{"id":166386,"date":"1964-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964"},"modified":"2015-09-28T01:46:20","modified_gmt":"2015-09-27T20:16:20","slug":"union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 147, \t\t 1964 SCR (8) 158<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nABDUL JALIL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/05\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  147\t\t  1964 SCR  (8) 158\n\n\nACT:\nForest Act-\"Reserved forest\"-Tripura Act replaced by  Indian\nForest\tAct-No preliminaries prescribed under  Tripura\tAct-\nNotification  under  it whether can be deemed  to  be  under\nIndian\tForest ActTripura Act and Indian Forest\t Act  object\nand purpose-Corresponding provisions-Indian Forest Act, 1927\n(Act 16 of 1927),\n159\nChs.  11  and  IV, Tripura Forest  Act,\t 1257  (1297?)\tT.E.\n(Tripura Act 2 of 1257 T.E. 1297?) s. 5.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   respondents  in  these  appeals  were   convicted\t  by\nMagistrates for offences under s. 26(1) of the Indian Forest\nAct.   Appeals were filed to the Sessions Judge,  where\t the\nrespondents  raised the contention that the forest areas  in\nwhich the alleged offences were committed were not  \"Reserve\nforests\"  within the meaning of the Act.   For\testablishing\nthat  these  \"reserves\" were \"reserved forests\"\t within\t the\nIndian\tAct,  the  appellant relied  on\t two  circumstances.\nFirst,\tthere was a Forest Act promulgated by the  Ruler  of\nTripura\t State\t(Act  2\t of 1257 T.E.  1297  T.E.  ?)  which\ncontained  provisions somewhat analogous to those  contained\nin  the Indian Act.  Next, s. 5 of the Tripura\tAct  enabled\nthe  State Government to declare by notifications  published\nin the State Gazette, the boundaries of the forest areas  to\nbe  governed  by  the State Act.   Such\t notifications\twere\npublished  by  which the boundaries of the reserves  of\t the\nforests in question were defined.  The appellant urged\tthat\nthe  Tripura  Act was replaced by the Indian Forest  Act  by\nreason\tof  legislative provisions upon the  merger  of\t the\nnative State of Tripura with the Dominion of India, and that\nthe notifications under the Tripura Act which were continued\nin  force by these same provisions rendered  these  reserves\n\"Reserved  forests\"  under  the\t Indian\t Forest\t Act.\t The\nSessions  Judge held that by reason of\tthese  notifications\nthe  forest  areas  became  \"reserved  forests\"\t under\t the\nrelevant  provisions of the Indian Forest Act and  dismissed\nthe  appeals.  Thereafter, revisions were filed\t before\t the\nJudicial  Commissioner,\t who 'differing\t from  the  Sessions\nJudge  held  that  they\t were  not  \"reserved  forests\"\t and\ndirected  the  acquittal of the respondents.  On  appeal  by\nspecial leave:\nHELD:.....(i) From the provisions of the Indian Forest\tAct,\nit  would  be seen that it is the notification under  s.  20\nafter  complying with the procedure prescribed by the  other\nsections of Chapter 11 commencing with s. 4 that constitutes\na forest area \"a reserved forest\" within the Act.\n(ii).The  fact\tthat  under the Tripura Act  there  were  no\npreliminaries  Prescribed before a forest could be  notified\nas   a\treserved  forest  does\tnot  detract  from  such   a\nnotification  being a notification under the  Indian  Forest\nAct.\n(iii).....In substance the object and purpose of the Tripura\nAct  was the protection of particular trees-the seven  types\nof  trees specified in s. 4. The notification under s. 5  is\nfor  the  purpose of constituting areas\t where\tThese  types\nwould  be protected.  The penal provisions enacted  are\t for\ninsuring the protection of these trees.\n (iv)  The prime purpose of Chapter II of the Indian  Forest\nAct is the constitution of reserved forests in which (1) all\nprivate\t rights\t within\t the reserved  area  are  completely\neliminated  by\ttheir  being  bought  up  where\t these\t are\nascertained  to\t exist by payment of compensation,  (2)\t the\nentire area being devoted to siviculture, every tree in\t the\nforest being protected\n160\nfrom  injury  and within the scope of  the  penal  provision\ncontained in s. 26. In other words, the reservation here  is\nto  the \"forest area\" as such and not the protection of\t the\nparticular  specified  trees or species of trees in  such  a\nforest.\n(v)..The  object of Ch.\t IV of the Indian Forest Act is\t the\nprotection  of\tparticular trees and the  setting  apart  of\nparticular  areas  as protected forests for the\t purpose  of\nensuring  the  growth and maintenance of  such\ttrees.\t The\nobject\tsought to be achieved by the reservation in Ch.\t  IV\nis exactly similar to that which is sought to be achieved by\nthe Tripura Act.  Only the Tripura Act makes the cutting  of\nprotected  trees even outside a forest an  offence,  whereas\nthere is no such provision under the Indian Forest Act.\n(vi).The  notification under s. 5 of the Tripura  Act  would\nconstitute the area in question only as a \"protected\" forest\nunder  Ch.   IV\t of  the Indian Forest\tAct  and  not  as  a\n\"reserved\"  forest  under s. 20 contained in Ch. 11  of\t the\nAct,\n(vii).....The Judicial Commissioner was right in considering\nthat the\nProvision.in  the Indian Forest Act \"corresponding\"  to\t the\nTripura Forest\nAct under.which\t the notifications fixing the boundaries  of\nthese forests\nin  question  were issued was that as regards  \"a  protected\nforest\" under Ch. IV and not \"reserved forest\" within s.  20\ncontained in Ch. 11.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 39, 49
\nof 1962.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nAugust\t26,  1960 of the Court of Judicial  Commissioner  of
\nTripura at Agartala in Criminal Revision Nos. 9, 8, 16,\t 22,
\n21, 32, 23, 18, 20, 24 and 17 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
C. ..K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, D. N. Mukerjee and
\nR.   H. Dhebar, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
\nP….K. Chatterjee, for the respondents (in Appeals Nos. 39,
\n42, 23, 46, 48 and 49 of 1962).\n<\/p>\n
May 5, 1964.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
\nAYYANGAR, J.–The respondents in these several appeals\twere
\nprosecuted before Magistrates in Tripura for offences  under
\nS.  26(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and were  convicted
\nand  sentenced\tto  terms of imprisonment  and\tfine,  Their
\nappeals\t to the learned Sessions Judge, Tripura having\tbeen
\ndismissed,  they preferred Criminal Revision  Petition,,  to
\nthe Judicial Commissioner, Tripura.  The learned Judicia
\n161<\/span>
\nCommissioner  allowed their revisions by a  common  judgment
\nand   directed\ttheir  acquittal.   From  these\t orders\t  of
\nacquittal  the\tUnion of India has filed  these\t appeals  by
\nvirtue of special leave granted by this Court under Art. 136
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tproceeding  to narrate the facts which have  led  to
\nthese appeals it is necessary to mention that three of these
\nII  appeals–Criminal  Appeals 40, 41 and 45  of  1962\thave
\nbecome\tinfructuous.  The notices issued to the\t respondents
\nin  Appeals 40 and 45 of 1962 of the filing of\tthe  appeals
\ncould not be served on them as it was reported that they had
\nleft  for  Pakistan.  The appeals could not  accordingly  be
\nprosecuted.   In regard to Criminal Appeal 41 of 1962 it  is
\nreported  that the accused died pending the hearing  of\t the
\nappeals and hence the appeal has abated.  We are, therefore,
\nconcerned only with the other 8 appeals.\n<\/p>\n
The  material clauses of s. 26(1) of the Indian Forest\tAct,
\n1927  for  contravention  of which the\trespondents  in\t the
\nseveral appeals were prosecuted read:\n<\/p>\n
“26. (1) Any person who-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  makes any fresh clearing prohibited by section 5,
\nor who, in a reserved forest-\n<\/p>\n
(d)  trespasses\t or  pastures cattle, or permits  cattle  to
\ntrespass:\n<\/p>\n
(e)\n<\/p>\n
(f)  fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree or  strips
\noff  the bark or leaves from, or other.. wise  damages,\t the
\nsame;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    (g)\n<\/p>\n
(h)  clears  or\t breaks up any land for cultivation  or\t any
\nother purpose;\n<\/p>\n
shall  be punishable with imprisonment for a term which\t may
\nextend to six months, or with fine which may extend to\tfive
\nhundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such corn-
\n51 S.C.-11.\n<\/p>\n
162<\/span><\/p>\n
sensation for damage, done to the forest a-, the  convicting
\nCourt may direct to be paid.”\n<\/p>\n
The magistrate convicted some of the accused respondents  of
\noffences  under\t cls. (a) and (d) others of  offences  under
\ncls. (d) & (h).\n<\/p>\n
It  is common ground that in order to constitute an  offence
\nunder  s.  26(1) the acts specified in the  clauses  of\t the
\nsections should be committed in an area which is a “reserved
\nforest” under the Act.\tWe might point out that if the\tarea
\nconcerned was a reserve forest, the guilt of the respondents
\nwould  practically be made out and their conviction  by\t the
\nMagistrates, confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tripura  might
\nhave-to be upheld.  The principal, if not the sole  question
\nfor  consideration in the appeals, however, is\twhether\t the
\nforest\tarea  where  the  respondents  were  held  to\thave
\ncommitted the acts alleged against them was such a  “reserve
\nforest”.\n<\/p>\n
Before,\t however,  dealing with that question, it  would  be
\nconvenient  to\tset out very briefly the  facts\t which\thave
\ngiven  rise to these prosecutions.  The forests wherein\t the
\nseveral\t respondents  are  stated  to  have  committed\t the
\noffences set out in the clauses of s.26(1) of the Act quoted
\nabove  are comprised in three distinct areas in\t the  former
\nIndian\tState  of  Tripura.  These three  areas\t are  known,
\nrespectively, as the Garjichhera reserve, Chandrapur reserve
\nand  the North Sonamura reserve.  In April, 1958 an  officer
\nof  the\t Forest\t Department went on circuit  duty  in  these
\nforest areas and found that the several accused had  cleared
\nthe  forests, reclaimed some land and had dug tanks for\t the
\npurpose\t of cultivation and had made homesteads\t there.\t  On
\nthe  averment  that these acts on the part  of\tthe  several
\naccused\t  who  are  respondents\t in  the   several   appeals
\nconstituted offences under s. 26(1) (a) and (h) and in\tsome
\ncases  under  s. 26(1) (a), (d) and (h) and  in\t still\tsome
\nothers\tunder  s. 26(1)(d), (f) and (h),  the  accused\twere
\nproduced   in\tthe  courts  of\t  the\tMagistrates   having
\njurisdiction.\tThe  accused  admitted that  they  had\tmade
\nhomesteads and were living in structures constructed at\t the
\nplaces\twhere  they  were found and the\t only  defence\tthen
\nraised was that they were entitled
\n163<\/span>
\nto do so under a claim of jote rights on the lands.  No evi-
\ndence  was,  however,  produced by any\tof  the\t accused  to
\nsubstantiate  their claim to trespass on and  plough-up\t and
\ncultivate  and erect homesteads on the lands on\t which\tthey
\nwere  found  squatting and the learned\tMagistrates  holding
\nthat  while  the prosecution had made out  their  case,\t the
\naccused had not established their defence, found the accused
\nguilty\tand passed appropriate sentences on  them.   Appeals
\nwere -filed against these convictions by the several accused
\nto the learned Sessions Judge of Tripura.  At that stage the
\naccused\t  raised  the  contention  that\t the  forest   areas
\ncomprised in the Garjichhara, Chandrapur and North  Sonapura
\nreserves  were not “Reserve forests” within the\t meaning  of
\nthe  Act.   For establishing that these “reserves”    were ”
\nreserved  forests”  within the Indian Act,  the\t prosecution
\nrelied on two circumstances.  First, there was a Forest\t Act
\npromulgated by the Ruler of the Tripura State (Act 2 of 1257
\nTE   1297  T.E.?)  which  contained  provisions\t some\twhat
\nanalogous to those contained in the Indian Act.\t Next,
\ns….5\tof the Tripura Act enabled the State  Government  to
\ndeclare by notifications published in the State Gazette, the
\nboundaries  of the forest areas to be governed by the  State
\nAct.   There were three such notifications published in\t the
\nTripura State Gazette in 1346 and 1349 T.E. corresponding to
\n1936 and 1938 by which the boundaries of the three  reserves
\nof  the Garjichhera, Chandrapur and North  Sonamura  forests
\nwere  defined.\tThe contention urged by the  proseution\t was
\nthat  the Tripura Act was replaced by the Indian Forest\t Act
\nby reason of legislative provisions to which we shall advert
\nlater and that the notifications under the Tripura Act which
\nwere  continued in force by these same\tprovisions  rendered
\nthese  three  reserves “Reserved forests” under\t the  Indian
\nForest\tAct.  We shall have to set out the terms of the\t Act
\nas  well as of the notifications later but it is  sufficient
\nto  mention  at\t this  stage  that  the\t places\t where\t the
\nrespondents  cleared the forests and built their  homesteads
\nwere admittedly within one or other of these three reserves.
\nThe  respondents in Appeals 39, 43, 47 and 49 had  trespased
\ninto  the  Garjichhera\treserve, while\tthose  concerned  in
\nappeals\t 42,  46 and 48 had trespassed into  the  Chandrapur
\nreserve, and the respondent in appeal 44 was found to have
\n164<\/span>
\ncommitted  a  similar  offence\tin  respect  of\t the  forest
\ndescribed  as the North Sonamura reserve.  When these  three
\nnotifications  were  produced before  the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge  he  held that by reason of  these  notifications\t the
\nthree  forest  areas  became “reserved\tforests”  under\t the
\nrelevant  provisions  of  the  Indian  Forest  Act  and\t  he
\ntherefore upheld the order of the Magistrate convicting\t the
\naccused\t and dismissed the appeals of the  several  accused.
\nThereafter   revisions\t were\tfiled\tto   the    Judicial
\nCommissioner,  Tripura.\t  The  same question  of  law  viz.,
\nwhether\t having\t regard to the terms and provisions  of\t the
\nTripura\t Forest\t Act,  the  notifications  setting  out\t the
\nboundaries   of\t  the  three  reserves\t constituted   these
\n“reserves”  “reserve forests” within the Indian Forest\tAct,
\nwas again debated before the learned Judicial  Commissioner,
\nthe   learned  Judicial\t Commissioner  differing  from\t the
\nSessions Judge held that they were not, and on this finding,
\ndirected  the acquittal of the several accused.\t It  is\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t this  conclusion of  the  learned  Judicial
\nCommissioner that is challenged in these appeals.
\nIt would be seen from the above narrative that the  question
\nfor consideration is whether the areas where the offence are
\nsaid  to have been committed were within  “reserve  forests”
\nwithin the meaning of the Indian Forest Act.
\nOn the terminology employed by the Indian Forest Act reserve
\nforests”   are\tthose  areas  of  forest  land\t which\t are
\nconstituted  as “reserve forests” under Ch.  II of  the\t Act
\nChapter II comprises ss. 3 to 27 and is headed “Of Reserveed
\nForests”.   Section  3\tempowers  the  State  Government  to
\nconstitute “any forest land or waste land which is the\tpro-
\nperty  of  Government  or  over\t which\tthe  Government\t has
\nproprietary rights or to the whole or in part of the  forest
\nproduce\t to  which  the Government is  entitled,  a  reserve
\nforest\tin  the\t manner hereinafter  provided”.\t  Section  4
\nrequire\t that the State Government, when it has\t decided  to
\nconstitute any land as a “reserved forest”, should notify by
\nthe  issue  of\ta  notification\t in  the  Official   Gazette
\nspecifying  the\t situation, ‘limits, etc. of that  land\t and
\ndeclare\t its  decision constitute the land  as\t“a  reserved
\nforest”.  Section 6 make
\n\t\t\t    165<\/span>
\nprovision  for\ta proclamation of  the\tnotification  issued
\nunder s.4 by publication in several places, so that  persons
\nwho  might be affected by the issue of the notification\t may
\nprefer objections thereto.  Section 7 directs an enquiry  by
\na Forest Settlement Officer of all claims made by persons in
\nresponse to the publication of the notification under s.  6.
\nSection 9 provides generally for the extinction of rights in
\nrespect\t of  which no claim has been preferred under  s.  6.
\nWhere claims are preferred and are found to be made out s. I
\nI provides for the acquisition of such rights or of lands in
\nrespect\t of  which  the rights are  claimed  in\t the  manner
\nprovided  by the Land Acquisition Act.\tThe next  succeeding
\nprovisions of the Act enable appeals to be filed against the
\norders\tand for their hearing by the appellate\tauthorities.
\nThese are followed by s. 20 under which, after the stage  of
\nenquiry and decisions on claims made is completed, the State
\nGovernment  is\tdirected  to issue  a  notification  in\t the
\nOfficial   Gazette  `specifying\t definitely,  according\t  to
\nboundary-marks erected or otherwise the limits of the forest
\nwhich  is  to  be reserved, and declaring  the\tsame  to  be
\nreserved from a date fixed by the notification.\t Sub-section
\n(2) of the section enacts:\n<\/p>\n
“20.(2)\t From the date so fixed such forest shall be  deemed
\nto be a reserved forest.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 21 provides for the translation of the\tnotification
\nand  its  publication  in  every  town\tor  village  in\t the
\nneighbourhood of the forest.  The next relevant provision is
\ns.  26\twhich  prohibits the doing of  certain\tacts  in  “a
\nreserved  forest”  and\tprovides for  punishment  for  these
\ncontraventions\tthe material parts of which we have  already
\nset out.  From these provisions it would be seen that it  is
\nthe  notification  under  s. 20\t after\tcomplying  with\t the
\nprocedure  prescribed by the other sections of\tthe  Chapter
\ncommencing  with  s.  4 that constitutes a  forest  area  “a
\nreserved forest” within the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  forests  in the former State of Tripura were  not\tdec-
\nclared “reserved forests” under a notification issued  under
\nS. 20 of the Indian Forest Act after following the procedure
\nprescribed  by\tCh.  H. We have, therefore, to\texamine\t the
\nsteps by which this result is said to have been reached.  We
\nhave already referred to the existence of the Tripura Forest
\n166<\/span>
\nAct 1257 (1297?) T.E. enacted by the Ruler of Tripura  under
\nwhich  certain provisions were made for the preservation  of
\nForest\tareas  in  the State and  the  notifications  issued
\nthereunder constituting the three areas as “reserve forests”
\nfor the purpose of that Act.  It would be necessary to\texa-
\nmine  the  details of these provisions, but  this  we  shall
\ndefer  till we complete the narration of the  constitutional
\nchanges\t which brought the State of Tripura into the  Indian
\nUnion and the legislation which accompanied and accomplished
\nthese changes.\tTripura was a native State and the ruler  by
\na merger agreement with the Governor-General of India merged
\nhis State with the Dominion in the year 1949.  By para 5  of
\nthe Tripura Administration Order, 1949 issued on October 15,
\n1949 under the powers conferred in that behalf by the  Extra
\nProvincial  Jurisdiction Act, 1947 all the laws in force  in
\nthe State of Tripura immediately before the commencement  of
\nthe  said  Order  were continued in force  until  they\twere
\nrepealed or amended by a competent legislature or authority.
\nThen came the Constitution which was operative from  January
\n26,  1950 and under it Tripura became a Part C State of\t the
\nUnion  of India.  By virtue of Art 372 of  the\tConstitution
\nthe laws in force in the territory of India which would have
\nincluded  the Tripura Forest Act in so far as it applied  to
\nthe territory of the former Tripura State, were continued in
\nforce  until repealed or anended by  competent\tlegislation.
\nNext,  came  the Part C States (Laws Act,  1950\t enacted  by
\nParliament.   By its s. 3 the Acts and Ordinances  specified
\nin  the Schedule to the Merged State (Laws) Act,  1949\twere
\nextended  to  and directed “to be in force in the  State  of
\nTripura……\tas  they  were\tgeneral\t in  force  in\t the
\nterritories  to\t which they extended  immediate\t before\t the
\ncommencement of that Act”.  One of the enactments  specified
\nin  the Schedule to the Merged States (Laws Act,  1949\t(Act
\nLIX  of\t 1949) was the Indian Forest Act 1927.\t The  Indian
\nForest Act was thus extended to the Tripura State.   Section
\n4  of the Part C States (Laws) Act 1950 provided  that\t“any
\nlaw  which  immediately before the commencement of  the\t Act
\n(April\t15,  1950) was in form in any of  the  States  which
\nincluded  Tripura  and correspondent to an Act\textended  to
\nthat State by the Act was there repealed”.  The operation of
\nthe repeat was subject to the
\nI67
\nprovisos  and it is the second of these provisos that  calls
\nfor construction in these appeals.  This proviso ran:
\nProvided  further  that, subject to the\t preceding  proviso,
\nanything done or any action taken, including any appointment
\nor  delegation\tmade, notification,  order,  instruction  or
\ndirection issued, rule, regulation, form, bye-law or  scheme
\nframed,\t certificate, patent, permit or licence\t granted  or
\nregistration  effected,\t under such law shall be  deemed  to
\nhave been done or taken under section 2 or, as the case\t may
\nbe,  under  the\t corresponding\tprovision  of  the  Act\t  or
\nOrdinance  as  now extended to the State by section  3,\t and
\nshall  continue\t in  force  accordingly,  unless  and  until
\nsuperseded  by anything done or any action taken  under\t the
\nsaid section 2 or, as the case may be, under the said Act or
\nOrdinance.”\n<\/p>\n
Shortly\t stated,  the question for  consideration  in  these
\nappeals is whether as a result of the operation of ss. 3 and
\n4  of the Part C States (Laws) Act read in the light of\t the
\nproviso\t above-quoted the three reserved forests which\twere
\nnotified  under the Tripura Act of 1257 (T.E.) could be\t de-
\nemed  to be “reserved forests” under Ch.  II of\t the  Indian
\nForest Act, 1927.\n<\/p>\n
Stopping  here, it would be convenient to notice a few\tmat-
\nters.  In the first place, when the Indian Forest Act,\t1927
\nwas  extended to the State of Tripura in 1950 it would\thave
\nbeen open to Government to have taken steps to constitute  ”
\nreserved   forests”  within  the  State\t by  following\t the
\nprocedure  prescribed  by Ch.  II to which we  have  already
\nadverted.  But this was not done and the Government seem  to
\nhave  proceeded\t on  the basis that the\t areas\tnotified  as
\n“reserved  forests”  under the Tripura\tAct  were  “reserved
\nforests”  under the Indian Forest Act.\tNext, it  is  common
\nground\tthat  the  Tripura Act which was  continued  by\t the
\nTripura Administration Order, 1949 did not survive
\n168<\/span>
\nthe Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 because the Indian Forest
\nAct  being “a corresponding law” to the Tripura\t Forest\t Act
\nstood  repealed by the operation of s. 4 of that  enactment.
\nBesides,  the  provisions of the Tripura  Forest  Act  under
\nwhich  the  notifications  constituting\t these\tforests\t  as
\n“reserved forests” were issued were under the proviso to  s.
\n4  “deemed to have been done under the corresponding  provi-
\nsion of the Act as now extended to the State by s. 3”.\t The
\nposition,  however, is that the Indian Forest Act whose\t ex-
\ntension\t to  the  Tripura area effected the  repeal  of\t the
\nTripura\t Act, contains provisions of two distinct  types  or
\nkinds  for the exercise of control over forests\t and  forest
\nareas  and  the\t question then arises as  to  which  of\t the
\nprovisions  of the Indian Act, “correspond” to those of\t the
\nTripura\t Act,  to enable one to say that  the  notifications
\nunder  the latter Act should be deemed to have been  issued.
\nOn a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Tripura
\nForest\tAct the learned Judicial Commissioner held  that  at
\nthe  most the corresponding provision of the  Indian  Forest
\nAct  to which the Tripura notification could be related\t was
\nas  a “protected forest” under Ch.  IV of the Indian  Forest
\nAct  and not a ” reserved forest” under Ch. 11 of  the\tAct.
\nHe,  therefore,\t decided that as the offence for  which\t the
\naccused\t were  being  prosecuted was one  under\t s.  26\t the
\naccused could not be held guilty since there was no legal or
\neffective  notification\t of the forest area as\ta  “reserved
\nforest”\t  within  s.  20  of  the  Indian  Forest  Act\t and
\naccordingly  directed  the acquittal of\t the  accused.\t The
\nappeals challenge the correctness of this last conclusion.
\nThe principal submission of the learned AttorneyGeneral\t who
\nappeared  for the Union of India in support of\tthe  appeals
\nwas directed to establish that the notification constituting
\nthe  three  forests as reserved forests under  the  repealed
\nTripura Forest Act 11 of 1257 (1297?) T.E. must be deemed to
\nhave been taken under Ch. 11 of the Indian Forest Act,\t1927
\nwhich, it was contended, was the provision corresponding  to
\nthe  repealed  Tripura\tAct.  it is  the  validity  of\tthis
\nsubmission   that  now\tcalls  for  consideration.    Before
\nentering  on a discussion of this question we might  dispose
\nof a minor consideration which might be urged in
\nI69
\norder  to show that the notification under the\tTripura\t Act
\ncould not be deemed to be a notification under s. 20 of\t the
\nIndian Forest Act.  One of the submissions under this  head,
\nand this was one of the points that appears to have appealed
\nto  the learned Judicial Commissioner, was that Ch.   II  of
\nthe  Indian  Forest Act prescribes  an\telaborate  procedure
\nwhich  is  mandatory and is required to\t be  complied  with,
\nbefore\tany  land  could be  constituted  into\ta  “reserved
\nforest” under that Act.\t The Tripura Act admittedly does not
\nmake provision for any such procedure being followed  before
\nan area is notified as “a reserved forest” or is constituted
\ninto  one.   The  argument based on this  was  that  in\t the
\nabsence\t of identity between the procedural requirements  of
\nthe  two Acts, a notification under the revealed  Act  could
\nnot be deemed to be one under a “corresponding provision” of
\nthe Act extended to the territory, the emphasis being on the
\nwords  “corresponding provision”.  We are unable  to  accept
\nthe correctness of this submission.\n<\/p>\n
The scheme of the Part C States (Laws) Act is this.  In\t the
\nfirst  place,  by  reason of s.\t 3  certain  enactments\t are
\nextended to these States.  If there is no law in that  State
\nwhich was in force on the date of the extension of a  parti-
\ncular  enactment  under s. 3 which is in  pari\tmateria\t and
\ncovers the same field as the law that is extended, s. 4 does
\nnot come into play and consequently there is no question  of
\nthe  repeal of any pre-existing law.  If such were the\tcase
\nthe  law in force in the native State of Tripura would\thave
\nfirst continued by reason of the provision contained in s. 5
\nof the Administration of Tripura (Laws) Order, 1949, already
\nreferred  to which was promulgated on October, 15, 1949\t and
\nlater  by  reason of Art. 372 of the Constitution.   To\t the
\nextent to which there was no repeal by virtue of s. 4 of the
\nPart  C States (Laws) Act, 1950 the Tripura law\t would\thave
\ncontinued in force.  It is only on the basis that the Indian
\nForest Act whose operation was extended to that territory by
\ns.  3  was “a corresponding law” that the  Tripura  Act\t can
\nstand  repealed.   For the purpose of effecting\t the  repeal
\nunder  s. 4 the only consideration is whether  any  existing
\nlaw  of\t that  State  “corresponded” to\t a  law\t which,\t was
\nextended by reason of s. 3.\n<\/p>\n
170<\/span><\/p>\n
As  stand  earlier,  it is common ground  that\tthe  Tripura
\nForest Act “corresponded” to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and
\nthat the former therefore stood repealed on the extension to
\nTripura\t of the latter enactment.  If then the extension  of
\nthe Indian Forest Act to the State effected a repeal of\t the
\nTripura\t Forest\t Act we have next to  consider\twhether\t the
\nnotification  under the Tripura Act could be deemed to be  a
\nnotification  under  “the corresponding\t provision”  of\t the
\nIndian\tForest Act.  For that purpose the  preliminaries  to
\nthe  notification  or  the procedure which  must  precede  a
\nnotification  are not of any relevance but only whether\t the
\nparticular  notification  could\t be  held  to  be  under   a
\ncorresponding provision under the extended enactment,  viz.,
\nthe Indian Forest Act.\tIf the notifications had been issued
\nafter complying with the formalities prescribed by the State
\nlaw  and  they are kept alive by the proviso to\t s.  4,\t the
\nnotifications  would necessarily have to be deemed  to\thave
\nvalidly been made under the latter Act.\t Judged by this test
\nit  appears to us that the fact that under the\tTripura\t law
\nthere were no preliminaries prescribed before a forest could
\nbe notified as a reserved forest does not detract from\tsuch
\na notification being a notification under the Indian  Forest
\nAct, 1927.\n<\/p>\n
We have next to consider whether the notification under\t the
\nTripura\t Act could be deemed to be a notification under\t Ch.
\n11  or under s. 20 of the Indian Forest Act for that is\t the
\nbasis  upon  which the entire prosecution case\trests.\t For
\nthis  purpose it is necessary to analyse the  provisions  of
\nthe   Tripura  Act  and\t also  examine\t the   corresponding
\nprovisions  of the Indian Forest Act.  We shall first.\ttake
\nup the Tripura Act.  Its preamble, after reciting that\tsome
\nclasses\t of trees are regarded as protected ones from  times
\nimmemorial,  goes  on  to state that  it  was  expedient  to
\nconsolidate the law with a view to bring order in the matter
\nof the supervision of the protected trees and also to  place
\nthe same on a sound footing.  This would appear to  indicate
\nthat  the Act was designed for the protection of  particular
\ntrees as distinguished from the reservation of an area as  a
\nforest\tfor the purpose of protecting all the  trees  within
\nthat  forest.  We shall in due course have to refer  to\t the
\nprovisions of Ch.  TV of the Indian
\n17I
\nForest\tAct headed “Of Protected Forests” under\t which\talso
\nthe aim of the law is to afford protection to certain  trees
\nin particular areas.  To revert to the Tripura Act, its s. 3
\nprovides  for the repeal of the earlier laws and saves\tonly
\nrules  or customs not inconsistent with the Act.  Section  4
\nis  one\t of the key provisions of the Act and under  it\t are
\nspecified seven classes of trees which shall be deemed to be
\nprotected within the independent State of Tripura.  The\t Act
\nis  divided  into seven chapters of which the first  one  is
\nheaded\t“Of  protection of Rakshita Bana” which,  as  stated
\nearlier,   has\tbeen  translated  as  “Protected   Forests”.
\nSection\t 5 under which the three notifications to  which  we
\nhave already referred were issued reads:\n<\/p>\n
“The  boundaries  of  ‘Rakshita Bana’, shall  be  fixed\t and
\npublication  of\t the  same  shall  be  made  in\t all  police
\nstations,  offices, markets, ports and other  public  places
\nwithin this independent State”.\n<\/p>\n
Section 6 runs:\n<\/p>\n
“No  person  shall  be\tentitled to  carry  out\t any  ‘Jhum’
\ncultivation (shifting cultivation) within half a mile radius
\nof a Rakshita Bana”.\n<\/p>\n
Sections  9 to 11 specify the acts which are  prohibited  in
\nthe notified forest areas.  These enact:\n<\/p>\n
“9.  No person shall set fire to the hills in such a  manner
\nwhich may cause damage to a Rakshita Bana in any way”.
\n“10. …..No  person shall enter into a Rakshita  Bana\tcar-
\nrying fire.”\n<\/p>\n
I’ll. ….No  person  shall  enter  into  a  Rakshita\tBana
\ncarrying axe or other weapons which may be used for  cutting
\ntrees without permission.”\n<\/p>\n
Chapter\t 11  with which s. 12 opens is\theaded\t“Of  Gradual
\nDevelopment  of\t Rakshita Banas.” The relevant\tsections  of
\nthis Chapter are ss. 12 to 17 and they read:\n<\/p>\n
“12.   In each year protected trees like sal etc. and  other
\nvaluable  trees\t shall be grown either by  sowing  seeds  or
\notherwise.\n<\/p>\n
172<\/span><\/p>\n
“13.   In order to give effect to the provisions of  section
\n12, suitable sites will be selected at regular
\nintervals after taking sanction for the same.”
\n“14. …..If  there are other trees in a Rakshita Bana\tthan
\nthose  mentioned  in  section 4, and  if  it  is  considered
\nexpedient that such other trees are harmful to the growth of
\nthe protected trees, then such trees shall be cut.”
\n“15. …..In  case any old tree referred to in section 4  is
\ncut, then a new tree shall be grown in its place.  ”
\n“16.   No person on any account shall be allowed to cut\t any
\ntree  within  the reserved forest in a\tmanner\twhich  might
\ncause any damage to the block.”\n<\/p>\n
“17.  If there be dense growth of any specific type of\ttree
\nas  mentioned  in section 4 and if such growth\tis  mutually
\ndetrimental  to\t the  general growth of the  trees  then  to
\nfacilitate  growth of the species some may be cut  according
\nto neces-\n<\/p>\n
sity.  ”\n<\/p>\n
Chapter\t III  is headed “Of Penalties” and of  the  sections
\ncomprised in it is sufficient to refer to s. 18 under  which
\nany person kindling fire in a forest is made punishable with
\nimprisonment, s. 19 on which much stress was laid which ran:
\n“Whoever fells any tree within the limits of a Rakshita Bana
\nshall  be  punished  with rigorous  imprisonment  which\t may
\nextend to three months or with fine which may extend to\t Rs.
\n5001or with both”.\n<\/p>\n
and s. 20 which ran:\n<\/p>\n
“20.   Any  person  who cuts any  tree\tas  specified  under
\nsection\t 4 outside the limits of a reserved forest shall  be
\npunished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to\t two
\nmonths\tor with fine which may extend to Rs. 200\/-  or\twith
\nboth.”\n<\/p>\n
173<\/span><\/p>\n
In  this connection it is necessary to point out that  under
\ns.20 the cutting of the protected trees specified in s. 4 is
\nmade  an  offence  even if the cutting were  to\t take  place
\nbeyond\tthe  limits of the forest notified under s.  5.\t The
\nonly  point  of difference brought in by the  cutting  being
\nwithin the boundaries of the forest is that in that case the
\npunishment is heavier.\n<\/p>\n
The other chapters relate to the officials and the manner in
\nwhich  they  should perform their duties and have  not\tmuch
\nrelevance for the purposes of these appeals.
\nFrom  the above summary of the provisions it would  be\tseen
\nthat in substance the object and purpose of the Tripura\t Act
\nwas  the protection of particular trees-the seven  types  of
\ntrees  specified in s.4. The notification under s. 5 is\t for
\nthe purpose of constituting areas where these types of trees
\nwould  be protected.  The penal provisions enacted  are\t for
\nensuring  the  protection of these trees.  No doubt,  s.  16
\nenacts a ban against the cutting of any tree within a forest
\nso  as to cause damage to any block and s. 19 penalises\t the
\ncutting\t of any tree within the area of a forest, but it  is
\nobvious\t that in the context of the other provisions of\t the
\nAct  and  the  purpose which the enactment  is\tintended  to
\nsubserve,  these  prohibitions under  penal  sanctions\twere
\ndesigned primarily and essentially to ensure more  effective
\nprotection to the trees specified in s.4.\n<\/p>\n
Now,  let  us see whether Ch.  II of the Indian\t Forest\t Act
\ncould  be  said to be a provision which corresponds  to\t the
\nTripura\t Act,  so that the notification under s.  5  of\t the
\nlatter ,enactment could be deemed to be a notification under
\nCh.   II ,or s. 20 of the Forest Act.  We have set  out\t the\n<\/p>\n
-several provisions of Ch.  II and their object.  The  prime
\npurpose\t of  that Chapter is the  constitution\tof  reserved
\nforests in which (1) all private rights within the  reserved
\narea  are  completely eliminated by their  being  bought  up
\nwhere  these are ascertained to exist by payment of  compen-
\nsation,\t (2) the entire area being devoted  to\tsiviculture,
\nevery  tree  in the forest being protected from\t injury\t and
\nwithin the scope of the penal provision contained in s.\t 26.
\nIn other words, the reservation here is to the “forest area”
\nas such and not the protection of particular specified trees
\nor species of trees in such a forest.\n<\/p>\n
174<\/span><\/p>\n
In this connection some point was sought to be made from the
\nterms  of the notification under s. 5 of the Tripura Act  by
\nwhich the boundaries of the several forests were  specified.
\nThe three notifications were substantially in the same\tform
\nand it is, therefore, sufficient to set out the one  setting
\nout the boundaries of the Garjichhera reserve.\tThe relevant
\nconditions are:\n<\/p>\n
“2. Jhum cultivation will not be permissible in this  forest
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
3′.  The  land previously settled within  this\tforest\ta-ea
\nshall remain valid.  Plough cultivation will be\t permissible
\nin that area.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The fallow Taluka land falling within this area
\nshall be deemed as not being within this reserve.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Until further orders, cutting of all kinds of trees
\nare  prohibited within this Reserve.  Cutting and export  of
\nunclassified forest products…….. will be permissible.\n<\/p>\n
6….Except  in\t the settled area, grazing of all  kinds  of
\nanimals elsewhere within this Reserve will be prohibited.\n<\/p>\n
7.   AR kind of hunting within this Reserve is prohi-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  bited.”\n<\/p>\n
In regard to these conditions stress was laid principally on
\ncondition no. 5 under which all cutting of trees was forbid-
\nden.  The provision here appears to be a reproduction of  s.
\n16  of\tthe  Act and to have no\t further  or  more  extended
\noperation.  We are therefore unable to accept the submission
\nthat by reason of this clause the area which is notified  as
\nthe reserved forest is constituted a reserved forest of\t the
\nsame type as under Ch.\tII of the Indian Forest Act.  In the
\nfirst  place,  as  the notification  was  issued  under\t the
\nTripura\t Act  it  would be reasonable to  construe  it\twith
\nreference  to  the  prohibition\t against  cutting  of  trees
\ncontained in the Act itself and we have already adverted  to
\nthe  terms of s. 16 which we have held was designed for\t the
\npurpose\t of protecting the trees set out in s. 4.  But\tthat
\napart, clause 5
\n175<\/span>
\nitself\tpermits the cutting of certain forest produce  which
\nit  was\t evidently  thought would  not\tinterfere  with\t the
\nfunctioning  of the forest as a place for the protection  of
\nthe  protected\ttrees.\tThe other two notifications  do\t not
\npermit the cutting of Bamboo etc. without Government permit,
\nbut this in our opinion makes no difference.
\nIf one now turns to the provisions of Ch.  IV of the  Indian
\nForest\tAct the correspondence between the Tripura  Act\t and
\nthe  provisions of Ch.\tIV would become clear.\tSection\t 30,
\ncorresponding to s. 4 of the Tripura Act, in Ch. 11  enables
\nthe  State  Government\tby  notification  in  the   Official
\nGazette–\n<\/p>\n
(a)  to\t declare any trees or class of trees in a  protected
\nforest to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  declare  that any portion of such forest  specified  in
\nthe  notification  shall  be  closed  for  such\t term,\t not
\nexceeding thirty years, as the State Government thinks\tfit,
\nand  that the rights of private persons, if any,  over\tsuch
\nportion\t shall be suspended during such term, provided\tthat
\nthe  remainder\tof  such  forest be  sufficient,  and  in  a
\nlocality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of\t the
\nrights suspended in the portion so closed; or\n<\/p>\n
(c)  prohibit, from a date fixed as aforesaid, the quarrying
\nof stone, or the burning of lime or
\n     charcoal, or the collection or subjectionto
\n     any manufacturing process,\t    or removalof,
\n     any forest-produce in any such forest andthe
\n     breaking up or clearing for cultivation,for
\nbuilding,  for herding cattle or for any other\tpurpose,  of
\nany land in any such forest.”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 31 provides for the publication of  a\tnotification
\nunder s. 30 and s. 32 for the regulations which may be\tmade
\nfor protected forests i.e., areas in which particular  trees
\nare  protected and s. 33 provides for penalties for acts  in
\ncontravention  of  a notification under s. 30  or  of  rules
\nunder s. 32.  This section enacts:\n<\/p>\n
176<\/span><\/p>\n
“33.  (1)  Any\tperson\twho commits  any  of  the  following
\noffences, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  fells,  girdles, lops, taps or bums any  tree  reserved
\nunder section 30, or strips off the bark or leaves from,  or
\notherwise damages, any such tree;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  contrary to any prohibition under section 30,  quarries
\nany  stone  or\tburns any lime\tor  charcoal,  or  collects,
\nsubjects  to  any  manufacturing  process,  or\tremoves\t any
\nforestproduce;\n<\/p>\n
contrary to any prohibition under\t  section 30, breaks
\nup or clears for cultivation\t    or any other purpose any
\nland in any protected forest;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  sets fire to such forest. kindles a fire without taking
\nall  reasonable precautions to prevent its spreading to\t any
\ntree reserved under section 30, whether standing, fallen  or
\nfelled, or to any closed portion of such forest;\n<\/p>\n
(e)  leaves burning any fire kindled by him in the  vicinity
\nof any such tree or closed portion;\n<\/p>\n
(f)  fells any tree or drags any timber so as to damage\t any
\ntree reserved as aforesaid;\n<\/p>\n
(g)  permits cattle to damage any such tree;\n<\/p>\n
(h)  infringes any rule made under section 32;
\nshall  be punishable with imprisonment for a term which\t may
\nextend to six months, or with fine which may extend to\tfive
\nhundred rupees, or with both.\n<\/p>\n
It  would  thus be clear that the object of Ch.\t TV  is\t the
\nprotection  of\tparticular trees and the  setting  apart  of
\nparticular  areas  as protected forests for the\t purpose  of
\nensuring  the  growth and maintenance of  such\ttrees.\t The
\nobject
\n\t\t\t    I77
\nsought\tto be achieved by the reservation in Ch.  IV of\t the
\nIndian Forest Act is thus seen to be exactly similar to that
\nwhich is sought to be achieved by the Tripura Act.  Only the
\nTripura\t Act  makes  the cutting  of  protected\t trees\teven
\noutside\t a  forest  an offence, whereas\t there\tis  no\tsuch
\nprovision  under the Indian Forest Act.\t If, therefore,\t one
\nhas  to\t seek a provision “corresponding”  to  the  repealed
\nTripura\t Forest Act that provision will be found not in\t Ch.
\n11  of\tthe Indian Forest Act but only in Ch.  IV.   As\t the
\npresent\t prosecutions have been launched for offences  under
\ns. 26 the learned Judicial Commissioner was right in holding
\nthat the prosecution has not been able to establish that the
\naccused had committed an offence in respect of the provision
\nunder  which they were charged since the three forests\twere
\nnot   notified\tas  reserved  forests  under   a   provision
\ncorresponding to Ch.  II of the Indian Forest Act.
\nWe,  therefore, hold that the learned Judicial\tCommissioner
\nwas  right in considering that the provision in\t the  Indian
\nForest\tAct “corresponding” to the Tripura Forest Act  under
\nwhich the notifications fixing the boundaries of these three
\nforests were issued is that as regards “a protected  forest”
\nunder  Ch.   IV\t and not a “reserved forest”  within  s.  20
\ncontained  in  Ch.  II.\t The order  acquitting\tthe  several
\nrespondents was therefore right and the appeals fail.
\nIn  the view that we have taken of the main question  argued
\nbefore\tus, we do not find it necessary to consider  whether
\nthere  were  any other legal defences open  to\tthe  several
\naccused.  For instance, it will be noticed that the  accused
\nin  these  cases  were\theld guilty  of\t offences  under  s.
\n26(1)(a), (d) and (h).\tAs regards the offence under cl. (a)
\nthe   learned  Attorney-General\t conceded  that\t it  was   a
\nprerequisite  for a person being held guilty of\t an  offence
\nunder that clause that there should be a notification under
\ns.   4\tbecause\t s. 5 which is referred to in s.  26(1)\t (a)
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
“5. After  the issue of a notification under section 4,\t no
\nright  shall  be acquired in or over the land  comprised  in
\nsuch notification, except by succession or under a grant  or
\ncontract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf  of
\nthe Government or some person in whom
\n51 S.C.–12
\n178<\/span>
\nsuch right was vested when the notification was issued;\t and
\nno fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other  purpose
\nshall  be made in such land except in accordance  with\tsuch
\nrules  as  may\tbe  made by the\t State\tGovernment  in\tthis
\nbehalf.”\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t absence,  therefore, of  such\ta  notification\t the
\naccused\t could not have been held guilty of a  contravention
\nof  s.\t26(1)(a).   Coming next to cls.\t (d)  and  (h),\t the
\nquestion  for consideration would be whether if\t these\twere
\nnot  offences  under the Tripura law, the accused  could  be
\nprosecuted by reason of (a) the extension of the Forest\t Act
\nto  the\t Tripura State and (b) the notification.  under\t the
\nTripura\t law being “deemed to be a notification”  under\t the
\ncorresponding  provision of the Indian Act.  We consider  it
\nunnecessary  to examine this problem or to express any\topi-
\nnion  on this matter in view of the conclusion that we\thave
\nreached that the notification under s. 5 of the Tripura\t Act
\nwould  constitute the area in question only as\ta  protected
\nforest under Ch.  IV of the Indian Forest Act and not as a ”
\nreserved”  forest under s. 20 contained in Ch. ]El  of\tthat
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeals  fail  and are dismissed.\t The  appellant\t had
\nundertaken  to pay the costs of the respondents at the\ttime
\nof  the admission of the appeals.  In accordance  with\tthat
\nundertaking the appellant will pay the costs to the  respon-
\ndents.\tOne hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 147, 1964 SCR (8) 158 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: ABDUL JALIL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/05\/1964 BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA BENCH: AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA […]<\/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-166386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-27T20:16:20+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=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-27T20:16:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964\"},\"wordCount\":6285,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-27T20:16:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-27T20:16:20+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":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964","datePublished":"1964-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-27T20:16:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964"},"wordCount":6285,"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\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964","name":"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-27T20:16:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-abdul-jalil-and-ors-on-5-may-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Abdul Jalil And Ors on 5 May, 1964"}]},{"@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\/166386","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=166386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}