GURMEJ SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 28-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 9 S.C.R. 1 
GURMEJ SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2009) 
APRIL 28, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
) 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Administrative Law: 
c 
Natural justice - Principles of - Interpretation - Held: 
Whenever order is struck down as invalid being violative of 
principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the 
case and fresh proceedings are left upon - Order challenged 
-+' 
by virtue of its inherent defect is to be vacated, but D 
'· 
proceedings are not terminated - On facts, accused convicted 
u/s.395, 450, 342 /PC - Direction by High Court qua 
appellant-investigating officer, who was the main person 
involved in the matter but not prosecuted, without issuance of 
notice - There was violation of principles of natural justice -
E 
Hence directions by High Court qua appellant not 
maintainable and set aside. 
t 
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (2) SCR 621, 
referred to. 
' 
F 
Ray v. Local Government Board (1914) 1 KB 160; 
General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. 
v. Sanckman 1943 AC 627: (1948) 2 All ER 337; Board of 
Education v. Rice 1911 AC 179: 80 LJKB 796; Spackman 
v. Plumstead District Board of Works 1985 (10) AC 229:54 G, 
LJMC 81; Drew v. Drew and Lebura 1855(2) Macg. 1.8; 
,J. 
James Dunber Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen 1877-78(3) 
App.Case 614; Arthur John Specman v. Plumstead District 
Board of Works 1884-85(10) App.Case 229; Vionet v. Barrett 
1 
H 
• 
2 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
.......... 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
A 
1885(55) LJRD 39; Hookings v. Smethwick Local Bo~rtJ of 
~ 
Health 1890(24) QBD 712; Ridge v. Baldwin 1963(1) WB 
569; In re R.N. (An lnfaot) 1967(2) 8617, 530; Fairmount 
Investments Ltd. v. Secretary to State for Environment .1976 
WLR 1255; Regina v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex 
B Parle Hosenba/11977 (1) WLR 766; Bosewel/'s case (1605) 
6 Co.Rep. 48-b, 52-a, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
;k. 
(1914) 1 KB 160 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
c 
1943 AC 627 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
1911 AC 179 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
1985 (10) AC 229 
Referred to. 
Para 10 · 
-
D 
1855(2) Macg. 1.8 
Referred to. 
Para-13 
...,. 
1877-78(3) AC 614 
Referred to. 
p·ara 13 
1884-85(10) AC 229 . 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
E 
.1885(55) LJRD 39 
Referred to. 
Pata 13 
1890(24) QBD 712 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
1963(1) WB 569 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
1978 (2) SCR 621 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
F 
I 
1967(2)· 8617, 530 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
t 
1976 WLR 1255 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
.,., 
1977 (1) WLR 766 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
G 
(1605) 6 Co.Rep. 48-b, 52-a Referred to 
Para 15 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
,!._ 
No. 992 of 2009. 
H 
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.11.2006 of the High 
GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
3 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 
A 
-~ 
1746-SB of 2005. 
WITH 
SL.P (Crl.) No. 1623 of 2007. 
-
SLP (R) ... CRLMP No. 3892 of 2007. 
B 
Ranjit Kapoor, AAG (Pub.), Gurminder Singh, D. Mahesh 
Babu, K.G. Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Manju Bhagat, Monohr 
Singh Bakshi; Debasis Misra, Vipin Gogia, Jaspreet Gogia, 
Sonia Kapoor, S.N. Mehrotra, Falak Mohd., Jaideep Malik, ~jay 
Pal, H.M. Singh, Jasneet Kaur, Praveen Kr. Singh, Kaushal c 
Yadav, Durgesh Yadav and Kuldip Singh the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Application for impleadment 
is rejected. 
D· 
... 
2. Leave granted. 
··"' 
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by· a 
learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court which 
gave certain directions qua the present appellant who was the 
E 
Investigating officer. One Sanjiv Kumar filed an appeal against 
the judgment dated 17/7/2005 passed by learned Sessions 
Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the said accused Sanjiv Kumar 
was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 
-+ 
450, 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the · IPC'). 
4. The complainant Sukhraj Singh also filed a revision for 
F 
payment of compensation. The prosecution version was that the 
accused Sanjiv Kumar was posted as ASI in Police Station City 
Phagwara. On 23/2/2002 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with 4-5 
unidentified persons had committed an offence of trespass by 
G 
entering into building of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Limited 
Phagwara. He allegedly committed dacoity by robbing Sukhraj 
), 
Singh Director of that Company of the Indian currency and 
foreign currency. There were other aspects highlighte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.