{"id":124956,"date":"1952-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952"},"modified":"2018-06-15T16:49:47","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T11:19:47","slug":"lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952","title":{"rendered":"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1954 Raj 10<\/div>\n
Author: Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Ranawat, Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Sharma, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. This is an application by Lalchand who is being prosecuted in the Court of the First Assistant City Magistrate, Jaipur, for an offence under Section 6 read with Section 8, Jaipur Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1947, hereinafter to be referred to as the Jaipur Act, on the allegation that he exported certain iron girders from Jaipur West Railway Station to Pokaran in Marwar on 5-4-1949 in contravention of Section 5 (a) of the Iron and Steel Control (Production and Distribution) Order of 1947, hereinafter to be referred to as the Jaipur Order. One Nanulal was also challaned along with him but he was discharged by the learned Magistrate. Lalchand has come in revision to<\/p>\n
this Court and the   following   two   points   are raised on his behalf:\n<\/p>\n
 1. that the Jaipur Act was repealed on the 20th July 1949 by the Rajasthan Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1949, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rajasthan Ordinance, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 10-8-1949 and the Rajasthan Ordinance did not save any prosecutions launched under the Jaipur Act,  <\/p>\n
 2. that no prima facie case was made out against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Taking up the first ground first, which, to our mind, is in fact the most important ground in the case, it was argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the accused that by Section 20(1) of the Rajasthan Ordinance the Jaipur Act was repealed. There is no provision in the Rajasthan Ordinance by which prosecutions launched under the Jaipur Order could be saved. It was argued that Section 6, General Clauses Act does not apply to the present case as the General Clauses Act was not in force in Rajasthan at the time when the Rajasthan Ordinance was promulgated. It was further argued that even if it be taken that the Central General Clauses Act applied to Rajasthan (which in fact did not apply), Section 6 would not apply all the” same, because it applies only to the cases where a former Act is Simply repealed and another one substituted in its place. For this reliance was placed upon two rulings of the Allahabad High Court one reported in — ‘Firm Danmal Parshotamdas v. Firm Baburam Chhotelal’, AIR 1936 All 3 (A), and the other In — ‘Benares Bank Ltd v. Sri Prakasha’. AIR 1946 All 269 (B). In the first of these two rulings there are following observations of Suleman C. J. from which it was inferred that S. 6(e), General Clauses Act applies to those cases only where a previous law has been simply repealed and there is no fresh legislation to take its place:\n<\/p>\n
  “Where an old law has been merely repealed then the repeal would not affect any previous right acquired nor would it even affect a Suit instituted subsequently in respect of a right previously so acquired.”\n<\/p>\n
 These   observations   of   Suleman   C.   J.   were quoted with  approval   by   Braund   J.   in   the second    ruling   of, the    Allahabad    High    Court above referred to.  It  was  further argued  that whatever the Rajasthan Ordinance intended to save out of the orders or other things arising out of the Jaipur Act were expressly saved by Section 20(2)  of the Rajasthan Ordinance. By that sub-section it was provided that
\n   “any Order made or deemed to be made under the   repealed   Act,  Ordinance   and  laws and in   force   immediately   before  the   commencement     of    Rajasthan    Ordinance    shall continue   in force   and be   deemed to   be an Order made under the Ordinance and all appointments   made,   licenses   or   permits   granted, directions issued, things  done and action taken    under    any such    Order  and in   force immediately     before      such     commencement shall     likewise    continue     in    force     and    be deemed   to   be   made,    granted,   issued,    done or taken in pursuance of the Rajasthan Ordinance.”\n<\/p>\n
 3.   That   was   the   only   provision   which   related to saving and it did not save any action taken   under any   of the   repealed   Acts   and  therefore the   present   prosecution   which  was<\/p>\n
launched   under the   Jaipur  Act could not   be saved.\n<\/p>\n
 4.  On behalf of the presentation it was conceded by the learnerd Deputy Government Advocate that there was no express provision in the Rajasthan Ordinance by which the present prosecution started under the Jaipur Act could be saved.    HE HOWEVER ARGUED THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS SAVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6(c) and   (e),   Jaipur General Clauses Act,  which continued to apply to the territories covered by the erstwhile Jaipur State by virtue of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Administration Ordinance No.  1 of 1949 which runs as allows:\n<\/p>\n
   “3.    Continuance  of   existing   laws  –(1)  All the laws in force in any covenanting State  immediately before  the  commencement o\u00a3 this   ordinance  in   that State   shall,  until altered  or  repealed   or  amended  by   a   competent  Legislature or other competent authority  continue  in force in that State,  subject to the modification that any reference therein to the Ruler or Government of that State shall be construed as a reference to the Raj Pramukh,   or,  as   the case   may be,   to   the Government of Rajasthan.”\n<\/p>\n
 5.   Reliance   was   placed on   the   following provisions of Section 6 of the said Act:\n<\/p>\n
  \"6.    Where   any   Act   or   Regulation   made   before or alter the commencement of this Act. repeals     any enactment    hitherto    made     or hereafter   to be   made  then,   unless  a  different intention appears, the repeal shall not- \n   \n\n (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred, under any enactment so repealed; or  \n \n\n (e) affect any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid.\"     \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 6. It was urged that the right of the State to prosecute the accused and the liability of the accused arose under the Jaipur Act and that, the present prosecution was a legal proceeding in respect of such right and liability and therefore the prosecution was saved under Clause (c) as well as Clause (e) of Section 6, Jaipur General Clauses Act. It was further argued that Section 6 applies not only when an enactment is simply repealed but also when it is repealed and another substituted in its place. Reliance for this was placed upon a ruling of Nagpur High Court reported in — ‘Liladhar Daulatram v. The State’, AIR 1951 Nag 353 (C). It was further argued that the repeal of the Jaipur Act could put an end to the present prosecution only if a different intention appeared from the Rajasthan Ordinance which, it was submitted, did not appear.\n<\/p>\n
 7. We have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. It is not necessary for us to pronounce any opinion in this case whether Section 6, General Clauses Act applies only to those cases where an enactment is simply repealed or to those also where another is substituted after the repeal in its place. It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider the view of the Allahabad and Nagpur High Courts in relation to this point. We find that at the time when the Rajasthan Ordinance was promulgated there was no single General Clauses Act for the whole of Rajasthan. This has been admitted by the learned counsel for both the sides. It is not the case of either party that the Central General Clauses Act had been applied to Rajasthan at that time. The only point for consideration is whether the Jaipur General Clauses Act can save the present prosecution. It was a argued by the learned counsel for the accused that Jaipur General Clauses Act could not apply to the whole of Rajasthan and that if it were to be held that it applied only to those parts which formed the territories of the erstwhile Jaipur State a very anomalous position would arise.  There may be many States now forming part of Rajasthan which might have had no General Classes Act at all. There might fee others in which Section 6 might not have been enacted in the form in which it was enacted in the Jaipur General Clauses Act. Thus if the arguments of the learned Deputy Government Advocate were valid, the result would be that after the promulgation of the Rajasthan Ordinance the prosecutions launched under the Acts repealed thereby might remain alive in the territories of the erstwhile Jaipur State while in sorne other territories they may not remain alive. It would be putting a very absurd interpretation on the provision of the Rajasthan Ordinance which was to apply to the whole of Rajasthan. The learned Deputy Government Advocate said in reply that there was no absurdity in such a situation, because it was the Jaipur Act to which the Jaipur General Clauses Act was being applied and not to Rajasthan Ordinance.\n<\/p>\n
 8. On a careful consideration, we are driven to the conclusion, that it could not be the intention of the Rajasthan Ordinance that the prosecutions under the different Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Acts or Ordinances which were repealed by Section 20 of the Rajasthan Ordinance should be treated differently in different areas. By the Rajasthan Ordinance a unified Act was given to the whole of Rajasthan and we do not think that it was intended that subjects of different parts of Rajasthan should be treated differently in the matter of prosecutions arising under the repealed laws. Section 20 (2) clearly makes a saving in favour of the orders made under the repealed Act, Ordinances and laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance and also in favour of appointments made, licenses or permits granted, directions issued, things done and action taken under any such order and in force immediately before the commencement of the Rajasthan Ordinance. If it were the intention of the law-making authority that prosecutions launched under the different Acts repealed by the Rajasthan Ordinance were to survive after its enactment there was no difficulty in saying that things done or action taken under any of, the repealed laws and in force immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance would also continue in force. In the face of the facts that there was no unified General Clauses Act for the whole of Rajasthan at the time when the Rajasthan Ordinance came into being and that the Central General Clauses Act was not adapted in Rajasthan and that the Legislature clearly made a saving in favour of the things it wanted to save, our only inference is that the Legislature did not intend that prosecutions under the different repealed laws would continue in spite of the repeal of the laws themselves. We are strengthened in this view by a later amendment of the Rajasthan Ordinance which was brought to our attention by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. This is Section 20A of<\/p>\n
the Ordinance which was inserted by Section  2 of
\nthe Amendment Ordinance No. 49 of   1949  and
\nruns  as  follows :\n<\/p>\n
  “2.    Insertion of Section 20A –After Section  20 of the Rajasthan Essential Supplies    (Temporary  Powers)    Ordinance,   1949 (No. 13 of 1949), the following sections shall be  and deemed  always to  have been  inserted, namely :\n<\/p>\n
  20A. Saving of certain orders made before promulgation of Ordinance. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 any order made or notification issued, thing, done or action taken under any of the laws repealed by Section 20 after the commencement of this Ordinance but before its publication in the Rajasthan Gazette shall continue in force and be deemed respectively to be made, issued, done or taken under this Ordinance.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. According to this provision any order made or notification issued, thing done or action taken under any of the laws repealed by Section 20 after the commencement of the Rajasthan Ordinance but before its publication in the Rajasthan Gazette shall continue in force and be deemed respectively to be made, done, or taken, under the Ordinance. The necessity for this amendment Ordinance arose from the fact that whereas the Rajasthan Ordinance was deemed to have come into force on 9-7-1949 its publication in the Rajasthan Gazette was made on 10-8-1949. Thus it was thought that the actions taken under the Rajasthan Ordinance before 10-8-1949, the date of its publication in the Gazette, would be invalid and in order to validate them the amendment Ordinance had to be passed and by Section 20A which was added by Section 2, it was provided that things done or action taken etc., under any of the laws repealed by Section 20 of the Ordinance shall continue in force and would be deemed to be made, issued, done or taken under the Ordinance-. Thus it is clear that if the Legislature intended that prosecutions launched e.g., under the Jaipur Act repealed by the Rajasthan Ordinance, would continue in force notwithstanding the repeal by the Ordinance, a clear saving would have been made in favour of such prosecutions as well. We are of opinion that the Legislature, while enacting the Rajasthan Ordinance and repealing the Jaipur Act thereby, did not intend that prosecutions under the Jaipur Act should survive after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Ordinance. In this view of the matter the present prosecution would not be saved if Section 6, Jaipur General Clauses Act applies as a different intention appears from the provisions of Section 20 of the Ordinance. On this ground alone, the application for revision should succeed and there is no necessity to go into the question whether a prima facie case had been made out against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  The application is allowed and the pro
\nceedings   for the   prosecution of   Lalchand accused pending in the lower Court are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
The applicant is discharged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952 Equivalent citations: AIR 1954 Raj 10 Author: Sharma Bench: Ranawat, Sharma JUDGMENT Sharma, J. 1. This is an application by Lalchand who is being prosecuted in the Court of the First Assistant City Magistrate, Jaipur, for an offence under Section 6 read with Section […]<\/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":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952 - 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\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T11:19:47+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T11:19:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952\"},\"wordCount\":2169,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952\",\"name\":\"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T11:19:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952 - 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\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T11:19:47+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952","datePublished":"1952-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T11:19:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952"},"wordCount":2169,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952","name":"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T11:19:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalchand-vs-the-state-on-9-april-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lalchand vs The State on 9 April, 1952"}]},{"@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\/124956","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=124956"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124956\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}