{"id":207945,"date":"1961-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961"},"modified":"2016-02-26T00:59:13","modified_gmt":"2016-02-25T19:29:13","slug":"ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961","title":{"rendered":"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 510, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 295<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Shah, J.C., Dayal, Raghubar, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRANBIR, SINGH SEHGAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/11\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  510\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (1) 295\n\n\nACT:\n     Jail Administration-Separation  of prisoners-\nCellular confinement-Validity  of-Rule\tpermitting\nseparate  confinement  by  right-Constitutionality\nof-Prisons  Act,  1894(9  of  1894),  Punjab  Jail\nManual Paras,  571,575-Constitution of India, Art.\n14.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In May,  1959,  the  appellant  was  sent\tto\nAmbala Jail  as an undertrial prisoner. On account\nof certain  jail offences  alleged  to\thave  been\ncommitted  by\thim  the  Superintendent  of  Jail\nsegregated him\tfrom other  prisoners and kept him\nin a  separate cell.  He was  convicted\t in  June,\n1960. Though he was\n296\nnot alleged  to be  guilty of  any jail offence or\nindiscipline after this date he was still confined\nin  a  separate\t cell  without\tbeing  allowed\tto\ncommunicate with  other\t prisoners;  he\t was  only\nallowed to  come out  in the  compound attached to\nthe cell  for one  hour in the morning and for one\nhour  in  the  evening.\t In  December,\t1960,  the\nGovernor ordered  that the appellant be treated as\na B\"  class prisoner. Even after this he was still\nkept in\t a separate cell with this difference that\nhe locked up only at night and was allowed to move\nin the\tcompound attached  to the  cell during the\nday. But  he was  still not allowed to communicate\nwith others.  The Prisons  Act\tprovided  for  the\nseparation of prisoners and s.28 thereof permitted\nconvicted criminal  prisoners to  be  confined\tin\ncells  either\tin  association\t or  individually.\nParagraph 571  of the  Punjab Jail Manual provided\nthat so far as possible all convicts shall be kept\nseparate both  by day  and by night. Paragraph 575\nprovided that  a convict who could not be confined\nin a  cell by  day by  reason that he was required\nfor some  jail service shall be confined in a cell\nby  night.   The  appellant   contended\t that  his\nconfinement was\t under para  575,  that\t para  575\noffended Art.  14 of the Constitution and that the\nSuperintendent\tof   Jail  acted   mala\t fide  and\ndiscriminated  against\t him  by  keeping  him\tin\nsolitary confinement.\n^\n     Held, that para 575 of the Punjab Jail Manual\ndid not\t offend Art.  14 of the Constitution. This\nparagraph was  a part  of an integrated scheme for\nthe maintenance\t of  discipline\t of  prisoners\tby\nproviding for their separation. The classification\nwas   made on  the basis  of sex and the nature of\nthe prisoners  and depended on the availability of\ncells; is  had a reasonable relation to the object\nsought to  be achieved.\t The power to separate was\nentrusted to  the highest  officer in the jail who\nwas  ordinarily\t  expected  to\t act   reasonably,\nobjectively and without bias.\n     Held, further  (per Sinha,\t C. J., Subba Rao,\nShah and  Mudholkar, JJ.)  that the confinement of\nthe appellant  in a separate cell in the manner it\nwas being  done was illegal. The separation of the\nappellant so  as to seclude him from communicating\nwith  or   from\t the   sight  of  other\t prisoners\ncertainly amounted  to cellular confinement if not\nto solitary  confinement. This\tcould only be done\nas a  measure of  punishment, and  even\t then  the\nprisoner was  entitled to have one hour's exercise\nevery day  and to  have his  meals in  association\nwith one  or more  prisoners.  The  appellant  was\ndiscriminated from  other prisoners and, under the\ncolour of  the rules for separation, was illegally\nconfined in a manner of authorised by law.\n     Per Dayal,J.-There\t was no\t discrimination or\nillegality in keeping the petitioner in a separate\ncell. The mere fact\n297\nthat a\tperson was kept in a separate cell did not\nmake  his   confinement\t solitary,   cellular\tor\nseparate.  Paragraph   571  of\t the  Jail  Manual\nprovided that  subject to  cell accommodation  and\nrequirement  of\t  labour  all\tconvicts  be  kept\nseparate both  by day  and by night. Paragraph 575\nprovided an exception that where the convict could\nnot be\tkept separate  by day  he  could  be  kept\nseparate  by  night.  The  entire  scheme  of  the\nPrisons Act  and the  rules was\t that ordinarily a\nprisoner was  to be kept separate and that only in\ncases of  limitation of\t providing separate  cells\nwere prisoners\tto be  kept together. There was no\nprovision that a prisoner kept in a cell was to be\nspecially. allowed  to associate or mix with other\nprisoners.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE   JURISDICTION:  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 120 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
\norder dated  March 17,\t1961 of\t the  Punjab  High
\nCourt in Criminal Writ No. 2 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       WITH
\n     Petition No. 147 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
\nIndia for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant\/petitioner in person.
\n     H. S.  Doabia,  Additional\t Advocate-General,
\nPunjab,\t Gopal\t Singh\tand   P.  D.   Menon.  for
\nrespondent (in the appeal and the petition.)
\n     1961. November  2. ‘The Judgment of Sinha, C.
\nJ.,  Subba   Rao,  Shah\t and  Mudholkar,  JJ,  was
\ndelivered by  Subba Rao,  J. Dayal, J. delivered a
\nseparate Judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     SUBBA  RAO,   J.-Both   these   matters   are
\nconnected and  raise the  same questions, and they
\nmay be disposed of together.\n<\/p>\n
     Ranbir Singh  Sehgal, the\tpetitioner in  the
\nwrit petition,\tis now\ta prisoner  in the Central
\nJail Ambala,  in  the  State  of  Punjab.  He  was
\nprosecuted for\tcommitting  offence  in\t different
\nplaces. On  June 13, 1961, he was convicted by the
\nAdditional District Magistrate, Ambala, under s. 5
\nof  the\t  Indian  Explosive   Substances  Act  and
\nsentenced to
\n298<\/span>
\n5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
\nRs.  2,000\/-.  The  petitioner\thas  preferred\tan
\nappeal against\tthe said  conviction and sentence,
\nand the said appeal is now- pending the High Court
\nof Punjab.  On January\t30, 1961,  the\tAdditional
\nSessions  Judge\t  (II),\t Ambala,   convicted   the
\npetitioner under  ss. 120-B  and 399 of the Indian
\nPenal Code  and sentenced  him to 7 years rigorous
\nimprisonment and  a fine  of Rs. 2,000\/- under the
\nformer section, d to 5 years rigorous imprisonment
\nand  a\tfine  of  Rs.  2,000\/-\tunder  the  latter
\nsection.  The\tpetitioner  preferred\tan  appeal
\nagainst this  conviction and  sentence to the High
\nCourt of Punjab and the same is now pending there.
\nThe other  eases are  not disposed of and they are
\nstill pending  in various  courts. The\tpetitioner
\nwas arrested  by the  Ambala, police  on September
\n11, 1958, and was detained in police custody for a
\nperiod of  about 8  months, and on May 7, 1959, he
\nwas transferred\t to judicial custody at Ambala. On
\nJune 13,1960,  he was  convicted under\tthe Indian
\nArms Act,  and from that date he is in the Central
\nJail,  Ambala,,\t  as  a\t  convicted  prisoner.\tOn
\nDecember 15,  1960, the Governor of Punjab ordered
\nthat the  petitioner should  be treated\t as a  ‘B’
\nclass prisoner.\t On February  9, 1961,\the filed a
\npetition under Art. “26 of the Constitution in the
\nHigh Court  of Punjab  at Chandigarh,  questioning
\ninter alia  his confinement  in that prison on the
\nground that  para. 575\tof the\tPunjab Jail Manual
\nwhere under  he was confined to a separate cell in
\nthe prison,  offended Art. 14 of the Constitution,
\nand that  in  fact  discriminatory  treatment  was
\nmeted out  to  him  not\t for  the  maintenance\tof
\ndiscipline  but\t  for  extraneous   reasons.  That
\npetition was  dismissed by  the said High Court on
\nMarch 17,  1961, and  Criminal Appeal  No. 120\tof
\n1961 was  filed against\t the said order by special
\nleave granted  by this\tCourt. That  apart he also
\nfiled the present writ petition (Writ Petition No.
\n147 of\t1961) in  this Court  under Art. 32 of the
\nConstitution  covering\t the  same   ground.   The
\nprisoner
\n299<\/span>
\nargued his  own case.  He  raised  before  us  two
\npoints, namely,\t (1) para.  575 of the Punjab Jail
\nManual offends\tArt. 14\t of the Constitution in as
\nmuch  as   it  confers\t arbitrary  power  on  the
\nSuperintendent of  Jail to  deal with  a  prisoner
\nunder the colour of the said provision in a brutal
\nway circumventing  other stringent  provisions\tof
\nthe Prisons Act and other paragraphs of the Punjab
\nJail Manual  conceived in  the interest\t and  fair
\ntreatment of  prisoners, (2) the Superintendent of
\nJail, for  extraneous reasons  on the  pretext\tof
\ndisciplinary action, gave him solitary confinement
\nin a  cell since  the date  he was  transferred to
\nthat Jail,  and thus  acted with  mala fide.  that
\napart, he  discriminated  him  in  the\tmatter\tof
\ntreatment from\tother prisoners\t and even from the
\nco-accused, who were convicted along with him, and
\nthus offended Art. 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The first question falls to be decided on the
\nrelevant provisions  of the Indian Penal Code, the
\nPrisons Act, and the Punjab Jail Manual. There are
\nthree types  of punishment,  namely, (i)  solitary
\nconfinement,(ii)   cellular confinement, and (iii)
\nseparate confinement.  Solitary Confinement  means
\nsuch  confinement   with  or   without\tlabour\tas
\nentirely secludes the prisoner both from sight of,
\nand  communication   with,  other  prisoners.  The
\npunishment of  solitary confinement can be imposed
\nby a  Court only,  and, in  view of  its dangerous
\npotentialities stringent  conditions  are  imposed
\nthereon. No  person can\t be sentenced  to  undergo
\nsolitary confinement  for more\tthan three months.
\nThere is  a limit  prescribed on the punishment of
\nsolitary confinement  that can\tbe  imposed  on\t a
\nprisoner: it  shall not\t exceed (a)  one month, if
\nthe term  of  imprisonment  does  not  exceed  six
\nmonths,\t (b)   two  months,   if   the\t term\tof
\nimprisonment exceeds  six  months,  but\t does  not
\nexceed one  year, and (c) three months if the term
\nexceeds one  year: (vide s. 73 of the Indian Penal
\nCode). Section 74 of the Indian Penal Code says,
\n300<\/span>
\n\t  In  executing\t a  sentence  of  solitary
\n     confinement, such confinement hall in no case
\n     exceed fourteen days at a time with intervals
\n     between the  periods of  solitary confinement
\n     of not  less duration  than such periods, and
\n     when the  imprisonment awarded  shall  exceed
\n     three months,  the solitary confinement shall
\n     not exceed seven days in any one month of the
\n     whole imprisonment\t awarded,  with\t intervals
\n     between the  periods of  solitary confinement
\n     of not less duration than such periods.”
\nSection 29 of the Prisons Act reads,
\n\t  “No cell  shall  be  used  for  solitary
\n     confinement unless\t it is\tfurnished with the
\n     means of enabling the prisoner to communicate
\n     at any  time with\tan officer  of the prison,
\n     and every\tprisoner so confined in a cell for
\n     more than\ttwenty-four  hour,  whether  as\t a
\n     punishment or  otherwise, shall be visited at
\n     least once\t a day\tby the\tMedical officer or
\n     Medical Subordinate.”\n<\/p>\n
Cellular confinement  is a punishment which can be
\nimposed on a prisoner by a Superintendent of Jail.
\nA Superintendent  of Jail can punish in a suitable
\ncase  a\t prisoner  by  imposing\t on  him  cellular
\nconfinement for\t a period  not exceeding  fourteen
\ndays, provided\tthat after each period of cellular
\nconfinement an\tinterval of  not  less\tthan  such
\nperiod must  elapse before  the prisoner  is again
\nsentenced to  cellular\tor  solitary  confinement.
\nCellular  confinement  in  defined  to\tmean  such
\nconfinement with  or without  labour  as  entirely
\nsecludes a  prisoner from  communication with, but
\nnot  from  sight  of,  other  prisoners.  Separate
\nconfinement is\tdefined to  mean such  confinement
\nwith or without labour as secludes a prisoner from
\ncommunication with,  but not  from sight of, other
\nprisoners, and allows him not less than one hour’s
\nexercise  per  diem  and  to  have  his\t meals\tin
\nassociation with one or more
\n301<\/span>
\nother prisoners. Separate confinement for a period
\nnot exceeding  three  months  can  be  imposed\ton
\nprisoner in  a suitable case by the Superintendent
\nof Jail. (Vide s. 46(8) of the Prisons Act).\n<\/p>\n
     Section 47\t of the\t Prisons Act prohibits the
\ncombination of\tcellular confinement with separate
\nconfinement so\tas to prolong, the total period of
\nseclusion to  which a  prisoner shall  be  liable.
\nSolitary confinement  can he given only by a court
\nand the\t other two by a Superintendent of Jail for
\njail offences.\tThe provisions\tconceived  in  the
\ninterest of  the physical, moral and mental health
\nof  prisoners\timpose\tstringent   conditions\tin
\ncarrying out  those sentences  in order to prevent
\ntheir abuse.  But in  the interest  of maintaining
\ndiscipline among  the inmates of jail, the Prisons
\nAct and\t the Jail  Manual prescribe  rules  for\t a
\nseparation  of\t prisoners.  The   separation\tof
\nprisoners depends upon the nature of the prisoner,
\nthe class to which he belongs and the availability
\nof adequate  number of\tcells. Section\t27 of  the
\nPrisons\t Act   provides\t that,\t(1)  in\t a  prison
\ncontaining female  as well  as male prisoners, the
\nfemales shall be imprisoned in separate buildings,
\nor separate  parts of  the same\t building, in such
\nmanner as  to prevent  their seeing, or conversing
\nor holding any intercourse with the male prisoners
\n(2) in a prison where male prisoners under the age
\nof twenty-one are confined, means shall be provide
\nfor separating\tthem  altogether  from\tthe  other
\nprisoners and  for separating  those of\t them  who
\nhave arrived  the age  of puberty  from those  who
\nhave not  (3) unconvicted criminal prisoners shall
\nbe kept\t apart from  convicted Criminal prisoners;
\nand (4)\t civil prisoners  shall be kept apart from
\ncriminal prisoners. Section of the said Act says,
\n\t  “Subject to the requirements of the last
\n     foregoing\t section,    convicted\t  criminal
\n     prisoners\t may   be   confined   either\tin
\n     association or
\n302<\/span>
\n     individuals in  cell or partly in one way and
\n     partly in the other”.\n<\/p>\n
     Presumably in exercise of the power conferred
\non the\tState Government  by s.\t 59 of the Prisons
\nAct, certain  rules were framed for the separation
\nof prisoners  and they\tare contained  in the Jail
\nManual. Under para. 571 of the Jail Manual, ‘shall
\nconvicts shall,\t so far\t as the\t  requirements\tof
\nlabour and the cell accommodation of the Jail will
\nallow, be kept separate both by day and by night.”
\nParagraph 572  deals with the occupation of vacant
\ncells, and  para. 573  says that “‘convicts of the
\nhabitual class shall be subjected to the system of
\nseparation prescribed  in the  preceding rules, in
\nrotation.” Paragraph  574  provides.  If,  at  any
\ntime, there  are  more\tcells  in  any\tjail  than
\nsuffice for  the separation of all convicts of the
\nhabitual class,\t prisoners  of\tthe  casual  class
\nshall be confined in cells, both by day and night,
\nin rotation.”  Then comes  the impugned provision,
\nnamely, para. 576, which reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A convict  who  would  ordinarily  came
\n     under the\toperation of  any of the preceding
\n     rules   relating\tto   the   separation\tof
\n     prisoners, but  cannot be\tconfined in a cell
\n     by day,  by reason\t that he  is required  for
\n     some jail\tservice, shall\tbe confined  in\t a
\n     cell by night.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There rules, along with the provisions of the
\nPrisons Act,  form an  integrated scheme conceived
\nfor the\t maintenance of\t discipline of\tprisoners,
\nand the preferential treatment in the allotment of
\ncells is  based upon sex, age, nature of the crime
\ncommitted and  the nature  of the  prisoners,  and
\nalso the availability of cells.\n<\/p>\n
     The question is whether para. 575 of the Jail
\nManual offends\tAct. 14\t of the\t Constitution. The
\nsaid  provision\t is  only  in  a  group\t of  rules
\nproviding for  the separation  of prisoners and it
\nonly says  that if  a prisoner\tto whom any of the
\nprison rules
\n303<\/span>
\napplies cannot\tbe confined to a cell by day shall
\nbe confined  in a  cell by  night. It pre-supposes
\nthat  the   prisoner  concerned\t  belongs  to  the
\ncategory to  whom a separate cell is allotted and,
\nby reason  of his being required for jail service,
\ncannot be  confined to\tthe cell by day: in such a
\ncase it says that he shall be confined to the cell
\nby night.  It is  only\ta  rule\t providing  for\t a
\ncontingency when  a  prisoner  who  should  be\tso
\nconfined in a cell both by day and night cannot be
\nconfined by  day in such a cell. But the objection
\nmay be\ttaken to  mean that the other rules, along
\nwith this  rule enable a Superintendent of Jail to
\nput a  prisoner in  a cell  offends Art. 14 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is  settled  law  that\t Art.  14  of  the
\nConstitution permits  classification, and the said
\nclassification\tmust   bear  just  and\treasonable
\nrelation to  the object\t of the\t legislation.  The
\nobject\tof  the\t said  provision  is  to  maintain
\ndiscipline  among   the\t inmates   of  jail.   The
\nclassification is made on the basis of sex and the
\nnature\tof   the  prisoners   and  also\t  on   the
\navailability  of  cells.  The  classification  has
\ncertainly a  reasonable\t relation  to  the  object
\nsought to  be achieved\tby the legislation nor can
\nthe  power  conferred  on  the\tSuperintendent\tto
\nseparate prisoners  be said  to be  arbitrary. The
\nobject of the conferment of the said power is very
\nlimited, and  the provisions  clearly lay down the
\nconditions for\tseparation. The\t power to separate
\nis entrusted  to the  highest officer  in the jail
\npremises, who  may ordinarily  be expected  to not
\nreasonably, objectively and without bias. In these
\ncircumstances, we  must hold that para. 575 of the
\nJail Manual  in it  setting does  not  offend  the
\nprovisions of Art. 14 of the constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question is  whether  in\t purported
\nexercise of  the said  power the Superintendent in
\nthe present  case acted\t with mala  fide and meted
\nout discriminatory treatment to the petitioner and
\nthus offended Art. 14 of the constitution the
\n304<\/span>
\naffidavit  filed   in  the   Writ  Petition,   the
\npetitioner   made certain  allegations against the
\nSuperintendent\t in respect  of his  treatment\tin
\njail. The said allegations may be summarized thus:
\nThe petitioner\twas transferred\t to  the  judicial
\ncustody at  the Central\t Jail Ambala,  on  May\t7,
\n1959, after  protracted\t police\t custody  of  over
\neight months.  On the  very day\t of his arrival in
\nthe Jail, the petitioner was looked up in solitary
\nconfinement in\ta cell\tin the condemned prisoners
\nblock and   lock  up period of 24 hours inside the
\ncell was  clamped.” Though several representations
\nwere made  by the  relatives of\t the petitioner to
\nthe higher  authorities, no  redress was  given to
\nhim. He\t was sought  to be kept in the cell for 13
\nmonths till  June 13,  1 when  he was convicted in
\none of\tthe cases  filed against  him. On June 14,
\n1960, the Superintendent of the Jail again ordered
\nthe  petitioner\t  to  be  looked  up  in  complete
\nsolitary confinement under para. 575 of the Punjab
\nJail Manual,  and again\t a confinement of 24 hours
\ninside the  cell was  “clamped”. On  December  15,
\n1960, the  Governor of\tPunjab\tordered\t that  the
\npetitioner  should  be\ttreated\t as  a\t‘B’  class
\nprisoner,  and\t even  thereafter   he\t was   not
\ntransferred to\tthe general  ward  of  the  prison
\nwhere others’  class prisoners were kept confined,
\nbut he\twas kept  in the  same condemned prisoners
\nwards Though the look-up period of 24 hours inside
\nthe cell  was considerably reduced the ban imposed
\non his\tassociation with  other prisoners  had not
\nbeen relaxed.  The petitioner was not allowed even
\nto meet\t his co-accused\t who were  in the  general
\nward of\t the prison.  While the other prisoners in
\nthe jail  including  the  petitioner’s\tco-accused
\nwere given numerous facilities i.e. of association
\nwork and  recreation he\t was completely segregated
\nin a  cell without  any such  facilities. The jail
\nauthorities adopted  this method  of  torture  for
\nulterior purposes,
\n305<\/span>
\n     The  Superintendent   of  the  Jail  filed\t a
\ncounter\t affidavit.   His  answer   to\tthe  grave
\nallegations may\t  be  stated thus: on the very day
\nof his\tarrival in the jail the petitioner behaved
\nrudely and  impertinently towards  the jail  staff
\nand in\ta defiant  way\ttried  to  undermine  jail
\ndiscipline. he\twas not\t kept in solitary cell for
\nulterior motives.  He committed\t 12 jail  offences
\nand  he\t was  punished\tfor  them.  After  he  was
\nconvicted he  was put  in a separate cell and that
\nhe was\tallowed one  hour in  the morning  and one
\nhour in\t the evening for exercise and also to have
\nhis bath  outside  the\tcourtyard.  After  he  was
\nclassified as  a ‘B’  class prisoner, he was given
\namenities  to  which  a\t ‘B’  class  prisoner  was
\nentitled under\tthe rules,  but in the interest of
\njail  discipline  he  was  segregated  from  other
\nprisoners. The\tcell in\t which the  petitioner was
\nkept was one of the cells in block of 32 cells out
\nof  which  only\t   were\t allocated  for\t condemned
\nprisoners and  the rest were utilized for separate
\nconfinement for\t the segregation  of hardened  and
\ntroublesome  convicted\t criminal  prisoners.  The
\npetitioner was\tconfined in  the cell only for the
\nnight and he could move about in the open compound
\nof the cell throughout the day.\n<\/p>\n
     The  affidavit   and  the\tcounter\t affidavit
\ndisclose the following admitted facts: The cell in
\nwhich the petitioner was and is confined is one of
\nthe cell  in the  block of 32 cells out of which 8
\ncells are  used for  condemned prisoners. The cell
\nhas a  small separate  enclosure of  its own. From
\nthe date  the petitioner  entered the prison, that
\nis, on\tMay. 7,\t 1959, till he was convicted, that
\nis, on\tJune 13,  1960, when he was an under-trial
\nprisoner, he  was separately  confined to  a cell.
\nthough the  superintendent vaguely  says that  the
\npetitioner was\tnot looked-up  in a solitary cell,
\nhe practically\tadmits\tthat  the  petitioner  was
\ngiven separate confinement in a cell as punishment
\nfor jail offences committed by him. Though he
\n306<\/span>
\ndenies that  the petitioner was kept in a cell for
\n24 thee\t hours, he  does not  say what\tfacilities
\nwere provided\tfor  him to move about or mix with
\nother  prisoners.   The\t statement   of\t  offences
\ncommitted by the J. petitioner and the punishments
\ninflicted on  him filed by the Superintendent does
\nnot contain any details and is thus vague. Section
\n12 of  the Prisons Act enjoins on a Superintendent
\nto maintain  a punishment  book, and s. 51 thereof
\nrequires him to enter the details therein. But the
\nstatement before  us does not strictly comply with
\nthat section  and it  is represented in court that
\nno other  register is  maintained in the jail. The
\nstatement, vague  as it is, shows that even on the
\nfirst day of imprisonment, the petitioner was kept
\nin a separate cell and the offence alleged to have
\nbeen committed\tby him\tis that\t he was\t rude  and
\nimpertinent. The  subsequent entries show that the
\npetitioner attempted  to break\tarticles and  even
\nstruck his  head against  wall or door. These acts
\nof the\tpetitioner appear  to us to be more due to
\nthe  effect  of\t the  inhuman  and  discriminatory
\ntreatment given\t to him\t even when he was an under
\ntrial prisoner\trather than a conscious attempt on
\nhis part  to commit  any jail offences. Be that as
\nit may, we are not concerned at this stage whether
\nthe petitioner\thad committed  those offences, for
\nthose were  committed at  a time  when he  was\tan
\nunder-trial prisoner  with which  we are  not  now
\ndirectly concerned.  The facts remain that even as
\nan under-trial\tprisoner from  the date he entered
\nthe premises  of the  jail, he was segregated from
\nother prisoners and kept in a separate cell.\n<\/p>\n
     Now coming to the second period, that is, the
\nperiod commencing  from the  date he was convicted
\ntill he\t was classified\t as a  ‘B’ class prisoner,
\nthat is\t from June  14 1960  to December 15, 1960,
\nthe  petitioner\t  alleges  that\t he  was  kept\tin
\nsolitary confinement as before throughout 24 hours
\nof  the\t day.  In  the\tcounter-affidavit  of  the
\nSuperintendent
\n307<\/span>
\nit is not denied that the petitioner was kept in a
\nseparate cell,\tbut it\tis stated  therein that he
\nwas given  one hour in the morning and one hour in
\nthe evening  for exercise  and also he was allowed
\nto have\t his bath  outside the\tcourtyard  of  the
\ncell. The  Superintendent does\tnot state  that he
\nallowed the  petitioner to communicate with others
\nor to  talk to\tother prisoners.  It is not stated
\nwhether he  was allowed\t for exercise to go out of
\nthe separate  enclosure of  the cell or whether he
\nwas allowed  to mix  up with other prisoners or to
\ntalk to\t them. During  this period, the petitioner
\ndid not\t commit any  jail offences and, therefore,
\nhis separate  confinement in a cell could not be a
\npunishment  for\t an  offence,  but  only  for  the
\nmaintenance of\tdiscipline in  the  jail  and  for
\nconvenience of\taccommodation. There is nothing on
\nthe record  to suggest\tthat he\t was guilty of any
\nindiscipline  during   this  period.  If  so,  his
\nconfinement in a separate cell for a period of six
\nmonths without\tallowing`him to\t communicate  with
\nothers\tis   a\tpunishment   of\t either\t  cellular
\nconfinement,  separate\t confinement  or  solitary
\nconfinement.  The   restrictions  imposed  on  the
\nprisoner on the pretext of separate allotment of a
\ncell ignored  even the\tlimitations  on\t the  said
\nconfinements prescribed\t by s.\t73 of  the  Indian
\nPenal Code  or s.  46  of  the\tPrisons\t Act.  The
\nconfinement of\tthe prisoner in a separate cell in
\nthe manner it was done was certainly illegal.\n<\/p>\n
     Coming to\tthe  third  period  after  he  was
\nclassified as a ‘B’ class prisoner, the petitioner
\nsays that  he  was  kept  in  the  same\t condemned
\nprisoners’ book\t with the exception that the look-
\nup  period   of\t 24  hours  inside  the\t cell  was
\nconsiderably reduced,  but the\tban imposed on his
\nassociation with  other prisoners was not relaxed.
\nThe  Superintendent   does  not\t  say\tthat   the
\npetitioner was\tallowed to communicate or to speak
\nwith other  prisoners. He  also\t admits\t that  the
\npetitioner was continued to the
\n308<\/span>
\ncell only  in the night and that he can move about
\nwithin the  open compound  of the  cell throughout
\nthe  days   to\tput   it  in   other  words,   the
\nSuperintendent\tadmit\tthat  the   petitioner\tis
\nconfined in  a\tcell  J.  with\ta  small  separate
\nenclosure and  that the\t prisoner can only move in
\nthat  enclosure\t in  the  morning.  This  kind\tof
\nconfinement is\teither a  solitary confinement\tor
\ncellular confinement, for it secludes the prisoner
\nfrom communicating with or from the sight of other
\nprisoners. If it is not a solitary confinement, it
\nwould certainly be a cellular confinement. Even in
\na  separate   confinement  as\ta  punishment  the
\nprisoner should\t be allowed  to\t have  one  hour’s
\nexercise  per  diem  and  to  have  his\t meals\tin
\nassociation  with   one\t or  more  prisoners.  The
\nSuperintendent\ttherefore,   acted  illegally\tin
\nconfining the  prisoner in  the manner he did, and
\nhe is  not entitled  to\t do  so\t under\tthe  rules
\nprescribed for\tseparation of  prisoners.  It  may
\nalso be\t mentioned that\t during this period, there
\nis no allegation that the petitioner’s conduct was
\notherwise bad.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  said that  the confinement\tis neither
\nsolitary, cellular  or separate, for he is allowed
\nto go to courts. The fact that a prisoner is to be
\nsent to\t a court  on summons has no bearing on the
\nquestion whether  the confinement is legal or not.
\nOn the\tfacts disclosed\t in the\t case, we  have no
\ndoubt that,  for one reason or other, which is not
\nclear  from   the  record,   the  petitioner   was
\ndiscriminated from  other prisoners and, under the
\ncolour of  the rules for separation, was illegally
\nconfined in a manner not authorized by law.\n<\/p>\n
     Before closing  we would  like to\tmake  some
\ngeneral\t remarks.   The\t modern\t  development\tof
\ncriminology  has   revolutionized  the\tsystem\tof
\ntreatment of  convicted prisoners.  The old brutal
\ntreatment has  given place to more humane one. The
\nconcept\t of   vengeance\t by  society  and  of  the
\ndeterence  is\tfast  disappearing  and\t is  being
\nreplaced  by   the  concept   of  correction   and
\nrehabilitation.\n<\/p>\n
309<\/span><\/p>\n
Though our  jail  administration  is  moving  with
\ntimes,\tit  is\tnot  keeping  pace  with  advanced
\ncountries. A  statute may reflect the modern trend
\nand  may  contain  salutary  provisions\t for  fair
\ntreatment  of  prisoners;  but\tin  practice  much
\ndepends upon  the Superintendent,  who is expected
\nto implement  them in the spirit in which they are
\nconceived. A  superintendent of\t a jail\t may be\t a
\ngood disciplinarian,  but it  is  not  enough:\the
\nshould\t also\tbe   a\t humanitarian\tpossessing
\nconscience and\thaving an  awareness that  to  his
\ncare is\t entrusted an  abnormal class  of  society
\ndeserving more\ta sympathetic approach and sincere
\nattempt\t  at\trehabilitation\t than\t that\tof
\nvindictiveness. In  this case, the Superintendent,
\nas we  have already stated, not only did not carry
\nout the\t spirit of  the rules  but also\t broke the
\nletter\tof   the  law  and  illegally  placed  the
\npetitioner  practically\t in  solitary  confinement
\nfrom May 7, 1959 up to date.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result we hold that the confinement of
\nthe petitioner in a separate cell in the manner it
\nis being  done in  this case  is  illegal  and\twe
\ndirect the respondent to confine the petitioner in
\nthe  prison   in  strict   compliance\twith   the
\nprovisions of  the Prisons  Act and  the rule made
\nthereunder. It\tis for the Government to consider,
\nin the circumstances of this case, whether it is a
\nfit case  for transferring  the petitioner to some
\nother jail.\n<\/p>\n
     Writ Petition  No. 147  of 1961 is allowed to
\nthe said extent, and there will be a similar order
\nin criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
     RAGHUBAR DAYAL,  J.-I have\t had the advantage
\nof perusing  the judgment  prepared by\tmy learned
\nbrother, Subba\tRao J.,\t and agree  with him  that
\nparagraph 575  of the  Punjab Jail Manual does not
\noffend the provisions of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     I however\tdo not\tagree that  there had been
\nany illegal confinement of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
310<\/span><\/p>\n
     The appellant  was admitted to the jail as an
\nundertrial prisoner  for offences  under s.  19 of
\nthe   Indian Arms  Act and  under s.  5 of  Indian
\nExplosive Substances  Act and  the allegation  was
\nthat he\t was concerned in a conspiracy with others
\nto muder  certain persons  and to  create disorder
\nand  anarchy  in  India.  He  behaved  rudely  and
\nimpertinently on  admission into jail and showed a
\ndefiant\t  attitude.    In   there   circumstances,
\naccording to  the affidavit  of the Superintendent
\nof the\tJail, the appellant was ordered to be kept
\nin cell\t under paragraph  569-A of the Jail Manual
\nto maintain  jail discipline.  The  entry  in  the
\npunishment register, in this connection, states in
\nthe column  meant for  noting the offences: ‘He is
\nvery rude and impertinent. He has defiant attitude
\nand tries  to undermine the jail discipline.’ I am
\nof opinion  that it was not necessary for the jail
\nauthorities to\tmake a\tmore detailed  note in the
\nregister  with\t respect  to   the  various   acts
\ncommitted or  words spoken by the appellant on the
\noccasion.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 51\t of the\t Prisons Act provides what
\nis to  be recorded  in this  punishment\t book  and
\nrequires to  be recorded, among other matters, the
\nprison-offence of which the prisoner is guilty. It
\ndoes not require a detailed account of the actions
\nof the\tprisoner  which\t constituted  the  prison-
\noffences.  The\t description   of   the\t  offences
\ncommitted,  suffices   for  the\t purpose  of  this
\nregister. The entry is not made for the purpose of
\nadjudication of\t the offences  or for the purposes
\nof the\tappellate authority,  if any. It is just a
\nrecord of  the conduct\tof  the\t accused  and  the
\naction taken.  The Superintendent,  in this  case,
\ndid  not   inflict  any\t  punishment  of  solitary
\nconfinement  or\t  separate  confinement\t  on   the
\nappellant for  his conduct. He simply ordered that
\nthe appellant  be kept\tin a  cell under paragraph
\n469-A of the Jail Manual.\n<\/p>\n
     There had\tbeen eleven  other occasions  when
\nthe appellant committed prison offences. Those
\n311<\/span>
\noffences and  the  action  taken  there\t are  also
\nmentioned in the punishment register and a copy of
\nthose entries has been filed in Court. What I have
\nsaid in connection with the nature of the entry in
\nconnection  with   the\tincident  on  the  day\tof
\nadmission, applies  equally to\tthe other  entries
\nmentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     The Superintendent has denied the allegations
\nmade by\t the appellant\tthat  he  was  kept  in\t a
\nseparate cell,\tnot in\tthe interests  of the jail
\ndiscipline, but\t for  ulterior\tmotives\t or  under
\norders of  a vindictive\t Government. There  is\tno
\nmaterial  on   the  record  to\tsuggest\t that  the
\nSuperintendent\tof   the  jail\twas  actuated,\tin
\npassing the  order for\tkeeping the appellant in a
\nseparate cell,\tby any\tconsideration  other  than
\nthat  of   the\tinterests   of\tjail   discipline.
\nTherefore, the\tmere fact  that the  appellant was
\nkept in\t a separate  cell from\tthe moment  of his
\nadmission in  jail does\t not indicate malafides on
\nthe part of the jail Superintendent.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant   was  kept\t segregated  in\t a
\nseparate cell  after his  conviction as\t well,\tin
\nview of\t paragraph 575\tof the Jail Manual. He was
\nallowed an  hour in the morning and an hour in the
\nevening for  exercise. He  was allowed\tto have\t a
\nbath in\t the court-yard outside the cell. The fact
\nthat the  Superintendent  did  not  state  in  his
\naffidavit  that\t  he  allowed  the  petitioner\tto
\ncommunicate  with  others  or  to  talk\t to  other
\nprisoners or that the appellant was allowed to mix
\nup with\t other prisoners or to converse with them,
\ndoes not  necessarily mean  that he disallowed any
\nsuch  thing   or  that,\t  if  he   did\t so,   the
\nSuperintendent acted  against rules  of\t law.  The
\nSuperintendent denied that the appellant’s request
\nto meet\t Hari Das  was\tdisallowed.  There  is\tno
\nallegation that\t he  had  not  been  afforded  the
\nfacilities which  are to be provided to a prisoner
\nor to  a B-class  prisoner  kept  in  a\t cell  and
\ntherefore  there   was\t no   occasion\t for   the
\nSuperintendent\tto   state   about   matters   not
\ncomplained of.\n<\/p>\n
312<\/span><\/p>\n
     The mere  fact that  a person  is kept  in\t a
\nseparate  cell\t will  not  make  his  confinement
\nsolitary,  cellular   or  separate,   though   the
\ndifference between  it and  any\t of  them  be  not
\nappreciable.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 27\t of the\t prisons Act  provides for
\nseparation of  prisoners. If  there happens  to be
\nonly one  prisoner of a particular category, he is
\nnecessarily to\tbe kept\t separate from others. His
\nbeing kept  alone from other prisoners and his not
\nbeing allowed to mix with other prisoners will not
\nbe  called   solitary  or   cellular  or  separate
\nconfinement.  It  is  just  an\tincident  that\the
\nhappens to  be the  only prisoner  of a particular
\ncategory and  had therefore  to be  kept separated
\nfrom all other prisoners in the jail.\n<\/p>\n
     Section   28    allows   convicted\t  criminal
\nprisoners to  be confined either in association or
\nindividually in\t cells or  partly in  one way  and
\npartly in  the other.  The discretion  is with the
\nSuperintendent of  the Jail.  The Act contemplates
\nan individual prisoner to be kept in a cell.\n<\/p>\n
     It is clear from the provisions of paragraphs
\n571 to\t575 of\tthe Jail  Manual  that\tthe  rules
\ncontemplate  convicted\t prisoner   to\t be   kept
\nseparate.  Paragraph   571  of\t the  Jail  Manual
\nprovides  that\t all  convicts,\t subject  to  cell
\naccommodation and  requirements of labour, be kept
\nseparate both  by day  and by night, and justifies
\nthe segregation\t of the\t appellant as  a convicted
\ncriminal in  a separate\t cell. Paragraphs 572, 573
\nand 574\t lay down  the order  in  which\t convicted
\nprisoners  are\tto  be\tselected  for  being  kept
\nseparate in  cells when\t each of them cannot be so
\nkept. All  these provisions  are  consistent  with
\nwhat is enacted in s. 28 of the Prisons Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Paragraph 575 reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A convict  who  would  ordinarily  come
\n     under the operation of any of the preceding
\n313<\/span>
\n     rules   relating\tto   the   separation\tof
\n     prisoners, but  cannot be\tconfined in a cell
\n     by day,  by reason\t that he  is required  for
\n     some jail\tservice, shall\tbe confined  in\t a
\n     cell by night.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Note 1-Separation  under paragraphs  571
\n     to\t  575\t is   distinct\t from\t‘solitary’
\n     confinement   and\t  ‘separate’   confinement
\n     inflicted as a punishment under section 46 of
\n     the Prisons  Act, and is restricted merely to
\n     the separation of individual prisoners either
\n     by\t day   or  night   for\tpurposes  of  jail
\n     management; such  separation is  not to  have
\n     any irksome conditions attached to it.
\n\t  Note 2-Paragraphs  571  to  575  are\tof
\n     general application.  If, in  the opinion\tof
\n     the  Superintendent,   the\t presence  of  any
\n     convict  in   association\twith   others,\tis
\n     detrimental to  good order\t and discipline or
\n     is\t likely\t  to  encourage\t or  lead  to  the
\n     commission\t of   any  offence,  such  convict
\n     should be\tkept separate,\tin  preference\tto
\n     others of his class.”\n<\/p>\n
These  provisions  provide  an\texception  to  the
\nprovisions of  paragraphs 571 to 574 and allow the
\nconvicted prisoner  to be  kept in  a cell  during
\nnight only instead of both by day and by night, in
\ncase he\t cannot be confined in the cell by day for
\nreasons that he be required for jail service. Note
\n1 makes\t it clear  that keeping prisoners separate
\nin view of the provisions of paragraphs 571 to 575
\nis not\t‘solitary’ or ‘separate’ confinement which
\ncan be\tinflicted  as  punishment  and\tis  merely
\nseparation of  the prisoner  for purposes  of jail
\nmanagement.\n<\/p>\n
     Further,  Note  1\tenjoins\t that  no  irksome
\nconditions be  attached to such separation. We are
\nnot shown  that any  such conditions were attached
\nto the order for keeping the appellant in a cell.\n<\/p>\n
     Note 2 further empowers the Superintendent of
\nthe Jail  to keep  a convict  separate if he be of
\nopinion that  his association  with others  of his
\nclass
\n314<\/span>
\nis detrimental to good order and discipline in the
\njail. The  Superintendent states  in his affidavit
\nhe that he was of such opinion.\n<\/p>\n
     The entire scheme of the Act and the rules is
\nthat  ordinarily   a  prisoner\t should\t be   kept
\nseparated from\tothers and that it is only in view
\nof limitations\tof providing  separate\tcells  for
\neach  prisoner\tthat  prisoners\t of  a\tparticular
\ncategory are  kept together  in a  large hall. The
\norder  classifying  the\t appellant  as\ta  B-class
\nprisoner  further   necessitated  his  being  kept
\nseparate from other prisoners.\n<\/p>\n
     There is no provision in the Act or the rules
\nthat a\tprisoner  kept\tin  a  cell  be\t specially
\nallowed to associate or mix with other prisoners.\n<\/p>\n
     The main  grievance of  the appellant is that
\nhe was\tnot allowed  to\t associate  with  his  co-
\naccused, even  for purpose  of\tconsultation  with
\nrespect to  the defence\t to  be\t put  up  and  the
\ngrounds to  be taken  in  the  appeal.\tThe  whole
\nobject of  keeping convicted  prisoners segregated
\nin jail\t is defeated  if they  are allowed to meet
\nand  discus  matters  even  when  they\tare  under
\nspecial orders\tfor being kept separate on account
\nof their  conduct being\t considered detrimental to
\njail discipline.  If it\t was really  necessary for
\nthe appellant  to have\tconsultations with his co-
\naccused for  the purpose  of the case, it was open
\nto  him\t  to  obtain   orders  of  the\tCourt  and
\nfacilities for\tsuch consultations,  if considered
\nnecessary,  could   have  been\t given\t just\tas
\nfacilities are\tprovided for  accused  to  consult
\ntheir counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     I am  therefore  of  opinion  that\t the  Jail
\nauthorities committed no discriminatory or illegal
\nact against  the appellant  in keeping\thim  in\t a
\nseparate cell.\tI would therefore dismiss both the
\nwrit petition and the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     BY COURT.\tIn accordance  with the opinion of
\nthe majority, the Writ Petition and the Appeal are
\nallowed to  the extent\tindicated in  the majority
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
315<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 510, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 295 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Shah, J.C., Dayal, Raghubar, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: RANBIR, SINGH SEHGAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/11\/1961 BENCH: SUBBARAO, […]<\/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-207945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961 - 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\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-25T19:29:13+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=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-25T19:29:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961\"},\"wordCount\":5650,\"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\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961\",\"name\":\"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-25T19:29:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961 - 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\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-25T19:29:13+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":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961","datePublished":"1961-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-25T19:29:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961"},"wordCount":5650,"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\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961","name":"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-25T19:29:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranbir-singh-sehgal-vs-state-of-punjab-on-2-november-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranbir, Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 2 November, 1961"}]},{"@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\/207945","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=207945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}