{"id":251499,"date":"1968-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968"},"modified":"2015-04-17T09:10:39","modified_gmt":"2015-04-17T03:40:39","slug":"jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968","title":{"rendered":"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 15, 1969 SCR (1) 140<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJAI LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDELHI ADMINISTRATION\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n30\/04\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR   15\t\t  1969 SCR  (1) 140\n\n\nACT:\nIndian Penal Code<\/a>, 1860 s. 84-Scope<\/a> of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nFrom  1958 the, appellant was a Railway employee  and  often\nlost  his temper and had altercations with other  clerks  in\nthe  office.  In October 1960 he was found to  be  suffering\nfrom  a\t mental\t illness as he exhibited  symptom  of  acute\nschizophrenia  and showed disorder of thought,\temotion\t and\nperception  of external realities.  He was treated  for\t and\nwas  cured of this illness by July 1961 when he resumed\t his\nduties.\t On the morning of November 25, he went to office as\nusual  but  as\the was late in\tattendance,  he\t was  marked\nabsent.\t 'He applied in writing for one -day's casual  leave\nand  returned  home.  No one noticed any  symptoms  -of\t any\nmental\tdisorder  at  that time.  Just after  1\t o'clock  he\nentered his neighbour's house and stabbed and killed a\tgirl\n1 1\/2 year old and later also stabbed and injured two  other\npersons\t with  a  knife.  He  was  thereafter  arrested\t and\ninterrogated  on  the  same  day when  he  gave\t normal\t and\nintelligent  answers.  After his arrest and upon  a  medical\nexamination, the appellant was declared to be lunatic though\nnot  violent  and the psychiatrist found that he had  had  a\nrelapse\t of  schizophrenia.  On September 6,  1962,  he\t was\n,reported  as cured and was thereafter committed  for  trial\n,in February 1963.  The trial court convicted him under\t ss.\n302<\/a>'  and 324 of the Indian Penal Code<\/a> and sentenced him  to\nlife  imprisonment.  During the trial and in the  subsequent\nappeal\tto  the\t High Court, the ,defence plea\twas  one  of\ninsanity which was concurrently rejected by both Courts.\nOn appeal to this Court by special leave.\nHELD: dismissing the appeal:\nThe appellant was not insane at the time of the killing\t and\nstabbing  and  knew the consequences of his acts.   He\tmust\ntherefore be held ,criminally responsible for his  acts.[144\nH]\nTo  establish that the acts done were not offences under  s.\n84<\/a>  it\tmust  be  proved clearly that at  the  time  of\t the\ncommission   of\t the  acts  the\t appellant,  by\t reason\t  of\nunsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing that the\tacts\nwere  either  morally wrong or contrary to law.\t  There\t was\nclear  evidence\t that  on the morning  of  November  25\t the\nappellant's  mind was normal and also that he knew that\t his\nact  of\t stabbing  and\tkilling was  contrary  to  law.\t  He\nconcealed  the weapon of offence.  He bolted the front\tdoor\nof  his house to prevent arrest.  He then tried to run\taway\nby  the back door.  When an atttempt was made  to  apprehend\nhim  he an back to his house and bloted the door.   He\tthen\ntried  to disperse the crowd by throwing brickbats from\t the\nroof.  His conduct immediately after he occurrence displaced\nconsciousness of his guilt. [143 F; 144 D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 38  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
141<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly  28, 1964 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit  Bench)  in
\nCriminal Appeal No. 40-D of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
S. N. Prasad, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
H. R. Khanna and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat, J.-The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicted
\nthe  appellant under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal  Code<\/a>\t and
\nsentenced  him to undergo imprisonment for life.  The  Judge
\nalso  convicted the appellant under sec. 324 of\t the  Indian
\nPenal  Code<\/a>,  sentenced him to undergo six  months  rigorous
\nimprisonment  and directed that the two sentences would\t run
\nconcurrently.\tAn  appeal was filed in the  High  Court  of
\nPunjab.\t The High Court dismissed the appeal.  The appellant
\nhas filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.
\nThe appellant lives at Sat Nagar in Delhi.  On November\t 25,
\n1961  at  1.45 p.m. he entered the house  of  his  neighbour
\nSomawati  and  stabbed her daughter Leela aged 1  1\/2  years
\nwith  a\t knife.\t He inflicted five stab wounds, one  on\t the
\nback  trunk,  one on the right gluteal region,\ttwo  on\t the
\nright thigh and one on the chest.  The injury on the back of
\ntrunk,\tproved fatal.  Leela died in the hospital at 4\tp.m.
\nThe  appellant\tthen returned to his house  and\t bolted\t the
\nfront  door.   A  crowd collected near the  front  door\t and
\nraised an alarm.  After some time the appellant went out  by
\nthe back door and stabbed another neighbour Parbati and then
\nRaghubir who tried to intervene on her behalf.\tThe injuries
\nwere  simple  incised wounds Rabhubir and  others  tried  to
\napprehend  him.\t He then ran back to his house,\t bolted\t the
\ndoor  and started throwing brickbats from the roof.  He\t was
\nlater arrested by the police.  All these facts are proved by
\nunimpeachable evidence.\n<\/p>\n
One Dhani Ram was the father of Leela.\tDhani Ram, his\twife
\nSomawati,  his daughter Leela and his brother Baburam  lived
\ntogether  in  the  same house.\t Indra\tis  the\t appellant’s
\nsister.\t  The,\tappellant  and\this  father  suspected\tthat
\nBaburam was prone to making illicit approaches to Indra.  On
\nthis  account,\tthe  appellant had a  long  standing  grudge
\nagainst\t Baburam.  This enmity is said to be the  motive  of
\nthe attack by the appellant on Leela, a member of the family
\nof  Baburam.   The motive for the attack on Parbati  is\t not
\nclear.\tRaghubir was attacked because he tried to intervene.
\nThe  defence plea was of insanity.  The Additional  Sessions
\nJudge and the High Court concurrently rejected this defence.\n<\/p>\n
142<\/span><\/p>\n
We  may briefly notice the evidence bearing on the  plea  of
\ninsanity.   Since 1958 the appellant was an employee in\t the
\nStores Branch of the Northern Railway Headquarters in Baroda
\nHouse, New Delhi.  In 1958 and 1959 he had altercations with
\nother  clerks in the office.  On May 20, 1959  his  superior
\nofficer\t observed  that he was prone to, lose temper  in  no
\ntime.  In his moments of excitement he became dangerous\t and
\nused  to hit his colleagues with anything that he could\t lay
\nhis hands on.  But at the time of his greatest excitement he
\ncould  distinguish between right and wrong.  After May\t1959
\nhe  worked  at his desk as a normal man.  In March  1960  he
\nagain  quarrelled with another clerk.  He was suspended\t and
\nsent  for  medical  examination.   At  this  stage  he\t was
\nsuffering  from mental illness.\t On October 12. 1960 he\t was
\nexamined  by  a\t psychiatrist who found\t that  he  exhibited
\nsymptoms  of  acute  schizophrenia and\tshowed\tdisorder  of
\nthought, emotion and perception of external realities.\t The
\npsychiatrist said that he was harbouring certain  delusions.
\nThe nature of the delusions is not stated.  It is not proved
\nthat the appellant suffered from any particular delusion  or
\nhallucination.\t The  appellant\t was put  on  a\t drug  named
\nlargactil and was given convulsive electrotherapy treatment.
\nOn  January  12, 1961 he was cured of his  illness  and\t was
\nadvised\t to  join his duties.  On resuming  his\t duties\t the
\nappellant worked in the office in the normal manner.
\nThere  is some evidence that on the morning of November\t 25.
\n1961 and the preceding night, the appellant complained\tthat
\nhe  was\t unwell and took medicine.  But on  the\t morning  of
\nNovember 25, he went to his office as usual.  He was late in
\nattendance and was marked absent.  He applied in writing for
\none  day’s casual leave stating that he had an urgent  piece
\nof work at home.  Nobody noticed  any  symptoms\t of   mental
\ndisorder at that time.\tHe left\t   the office at about 11.30
\na.m. and returned home alone.  At 1.45\tp.m.   he    stabbed
\nLeela,\tParbati and Raghubir with a knife.He  concealed\t the
\nknife  and  a search for it has proved fruitless.   At\t2.45
\np.m. the investigating officer arrived on the spot, arrested
\nthe  appellant\tand  interrogated him.\tHe  was\t then  found
\nnormal\tand gave intelligent answers.  On the same  date  he
\nwas  produced  before a Magistrate.  His  brother  was\tthen
\npresent\t but  the Magistrate was not informed  that  he\t was
\ninsane.\t   On  November\t 27,  he  was  interrogated  by\t  an
\nInspector.  It does not appear that he was then insane.
\nOn November 30, the appellant’s brother filed an application
\nbefore the committing magistrate stating that the  appellant
\nwas insane at the time of the occurrence.  The appellant was
\nlater  remanded to judicial custody.  On receipt of  another
\napplication  from  his\tbrother he was\tkept  under  medical
\nobservation from December 16 to December 23.  On December 19
\nthe medical
\n143<\/span>
\nofficer\t noted\tthat the appellant was\tindifferent  to\t his
\nsurroundings  and personal cleanliness, preoccupied  in\t his
\nthoughts muttering to himself, making meaningless  gestures,
\nlosing\t track\tof  conversations,  given  to  delayed\t and
\nrepetitive  answers and unable to give detailed\t account  of
\nincidents  leading  to his arrest.  On Decemher 23,  he\t was
\ndeclared   to  be  a  lunatic  though  not   violent.\t The
\npsychiatrist  noted  that  the appellant had  a\t relapse  of
\nschizophrenia  and was suffering from disorder\tof  thought,
\nemotion\t and  loss  of contact\twith  realities.   From\t his
\nattitude  and manner of talk he was found to be\t aggressive.
\nOn  September  6, 1962 the psychiatrist\t reported  that\t the
\nappellant  was\tcured and was in a  position  to  understand
\nproceedings  in\t court.\t The commitment order  was  made  on
\nJanuary\t 4, 1963.  The trial started in February 1963.\t The
\nappellant was sane at the time of the trial.
\nThe  group of ailments dubbed schizophrenia is discussed  in
\nJames  D. Page’s Abnormal Psychology, Ch.  XI, pages 236  to
\n261  and Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and  Toxicology,\t14th
\ned.,  pages  349 to 401.  Schizophrenia is  a  general\tterm
\nreferring to a group of severe mental disorders marked by  a
\nsplitting  or disintegration, of the personality.  The\tmost
\nstriking  clinical  features include  general  psychological
\ndisharmony,   emotional\t impoverishment,   dilapidation\t  of
\nthought\t processes,  absence of social\trapport,  delusions,
\nhallucinations and peculiarities of conduct.
\nThe   question\tis  whether  the  appellant  is\t  criminally
\nresponsible for the acts done on November 25, 1961.  Section
\n84<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code says :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Nothing\tis  an offence which is\t done  by  a
\n\t      person who, at the time of doing it, by reason
\n\t      of  unsoundness  of  mind,  is  incapable\t  of
\n\t      knowing  the nature of the act, or that he  is
\n\t      doing  what  is either wrong  or\tcontrary  to
\n\t      law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To establish that the acts done are not offences under\tsec.
\n84  it\tmust  be  proved clearly that at  the  time  of\t the
\ncommission of the act the appellant by reason of unsoundness
\nof  mind was incapable of either knowing that the acts\twere
\neither\tmorally wrong or contrary to law.  The\tquestion  is
\nwhether the appellant was suffering from such incapacity  at
\nthe  time of the commission of the acts.  On this  question,
\nthe  state of his mind before and after the crucial time  is
\nrelevant.   There  is evidence of a medical  character\tthat
\nbetween\t October  12,  1960  and January  12,  1961  he\t was
\nsuffering  from schizophrenia.\tHe was completely  cured  of
\nthis disease, on January 12, 1961 when he resumed his normal
\nduties.\t He had another attack of this disease in the middle
\nof  December  1961.  The attack lasted till  September\t1962
\nwhen  he  was  found to be normal again.  But it  is  to  be
\nobserved  that\tthe defence witnesses do not say  that\teven
\nduring\tthese  two periods the appellant  was  incapable  of
\ndiscriminating between right and
\n144<\/span>
\nwrong or of knowing the physical nature of the acts done  by
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
After the appellant was cured of the disease on January\t 12,
\n1961 he was found to be normal.\t He had a highly strung tem-
\nperament  and was easily excitable.  But there\tis  positive
\nevidence that even at the moment of his greatest  excitement
\nhe could distinguish between right and wrong.  From  January
\n12,  upto  November  24, 1961 he  attended  his\t office\t and
\ndischarged his duties in a normal manner.  On the morning of
\nNovember 25, 1961 his mind was normal.\tHe went to and\tfrom
\nhis  office  all  alone.  He wrote  a  sensible\t application
\nasking\tfor  casual  leave for one day.\t  At  1.45  p.m.  he
\nstabbed\t and killed a child and soon thereafter\t he  stabbed
\ntwo  other persons.  On his arrest soon after 2.45  p.m.  he
\ngave  normal  and intelligent answers to  the  investigating
\nofficers.  Nothing abnormal in him was noticed till December
\n16, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
The thing in favour of the appellant is that though he had a
\nmotive for attacking Baburam, no clear motive for  attacking
\nthe  child  Leela or Parbati is discernible.  But  there  is
\nclear evidence to show that he knew that his act of stabbing
\nand killing was wrong and contrary to law.  He concealed the
\nweapon\tof  offence.  The knife could not  be  recovered  in
\nspite of searches.  He bolted the front door of his house to
\nprevent arrest.\t He then tried to run away by the back door.
\nWhen an attempt was made to apprehend him he ran back to his
\nhouse  and bolted the door.  He then tried to  disperse\t the
\ncrowd  by  throwing brickbats from the, roof.\tHis  conduct
\nimmediately  after the occurrence displays consciousness  of
\nhis  guilt.   He knew the physical nature of  stabbing.\t  He
\nknew that the stabbing would kill and maim his victims.\t  On
\na comprehensive review of the entire evidence the two courts
\nbelow concurrently found that the defence of insanity  under
\nsec.  84  was not made out.  We are unable to say  that\t the
\nverdict of the courts below is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
If a person by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of
\nknowing\t the nature of the act or that he is doing  what  is
\neither\twrong or contrary to law he cannot be guilty of\t any
\ncriminal intent.  Such a person lacks the requisite mens rea
\nand is entitled to an acquittal.  But it is not\t established
\nin  the present case that the appellant was  suffering\tfrom
\nthis  incapacity.  The general burden is on the\t prosecution
\nto prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the actus reus but
\nalso   the   mens  rea.\t  The\tprosecution   satisfactorily
\ndischarged this burden.\t The appellant was not insane at the
\ntime   of  the\tkilling\t and  stabbing\tand  he\t  knew\t the
\nconsequences  of  those\t acts.\t We must  hold\tthat  he  is
\ncriminally responsible for the acts.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result, the appeal is dismissed.   R.K.P.S.  Appeal
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
145<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 15, 1969 SCR (1) 140 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: JAI LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/04\/1968 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. GROVER, A.N. CITATION: 1969 AIR 15 1969 SCR (1) 140 […]<\/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-251499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968 - 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-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968\" \/>\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=\"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-17T03:40:39+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=\"12 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-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-17T03:40:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968\"},\"wordCount\":1856,\"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-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968\",\"name\":\"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-17T03:40:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968\"}]},{\"@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 Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968 - 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-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-17T03:40:39+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968","datePublished":"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-17T03:40:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968"},"wordCount":1856,"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-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968","name":"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-17T03:40:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jai-lal-vs-delhi-administration-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jai Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 April, 1968"}]},{"@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\/251499","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=251499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}