{"id":203083,"date":"1960-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960"},"modified":"2017-05-05T22:01:01","modified_gmt":"2017-05-05T16:31:01","slug":"state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960","title":{"rendered":"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 304, \t\t 1961 SCR (2)\t 1<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF BIHAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKRIPA SHANKAR JAISWAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/10\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  304\t\t  1961 SCR  (2)\t  1\n\n\nACT:\nIndustrial  Dispute--Conciliation  Proceedings--Unregistered\nUnion--Settlement with--If binding on management--Industrial\nDisputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), ss.  11(2), 12(6), 18(3)(a)\nand (d).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  settlement  was  arrived at\tbetween\t the  management  of\nMankatha Distillery and the workmen's union before the\tcon-\nciliation  officer.  The Union was not registered under\t the\nIndian Trade Unions Act on the date of the said\t settlement.\nThe  terms of the settlement not having been carried out  by\nthe  management the respondent, who was the proprietor,\t and\nthe manager of the said distillery were prosecuted and\twere\nconvicted by the Magistrate.  The Sessions Court, on  appeal\nby the respondent, confirmed the Magistrate's order.  On  an\nappeal\tto the Patna High Court by the respondent  the\tHigh\nCourt  set aside the order of conviction and  acquitted\t the\nrespondent  holding that there was no recognised  union\t and\nthat  because  the  conciliation  officer  had\tvisited\t the\nDistillery without giving a reasonable notice, on  18-3-1954\nthere  could be no agreement between the proprietor  on\t one\nside and the workmen as a whole on the other on the date and\nit was wrong to suppose that because somu workmen had signed\nthe settlement that it bound all the workmen:\nHeld, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute\nit is not a requisite condition that it should be  sponsored\nby  a  recognised  union  or that  all\tthe  workmen  of  an\nindustrial  establishment  should  be  parties\tto  it.\t   A\nsettlement arrived at in course of conciliation\t proceedings\nfalls within s. 18(3)(a) and (d) of the Industrial  Disputes\nAct and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered\nunion or only some of workmen may have raised the dispute.\nThe  absence  of notice under s. 11(2) by  the\tConciliation\nOfficer does not affect the jurisdiction of the conciliation\nofficer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment\nthat  the person who is coming is the  conciliation  officer\nand  not a stranger.  Any contravention of S. 12(6)  in\t not\nsubmitting the report within 14 days may be a breach of duty\non the part of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect\nthe legality of the proceedings which terminated as provided\nin S. 20(2) of the Act.\n1\n2\nWhere  a fresh settlement is arrived at between the  parties\nand  all disputes are settled, then \" public  interest\tdoes\nnot require that the stale matter should be resuscitated \".\nNewspapers Limited, Allahabad v. State Industrial  Tribunal,\nUttar Pradesh,<\/a> [1960] 2 L.L.J. 37, referred to.\nAndheri\t Marol\tKurla Bus Service v. The  State\t of  Bombay,\nA.I.R.<\/a>\t[1959]\tS.C.  841  and State  of  Bihar\t v.  Hiralal\nKejrilal,<\/a> [1960] 1 S.C.R. 726, approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 83  of
\n1959.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated July 25, 1958,  of
\nthe Patna High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 593 and\t 594
\nof 1958 arising out of the judgment and order dated March 3,
\n1958, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr, in Criminal
\nAppeal No. 286 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
D.   P. Singh and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
\nC.   P. Lal, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1960.  October 14.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nKAPUR  J.-This\tis  an\tappeal brought\tin  pursuance  of  a
\ncertificate under art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution against
\nthe  judgment  and order of acquittal of the High  Court  of
\nPatna.\n<\/p>\n
There  were  certain disputes between the  workmen  and\t the
\nManagement of Mankatha Distillery of which the proprietor is
\nthe  respondent.   On  November 23,  1953,  a  petition\t was
\nsubmitted on behalf of the workmen of the Distillery to\t the
\nAssistant  Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur, which was  signed
\nby one Banarsi Choudhuri on behalf of himself and for and on
\nbehalf of the workmen of the Distillery.  In this  petition,
\ncertain\t grievances  of\t the workmen  were  set\t out.\tCon-
\nciliation  proceedings\twere  started,\tand  there  was\t  an
\nagreement  on  December 5, 1953, which the  High  Court\t has
\ndescribed as ‘some sort of agreement’.\n<\/p>\n
On  January  12,  1954,\t an application\t was  made  for\t the
\nregistration  of the Union of the workmen of the  Distillery
\nunder  the  Indian  Trade  Unions  Act,\t and  the  same\t was
\nregistered on March 23, 1954, under the
\n3<\/span>
\nname  and  style of Mankaths Distillery\t Mazdoor  Panchayat.
\nThe  Distillery was closed and the workmen were\t discharged,
\nand  thereafter on February 19, 1954, the General  Secretary
\nof the Mankatha Distillery Mazdoor Panchayat, even though it
\nwas  not  registered  at  the time, sent  a  letter  to\t the
\nManagement, protesting against the discharge of the  workmen
\nwithout payment of compensation and objecting to the  inten-
\ntion  of  the  employers  to  re-start\tthe  factory   after
\nemploying  other workmen.  It was also stated  therein\tthat
\nthe  workers who had been discharged, had been\tworking\t for
\nsome  years and a list of such workmen was attached  to\t the
\nletter.\t The following portion of the letter is relevant for
\nthe purposes of this appeal:-\n<\/p>\n
” All the persons, named below, shall work in the factory in
\nlegal  manner, on monthly salary on permanent basis.  It  is
\nnot  only  hoped,  rather  fully  believed  that  you  would
\nconsider the above facts and gladly accept the same.
\nOn  getting  a stisfactory reply, all the workers,  who\t had
\nbeen  working  in  your factory since  years,  would  report
\nthemselves to duty and work according to your orders “.
\nAlthough  it  is addressed to the proprietors  of  the\tDis-
\ntillery,  it  seems  to\t have been  sent  to  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner of Labour, Bhagalpur, where it was received  on
\nFebruary 25, 1954.  The following endorsements were made  on
\nthis letter:-\n<\/p>\n
”  Discussed  with you.\t The management is  re.\t quested  to
\nattend\tconciliation proceeding on 10th March, 1954,  at  11
\na.m. The Union is also informed accordingly “.
\nAnother petition dated March 5,1954, was sent by the General
\nSecretary  of  the  Distillery\tMazdoor\t Panchayat  to\t the
\nAssistant Labour Commissioner, in which the names of all the
\npersons\t who had been freshly employed by  the\tproprietors,
\nwere  mentioned\t and  it  was prayed  that  those  who\twere
\ndischarged at the time of the closing of the factory, may be
\nreinstated  and\t wages paid, and a request was made  to\t the
\nAssistant Labour
\n4<\/span>
\nand get the workmen reinstated.\t The order on this  petition
\nwas:-\n<\/p>\n
“,  The parties have been called to-morrow in my office\t for
\nconciliation.  The result of the proceeding may be awaited.”
\nOn  March 18, 1954, a settlement was arrived at between\t the
\nmanagement   and  the  workers\twhich  is  signed   by\t the
\nConciliation Officer appointed under s. 4 of the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter termed, for
\nthe sake of brevity, the Act).\tThis document was signed  by
\nthe  proprietor\t and the manager of the\t Distillery  and  by
\nBanarsi\t  Choudhuri,  General  Secretary  of  the   Workers’
\nPanchayat and also by six other members of the Panchayat who
\nwere evidently the members of the Executive Committee of the
\nPanchayat.  The terms of the settlement were as follows:
\n” 1. It is agreed that the workers’ named in Schedule ” A  ”
\nshall be taken to jobs without break in their services.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  new  hands  appointed after  the  closure  of\t the
\nfactory shall be discharged.\n<\/p>\n
3.   If\t three\tshifts will start and  any  other  increased
\nopportunity of employment will be available in the  factory,
\nthe management shall employ only those workers who are\tleft
\nto-day and who had worked in August 1953 and September\t1953
\nin order of seniority.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Shri  Banarsi Choudhry, Balmiki Singh, Bhaso Singh\t and
\nKaltu  (?)  Singh are accused in a case pending\t before\t the
\nCourt  at Monghyr.  The Management agrees that if they\twill
\nbe acquitted from the court, they will be given jobs.\n<\/p>\n
5.   All the workers will be put in permanent basis as\tthey
\nwere  previously.  The order putting them in  the  temporary
\nbasis after the opening of the Mill is cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  arrears  will be paid on monthly basis  as  before
\ninstead\t of weekly basis as at present after the  re-opening
\nof the factory.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The grievances raised by the workers and covered by the
\nagreement dated the 5th December,
\n5<\/span>
\n1953,  will  be decided by the\tLabour\tCommissioner  Bihar,
\nPatna and his decision shall be acceptable to and final\t for
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The work of the factory will be resumed immediately.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The workers will continue to have all the benefits\t and
\nprivileges which are guaranteed by law or usage and custom.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The  workers  will not be victimised  for\ttheir  Trade
\nUnion activities”.\n<\/p>\n
The  prosecution  case is that the terms of  the  settlement
\nwere  not carried out in that the old workmen were  not\t re-
\nemployed and the newly employed workmen were not discharged.
\nThereupon, the respondent and the manager of the Distillery,
\none  Ram Narain Lal were prosecuted on a complaint filed  by
\nthe  Labour Superintendent, Mr. L. D. Singh, after  sanction
\nof  the\t Government of Bihar had been  obtained.   Both\t the
\naccused\t persons were convicted and sentenced to a  fine  of
\nRs.   150   each  or,  in  default,   one   month’s   simple
\nimprisonment.  The learned Magistrate held that there was an
\nindustrial  dispute within the meaning of the Act, and\tthat
\nthe  conciliation  settlement dated March 18,  1954,  was  a
\nvalid settlement and the respondent failed to implement\t the
\nfirst term of the settlement.  Against this order, an appeal
\nwas  taken  to\tthe  Sessions  Court  and  the\tThird  Add1.
\nSessions  Judge\t dismissed  the appeal.\t  He  confirmed\t the
\nfindings of the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
Against\t this  order of the Sessions Judge,  an\t appeal\t was
\ntaken to the High Court by the respondent only, and the High
\nCourt  set aside the order of conviction and  acquitted\t the
\naccused.  It held that there was no recognised Union, though
\nthere was ” some kind of a vague Union ” existing, and\tthat
\nbecause the Conciliation Officer had visited the  Distillery
\nwithout\t giving a reasonable notice, the ” decision  of\t the
\nConciliation  Officer  on  18-3-1954,  must,  therefore,  be
\ndeemed\tto be without jurisdiction “, and that there was  no
\nagreement arrived at between the proprietor on one side\t and
\nthe  ”\tlabourers ” as a whole on the other, and  “:  it  is
\npreposterous to suppose that because some labourers
\n6<\/span>
\nhad  signed the settlement that it bound all the  labourers.
\nIt  seems  to  me that there is a  serious  defect  in\tthis
\nsettlement   which  is\tdescribed  as  a  decision  of\t the
\nConciliation  Officer  dated  18-3-1954 “.  On\tthe  ground,
\ntherefore,  that the settlement was not a  settlement  which
\nwas binding on the respondent, the conviction was set aside.
\nIt  would  be an erroneous view if it were said that  for  a
\ndispute\t to  constitute\t an  industrial\t dispute  it  is   a
\nrequisite  condition  that  it\tshould\tbe  sponsored  by  a
\nrecognised  union or that all the workmen of  an  industrial
\nestablishment should be parties to it.\tA dispute becomes an
\nindustrial  dispute  even where it is sponsored by  a  union
\nwhich is not registered as in the instant case or where\t the
\ndispute\t raised\t is by some only of the workmen\t because  in
\neither\tcase the matter falls within s. 18(3)(a) and (d)  of
\nthe  Act.   See also Newspapers Limited,  Allahabad  v.\t The
\nState\tIndustrial   Tribunal,\tUttar  Pradesh<\/a>\t (1).\t The
\nsettlement  of\tMarch  18,  1954,  arrived  at\tduring\t the
\nconciliation proceedings was signed by the General Secretary
\nand  members of the executive committee of the Union  though
\nit  was unregistered at the time.  We cannot therefore\tgive
\nour accord to the decision that the settlement of March\t 18,
\n1954, was not a settlement binding between the parties.
\nThe scope and effect of s. 11(2) was raised before us and it
\nwas  argued  that because the conciliation officer  did\t not
\ngive any reasonable notice before he came to the  Distillery
\non March 18, 1954, the settlement was not a legal settlement
\nand  consequently  was not binding on the  parties  and\t its
\nbreach could not fall within the penal consequences of s. 29
\nof the Act.  Now, s.\t 11(2) provides:-\n<\/p>\n
” A conciliation officer or a member of a Board or Court  or
\nthe  presiding\tofficer\t of  a\tLabour\tCourt,\tTribunal  or
\nNational  Tribunal may for the purpose of inquiry  into\t any
\nexisting  or  apprehended industrial dispute,  after  giving
\nreasonable  notice,  enter  the\t premises  occupied  by\t any
\nestablishment to which the dispute relates “.
\n(1)  [1960] 2 L.L.J. 37 at 38.\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
Section\t 11 only deals with the procedure and powers of\t the
\nconciliation  officers\tand  sub-section  2  authorises\t the
\nconciliation  officer to enter the premises occupied by\t any
\nestablishment  to which the dispute relates after  giving  a
\nreasonable  notice.  This notice is only for the purpose  of
\nentering  the premises to make an enquiry into any  existing
\nindustrial dispute or an apprehended industrial dispute, and
\nis  merely  to\tapprise the establishment  that\t it  is\t the
\nconciliation  officer  who  is coming and  not\tan  absolute
\nstranger who has no connection at all with the machinery set
\nup  for\t the purposes of the Act.  The absence of  a  notice
\nunder s. 11(2) therefore does not affect the jurisdiction of
\nthe Conciliation Officer.\n<\/p>\n
As  to what the conciliation officer can and should  do,  is
\ncontained  in s. 12 of the Act.\t Sub-section 1 empowers\t the
\nconciliation officer to hold conciliation proceedings in the
\ncase  of a public utility service after notice under  s.  22
\nwhereby\t a mandatory duty is cast upon him to do so, and  in
\nother  disputes it is ‘his discretion to  hold\tconciliation
\nproceedings  in the prescribed manner.\tUnder sub-s. (2)  he
\nhas to investigate without delay the dispute in all  matters
\naffecting  the\tmerits of the dispute, and he  can  do\tsuch
\nthings\tas he thinks necessary for inducing the\t parties  to
\ncome  to  a fair and amicable settlement.   Sub-section\t (3)
\nprovides that if a settlement of the dispute is arrived\t at,
\na  report thereof shall be sent to the\tappropriate  Govern-
\nment,  and  sub-s. (4) also provides for the  sending  of  a
\nsimilar\t  report  to  the  appropriate\tGovernment   if\t  no
\nsettlement is arrived at.  Sub-s. (5) deals with the  powers
\nof  the Government when a report is received as to the\tnon-
\nsettlement  of the dispute, and sub-s. (6) which was  relied
\nupon provides:-\n<\/p>\n
S.   12(6) ” A report under this section shall be  submitted
\nwithin fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation
\nproceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by
\nthe appropriate Government.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the time for the submission of the report\t may
\nbe extended by such period as may be agreed upon in  writing
\nby all the parties to the dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was argued that because the report had not been sent  to
\nthe  Government within fourteen days of the commencement  of
\nthe conciliation proceedings, the settlement arrived at\t was
\ninvalid\t and  was  not binding.\t  This\tcontention  must  be
\nrepelled  because  any contravention of s. 12(6)  may  be  a
\nbreach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer; that
\ndoes  not  affect  the legality\t of  the  proceedings  which
\nterminated  as provided in s. 20(2) of the Act.\t It  was  so
\nheld by this Court in Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service v. The
\nState of Bombay<\/a> (1).  It cannot be said, therefore, that the
\nsettlement which was arrived at on March 18, 1954, was not a
\nlegal  settlement and that a breach of it would not  attract
\nthe penal provisions of s. 29 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
After  the case was decided by the Judicial  Magistrate\t the
\nparties\t arrived at a fresh settlement on October  6,  1956,
\nwhich recited:\n<\/p>\n
” That this settlement made this day the 6th October,  1956,
\nat Patna, settles all the pending grievances and\/or  demands
\nof workmen whatsoever “.\n<\/p>\n
As a result of this out of the discharged workmen 25,  whose
\nnames  are given in Appendix A attached to  the\t compromise,
\nwere reinstated with effect from October 8, 1956.  The claim
\nwith  regard to the other discharged workmen was  withdrawn.
\nThis  settlement was accepted by the Industrial Tribunal  by
\nan  order  dated  October 10, 1956.   This  shows  that\t all
\ndisputes  between the parties have been settled and  workmen
\nhave been reinstated.  In view of this in the words of Subba
\nRao,  J.,  in the State of Bihar v. Hiralal Kejrilal<\/a>  (2)  ”
\npublic\tinterest  does\tnot require that  the  stale  matter
\nshould\tbe  resuscitated  “. Therefore we do  not  think  it
\nnecessary to interfere under art. 136 with the order of\t the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is therefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1969] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 734.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1960] :S.C.R. 726, 736.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 304, 1961 SCR (2) 1 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RESPONDENT: KRIPA SHANKAR JAISWAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/10\/1960 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SUBBARAO, K. WANCHOO, K.N. […]<\/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-203083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960 - 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\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-05T16:31:01+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\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-05T16:31:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960\"},\"wordCount\":2219,\"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\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960\",\"name\":\"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-05T16:31:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960 - 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\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-05T16:31:01+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\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960","datePublished":"1960-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-05T16:31:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960"},"wordCount":2219,"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\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960","name":"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-05T16:31:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-kripa-shankar-jaiswal-on-14-october-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Bihar vs Kripa Shankar Jaiswal on 14 October, 1960"}]},{"@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\/203083","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=203083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}