{"id":22330,"date":"1963-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963"},"modified":"2016-04-15T05:29:30","modified_gmt":"2016-04-14T23:59:30","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1323, \t\t 1964 SCR (1) 742<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRIPAL JAIN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/01\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1323\t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 742\n\n\nACT:\nState\tService-Order  of  compulsory  retirement-Power\t  of\nInspector-General  of Police order if amounts to  punshment-\n--If  must be submitted to Governor-Constitution  of  India,\nArts.  166,  311-Rajasthan Service Rules,  rr.\t56,  244(2)-\nRajasthan   Civil  Services  (Classification,  Control\t and\nAppeal) Rules, 1958, rr. 14, 34-Rules of Businesses) rr. 21,\n31(vii)Rajasthan  General Clauses Act, 1955 (VIII of  1955),\nss. 32(33), 32(75).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent in the present appeal was a Circle  Inspector\nin the Rajasthan State Service.\t He was compulsorily retired\nfrom  service and the order was communicated to him  by\t the\nInspector-General  of  Police.\tThereafter he filed  a\twrit\npetition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the  order.\nThe High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground\tthat\nr. 31 (vii (a) of the Rules of Business applied to a case of\ncompulsorly  retirement\t under r. 244(2)  of  the  Rajasthan\nService\t Rules and as the papers had not been  submitted  to\nthe  Governor  the  order of compulsory\t retirement  in\t the\npresent\t case was bad.\tThe State of Rajasthan\tappealed  to\nthis Court by way of special leave.\n 743\nThe  main question before this Court was whether a  case  of\ncompulsory  retirement under r. 244(2) of the Service  Rules\nhas  to be submitted to the Governor under r. 31 (vii)\t(a).\nof  the\t Rules\tof Business.  It was  further  contended  on\nbehalf\tof  the respondent that r. 244(2).  of\tthe  Service\nRules contemplated an order of compulsory retirement by\t the\nGovernment and not by the Inspector-General of Police as was\ndone  in  the present case.  The respondent  also  contended\nthat since the order was not in the form prescribed by\tArt.\n166 of the Constitution it was bad.  His last contention was\nthat by reason of s. 32(75) of the Rajasthan General Clauses\nAct,  1955,  an order under r. 244(2) of the  Service  Rules\nmeans an order by the Governor.\nHeld, that compulsory retirement provided in r. 31 (vii) (a)\nis  a compulsory retirement as a penalty and not  compulsory\nretirement  of\tthe other two kinds  namely  (1)  compulsory\nretirement  on attaining the age of superannuation  and\t (2)\ncompulsory retirement under r. 244(2), neither of which is a\npunishment.   It was not therefore necessary to\t submit\t the\npapers\t with  respect\tto  compulsory\tretirement  of\t the\nrespondent under r. 244(2) to the Governor.\nit  is\twell settled that any defect of form  in  the  order\nwould\tnot  necessarily  make\tit  illegal  and  the\tonly\nconsequence  of\t the  order  not being\tin  proper  form  as\nrequired  by  Art. 166 is that the burden is thrown  on\t the\nGovernment to show that the order was in fact passed by\t it.\nThe  recommendation made by a high power committee  for\t the\ncompulsory retirement of the respondent having been approved\nby the Home Minister and by the Chief Minister, by virtue of\nr. 21 the impugned order is one made by the Government.\nThe definition of 'Government' and 'State Government' in the\nRajasthan   General  Clauses  Act  does\t not   support\t the\ncontention  of\tthe  respondent in the light  of  the  above\ninterpretation of r. 31 (vii) (a) of the Business Rules.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 299\/62.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nFebruary  23,  1961, of the Rajasthan High Court  in  D.  B.
\nCivil Writ No. 416 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate,-General,for the State of Rajasthan
\nS. K. Kapur and P. D. Menon for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
744<\/span><\/p>\n
Veda Vyasa and K. K. Jain, for the respondent.
\n1963.  January 24.  The judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nWANCHOO,  J.-This is an appeal by special leave against\t the
\njudgment of the Rajasthan High Court.  The respondent was in
\nthe  service of the State of Rajasthan and at  the  material
\ntime  was a circle inspector.  He was  compulsorily  retired
\nfrom  service on September 3, 1960 under r. 244 (2)  of\t the
\nRajasthan  Service  Rules, (hereinafter referred to  as\t the
\nService\t  Rules).    The  order\t for  his   retirement\t was
\ncommunicated  to  him  by the Inspector\t General  of  Police
\nRajasthan,  on April 11, 1960.\tThe respondent however\tmade
\nrepresentations to the Government and the order was kept  in
\nabeyance  and was finally put into effect from September  3,
\n1960, after the Government had rejected the  representation.
\nThe  Government ordered on September 2, 1960 that the  order
\nof April 11, 1960 regarding compulsory retirement should  be
\nput into immediate effect.  The respondent thereupon filed a
\nwrit  petition\tin the High Court and contended\t inter\talia
\nthat  the  Inspector General of Police had no  authority  to
\norder  his  compulsory retirement under r. 244\t(2)  of\t the
\nService Rules.\tHe also contended that the order amounted to
\npunishment  within  the meaning of r. 14  of  the  Rajasthan
\nCivil Services (Classification,\t control and  appeal) Rules,
\n1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Classification Rules),
\nand  therefore\tas  it\twas passed  without  giving  him  an
\nopportunity to show cause as required under Art. 311 of\t the
\nConstitution, it was bad.\n<\/p>\n
The petition was opposed on behalf of the state of Rajasthan
\nand it was contended that’ an order of compulsory retirement
\nunder r. 244 – (2) of the Service Rules was not a punishment
\nwithin,\t the  meaning  of  the\tClassification\tRules,\t and
\ntherefore -Art. 311
\n 745<\/span>
\nhad no application to it.  It was also urged that the  order
\nhad  been passed by the Government and not by the  Inspector
\nGeneral of Police, who had merely acted in issuing the order
\nunder  the  direction of the Government.  The -case  of\t the
\nappellants  was that under r. 244 (2) of the Service  Rules,
\nthe  Government had an unqualified discretion to retire\t any
\nofficer compulsorily if it was in the public interest so  to
\ndo, and provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution would not
\napply  to  such\t an order  of  compulsory  retirement.\t The
\nappellant’s  case further was that a high-powered  Committee
\nhad  been set up under the chairmanship of the\tChairman  of
\nthe  Public Service Commission to consider the cases of\t all
\nsuch  officers\twhose  retention  in  public  service  after
\ntwenty-five years of service was not in the public’ interest
\nand that Committee recommended the compulsory retirement  of
\nthe  respondent.  That recommendation was put up before\t the
\nHome  Minister of the Government of Rajasthan, who  accepted
\nthe  findings  and recommendations of  the  Committee.\t The
\nmatter was then put up before the Chief Minister who  agreed
\nwith the Home Minister and thereafter the Inspector  General
\nof  Police  was\t directed to order  the\t retirement  of\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
When  the matter came to be heard in the High Court  it\t was
\nsubmitted on behalf of the respondent that under r. 31 (vii)\n<\/p>\n
(a) of the Rules of Business (hereinafter referred to as the
\nBusiness  Rules), all cases of compulsory  retirement  where
\nthe  appointing\t authority  is the  Government\thave  to  be
\nsubmitted to the Governor and the Chief Minister.  As in the
\npresent case the matter was admittedly not submitted to\t the
\nGovernor, the order of compulsory retirement even if it\t was
\nmade  by the Government was not legal as it was against\t the
\nBusiness  Rules.   The\treply  of  the\tappellants  to\tthis
\ncontention  was that r. 31 (vii) (a) of the  Business  Rules
\nonly applied to that kind of compulsory retirement which Was
\ninflidted as a
\n746<\/span>
\npunishment  under r. 14 of the Classification Rules and\t not
\nto  other  cases of compulsory retirement.  The\t High  Court
\nhowever accepted the contention of the respondent that r. 31\n<\/p>\n
(vii)  (a)  of\tthe  Business Rules applied  to\t a  case  of
\ncompulsory retirement under r. 244 (2) of the Service Rules,
\nand as the papers had not been submitted to the Governor the
\norder of compulsory retirement in the present case was\tbad.
\nIt  therefore  allowed the writ petition and set  aside\t the
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
The main question that falls for consideration therefore  is
\nwhether a case of compulsory retirement under r. 244 (2)  of
\nthe Service Rules has to be submitted to the Governor  under
\nr. 31(vii)(a) of the Business Rules.  There are three  kinds
\nof  compulsory\tretirement  provided in\t the  various  rules
\nrelating  to  services in  Rajasthan.\tFirstly,  compulsory
\nretirement on proportionate pension is provided as a penalty
\nunder  r.  14 of the Classification Rules and  this  can  be
\nordered\t whatever  may be the length of service of  a  civil
\nservant.  Secondly, compulsory retirement is provided by  r.
\n56  of\tthe Service Rules as a matter of course on  a  civil
\nservant\t reaching  the age of super annuation,\tnamely,\t 5.5
\nyears.\t And thirdly, compulsory retirement may\t be  ordered
\nunder.\tr. 244(2) of the Service Rules which  provides\tthat
\nthe  Government\t retains  an absolute right  to\t retire\t any
\ngovernment  servant  after  he has  completed  25  years  of
\nqualifying  service without giving any reason and no’  claim
\nto special compensation on this account will be entertained.
\nThis  right however will not be exercised except when it  is
\nin public interest to dispense with the further service of a
\ngovernment servant.\n<\/p>\n
The contention on behalf of the respondent in the High Court
\nwas  that  all\tkinds of compulsory retirement\thave  to  be
\nreferred  to Governor under r. 31 (vii) (a) of the  Business
\nRules  and  reliance in this connection was  placed  on\t the
\nlanguage of the
\n 747<\/span>
\nrule.\tIt is therefore necessary to set out r. 31 (vii)  in
\nfull.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “31.  The following classes of cases shall  be
\n\t      submitted\t to  the  Governor  and\t the   Chief
\n\t      Minister before the issue of orders\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)\t      *\t\t *\t    *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)\t      *\t\t *\t    *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)\t      *\t\t *\t    *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)\t      *\t\t *\t    *
\n\t      (V)\t      *\t\t *\t    *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vi)\t      *\t\t *\t    *\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vii)(a)\tProposals for dismissing,  removing
\n\t      or  “compulsory retiring of any officer  where
\n\t      the appointing authority is the Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Where  a review petition is proposed  to
\n\t      be rejected and it is against an order  issued
\n\t      after  submission to the Governor\t under\titem\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vii)(a) of Rule 31.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   In a case where, on review, the Governor
\n\t      decides to enhance the penalty already imposed
\n\t      and the enhanced penalty is one of  dismissal,
\n\t      removal or compulsory retirement of an officer
\n\t      whose   appointing  authority   or   appellate
\n\t      authority is Government.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There  is  no  doubt that the  words  “”proposals  for……
\ncompulsory  retiring  of any officer  where  the  appointing
\nauthority is the Government” appearing in item (vii) (a) are
\ngeneral and are not qualified by the words “as penalty”\t and
\nmay  be open to the interpretation that all the three  kinds
\nof  compulsory’ retirement mentioned above must be  referred
\nto the
\n748<\/span>
\nGovernor.   But reading these words in item (vii)(a) in\t the
\ncollocation  in which they appear it seems to us  that\twhen
\nthat item talks of ” compulsory retiring of any officer”  it
\nis  referring  to compulsory retirement as a  penalty.\t The
\nwords “compulsory retiring of any officer” follow the  words
\n“dismissing”  and ” removing”.\tNow dismissing and  removing
\nare penalties provided by r. 14 of the Classification  Rules
\nand  it\t seems to us therefore that in\tthe  collocation  in
\nwhich  the  words  “compulsory\tretiring”  appear  in\titem\n<\/p>\n
(vii)(a) they must be read as a penalty like dismissing\t and
\nremoving.   Besides  reference to cls. (b) and (c)  of\titem\n<\/p>\n
(vii)  to  which the High Court did not refer at  all  would
\nenforce\t this  conclusion.  Clause (b) says that  ;,where  a
\nreview petition is proposed to be rejected and it is against
\nan order issued after submission to the Governor under\titem\n<\/p>\n
(vii)(a)  of Rule 31″, the matter must\tbe referred  to\t the
\nGovernor,  Clause (b) therefore refers to a review  petition
\nrelating to orders passed under item (vii)(a) for dismissal,
\nremoval\t or compulsory retirement.  Now there can hardly  be
\nany  reason for a review petition in the case of  compulsory
\nretirement  on reaching the age of superannuation  ‘i.e.  55
\nyears  under r. 56. of the Service Rules.  We  further\tfind
\nthat review petitions are provided under the  Classification
\nRules  in Part VII and r. 34 of the Classification Rules  in
\nparticular provides for Governor’s powers to review.  It  is
\nobvious\t that when cl. (b) speaks of a review  petition,  it
\nmust  be  referring  to the review under  Part\tVII  of\t the
\nClassification\t Rules.\t  Clause  (b)  therefore  which\t  is
\nconfined  to cases under cl. (a) which speaks of  dismissal,
\nremoval\t or compulsory retirement, shows that all these\t are
\npenalties as provided in r. 14 of the Classification  Rules.
\nFurther cl. (c) provides that “where, on review the Governor
\ndecides\t to  enhance  the penalty already  imposed  and\t the
\nenhanced penalty -is one of dismissal, removal or compulsory
\nretirement  of an officer” the matter must I be referred  to
\nthe Governor.  This
\n 749<\/span>
\nclause\t makes\tit  perfectly  clear  that  the\t  compulsory
\nretirement  referred  to therein is a case  of\tpenalty\t and
\nthere  can  in\tour opinion be no doubt when  we  read\tthis
\nclause\twith  cl. (a) that compulsory  retirement  mentioned
\ntherein must also be of the nature of a penalty.  Taking all
\nthe three clauses of item (vii) as a whole, it appears\tthat
\nitem (vii) provides for a complete. scheme with reference to
\nthree  kinds  of penalties, namely, dismissal,\tremoval\t and
\ncompulsory  retirement and makes it incumbent that cases  of
\nthis  kind  must  be referred to the  Governor.\t  We  cannot
\ntherefore   agree  with\t the  High  Court  that\t  compulsory
\nretirement provided in item (vii) (a) includes all the three
\nkinds  of compulsory retirement.  It must therefore be\theld
\nthat  the  contention  of  the\tappellants  that  compulsory
\nretirement   provided  in  item\t (vii)\t(a)  is\t  compulsory
\nretirement as a penalty and not compulsory retirement of the
\nother  two  kinds,  namely,  (1)  compulsory  retirement  on
\nattaining  the\tage  of superannuation\tand  (2)  compulsory
\nretirement  under  r.  244  (2),  neither  of  which  is   a
\npunishment, is correct.\t In particular Note 2 of r. 244\t (2)
\nmakes  it  perfectly clear that action thereunder is  not  a
\npenalty.  This is further made clear by Explanation (vi)  to
\nr. 14 of the Classification Rules, which provides that ”  If
\ncompulsory retirement of a Government servant in  accordance
\nwith  the  provisions  relating\t to  his  superannuation  or
\nretirement” is not a penalty.  Rule 56 of the Service  Rules
\nis  a rule relating to superannuation and r. 244 (2) of\t the
\nService\t Rules is a rule relating to retirement and both  of
\nthem do not amount to penalties in view of this Explanation.
\nWe  are\t therefore of opinion that r. 31 (vii) (a)  when  it
\nspeaks\tof  compulsory\tretiring of  an\t officer  speaks  of
\ncompulsory  retirement\tas.  a penalty\tand  not  compulsory
\nretirement on reaching the age of superannuation or under r.
\n244 (2).  It is therefore not necessary to submit the papers
\nwith  respect  to compulsory retirement\t of  the  respondent
\nunder
\n750<\/span>
\n244 (2) to the Governor.  This was the only ’round on  which
\nthe  High Court allowed the writ petition and therefore\t the
\nappeal must succeed.\n<\/p>\n
It is however urged on behalf of the respondent that r.\t 244
\n(2) of the Service Rules contemplates an order of compulsory
\nretirement  by Government and the order in the present\tcase
\nwas  not  passed  by the Government  but  by  the  Inspector
\nGeneral\t of  Police.  It is further urged that if it  is  an
\norder of the Government it should be in the form required by
\nArt. 166 of the Constitution, and as it is not in that\tform
\nthere  is  in law no order of the  Government  ordering\t the
\ncompulsory  retirement of the respondent.  The order  is  in
\nthese terms
\n\t      “The   following\tInspectors  of\tPolice\t are
\n\t      compulsorily   retired  from  the\t  Government
\n\t      service under Rule 244 (2) of P.S.R.\n<\/p>\n
\t       …………………………………….”\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Shri     Sripal    Jain\ts\/o\tShri
\n\t      Sohanlal, C.I. Sanganer, Distt.  Jaipur.\n<\/p>\n
\t       ……………………………………..”
\nThere  is  no  doubt  that this order is  not  in  the\tform
\nrequired under Art. 166 of the Constitution.  But it is well
\nsettled\t that  any  defect of form in the  order  would\t not
\nnecessarily make it illegal and the only consequence of\t the
\norder  not being in proper form as required by Art.  166  is
\nthat  the burden is thrown on ‘the Government to  show\tthat
\nthe ‘order was in fact passed by it.  It has been stated  on
\nbehalf\tof  the appellants that the order  in  question\t was
\ncommunicated  by  the  Inspector General of  Police  on\t the
\ndirection  of the Government.  It will be noticed  that\t the
\norder  is  in  the passive voice.  It does not\tsay  in\t the
\nactive voice that the Inspector General of Police
\n 751<\/span>
\nordered\t the retirement of the officers\t mentioned  therein,
\nthough\tthe  impression\t that  a person\t will  get  from  it
\ncertainly  is that the order of retirement was being  passed
\nby  the Inspector General of Police.  Therefore, the  burden
\nwas  thrown because of this defect in the form of the  order
\non the appellants to show that in fact the order was  passed
\nby the Government.  ‘I hat has in our opinion been shown  by
\nthe  production\t of  papers from the relevent  file  by\t the
\nappellants.  That shows that the recommendation of the high-
\npowered Committee was approved by the Home Minister and\t the
\nChief  Minister and the order of compulsory  retirement\t was
\nthus  passed  by  the  Government  of  Rajasthan.   In\tthis
\nconnection we may refer to r. 21 of the Business Rules.\t  It
\nsays that cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or  under
\nthe authority of the Minister-in-charge except as  otherwise
\nprovided  by  any other rule.  The only\t exception  is\tr.31\n<\/p>\n
(vii) (a) and that we have held does not apply to a case  of
\ncompulsory   retirement\t  under\t  r.   244   (2).In    these
\ncircumstances  the  order was of government  though  it\t was
\ncommunicated by the Inspector General of Police and its form
\nwas defective.\tIn the circumstances the order of retirement
\nhaving\tbeen passed by a proper authority cannot be said  to
\nbe invalid in law.\n<\/p>\n
It is further urged that under the Rajasthan General Clauses
\nAct,  No.  VIII of 1955, “Government” or  “‘the\t Government”
\nincludes   both\t the  Central  Government  and\t any   State
\nGovernment under s. 32\t(33)  and  “‘the  State\t Government”
\nmeans under s. 32  (75)\t as  from  November  1,\t 1956,\t the
\nGovernor,and  therefore when r. 244 (2) equires an order  by
\nthe  Government, there should be an order of  the  Governor.
\nDefinitions  under s. 32 are however to be read\t subject  to
\nanything  repugnant  in\t the subject or context\t or  to\t any
\ncontrary  intention, and that makes us back to the  Business
\nRules  framed under Art. 166 of the Constitution, where\t the
\npower to deal with a
\n752<\/span>
\ncase  of this kind is given to the Minister-in-charge  under
\nr. 21.\t‘the definitions therefore of “Government” and ‘,the
\nState Government in the Rajasthan General Clauses Act are of
\nno  help to the respondent once it is held that r. 31  (vii)\n<\/p>\n
(a)  of\t the Business Rules when it  speaks  of\t “compulsory
\nretiring   of  any  officer”  refers  only   to\t  compulsory
\nretirement  as a penalty under r. 14 of\t the  Classification
\nRules and not to the two other kinds of retirement  (namely,
\nsuperannuation under r. 56 or retirement under r. 244 (2) of
\nthe service Rules).\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal is therefore allowed and the order of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  set aside.  In the circumstances we pass no order  as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1323, 1964 SCR (1) 742 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SRIPAL JAIN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/01\/1963 BENCH: […]<\/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-22330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-14T23:59:30+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T23:59:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963\"},\"wordCount\":2588,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T23:59:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-14T23:59:30+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963","datePublished":"1963-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T23:59:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963"},"wordCount":2588,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963","name":"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T23:59:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-vs-sripal-jain-on-24-january-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963"}]},{"@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\/22330","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=22330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}