{"id":147706,"date":"1966-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966"},"modified":"2017-10-11T19:07:56","modified_gmt":"2017-10-11T13:37:56","slug":"ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966","title":{"rendered":"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM KISHORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/03\/1966\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (Act 43 of 1958),. ss.\n77,  92-Time  prescribed for launching\tprosecution-Date  of\nfirst  discovery  of  infringement  of\ttrade  mark  whether\nrelevant  for reckoning such time-Plea of acquiescence\twhen\ncan be raised.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn 1955 the complainants protested to the appellant that  he\nwas  infringing their trade-mark but no further\t action\t was\ntaken by them at that time.  In November 1960, the appellant\nwas found in possession of labels and tobacco tins  carrying\nmarks  deceptively similar to the complainants' trade  mark.\nAfter  investigation  the  police lodged  in  March  1961  a\ncharge-sheet  against  the appellant in respect\t of  alleged\noffences under s. 78 read' with s. 77 and P. 79 of the Trade\nand  Merchandise  Marks\t Act  1958.   The  trial  Magistrate\nconvicted  the\tappellant who was however acquitted  by\t the\nSessions   Judge   principally\ton  the\t ground\t  that\t the\nprosecution  was barred as it was not instituted within\t the\nperiod\tprescribed by s. 92 of the Act.\t In  appeal  against\nthe  order  of acquittal the High Court\t convicted  him\t but\ngranted\t  him\ta  certificate\tunder  Art,   134   of\t the\nConstitution.\nHELD:The  period  under s. 92 of the Trade  and\t Merchandise\nMarks  Act,  1958  commences to run from  the  date  of\t the\ncommission  of\tthe  offences charged or from  the  date  of\ndiscovery  by  the prosecutor of the offence  charged.\t The\nperiod does not have to be reckoned from the first discovery\nof  infringement of trade-mark by the prosecutor.   In\tthis\nrespect\t s.  92 of the Act of 1958 is  materially  different\nfrom s. 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act 4 of 1889. [73A-D]\nRuppell\t v. Ponnusami Tavan and Anr., I.L.R. 22 Mad 488\t and\nDau Dayal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R.<\/a> 1959 S. C.\t433,\ndistinguished.\nAbdulsatar  Khan  Kamruddin  Khan  v.  Ratanlal\t Kishenalal,\nI.L.R.\t59  Bom. 551 and Emperior  v.  Chhotalal  Amarchand,\nI.L.R. (1937) Bom. 183, referred to.\nThere was nothing to substantiate the appellant's plea based\non s. 77 of the Act that the complainants had acquiesced  in\nhis use of the deceptive trade-mark.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 37  of
\n1964.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated November 26,\t1963
\nof the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No. 782  of
\n1962.\n<\/p>\n
S.   P. Sinha, G. L. Sanghi, Ganpat Rai, E. C. Agarwala,  S.
\nS.  Khanduja for P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.  Atiquor
\nRehman and O. P. Rana, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Antiquor Rehman and O.P. Rana,for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t     69<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah, J. The appellant was charged before a Magistrate,\t 1st
\nClass,\tat  Varanasi with being, on November  25,  1960,  in
\npossession of counterfeit labels which could be used to pass
\noff  his  “tobacco  tins” as the goods of M  \/s\t Nandoo\t Ram
\nKhedan Lal bearing ‘Titli” (butterfly) trade-mark, and\twith
\nbeing  in  possession  for ale\tof  “tobacco  tins”  bearing
\ncounterfeit trade marks of the genuine “Titli” brand  trade-
\nmark  of  M\/s Nandoo Ram Khedan Lal.  The  Trial  Magistrate
\nconvicted  the appellant and sentenced him to suffer  simple
\nimprisonment for three months for offences under s. 78\tread
\nwith  s.  77 and under s. 79 of the  Trade  and\t Merchandise
\nMarks Act 43 of 1958, and directed the two sentences to\t run
\nconsecutively.\tIn appeal to the Court of Session, Varanasi,
\nthe  order passed by the Trial Magistrate was set aside\t and
\nthe  appellant was acquitted principally on the ground\tthat
\nthe  prosecution  was barred because it was  not  instituted
\nwithin the period prescribed by s. 92 of the Act.  The\tHigh
\nCourt of Judicature at Allahabad however set aside the order
\nof  acquittal and restored the conviction, but\treduced\t the
\nsentence  on each of the charges to a fine of  Rs.  1,000\/-.
\nWith certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 134 of
\nthe Constitution, this appeal has been preferred.
\nM\/s  Nandoo  Ram Khedan Lal-who will hereinafter  be  called
\n“the  complainants”-carry  on  in  the\ttown  of   Varanasi,
\nbusiness  in “chewing tobacco”.\t They were  marketing  their
\nproduct\t for the last many years under a  trade-mark  styled
\n“Titli”\t (butterfly).\tThe  label  on\tthe  containers\t  of
\n“chewing  tobacco”  shows figures of  three  butterflies  on
\nyellow-green background and the legend “Titli” in  Devnagari
\nand  English  characters.   The\t appellant  who\t carried  on
\nbusiness  also\tin “chewing tobacco”  commenced\t market\t his
\ngoods in the name of “Titli” (partridge).  The label on\t the
\ncontainers  had\t figures of four butterflies  on  leaf-green
\nbackground, and the legend “Titli” in Devnagari and  English
\ncharacters.   The colour schemes of the butterflies  in\t the
\ncomplainants’ label and of the butterflies in the appellants
\nlabel were substantially similar.\n<\/p>\n
The complainants gave information to the police in  November
\n1960  that the appellant had infringed their  trade-mark  by
\nmarketing his goods under a trade-mark calculated to deceive
\nthe purchasers into believing that they were purchasing\t the
\nproduct of the complainants.  The police submitted a  charge
\nsheet  against the appellant for offences under s.  78\tread
\nwith  s.  77 and, s. 79 of the Trade and  Merchandise  Marks
\nAct,  1958.  The Trial Magistrate observed that\t there\twas’
\nclose resemblance between the label used by the complainants
\nand  the  label\t used by the. appellant,  and  that  a\tvast
\nmejority  of  users of such tobacco  being  illiterate\twere
\nlikely\tto  be “carried” ‘away by’ a  pictorial’  device  of
\n“Titli”\n<\/p>\n
70<\/span><\/p>\n
(butterfly)”  since  they  were\t incapable  of\treading\t and
\nunderstanding  the “descriptions on the label  in  Devanagri
\nand in English”.  With this view the Sessions Judge and\t the
\nHigh  Court agreed.  Before us, no substantial argument\t has
\nbeen  advanced which would justify us in taking a  different
\nview on this question.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t however contended for the appellant that  the\tcase
\nagainst\t him  must still fail because  the  prosecution\t was
\nbarred\tby  S. 92 of the Trade and  Merchandise\t Marks\tAct,
\n1958,  and also because there was such acquiescence  on\t the
\npart of the complainants as would justify an inference\tthat
\nthey  had  assented to the appellant  using  the  trade-mark
\nunder  which his product was marketed.\tTo appreciate  these
\ntwo contentions, it is necessary to refer to certain facts.
\nSome  time before 1955 the appellant had  started  marketing
\nhis goods under the trade-mark “Titli”: there is however  no
\nevidence  about\t the  general get-up of\t the  label  on\t the
\ncontainers  of\t“chewing tobacco” marketed by  him  at\tthat
\ntime.  On January 6, 1955 the complainants wrote a letter to
\nthe  appellant claiming that they were the sole\t proprietors
\nof  “Titli” brand, that “Titli” was their registered  trade-
\nmark, and the appellant had “with criminal intention started
\nmaking illegal and unlawful use of that trade-mark” and\t had
\ncopied\ttheir  trade-mark and was using it  on\tsimilar\t but
\ninferior “chewing tobacco” and was passing off his goods  in
\nthe market as the product of the complainants; and on  those
\nallegations  the complainants called upon the  appellant  to
\ndesist\tfrom selling or disposing of any of the\t goods\twith
\nlabels\tresembling  to\tthe  complainants’  trade-mark\t and
\nthereby deceiving the public into purchasing the appellant’s
\nproduct\t  when\t the   public  desires\t to   purchase\t the
\ncomplainants’  product and making several  other  incidental
\nrequisitions.\tIn  reply,  the appellant  denied  that\t the
\ncomplainants were the sole proprietors of “Titli” trade-mark
\nand that in any event the appellant had not used the  trade-
\nmark  “Titli”  on  any\tgoods  manufactured  by\t him.\t The
\nappellant also claimed that he had been marketing his  goods
\nin  the\t name  of  “Titli”  for\t many  years  and  that\t the
\ncomplainants were seeking to pass off their product as\tthat
\nof  the appellant.  After this correspondence no steps\twere
\ntaken  by  the\tcomplainants  against  the  appellant\ttill
\nNovember 1960.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant was on information lodged by the\tcomplainants
\nprosecuted  for offences under S. 78 read with S. 77 and  s.
\n79  of\tthe  Trade and Merchandise  Marks  Act,\t 1958.\t The
\nappellant  submitted  that whereas the complainants  had  on
\ntheir  own  admission  learnt about  infringement  of  their
\ntrade-mark in 1955, criminal proceedings started in November
\n1960  were barred under S. 92 of the Trade  and\t Merchandise
\nMarks  Act,  1958.   It may be noticed\thowever\t that  the
\noffences charged against the appellant
\n\t\t\t     71<\/span>
\nwere  alleged to have been committed on November  25,  1960,
\nan&  the  charge-sheet\twas  lodged  in\t the  Court  of\t the
\nMagistrate, 1st Class, on March 22, 1961.  Section 92 of the
\nTrade  and  Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, insofar  as  it  is
\nmaterial, provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “No  prosecution\tfor an\toffence\t under\tthis
\n\t      Act………………………\tshall\t  be
\n\t      commenced after the expiration of three  years
\n\t      next  after  the\tcommission  of\tthe  offence
\n\t      charged,\tor  two years  after  the  discovery
\n\t      thereof\t by   the   prosecutor,\t   whichever
\n\t      expiration first happens.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In substance the appellant in relaying upon the bar of S. 92
\nseeks to substitute for the words “after the discovery”\t the
\nwords ” after the first discovery”, and for the words “after
\nthe commission of the offence charged” the words “after\t the
\ncommission  of the first infringement of  trade-mark”.\t The
\nLegislature has deliberately not used those expressions, and
\nthere is no warrant for substituting them in the section and
\nthereby substantially modifying the section.
\nCounsel\t for the appellant however submitted that in  inter-
\npreting S. 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act 4 of 1889,  which
\nis similar to s. 92 of Act 43 of 1958, the Madras High Court
\nhad in Ruppell v. Ponnusami Jevan and Another(1) held that a
\nprosecution  under s. 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act  4  of
\n1889 commenced after the expiration of the period prescribed
\nby  the Legislature from the date when the infringement\t was
\nfirst  discovered, is barred and that this Court had in\t Dau
\nDayal  v. State of Uttar Pradesh<\/a>(1) affirmed that view.\t  In
\nRuppell’s case(1) the accused was charged with committing an
\noffence\t punishable  under S. 15 of the\t Indian\t Merchandise
\nMarks  Act,  1889,  on\ta complaint  that  the\taccused\t had
\ninfringed the complainant’s trade-mark.\t It appeared at\t the
\ntrial that the complainant had discovered in 1893 that goods
\nwere sold by the accused marked with a trade-mark which\t was
\nsimilar\t to his trade-mark, and the complainant\t had  called
\nupon  the  accused to discontinue user\tof  the\t counterfeit
\ntrade-mark  and to render an account of sales made  by\thim.
\nIn   1898  the\tcomplainant  prosecuted\t the   accused\t for
\ninfringing  his trade-mark.  The High Court of\tMadras\theld
\nthat  as the complainant did not show that he  believed\t the
\nuse   of  the  alleged\tcounterfeit  trade-mark\t  had\tbeen
\ndiscontinued after the first discovery and protest in  1893,
\nprosecution of the accused in 1898 under s. 15 of the Indian
\nMerchandise  Marks  Act, 1889, was barred.   This  view\t was
\nfollowed  by  the  Bombay  High\t Court\tin  Abdulsatar\tKhan
\nKamruddin Khan v. Ratanlal-Kishenlal,(3): The Court observed
\nin  that  case that under S. 15 of  the\t Indian\t Merchandise
\nMarks  Act, 1889, if the offence of infringement of a  trade
\nor   property\tmark  is  a  continuing\t one,  and   if\t  no
\ndiscontinuance is proved, time runs from the first
\n(1) I.L.R. 22 Mad. 468.\n<\/p>\n
(3) I.L.R. 59 Bom. 551.\t (2  ) A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 433.\n<\/p>\n
72<\/span><\/p>\n
instance of infringement or from the first discovery of\t the
\ninfringement.\t Abdulsatar  Khan’s  case(1)   was   however
\noverruled  by  a  full bench of the  Bombay  High  Court  in
\nEmperor\t v. Chhotalal Amarchand.(2) In that case  the  Court
\ndissenting  from  the judgment of the Madras High  Court  in
\nRuppell’s case(1) and overruling the decision in  Abdulsatar
\nKhan’s\tcase(1)\t held  that  under  s.\t15  of\tthe   Indian
\nMerchandise Marks Act, 1889, starting point of limitation in
\nall cases is the date of the offence charged.
\nIn Dau Dayal’s case,(1) Venkatarama Aiyar, J.,\tincorporated
\nsubstantially  the whole of the judgment in Ruppell’s  case:
\n(3)  but  in Dau Dayal’s case(1) the matter in\tdispute\t was
\nentirely different.  In that case the accused was prosecuted
\nfor  offences punishable under ss. 420, 482, 483 & 486\tI.P.
\nCode  on the allegation that he was in possession  of  Bidis
\nwhich  bore counterfeit trade-marks.  A complaint was  filed
\nagainst\t  the\taccused\t on  March  26,\t 1954,\t and   after
\ninvestigation by the police, a charge-sheet was filed in the
\nCourt of the Magistrate on September 30, 1954.\tThe  accused
\ncontended that the offence was discovered on April 26, 1954,
\nand  since process was issued by the Magistrate on July\t 22,
\n1955, i.e. more than one year after discovery of the offence
\nhe could not, because of S. 15 of the Merchandise Marks Act,
\n1889, be prosecuted.  This Court rejected the plea raised by
\nthe  accused.\tAn excerpt from the  judgment  in  Ruppell’s
\ncase(1) was incorporated only to indicate the general  tenor
\nof  s.\t15, and not with a view to express approval  of\t all
\nthat was observed therein.\n<\/p>\n
We are however in this case not called upon to consider whe-
\nther Ruppell’s case(1) was correctly decided.  That case was
\ndecided\t on the interpretation of s. 15 of  the\t Merchandise
\nMarks Act, 1889.  Suffice it to say that the Legislature has
\nin  enacting the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of\t1958
\nmade a substantial departure from the language used in S. 15
\nof Act 4 of 1889.  For the sake of convenience the  material
\nparts of the two sections may be set out in juxtaposition:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 15 of Act 4 of 1889
\n\t      No such prosecution……….
\n\t      shall  be\t commenced after the  expiration  of
\n\t      three  years next after the commission of\t the
\n\t      offence, or one year after the first discovery
\n\t      thereof\t by   the   prosecutor,\t   whichever
\n\t      expiration first happens.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   I.L.R. 59 Bom. 551.\t I.L.R. 22 Mad. 488.
\n\t      Section 92 of Act 43 of 1958
\n\t      No  prosecution  for  an\toffence\t under\tthis
\n\t      Act…………  shall be commenced after\t the
\n\t      expiration  of  three  years  next  after\t the
\n\t      commission  of  the offence  charged,  or\t two
\n\t      years  after  the\t discovery  thereof  by\t the
\n\t      prosecutor,    whichever\t expiration    first
\n\t      happens.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   I.L.R. (1937) Bom. 183.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)   A.T.R. 1959 S.C. 433.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t     73<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Legislature  in enacting s. 92 of Act 43  of  1958\t has
\nclearly\t made  departure  from s. 15 of Act  4\tof  1889  in
\nimportant respects.  Whereas under s. 15 prosecution had  to
\nbe commenced within three years next after the commission of
\nthe  offence  or within one year after the  first  discovery
\nthereof by the prosecutor, under s. 92 the prosecution\tmust
\nbe commenced before the expiration of three years next after
\nthe  commission of the offence charged, or two\tyears  after
\nthe  discovery\tby the prosecutor of  the  offence  charged,
\nwhichever expiration-first happens.  Under s. 92 it is plain
\nthe period commences to run from the date of the  commission
\nof the offence charged or from the date of discovery by\t the
\nprosecutor of the offence charged.  The argument which could
\nbe raised under s. 15 and was approved in Ruppell’s  case(1)
\nthat  the  Legislature intended to provide that\t the  period
\nshall  commence\t from  the first discovery  thereof  by\t the
\nprosecutor  is plainly not open to the\toffender  infringing
\nthe provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act  under
\ns. 92.\tThe period has to be computed for the purpose of the
\nfirst part of the section from the date of the commission of
\nthe offence charged, and under the second part from the date
\nof discovery of the offence charged, and not from the  first
\ndiscovery of infringement of trade-mark by the prosecutor.
\nThe  plea that the complainants had assented to the  use  of
\nthe  trade-mark\t by the appellant, and on that\taccount\t the
\nlatter\tcould not be said to have falsified a trade-mark  or
\nto   have  falsely  applied  the  trade-mark,\tis   without
\nsubstance.   Section 77, it is true, provides that a  person
\nshall be deemed to falsify a trade-mark who either-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   without the assent of the proprietor  of
\n\t      the  trade  mark makes that trade\t mark  or  a
\n\t      deceptively similar mark; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   falsifies\tany  genuine   trade   mark,
\n\t      whether by alteration, addition, effacement or
\n\t      otherwise.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If  there  is  assent of the proprietor to the\tuse  by\t the
\naccused of a trade mark which is deceptively similar,  there
\nwould be no falsification or false application of the  trade
\nmark: but protest against infringement of the  complainants’
\ntrade  mark  cannot  be regarded as assent  to\tthe  use  or
\napplication of the false trade mark.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court has on a review of the evidence  held\tthat
\nthere  was  no acquiescence by the complainants\t from  which
\nassent may be inferred, and we see no reason to differ\tfrom
\nthat finding.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
I.L.R. 22 Mad. 488.\n<\/p>\n
L\/S5-7(a)
\n74<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 PETITIONER: RAM KISHORE Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/03\/1966 BENCH: ACT: Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (Act 43 of 1958),. ss. 77, 92-Time prescribed for launching prosecution-Date of first discovery of infringement of trade mark whether relevant […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 - 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\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-11T13:37:56+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-11T13:37:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2308,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966\",\"name\":\"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-11T13:37:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 - 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\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-11T13:37:56+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966","datePublished":"1966-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-11T13:37:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966"},"wordCount":2308,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966","name":"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-11T13:37:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-kishore-vs-state-of-u-p-on-28-march-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Kishore vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1966"}]},{"@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\/147706","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=147706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}