Chaman\tLal   Goyal,
\nSuperintendent\tJail, who are responsible for the loose\t ad-
\nministration  and laxity in the control of the\tinmates\t may
\nplease be placed under suspension at the Government level”.\n<\/p>\n
4.   It\t appears that the District Magistrate  also  ordered
\nthe  Sub-divisional  Magistrate\t to enquire  into  the\tsaid
\nincident.   The latter submitted his report to the  District
\nMagistrate  on January 26, 1987.  In this report’ a copy  of
\nwhich has been included in the material paper books in\tthis
\nappeal, there are no observations or comments either for  or
\nagainst the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
5.   No action was taken against the respondent until  1992.
\nHe  continued in service as usual.  For the first  time,  he
\nwag  called  to\t the office of the  Secretary  to  the\tHome
\nDepartment on March 25, 1992 for questioning and  thereafter
\nthe  memo  of  charges\twas issued on  July  9,\t 1992.\t The
\nrespondent  submitted  his explanation on  January  4,\t1993
\ndenying\t the charges.  After obtaining the comments  of\t the
\nInspector  General  of\tPrisons\t on  his  explanation,\t the
\nGovernment  appointed an enquiry officer on July  20,  1993.
\nSoon thereafter, the respondent approached the High Court  –
\non  August 24, 1993 – by way of a writ petition seeking\t the
\nquashing  of  the  charges and\tthe  orders  appointing\t the
\nenquiry\t officer.  It appears that though the writ  petition
\nwas  entertained  by  the High Court, the  enquiry  was\t not
\nstayed, with the result that it commenced in September, 1993
\nand  proceeded\tapace.\tOn July 26, 1994, the\tevidence  on
\nbehalf of the government was completed.\t The respondent\t was
\nto adduce his defence evidence, if any.\t At that stage,\t the
\nwrit  petition was allowed (on August 25, 1994) as a  result
\nof which the enquiry could not and did not proceed further.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  High\tCourt  quashed the memo of  charges  on\t the
\nfollowing grounds:\n<\/p>\n
(1)  the delay of five and a half years inservingthe memo of
\ncharges,  for  which there isno acceptable  explanation,  is
\nitself\ta  ground for quashing the charges.  On\t account  of
\nlapse  of  time,  it  has  become  more\t difficult  for\t the
\nrespondent  to\tadduce evidence or to prove  his  innocence.
\nNumber\tof witnesses whom he could have examined are  either
\ndead  or no longer available.  Some of them have either\t re-
\ntired  or  transferred elsewhere.  The jail  has  also\tbeen
\nrepaired with the result that the evidence of negligence, if
\nany,  is  missing.  Holding an enquiry at this\tdistance  of
\ntime cannot but prejudice the respondent.
\n(2)  The   Sub-divisional  Magistrate  had  exonerated\t the
\nrespondent  of any responsibility for or culpability in\t the
\nsaid  incident\tin  his\t report\t dated\tJanuary\t 26,   1987.
\nEvidently,  the government kept quiet for a number of  years
\nin  view  of  the said report.\tOnly much  later,  when\t the
\nrespondent’s  case was to come up for promotion to the\tpost
\nof  Deputy Inspector General of Prisons that the matter\t was
\nraked up and charges served.  The government had practically
\ndecided not to proceed against the respondent.\tIt was raked
\nup after several years only with a view to deny promotion to
\nthe  respondent.   The\taction of  the\tappellants  is\tthus
\nclearly vitiated by malafides.\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
(3)  The  respondent was not the Superintendent of the\tjail
\nat  the time the incident took place.  It also appears\tthat
\nother  officials who were said to be responsible along\twith
\nthe respondent (writ petitioner) have been exonerated.\t The
\nenquiry cannot proceed only against the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  charges  communicated to the\trespondent  are\t the
\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Shri   Chaman  Lal   Goyal,   Superintendent,
\n\t      Central  jail  (On leave) who was\t working  as
\n\t      Superintendent, Distt.Jail-Cum-Security  Jail,
\n\t      Nabha till 25.12.1986 is presumed to be guilty
\n\t      of  escape of prisoners from the said jail  on
\n\t      the night of 1st\/ 2nd. 1. 1987.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.    That  inside the jail, there  was  loose
\n\t      administration  with regard to supervision  of
\n\t      prisoners and physical verification of cells.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    That  the prisoners had been given\tspe-
\n\t      cial concessions against rules\/ instructions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    That  the  building of the jail  was  in
\n\t      dilapidated  condition.  No special  attention
\n\t      was even given for its repair.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.That  on  20th November, 1986,\t4  dangerous
\n\t      prisoners\t who were most safe in Barrack\tNo.6
\n\t      were transferred to less safe Barrack no.7  as
\n\t\t\t    per the wishes of the prisoners.  Barrack No.6
\n\t      consists of 20 cells.  The prisoners were kept
\n\t      in  the  said Barrack  separately.   On  their
\n\t      request,\tthey  were  transfeffed\t to  Barrack
\n\t      No.7.  There  they planned for  escape.\tEven
\n\t      keeping separately in Barrack no.7 of the said
\n\t      prisoners,  they\twere allowed to\t remain\t to-
\n\t      gether in one room.  They broke down the wall.
\n\t      On  6th December, 1986 one more  prisoner\t who
\n\t      had come there after his transfer from Central
\n\t      Jail,  Ferozepur was kept in Barrack  no.7  as
\n\t      per  his\twish.\tThere  all  these  prisoners
\n\t      planned from escaping the prison.\t As per\t the
\n\t      result  of’ this carelessness 3  persons\twere
\n\t      killed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    That barrack close register had not been
\n\t      maintained\/was not maintained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    That officials of the prisons were\tfre-
\n\t      quently  mixing  the prisoners  and  were\t ex-
\n\t      changing\tthe  items  and\t took\tintoxicating
\n\t      articles.\t  This\twas result of  loose  admin-
\n\t      istration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   Along  with the charges, statement of  allegations\t was
\nalso furnished giving the full particulars of the  aforesaid
\ncharges.\n<\/p>\n
9.Now coming to the grounds given by the High Court, it\t may
\nbe  pointed out at the very outset that the High  Court\t was
\nfactually  in  error in holding – or in\t proceeding  on\t the
\nassumption, as the case may be – that the report of the Sub-
\ndivisional  Magistrate had exonerated the respondent of\t any
\nresponsibility or culpability.\tThe report, as stated above,
\nneither\t exonerates the respondent nor does it hold  him  re
\nsponsible or guilty.  It looks probable that the High  Court
\nwas   misled  into  believing  that  the  said\treport\t has
\nexonerated  the\t respondent.  Not only that.  There  is\t the
\nearlier\t report of the Inspector General of  Prisons,  which
\nwas submitted within one week of the incident.\tIt holds the
\nrespondent  responsible\t for the said  incident,  no  doubt,
\nalong  with other prison officials.  Indeed,  the  Inspector
\nGeneral\t of  Prisons had recommended the suspension  of\t the
\nrespondent  and\t a few other officials.\t In  this  state  of
\nfacts  It may not be correct to assume that  the  Government
\nhad  dropped the idea of proceeding against  the  respondent
\nand that it changed its mind later.  It is one thing to\t say
\nthat the Government was guilty of inaction and an altogether
\ndifferent  thing  to say that it had dropped the  matter  in
\nview of the Sub-divisional
\n23<\/span>
\nMagistrate’s  report – but then revised its  opinion  later,
\nfor reasons which are suggested to be not fair.\t Now  coming
\nto the charge of malafides also, it must be stated that\t the
\nsaid charge was made in a vague manner in the writ petition.
\nIt was not specified which officer was ill-disposed  towards
\nthe  respondent and how and in what manner did he manage  to
\nsee  that, the charges are served upon the  respondent\twhen
\nthe  respondent’s case was to come up for consideration\t for
\npromotion.   The appellants say that the  respondent’s\tcase
\nwas  not to come up for consideration for promotion  in\t the
\nyear  1992 at all – not even in 1993.  It is also stated  by
\nthe learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to\t the
\nimpugned order, the respondent’s case was considered by\t the
\nDPC  but it found him not fit for promotion.  Be that as  it
\nmay,  in  the absence of any clear  allegation\tagainst\t any
\nparticular  official and in the absence of  impleading\tsuch
\nperson\teo nominee so as to enable him to answer the  charge
\nagainst\t him, the charge of malafides cannot  be  sustained.
\nIt  is\tsignificant to notice that the\trespondent  has\t not
\nattributed any malafides to the Inspector General of Prisons
\nwho made his report dated January 9, 1987.  In this  report,
\nthe  Inspector General of Prisons had found  the  respondent
\nresponsible  for the incident – relevant portions  extracted
\nhereinbefore  –\t and  recommended  his\tsuspension   pending
\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Now   remains   the  question  of\tdelay.\t  There\t  is
\nundoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving\t the
\ncharges.   The question is whether the said delay  warranted
\nthe  quashing of charges in this case.\tIt is trite  to\t say
\nthat  such  disciplinary proceeding must be  conducted\tsoon
\nafter  the  irregularities  are\t committed  or\tsoon   after
\ndiscovering  the irregularities.  They cannot  be  initiated
\nafter  lapse of considerable time.  It would not be fair  to
\nthe  delinquent officer.  Such delay also makes the task  of
\nproving\t the charges difficult and is thus not also  in\t the
\ninterest   of\tadministration.\t   Delayed   initiation\t  of
\nproceedings  is bound to give room for allegations of  bias,
\nmalafides and misuse of power.\tIf the delay is too long and
\nis  unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash\t the
\ncharges.   But how long a delay is too long  always  depends
\nupon the fact-, of the given case.  Moreover, if such  delay
\nis  likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent\t officer  in
\ndefending  himself,  the  enquiry  has\tto  be\tinterdicted.
\nWherever  such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh\t the
\nfactors\t appearing for and against the said plea and take  a
\ndecision on the totality of circumstances.  In other  words,
\nthe  court has to indulge in a process of  balancing.\tNow,
\nlet us see what are the factors in favour of the respondent.
\nThey are:\n<\/p>\n
(a)  That he was transferred from the post of Superintendent
\nof  Nabha  Jail and had given charge of the post  about\t six
\ndays  prior to the incident.  While the incident took  place
\non  the\t night intervening 1st\/ 2nd of\tJanuary,  1987,\t the
\nrespondent  had relinquished the charge of the said  office.
\non  December  26, 1986.\t He was not there-. at the  time  of
\nincident.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  The explanation offered by the government for the delay
\nin serving the charges is unacceptable.\t There was no reason
\nfor   the   government\tto  wait  for\tthe   Sub-divisional
\nMagistrate’s  report when it had with it the report  of\t the
\nInspector  General  of\tPrisons which report  was  not\tonly
\nearlier\t in  point  of\ttime but was  made  by\tthe  highest
\nofficial of the prison administration,
\n24<\/span>
\nHead  of  the Department, itself The  Inspector\t General  of
\nPrisons was the superior of the respondent and was  directly
\nconcerned  with the prison administration whereas  the\tSub-
\ndivisional   Magistrate\t was  not  so  connected.   In\t the
\ncircumstances,\tthe  explanation  that\tthe  government\t was
\nwaiting\t for the report of the Sub-divisional Magistrate  is
\nunacceptable.  Even otherwise they waited for two more years
\nafter obtaining a copy of the said report.  Since no  action
\nwas  taken within a reasonable time after the  incident,  he
\nwas  entitled  to and he must have presumed that  no  action
\nwould  be  taken against him.  After a lapse of five  and  a
\nhalf years, he was being asked to face an enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  If\t not  in 1992, his case for promotion was  bound  to
\ncome  up for consideration in 1993 or at any rate  in  1994.
\nThe  pendency of a disciplinary enquiry was bound  to  cause
\nhim  prejudice in that matter apart from subjecting  him  to
\nthe  worry  and\t inconvenience involved in  facing  such  an
\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Now what are the factors agaist the respondents.
\n(1)  That  the\trespondent was never suspended\tnor  was  he
\nserved with a memo of charges nor even with a  questionnaire
\nin that\t behalf till March, 1992 when he was  questioned  by
\nthe Secretary to the Home department and  charges served  in
\njuly,  1992. He had suffered no discomfort or  inconvenience
\non account of delay.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  The charges are very grave. The charges are  not\tonly
\nthat  he  was  lax in discharge of his duties  but  that  he
\nacceded to every demand of theirs  and that in violation  of
\nthe  prison  rules, had allowed\t a number of  terrorists  to
\ngather\tin  one\t cell.\tHe is said  to\tbe  responsible\t for
\ncreating  of the atmosphere which led to the  said  attempt.
\nHis sympathies towards them are said to be evident from\t the
\nfact  that  he accepted a farewell party from  them  on\t his
\ntransfer  from the post of Superintendent of the said  jail.
\nIn  the attempted escape, one prison official lost his\tlife
\nbesides two terrorists.\t The earliest report of the incident\n<\/p>\n
–  the report of Inspector General of Prisons dated  January
\n9,  1987 does specifically find the  respondent\t responsible
\nfor  the incident.  It is prima facie evidence\tagainst\t the
\nrespondent.   In the interest of administration and of\tjus-
\ntice, it is necessary to find out the truth in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)There is no allegation in the writ petition that any of
\nthe  witnesses whom the respondent wanted to examine in\t his
\ndefence\t are since dead or have become unavailable and\tthat
\nthe  said fact would cause prejudice to his  case.   Indeed,
\ndeath or non-availability of terrorists who made the attempt
\nto escape and the repair of the jail may prejudice the\tease
\nof  the\t government  rather than the defence  of  the  rethe
\nrespondent.  Similarly, the mere fact that some persons\t who
\ncould have been examined as witnesses have  retired or\thave
\nbeen  transferred cannot be said to cause prejudice  to\t the
\nrespondent.  It\t  is  not stated   that\t they\thave  become
\nunavailable.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Pending  the writ petition, the enquiry  was  proceeded
\nwith  and  by  the  date  of  the  impugned  judgment,\t the
\ngovernment  had\t completed its evidence.  Only\tthe  defence
\nevidence  remained  to\tbe adduced  whereafter\tthe  enquiry
\nofficer would have made the report.\n<\/p>\n
12.  The principles to be borne in mind
\n25<\/span>
\nin this behalf have been set out by a Constitution Bench  of
\nthis  Court  in A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak &  Anr.<\/a>  (1992\t (1)
\nS.C.C.225).  Though  the  said case  pertained\tto  criminal
\nprosecution,  the principles enunciated therein are  broadly
\napplicable  to\ta plea of delay in taking  the\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings as well.  In paragraph 86 of the judgment,\tthis
\ncourt  mentioned the propositions emerging from the  several
\ndecisions  considered therein and observed that\t “ultimately
\nthe  court  has to balance and weigh  the  several  relevant
\nfactors\t –  balancing  test  or\t balancing  process  –\t and
\ndetermine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has
\nbeen  denied in a given case”.\tIt has also been held  that,
\nordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion
\nthat  right  to\t speedy\t trial\tof  the\t accused  has\tbeen
\ninfringed,  the charges, or the conviction, as the case\t may
\nbe, will be quashed.  At the same time, it has been observed
\nthat that is not the only course open to the court and\tthat
\nin  a given case, the nature of the offence and\t other\tcir-
\ncumstances may be such that quashing of the proceedings\t may
\nnot  be in the interest of Justice.. In such a case, it\t has
\nbeen  observed, it is open to the court to make\t such  other
\nappropriate  order  as it finds just and  equitable  in\t the
\ncircumstance of the case.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Applying  the balancing process, we are of the  opinion
\nthat the quashing of charges and of the order appointing en-
\nquiry\tofficer\t  was  not  warranted  in  the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of the case.  It is more appropriate  and  in
\nthe  interest  of  justice as well as  in  the\tinterest  of
\nadministration\tthat  the enquiry which had proceeded  to  a
\nlarge extent be allowed to be completed.  At the same  time,
\nit  is\tdirected that the respondent  should  be  considered
\nforthwith  for\tpromotion without reference to\tand  without
\ntaking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the
\nsaid enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should
\nbe  promoted  immediately.  Ibis direction is  made  in\t the
\nparticular facts and circumstances of the case though we are
\naware that the Rules and practice normally followed in\tsuch
\ncases  may  be different.  The promotion so  made,  if\tany,
\npending\t the  enquiry shall, however, be subject  to  review
\nafter the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of\t the
\nfindings  in  the  enquiry.  It is also\t directed  that\t the
\nenquiry\t against  the respondent shall be  concluded  within
\neight months from today.  The respondent shall cooperate  in
\nconcluding   the  enquiry.   It\t is  obvious  that  if\t the
\nrespondent  does not so cooperate, it shall be open  to\t the
\nenquiry officer to proceed ex-parte.  If the enquiry is\t not
\nconcluded  and\tfinal  orders  are  not\t passed\t within\t the
\naforesaid  period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have\tbeen
\ndropped.\n<\/p>\n
14.  The  High\tCourt has relied upon the decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr.<\/a>  (1990
\n(Suppl.)  S.C.C.738) on the question of delay.\tThat  was  a
\ncase where the charges were served and disciplinary  enquiry
\nsought\tto be initiated after a lapse of twelve\t years\tfrom
\nthe   alleged  irregularities.\t From  the  report  of\t the
\njudgment,  the nature of the charges concerned therein\talso
\ndo  not\t appear.  We do not know whether the  charges  there
\nwere grave as in this case.  Probably, they were not.  There
\nis another distinguishing feature in the case before us:  by
\nthe  date of the judgment of High Court, the major  part  of
\nthe  enquiry  was over.\t This is also a\t circumstance  going
\ninto the scales while weighing the factors for and  against.
\nAs stated hereinabove,
\n\t\t\t     26<\/span>
\nwherever  delay is put forward as a ground for quashing\t the
\ncharges,  the court has to weigh all the factors,  both\t for
\nand against the delinquent officer and come to a  conclusion
\nwhich  is  just\t and proper in the  circumstances.   In\t the
\ncircumstances,\tthe  principle of the said  decision  cannot
\nhelp the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
16.  A copy of this order shall be communicated\t immediately
\nto the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector General
\nof Prisons, Government of Punjab.\n<\/p>\n
27<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (2) 570, JT 1995 (2) 18 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: SATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: CHAMAN LAL GOYAL DATE OF JUDGMENT31\/01\/1995 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) […]<\/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-91850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995 - 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\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-04T05:45:31+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-04T05:45:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995\"},\"wordCount\":3373,\"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\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995\",\"name\":\"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-04T05:45:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995 - 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\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-04T05:45:31+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995","datePublished":"1995-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-04T05:45:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995"},"wordCount":3373,"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\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995","name":"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-04T05:45:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sate-of-punjab-and-ors-vs-chaman-lal-goyal-on-31-january-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sate Of Punjab And Ors vs Chaman Lal Goyal on 31 January, 1995"}]},{"@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\/91850","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=91850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}