THAKUR NARWAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 02-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

" 
2. S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
973 
of the rules of natural justice or violation of any 
principle oflaw which would be a good ground for 
011r interference direct with the orders of the 
Board of Revenue in an appeal under Art. 136 of 
the Constitution. 
In our opinion the appeal is without force and 
is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
THAKUR NARWAR SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF MABHYA PRADESH 
(J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR 
DAYAL, JJ.) 
Criminal Tria/,-Offences committed in . Princely Bt,at,e 
prior to merger with Iwrlian Dominion-If and when the Indian 
Penal Code applicable to such offences-Madhya Bharat Ordi-
nance No. 1of1948-Part B 8t,ates (Laws) Act, 1951 
(~ qf 
1951) •. 6. 
The appellant had committed certain offences in the 
State of Jhabua 'in 1948, when the Jhabua State was not a 
part of Dominion of India. 
He was tried in 1955 under the 
J ndian Penal Code, for the offences committed in the erst-
while State of Jhabua in 1948. 
The question was whether 
the appellant could be tried in 1955 under the Indian Penal 
Code for offences committed in 1948 in the erstwhile State of 
Jhabusa. 
The Raja of Jhabua State by a notification had made 
iipplicable amongst other laws the Penal Code of India to the 
, 
State of Jhabua. After Jhabua State became part of the State 
of Madhy~ Bharat, the Rajpramukh by Ordinance No. I of 
1948 continued the laws already in force in State of Jhabua. 
The Part B States (Laws) Act 1951 (3 of 1951) s. 6 while 
repealing all the existing laws of the State inter alia saved the 
laws dealing with any peoality, forfeiture or pu.nishmeot 
incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law 
repealed. 
Held, in 1948, when the offences were committed the 
.. 
196% 
i\ 1 / s. Ballabhdas 
Agarwal 
v. 
Tiu Slate of Bihar 
Kapur J. 
F.~t;ruary 2 
1962 
na1..,.N-
tJ;"f/A 
•• 
Th Sl.U of 
.11.dlgo Pr.Us• 
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1£62) SUPP. 
law in the State of Jhabua was the Tndian Penal Code and 
that law continued by the Ordinance I of 1948 of the Rajpra-
mukh and the repealing Act, in the Part B States (Laws) Act 
1951, and any penalty incurred in respect of any offence 
committed in 1948 "as punishable under the Indian Proa! 
Code as applied to Jhabua State. 
CIUMINAL APPELLATE JurusnrnTl<.:N: Criminal 
Appeal No. 130 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated September 26, 1956, of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court (lnrlore Bench) At In<lore in 
Cr. A. No. 8 of 1956. 
B.K. Banerjee and Talcur Das Taneja, for the 
Appellant. 
l.N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
1962. February 2. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
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 451 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 Domi-
nion 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. 
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 repre-
sentation to the then Political Agent wa.e also 
• ' 
!
' 
-~. 
\ 
-. 
-; 
' 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
975 
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 unlaw-
ful 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. 
When the appeal was heard on January
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.