BHAGAT SINGH versus THE STATE

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 19-12-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. .,., 
-
-
4 
,:~.--
S.C.R, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
371 
has been referred, reports that the detention is justifi-
ed; the Government should determine what the period 
of detention should be and not before. The fixing of 
the period of detention in the initial order itself in the 
present case 
was, 
therefore, 
contrary to the scheme 
of the Act and cannot 
be supported. 
The learned 
Advoc:ite-General, however, urged that in view of the 
provU.ion in section 11(2) that if the Advisory Board 
repoi:ts that there is no sufficient cause for the deten-
tion, the person concerned would be released forthwith, 
the direction in the order dated 30th July, 1951, that 
the petitioner should be detained till 31st March, 1952, 
could be· ignored 
as 
mere 
surplusage. 
We cannot 
accept that view. 
It is obvious that such a direction 
would ·tend to prejudice a fair 
consideration of the 
petitioner's case when it is placed before the Advisol}' 
Board~ It cannot be too often emphasised that before 
a person is deprived of his personal liberty the pro-
cedure established by law must 
be strictly followed 
and must not be departed from to the disadvantage 
of the person affected. 
" ' 
Petition allowed. 
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. 
BHAGAT SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE 
GURDEV SINGH-Caveator. 
-~SAYYED FAzL Au, MEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN and 
. 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
1\-IYAR JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code (Tl of 1898), s. 234(1 )-Misioinder of 
charges-Firing single shot at ttl!o persons to kill them-Whether one 
off-tmce ok two offences. 
- The appellant was tried in respect of the following c)larg6: 
(i) causing the death of A and thereby committing an offenec 
punishable under s. 302, Penal Code, (ii) firing a short at B and 
1951 
Makhan Singh 
Tarsikka 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab. 
Pataniali 
Sastri C. /. 
1951 
Dec. 19. 
1951 
Bhagat Singh 
v. 
The' State. 
• 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
C with the intention of causing their death and thereby commit-
ting an offence punishable 
under s. 307, Penal Code, and (iii) 
firing a shot at D with the intention of killing him and thereby 
committing an offence punishable under s. 307J Penal Code. 
It 
\Vas contended on his behalf that 
there was a 
misjoindcr of 
charges as the 
second charge was really a charge in respect of 
two offences (viz., attempt to 1nurder B and attempt to .mrirder 
C) and the accused h<1d therefore been 
charged 
with, and tried 
for, more than three offences in 
contravention of s. .234(1.) of 
the Criminal Procedure Code: Held, that there was nothing wrong 
in the trial as the single act of 11.ring a shot at B and C is 
orre offence and not two offences and the trial was not :00.d for 
misjoindcr of charges. 
['Their f_,ordships however observed .that 
they should not be understood as laying down the wide proposi~ 
tion that in no case .can a single act constitute more than one 
offence.] 
Promotha Natha Roy v. King Emperor ( 17 C.W.N. 479~, •]ohan 
Subarna v. King Emperor (10 C.W.N. 520), Poonit Singh v. Madho 
Bhot (l.L.R. 13 Cal. 270) and Sudhandm Kumar Roy v. Emperor 
(l.L.R. 60 Cal. 643) approved. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRismcno:-<1 : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 38 of 1950. 
Appeal from the judgment 
and order of the High Court of Patiala (Teja Singh 
C. J., and Gurnam Singh J.) dated 5th October, 1950, 
in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1950, affirming the con-
viction and sentence of the appellant by the Sessions 
Judge of Sangrur. 
Gopal Singh and Kartar Singh, for the appellant. 
Narinder Singh, Advocate General for the Patiala 
and East Pun jab States Union (lindra Lal, with him) 
for the respondent. 
/ai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kolzli, with him) 
for the · 
Caveator. 
1951. December 19. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
FAZL Au J.-This 1s an appeal against the judg-
ment of the High Court at Patiala upholding the con-
viction and ·sentence of the appellant. 
who was tried 
~y the Sessions Judge of 
Sangrur for the offence of 
1murder ·and sentenced to deatl1. 
" . 
• 
' > 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
373 
The prosecution story is a somewhat long and com-
plicated one, 
but ignormg 
unnecessary 
details, 
the 
material facts may be shortly stated as follows:-
On the 5th October, 1949, there was a quarrel bet-
ween the appellant and one Darbara Singh, in the 
-course of which the appellant attacked the latter with a 
phawra (a cutting instrument). About that time, Gur-
mail Singh, the deceased person, returned to his house, 
which was close to the hou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.