{"id":216305,"date":"1967-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967"},"modified":"2016-06-09T02:25:26","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T20:55:26","slug":"jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967","title":{"rendered":"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR, 5\t\t 1967 SCR (3) 981<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJAI CHARAN LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/05\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR    5\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 981\n\n\nACT:\n    U.P.Municipalities\tAct  (2 of 1916), s.  87-A-(3)\t and\n(5)__\"Not  earlier  than  30  days\",  meaning  of-\"Send\t  by\nregistered   post  not\tless  than  7  clear   days\"   Scope\nof--\"Adjourn\", meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Under  s.  87A(3) of the Uttar  Pradesh   Municipalities\nAct,  1916, when a notice of intention to. make a motion  of\nnon-confidence\tin  the\t President  of\ta  Municipality\t  is\ndelivered  by  the  requisite  number\tof  members  of\t the\nMunicipal  Board, to the District Magistrate,  the  District\nMagistrate   shall   convene  a\t meeting  on  a\t  date\t not\nearlier\t .than thirty, and not later than  thirty-five\tdays\nfrom the date on which the notice was delivered to him.\t  He\nshall  send  by registered post, not less than\tseven  clear\nday,; before the date of the meeting,  notices\tof the\tdate\nand time of the meeting to 'all members.  Under s. 87A(4) he\nshall arrange with the District Judge for a judicial officer\nto preside at the meeting. If the presiding judicial officer\ndoes   not  attend-the\tmeeting,  it  stands   automatically\nadjourned to a date and time. to be appointed by  him later,\nand, under s. 87A(5), if the judicial officer is  unable  to\npreside\t at  the  meeting,  he\tmay,  after  'recording\t his\nreasons, adjourn the meeting to .such other date and time as\nhe may appoint.\n    In\tthe  present  ease, the notice by  the\tmembers\t was\ndelivered  to the District Magistrate on October  26,  1966.\nHe  issued registered notices on November 17,  1966,  fixing\nNovember 25, 1966 as the date of the meeting.'\tThe District\nJudge had nominated the Additional Civil Judge to preside at\nthe  meeting, but the latter made an order on  November\t 22,\n1966  intimating that he would be unable to preside  on\t the\n25th  and adjourning the meeting to December 5,\t 1966.\t The\nappellant, who was the President of the Municipal Board\t and\nagainst\t whom  the notice of  non-confidence  was  directed,\nfiled  a  writ petition in the High Court for  stay  of\t the\nmeeting\t but  before  it was heard the\tresolution  of\tnon-\nconfidence was passed unanimously by the members on December\n5, 1966. The appellant prayed that the High Court may  quash\nthe resolution, but the High  Court decided to exercise\t its\ndiscretionary  powers  as the resolution  had  already\tbeen\npassed by the necessary majority.\nIn appeal to this Court it was contended that,\n(1)  there  was\t a  breach of s.   87-A(3),   because,\t(a):\nexcluding  November  18,  1966,\t    the presumable  date  of\nreceipt\t of the registered notice issued by the\t    District\nMagistrate, and November 25, 1966, the date of the  meeting,\nseven  clear  days  did not intervene  as  required  by\t the\nsection, and (.b):  the expression \"not earlier than  thirty\ndays\"  means \"not less than thirty days and on\tthat  basis,\nexcluding  both the terminal days, namely October 26.,\t1966\nand NOvember 25, 71966 thirty clear days, as required by the\nsection, did not intervene; and (2) there was also a  breach\nof s. 87-A(5), because, the presiding judicial officer\t was\nnot  empowered to adjourn the meeting- in advance but  could\nonly do so on the date: of the meeting if he w,rs unable to.\npreside.\n9 8 2\nHELD:(1) There was no breach of s. 87-A(3).\n(-a) Since the expression in the section is \"shall send\t the\nnotice\"\t the  critical date is the date of despatch  of\t the\nnotice\tand not the date of its receipts As the\t notice\t was\nsent  on  the 17th and the meeting was called on  the  25th.\nexcluding  the\ttwo dates, seven clear days  did  intervene.\n1985A-B!\n(b)  The  expressions  \"not earlier than 30 days\"  and\t\"not\nless  than 30 days\" cannot he equated.\tJust as\t \"not  later\nthan tbirty-five days\" would not exclude the 35th day,\t\"not\nearlier than 30 days\" would not exclude the 30th day.\t\"Not\nearlier than 30 days\" means that it should not he 29th\tday,\nbut there is nothing to show that the language excludes\t the\n30th  day  from\t computation.  If the  provision  were\t\"not\nearlier than thirty days and not later than thirty days\"  it\nis   obvious  that  only  the  30th  day  could\t be   meant.\nTherefore,  in the present case, although October 26 had  to\nbe excluded.  November 25, the date on which the meeting was\nto  be\tcalled,\t need not be excluded and the  date  of\t the\nmeeting\t cannot described as earlier than 30 days.  [985F-H;\n986A-C]\nH.   H.\t Raja  Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail  Singh  &  Ors.,\nA.I.R.<\/a> 1957 S.C. 271, followed.\nSmt.   Haradevi\t  v. State of Andhra and Anr.\tA.I.R.\t1957\nA.P. 229, overruled.\n(2) There was\tno. breach of s. 87-A(5).\nThe  judicial  officer's power to adjourn the meeting  to  a\nlater date could be exercised by him not only at the meeting\nbut  also.  before, if he is in a position to  say  that  he\nwould  not  be able to preside.\t The  word  \"adjourn\"  means\npostpone, and the consequence of automatic adjournment under\nsub-s.\t(4)  shows. that the presiding\tofficer\t could\ttake\naction\tin advance and postpone the meeting to a  subsequent\ndate. [987A-D]\nKrishna\t Chanadra Gupta v. Praying Narain & Ors (1961)\tAll.\nL.J. 226, overruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 199 of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and order  date[]
\nDecember 6, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil  Misc.
\nWrit No. 4287 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
A.   K. Sen, L. N Mathur, B. Dutta and 0. C. Mathur, for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
C.   B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for respondent Nos. 1-3.
\nS.   P. Sinha and M. I. Khoweja for respondents Nos., 5-13.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah, J. This is an appeal by special leave  against
\nthe  judgment  and  order of the High  Court  of  Allahabad,
\nDecember  6, 1966, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition\t No.
\n4287 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant, Jai Charan Lai Anal was elected as a  member
\nof the Municipal Board, Sikandrao in December, 1964.  He was
\n983<\/span>
\nlater elected as the President of the Board.  On October 26,
\n1966  a\t notice\t of  intention to  move\t a  motion  of\tnon-
\nconfidence in the appellant was presented by certain members
\nof  the\t Board. to the District\t Magistrate,  Aligarh.\t The
\nDistrict  Magistrate  issued  notices  to  the\tmembers\t  on
\nNovember  17, 1966 fixing November 25, 1966 as the date\t for
\nthe  meeting  of the Board to  consider\t the  non-confidence
\nmotion.\t  This was done under s. 87-A of the  Uttar  Pradesh
\nMunicipalities\tAct,  1916.   On  November  22,\t 1966,\t the
\npetitioner   tiled  a  petition\t under\tArt.  226   of\t the
\nConstitution in the High Court of Allahabad asking that\t the
\nmeeting\t be  stopped.  The case was listed before  the\tHigh
\nCourt on December 1, 1966.  Before this date the meeting  of
\nthe   Board  was  adjourned  to\t December  5,  1966,   under
\ncircumstances  to  which  detailed reference  will  be\tmade
\npresently.  The High Court directed that the petition should
\nbe listed for December 6, 1966.. By that date the  adjourned
\nmeeting was held on December 5. 1966, and the non-confidence
\nmotion was passed unanimously. 10 out of 15 members who were
\npresent\t voted\tin  its favour and  none  against  it.\t The
\nappellant  thereupon  asked  the High  Court  to  quash\t the
\nresolution of the Board.  The High Court by the order  under
\nappeal\tdeclined to do so on the ground that even  if  there
\nwere  some irregularities in calling the meeting, the  reso-
\nlution,\t having been passed by the necessary  majority,\t the
\ncase  was  not\tfit for the exercise  of  its  discretionary
\npowers.\n<\/p>\n
In this appeal the question has been raised that the meeting
\nit-,elf\t was  contrary to the provisions of s. 87-A  of\t the
\nU.P.  Municipalities Act and the resolution therefore  being
\nultra  vires and illegal was void.  This argument  is  based
\nupon the procedure which is laid down in s. 87-A of the Act.
\nWe  may now refer to those provisions.\tSection\t 87-A  deals
\nwith  motion  of nonconfidence against\tthe  President.\t  It
\nbegins\tby  stating that subject to the\t provisions  of\t the
\nsection such a motion shall only be made in accordance\twith
\nthe  procedure, laid down in the section.   Sub-section\t (2)
\nrequires  that\ta  written notice of intention\tto  make.  a
\nmotion\tof non-confidence on, the President must be  sip-nod
\nby  ,such number of members of the Board as  constitute\t not
\nless  than one-half of the total strength of the  Board\t and
\nmust  be  accompanied by a copy of the motion  which  it  is
\nproposed to makeand should be delivered in person by any two
\nof   the  members  signing  the\t notice\t to   the   District
\nMagistrate.  This was done.  Sub-sections (3), (4), (5)\t and
\n(6) then provide as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(3)   The  District  Magistrate\tshall\tthen
\n\t      convene a meeting for the consideration of the
\n\t      motion to be held at the office of the  Board,
\n\t      on the date land at the time appointed by\t him
\n\t      which  shall not be earlier than\tthirty’\t and
\n\t      not later than thirty-five days from the\tdate
\n\t      on which the notice under sub-section (2)\t was
\n\t      delivered
\n\t      984<\/span>
\n\t      to him.  He shall send by registered post\t not
\n\t      less than seven clear days before the data  of
\n\t      the  meeting a notice of such meeting  and  of
\n\t      the  date\t and time  appointed  therefore,  to
\n\t      every  member  of the board at  his  place  of
\n\t      residence\t and  shall it the time\t Cause\tsuch
\n\t      notice  to be published in such manner  as  he
\n\t      may deem fit.  Thereupon every member shall be
\n\t      deemed to have received the notice.
\n\t      (4)   The\t District Magistrate  shall  arrange
\n\t      with  the\t District Judge\t for  a\t stipendiary
\n\t      civil  judicial  officer\tto  preside  at\t the
\n\t      meeting  convened under this section,  and  no
\n\t      other  person  shall  preside,  thereat.\t  If
\n\t      within  half an hour from the  time  appointed
\n\t      for  the meeting, the Judicial officer is\t not
\n\t      present to preside at the meeting, the meeting
\n\t      shall stand adjourned to the date and the time
\n\t      to be appointed and notified to the members by
\n\t      that officer Linder sub-section (5).
\n\t      (5)   If\tthe  judicial officer is  unable  to
\n\t      preside\tat  the\t meeting,  he\tmay,   after
\n\t      recording\t his reasons adjourn the meeting  to
\n\t      such  other date and time as lie may  appoint,
\n\t      but not later than fifteen days from the\tdate
\n\t      appointed\t for the meeting  under\t sub-section
\n\t      (3).   He shall without delay  communicate  in
\n\t      writing\tto  the\t District   Magistrate\t the
\n\t      adjournment  of the meeting.  It shall not  be
\n\t      necessary\t to send notice of the date and\t the
\n\t      time  of the adjourned meeting to the  members
\n\t      Iindividually,  but  the\tDistrict  Magistrate
\n\t      shall give notice of the date and the time  of
\n\t      the  adjourned meeting by publication  in\t the
\n\t      manner provided in subsection (3).
\n\t      (6)   Save  is provided in subsection (4)\t and
\n\t      (5)  a  meeting convened for  the\t purpose  of
\n\t      considering a motion under this section  shall
\n\t      not for any reason be adjourned”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  contentions  of  the  appellant  are  based  upon\t the
\nprovisions of sub-ss. (3) and (5 ) and it is contended\tthat
\nthere  has been a breach of these provisions  and  therefore
\nthe resolution is void.\n<\/p>\n
Three  arguments in this connection have been raised  before
\nus and we shall mention them. now.\tThe first contention
\nis  that  the  notice which was sent  out  by  the  District
\nMagistrate by registered post did not allow seven clear days
\nbefore\tthe  date of the meeting as required by\t the  latter
\npart  of  subsection (3).  In advancing\t this  argument\t the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant contends that the critical
\ndate  is not the date on which the notice is despatched\t but
\nthe date on which the notice is received.  Since the  notice
\nwas despatched on the 17th and presumably reached
\n985<\/span>
\nthe  next  day\tthe learned counsel  excludes  the  date  of
\nreceipt\t of the notice and the date of the meeting and\tsays
\nthat seven days did not intervene.  In our judgment this  is
\nan  erroneous  reading of the subsection.   The\t sub-section
\nsays that the District Magistrate shall send the notice\t not
\nless  than seven clear days before the date of\tthe  meeting
\nand the word “send” shows that the critical date is the date
\nof  the despatch of the notice.\t As the notice was  sent  on
\nthe 17th and the meeting was to be called on the 25th, it is
\nobvious that seven clear days did intervene and there was no
\nbreach of this part of the section.\n<\/p>\n
The  next contention is that the District Magistrate had  to
\nconvene the meeting for the consideration of the motion on a
\ndate which was not earlier than thirty days from the date on
\nwhich the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him.
\nAs  the notice was delivered to the, District Magistrate  on
\nOctober 26, the learned counsel contends that the date fixed
\nfor the meeting, namely, November 25 was earlier than thirty
\ndays  because  according  to  him the  30th  day  should  be
\nexcluded  in  addition to the date on which the\t notice\t was
\nhanded.\t  In  other  words, the learned\t counsel  wishes  to
\nexclude\t both  the  terminal  days,  i.e.,  October  26\t and
\nNovember 25 and wants to count thirty clear days in between.
\nHe  contends  that the expression “not earlier\tthan  thirty
\ndays” is equal to the expression “not less than thirty days”
\nand, therefore, thirty clear days must intervene between the
\ntwo terminal days.  In support of his contention the learned
\ncounsel\t relies upon a ruling reported in Sin.\tHaradevi  v.
\nState of Andhra and Another(1) in which the expression\t“not
\nearlier than three days” was equated to the expression\t“not
\nless than three days” that is to say, three clear days.\t  He
\nalso  relies upon certain other rulings which deal with\t the
\nexpression  “not less than so many days”.  In  our  judgment
\nthe  expression “not earlier than thirty days” is not to  be
\nequated to the expression ,.not less than thirty days”.\t  It
\nis no doubt true that where the expression is “not less than
\nso many days” both the terminal days have to be excluded and
\nthe  number  of days mentioned must be clear  days  but\t the
\nforce of the words “not earlier than thirty days” is not the
\nsame.\t“Not earlier than thirty days” means that it  should
\nnot  be the 29th day, but there is nothing to show that\t the
\nlanguage  excludes the 30th day from computation.  In  other
\nwords,\talthough October 26 had to be excluded the  date  on
\nwhich  the  meeting was to be called need  not\tbe  excluded
\nprovided  by  doing  so\t one did not go\t in  breach  of\t the
\nexpression  “not  earlier than thirty days.”.  The  25th  of
\nNovember  was the 30th day counting from October 26  leaving
\nout the initial day and therefore it cannot be described  as
\nearlier\t than  thirty  days.  In other\twords,\tit  was\t not
\nearlier than thirty days from the date on which the
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 229
\n986<\/span>
\nnotice under sub-section (2) was delivered to  the-District-
\nMagistrate.   This.  reading is also bome out by  the  other
\nexpression  “not later than thirty-five days” which is\tused
\nin the section.\t In this Court(-‘) the expression “not later
\nthan  14 days” as used in rule 119 under  Representation  of
\nthe People Act was held to mean the same thing as “within  a
\nperiod of fourteen days”.  In that expression the number  of
\ndays,  it was held, should not exceed the  number  fourteen.
\nIn  the sub-section we are dealing with the number  of\tdays
\nthat  should  not exceed thirty-five days.  On a  parity  of
\nreasoning  not\tearlier than thirty days would\tinclude\t the
\n30th  day  but\tnot the 29th day because 29th  day  must  be
\nregarded as earlier than thirty days.  If the provision were
\n“not  earlier  than thirty days and not later,\tthan  thirty
\ndays” it is obvious that -only the 30th day could be  meant.
\nThis  proves that the fixing of the date of the meeting\t was
\ntherefore   in\t accordance  with  law.\t   We\trespectfully
\ndisapprove of the view taken in the Andhra Pradesh case.
\nThe  third point arises under the  following  circumstances.
\nThe District Magistrate had arranged with the District Judge
\nfor  a\tstipendiary  judicial officer to  preside  over\t the
\nmeeting to be convened.-on November 25.\t The District  Judge
\nhad  nominated.\t one  Mr. R. R.\t Agarwal,  Additional  Civil
\nJudge, Aligarh for this purpose.  Mr. R. R. Agarwal made  an
\norder on November 22, 1966 intimating that he was unable  to
\npreside\t over  the  meeting ,on November  25  and  that\t the
\nmeeting\t would\tbe  adjourned to December  5.  The  District
\nMagistrate sent out notices on ;the same day intimating\t the
\nmembers\t of the change of date.\t It is ,contended that\tthis
\naction\tof  the\t Addl.\tCivil Judge,  Aligarh  violated\t the
\nprovisions of the fifth sub-section.  The reason advanced is
\nthat  the judicial officer is not empowered to\tadjourn\t the
\nmeeting in advance but he can only do so if he is unable  to
\npreside at the meeting, that is to say, on the day on  which
\nthe meeting is to be held.. In support of this contention  a
\nruling\tof  the\t Allahabad High Court  reported\t in  Krishna
\nChandra Gupta v. Prayag Narain and others(3) is cited  where
\nat  -page  229 a Divisional Bench said\tthat  the  authority
\nunder’ sub-s. (5) to adjourn the meeting is exercisable only
\non  the\t date on which the meeting is convened and  if\tthat
\noccasion  does not arise the adjournment is improper.\tHere
\nagain  we find it difficult to accept the view expressed  in
\nthe Allahabad High Court.  Sub-section (4) provides that  if
\nthe presiding judicial officer does not attend the  meeting,
\nthe  meeting  stands automatically adjourned after  half  an
\nhour  to a date and time to be appointed later and  notified
\nto  the members by that officer under sub-section  (5).\t  It
\nseems pointless
\n(1)  H.\t H.  Raja  Harinder Singh v. S.\t Karnail  Singh\t and
\nothers A.I.R.<\/a> 1957 S.C. 271.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  1961 All.\tL.J. 226.\n<\/p>\n
987<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore  to  think that if the judicial officer  knows  in
\nadvance that he would not be able to attend the meeting that
\nhe had not the power to adjourn the meeting in advance.\t  No
\nvisible\t profit results from such a construction.  In  fact,
\nthe words of sub-s. (5) are that if the judicial officer  is
\nunable to preside at the meeting he may, after recording his
\nreasons, adjourn the meeting to such other date and time  as
\nhe  may appoint.  This can happen not only at  :the  meeting
\nbut also before the date of meeting if the judicial  officer
\nis  in a position to say that he would be unable to  preside
\nat  the meeting.  If this were not so some unforeseen  event
\nwhich  requires\t the presiding officer to  be  absent  would
\nfrustrate  the\tentire\tnon-confidence\tmotion\tbecause\t the
\njudicial  officer would be unable to adjourn it in  advance.
\nThat   the   consequences  under   sub-section\t (4)   would
\nautomatically flow also show that it should be possible\t for
\nthe  presiding officer to adjourn a meeting which under\t the
\nlaw  would in any event be adjourned under sub-s.  (4).\t  In
\nour  opinion it is not necessary that the  judicial  officer
\nshould\tbe  present at the meeting and then adjourn  it\t for
\npurposes  of  sub-s. (5).  He can take\taction\tin  advance.
\nThis  will  be\tconvenient all round because  it  will\tsave
\nmembers from attendance on that day.  This was done in\tthis
\ncase  and in our opinion the action was correct.  We do\t not
\nread  the word “adjourn” as being in any way different\tfrom
\nthe  word  “postpone” which is some times  used.   The\tWord
\n“adjourn” means that the officer can postpone the meeting to
\na subsequent date.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court did not exercise its powers-under Art. 226 of
\nthe  Constitution and we must not be intended to have  meant
\nthat  where  the  High Court has  refused  to  exercise\t its
\ndiscretion this Court Would always interfere.  This case was
\nadmitted  in this Court merely to clear a dispute about\t the
\nlaw which seems to have evoked different interpretations  in
\nthe High Courts.\n<\/p>\n
On  a  consideration of the whole matter we are\t of  opinion
\nthat  the petition was devoid of merit and although  It\t was
\ndismissed because the High Court did not choose to  exercise
\nits discretionary powers the result would have been the same
\nif  the High Court had gone into the matter elaborately\t and
\ncorrectly.   The  appeal must therefore\t be  dismissed.\t  We
\norder accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal shall stand dismissed with costs. One hearing.
\n9 Sup.\tCl\/67-2,500-10-6-68GIPF.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR, 5 1967 SCR (3) 981 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: JAI CHARAN LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/05\/1967 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. CITATION: […]<\/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-216305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967 - 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\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-08T20:55:26+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-08T20:55:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2488,\"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\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967\",\"name\":\"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-08T20:55:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967 - 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\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-08T20:55:26+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967","datePublished":"1967-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-08T20:55:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967"},"wordCount":2488,"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\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967","name":"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-08T20:55:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-charan-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-may-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967"}]},{"@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\/216305","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=216305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}