Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THAKUR NARWAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided
2 February 1962
Judges listed
J.L. KAPUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 973 · 1962 INSC 40

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KAPUR, J.-Thia appeal is directed against the judgment ·and order of the High Court of Madhya Bharat upholding the conviction of the appella11t under ss. 380 and of the Indian Penal Codt'. The quest ion for decision is whether the appellant could be tried in 1955 under the Indian Penal Code for offences committed by him in 1948 when the State of Jhabua, in which the offences were committed, was not a part of Dominion of India and whether the State Penal Code pid contain any provision corresponding to the Sections of the Indian Penal Code under which the appellant has been convicted.

p. 974

In Jhabua State there is Thikana Jhaknawda whiah was a Jagir. Its thakur, Thakur Narayan Singh, died on November 11, I 945, without leaving a son. Hi8 two widows adopted Gajendrapal Singh, the second son of His HighneBS the Raja of Jnabua on July 15, 1946. Representations made by the appellant olaiming thP. suooession to the Thikana. were rejected by His HighneBS. His further representation to the then Political Agent wa.e also rejected. It is alleged that the appellant entered in a conspiraoy with about 150 persons and on January 18, 1948, forcibly entered the Thikana and took possession of it and remained in unlawful possession for about 7 months when he gave up the poasession. The prosecution against him and 15 others under ss. 121, 295 and 455 of the Indian Penal Code started on October 7, 1955. He was convicted under ss .. 451 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code but all the other accused persons were acquitted by the Sessions Jud~e. Against his conviction the appellant took an appeal to the High Court but his appeal was dismissed and he has come in appeal to this Court by Special Leave.

pp. 974–975

When the appeal was heard on January 9, 1962, the question whether the appellant could be tried in 1955 under the Indian Penal Code for offences committed in 1948 in the erstwhile State of Jhabua and whether there were similar provisions in the penal laws of that State at the time of the commission of the offences was raised. As this question had not been raised in any of the courts below we adjourned the hearing of the appeal to enable the parties to place the necessary material before us. The argument was confined to this question only as we did not find any substance in any of the other points in the appeal.

p. 975

According to the Report of the Council of Administration on the administration of Jhabua State for 1935-41 p.48, the then Raja of Jhabua State by notification applied amongst other laws the Penal Code of India to the State of Jhabua. By Ordinance 1 of 1948 issuad by the Rajapramukh after the State of Jhabua beoame part of the State of Madhya Bharat which was replaced by Regulation of Government Act (Act 14 of 1948) the laws already in force in Jhabua were continued in that part of the Sta~ of Madhya Bharat. On February 22, 1951, the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, (Act III" of 1951) was enactecl. Seoti;:..u il of U1at Act relates to rnpeals and savin$s· Ii; provided :

pp. 975–976

" If immediately uefore the appointed day, there is in force in any Part B State any law corresponaing any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to thD,t State, that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, stand repealed :

p. 976

Provided that the repeal shall not affect, (a) the preyious operation of any law so

p. 976

repealed or ...•••............ (b) any right, prtvilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred,

p. 976

under any law so repealed c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence com-

p. 976

mitted against any law ~o repealed ..... . rnd any such ............... remedy may be ..... . enfo1wid ........ ...... and any such penalty ..... . may be imposyd as if this Act had not been

p. 976

passed.' Thus it is clear that in 1948, when the offences were committed by t.he appellant, t.he law in the State of .Jbabua was the Indian Penal Code and that law m1s con tin by the Ordinance of the Rajpra.mukh and L'B Repealing Act and any penalty incurrerl in respect. of any .offence committed in 1948 is rmnishah le under the Indian Penal Code as applic·l to .Jhabua State. , This appeal is t,herefore without force and is dismissed.

p. 976

Appeal dismissed.

p. 976

------~

p. 976