{"id":251699,"date":"1952-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952"},"modified":"2018-02-13T16:27:13","modified_gmt":"2018-02-13T10:57:13","slug":"gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952","title":{"rendered":"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 221, 1952 SCR 737<\/div>\n
Author: B Mukherjea<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGURBACHAN SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/05\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBENCH:\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1952 AIR  221\t\t  1952 SCR  737\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1956 SC 559\t (7,10,14)\n E&F\t    1956 SC 585\t (11,13,16)\n RF\t    1961 SC 293\t (11)\n R\t    1967 SC1581\t (18)\n R\t    1973 SC 630\t (10)\n R\t    1974 SC 543\t (24)\n\n\nACT:\n     City  of Bombay Police Act, 1902, s. 27  (1)--Constitu-\ntion of India, Arts. 19 (1) (d), 19 (5)--Provisions relating\nto externment whether infringe fundamental right to  freedom\nof movement--Validity--Externment order fixing place outside\nState of Bombay for residence--Legality.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Section  27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act,  1902,\ndoes not contravene the provisions of Art. 19<\/a> of the Consti-\ntution\tinasmuch  as it was enacted in the interest  of\t the\ngeneral\t public and, having regard to the class of cases  to\nwhich  this  sub-section  applies and the  menace  which  an\nexternment  order passed under it is intended to avert;\t the\nrestrictions  that  it imposes on the fundamental  right  of\nfree  movement of a citizen which is guaranteed by  Art.  19\n(1)  (d)<\/a> of the Constitution are reasonable and come  within\nthe purview of Art. 19 (5).<\/a>\n    The\t determination of the question whether the  restric-\ntions imposed by a legislative enactment upon the  fundamen-\ntal rights of a citizen enumerated in Art. 19(1) (d)<\/a> of\t the\nConstitution  are  reasonable or not within the\t meaning  of\nclause (5) of the article depends as much on the  procedural\npart of the law as upon its substantial part, and the  Court\nhas  got  to look in each case to  the\tcircumstances  under\nwhich  and  the manner in which the restrictions  have\tbeen\nimposed.\n    There are two kinds of externment orders contemplated by\nsub-section (1) of s. 27 of the\t City of Bombay Police\tAct,\n1902;  one,  where  the externment is directed from  Greater\nBombay,\t and  the other where\tthe externee  is  to  remove\nhimself\n738\nfrom the State of Bombay.  In the first class of cases,\t the\nexternment order has to specify the place where the externee\nis to remove himself and it must also indicate the route  by\nwhich he has to reach that place.  On the other hand,  where\nthe externment is from the State of Bombay, the externee can\nremain\tanywhere he likes outside the State and no place  of\nresidence can or need be mentioned.\n     Where  an externment order made under s. 27 (1) of\t the\nCity  of Bombay Police Act directed a person who resided  in\nthe City of Bombay to remove himself from Greater Bombay and\nto go to his native place at Amritsar, and on his  represen-\ntation\tthat he did not like to go to Amritsar and might  be\nallowed to stay at Kalyan, which was outside Greater Bombay,\nhe was permitted to do so: Held, that in view of the  subse-\nquent  request of the externee which was acceded to  by\t the\nCommissioner  of Police, the externment order could be\tcon-\nstrued\tas  an order of externment from\t Greater  Bombay  to\nKalyan and it was therefore a valid order of externment.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL  JURIDICTIN: Petition No. 76 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
     Application under-Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution of
\nIndia for a writ in the nature of mandamus.\n<\/p>\n
H.J. Umrigar for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
G.N. Joshi for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1952.  May 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     MUKHERJEA\tJ.–This is an application under article  32<\/a>
\nof  the\t Constitution, presented by  one  Gurubachan  Singh,
\npraying\t for a writ, in the nature of  mandamus\t restraining
\nthe respondents as well as their subordinates and successors
\nfrom enforcing an externment order served on the  petitioner
\nunder section 27(1) of the City of Bombay Police Act (1902).
\n    The\t petitioner is an Indian citizen and is said  to  be
\nresiding  with his father at a place called  “Gogri  Niwas”,
\nVincent\t Road, Dadar, his father having a business in  elec-
\ntrical goods in the city of Bombay.. On the 23rd July, 1951,
\nthe  petitioner was served with an order purporting to\thave
\nbeen  made  by\tthe Commissioner of  Police,  Bombay,  under
\nsection\t 27 (1) of the City of Bombay Police Act,  directing
\nhim  to\t remove himself from Greater Bombay and\t go  to\t his
\nnative place at
\n739<\/span>
\nAmritsar in East Punjab.  It was mentioned in the order that
\nthe petitioner was to comply with its directions within\t two
\ndays  from the date it was made, and that he was to  proceed
\nto  Amritsar by rail. On July 25, 1951, the petitioner\tmade
\nan application to the Commissioner of Police and prayed\t for
\nan  extension  of  the time within which he  was  to  remove
\nhimself\t from  Greater Bombay, and on this  application\t the
\nCommissioner  of Police gave him time till the 30th of\tJuly
\nnext.  On  30th July, 1951, the petitioner himself  wrote  a
\nletter to the Commissioner of Police stating that he did not
\ndesire to go to Amritsar and prayed that he might be allowed
\nto stay at Kalyan which is outside Greater Bombay but within
\nthe  Slate  of Bombay and that he might be given  a  Railway
\nticket\tfrom Dadar to that place. It appears that acting  on
\nthis letter the police took the petitioner to Kalyan on\t the
\nevening of 30th July, 1951, and left him there.\t After that,
\nthe  petitioner\t commenced proceedings in  the\tBombay\tHigh
\nCourt  first in its original side under the  Letters  Patent
\nand then in the Appellate Criminal Bench of the Court  under
\narticles 226 and 228 of the Constitution, complaining of the
\nexternment  order mentioned above and praying for a writ  of
\ncertiorari to have it quashed. Both these applications\twere
\ndismissed  and the petitioner has now come up to this  court
\nunder article 32<\/a> of the Constitution on the allegation\tthat
\nhis fundamental rights under clauses (d) and (e) of  article
\n19(1)<\/a> of the Constitution have been infringed by the extern-
\nment order.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Umrigar  appearing in support of the  petition\t has
\nargued\tbefore\tus,  in the first place that  the  order  of
\nexternment  is\taltogether void as it is not  in  conformity
\nwith  the provisions of section 27(1)of the City  of  Bombay
\nPolice Act.  His second contention is that the provisions of
\nsection\t 27(1)\tof the City of Bombay Police  Act  being  in
\nconflict  with the fundamental rights enunciated in  clauses\n<\/p>\n
(d)  and (e) of article 19(1)<\/a> of the Constitution  are\tvoid
\nunder  article 13(1)<\/a> of the Constitution.  The last  conten-
\ntion
\n740<\/span>
\nurged,\tthough somewhat faintly, is. that the  provision  of
\nsection\t 27(1)\tmentioned  above is  discriminatory  in\t its
\ncharacter  and offends against article 14<\/a> of  the  Constitu-
\ntion.\n<\/p>\n
   As regards the first point, it is not disputed on  behalf
\nof  the\t respondents that the order of\texternment,  as\t was
\npassed by the Commissioner of Police on 23-7-1951, is not in
\nstrict conformity with the provision of section 27(1) of the
\nCity of Bombay Police Act The order directed the  petitioner
\nto remove himself out of Greater Bombay but at the same time
\nmentioned  Amritsar as the place where he was to go  Section
\n27(1)  of  the\tCity  of  Bombay  Police  Act  provides\t  as
\nfollows:–\n<\/p>\n
    “Whenever it shall appear to the Commissioner of Police,\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  that the movements or acts of any person  in\t the
\nGreater\t Bombay\t are causing or calculated to  cause  alarm,
\ndanger\tor  harm to person or property, or  that  there\t are
\nreasonable grounds for believing that such person is engaged
\nor  is about to be engaged in the commission of\t an  offence
\ninvolving force or violence, or an offence punishable  under
\nChapters  XII, XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code<\/a>,  or  in
\nthe abetment of any such offence, and when in the opinion of
\nthe  Commissioner witnesses are not willing to come  forward
\nto give evidence in public against such person by reason  of
\napprehension  on their part as regards the safety  of  their
\nperson or property;\n<\/p>\n
    (b)…The  Commissioner  of Police may, by an  order  in
\nwriting duly served on him…direct such person…to  remove
\nhimself outside the State or to such place within the  State
\nand  by such route and within such time as the\tCommissioner
\nof  Police shall prescribe and not to enter the State or  as
\nthe case may be the Greater Bombay.”\n<\/p>\n
     It\t seems clear from this provision that there are\t two
\nkinds  of externment orders contemplated by the\t subsection;
\none,  where externment is directed from the  Greater  Bombay
\nand  the other where the externee is to remove himself\tfrom
\nthe State of Bombay.  In the
\n741<\/span>
\nfirst  class  of cases the order has got   to\tspecify\t the
\nplace where the externee is to remove himself to and it must
\nalso  indicate\tthe  route by which he\thas  to\t reach\tthat
\nplace.’\t On the other hand, when the externment is from\t the
\nState  of Bombay, the externee can remain anywhere he  likes
\noutside\t the State and no place of residence can or need  be
\nmentioned.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the case before us the externment order started  by
\ndirecting  the\tpetitioner  to remove himself  only  out  of
\nGreater\t Bombay.   It was incumbent in such a case  for\t the
\nauthorities to specify the place where the externee  was  to
\nstay.\tActually a place, namely Amritsar, was specified  in
\nthe  order, but as it is not within the State of Bombay,  it
\nwas  manifestly beyond the jurisdiction of the\tCommissioner
\nof Po1ice to name such place at all.  It is argued on behalf
\nof the petitioner, not without some force, that the omission
\nto specify a place within the State where the petitioner was
\nto  stay  vitiates the order.  On the other hand  the  order
\nread  as  a whole might indicate that the intention  of\t the
\nCommissioner of Police was to extern the petitioner  outside
\nthe State of Bombay and this is apparent from the fact\tthat
\nhe was directed to proceed to Amritsar which is situated  in
\nanother State.\tIt is no doubt true that the Commissioner of
\nPolice,\t Bombay, had no authority to fix any  place  outside
\nthe State as the place of residence of the externee and that
\ndirection was ineffective; but that direction certainly\t has
\na bearing on the question of the construction of the  order,
\nfor it indicates that the real intention of the order was to
\ndirect the externee to remove himself not only from  Greater
\nBombay but from the State of Bombay itself.  If that was the
\nintention, no place of residence need have been indicated at
\nall. We need not, however, labour this aspect of the  matter
\nany further, for we are of the opinion that whatever irregu-
\nlarity\tthere  might have been in the  original\t order,\t the
\nsubsequent  conduct of the petitioner which had the sanction
\nand  approval  of  the Commissioner of\tPolice\tremoved\t the
\ndefect,\t  if  any. As has been stated already, on  the\t30th
\nJuly, 1951,
\n742<\/span>
\nthe  petitioner himself by a letter written to\tthe  Commis-
\nsioner\tof  Police sought his permission to stay  at  Kalyan
\nwhich is within the State of Bombay.  His request was acced-
\ned  to\tand the Police actually took him to  Kalyan  on\t the
\nevening of the 30th.  We think that, in these circumstances,
\nthe order made on the 23rd July, 1951, might be construed to
\nbe  an\torder of externment from Greater Bombay\t and  though
\nthere  was a mistake regarding the place where the  externee
\nwas  to remove himself to, the mistake was rectified by\t the
\npetitioner  choosing  Kalyan as the place of  residence\t and
\nthat choice being accepted and given effect to by the Police
\nDepartment.   We  do not think that in\tthese  circumstances
\nthere  is really any substance in the first point raised  by
\nMr. Umrigar.\n<\/p>\n
     The  second point urged by the learned  counsel  raises
\nthe  question  as to whether section 27<\/a> (1) of the  City  of
\nBombay\tPolice Act has imposed restrictions upon the  funda-
\nmental right of a citizen which is guaranteed under  article
\n19  (1) (d)<\/a> of the Constitution and being in  conflict\twith
\nthis fundamental right is void and inoperative under article
\n18  (1)<\/a> of the Constitution. There can be no doubt that\t the
\nprovision  of section 27<\/a> (1) of the Bombay Act was  made  in
\nthe  interest  of  the general public and  to  protect\tthem
\nagainst\t dangerous  and bad characters whose presence  in  a
\nparticular  locality may jeopardize the peace and safety  of
\nthe  citizens.\t The  question, therefore,  is\twhether\t the
\nrestrictions  that this law imposes upon the rights of\tfree
\nmovement of a citizen, come within the purview of clause (5)
\nof article 19<\/a> of the Constitution; or in other words whether
\nthe restrictions are reasonable ? It  is perfectly true that
\nthe determination of the question as to whether the restric-
\ntions imposed by a legislative enactment upon the  fundamen-
\ntal  rights of a citizen enunciated in article 19 (1)(d)<\/a>  of
\nthe Constitution are reasonable or not within the meaning of
\nclause\t(5)  of the article would depend as  much  upon\t the
\nprocedural part of the law as upon its substantive part; and
\nthe court has got to look in each case to the  circumstances
\nunder which and the manner in
\n743<\/span>
\nwhich the restrictions have been imposed. The maximum  dura-
\ntion  of the externment order made under section 27<\/a>  (1)  of
\nthe Bombay Act is a period of two years and the Commissioner
\nof  Police can always permit the externee to enter the\tpro-
\nhibited\t area  even before the expiration  of  that  period.
\nHaving\tregard to the class of cases to which this  sub-sec-
\ntion  applies  and t. he menace which  an  externment  order
\npassed under it is intended to avert, it is difficult to say
\nthat  this provision is unreasonable.  The  Commissioner  of
\nPolice can in a proper case cancel the externment order\t any
\nmoment\the  likes,  if, in his opinion, the  return  of\t the
\nexternee to the area from which he was removed ceases to  be
\nattended  with any danger to the community.  As regards\t the
\nprocedure  to be followed in such cases, section 27<\/a>  (4)  of
\nthe  Act  lays down that before an order  of  externment  is
\npassed against any person, the Commissioner of Police or any
\nofficer\t authorized  by\t him shall inform  such\t person,  in
\nwriting,  of the general nature of the material\t allegations
\nagainst\t him  and give him a reasonable opportunity  of\t ex-
\nplaining  these\t allegations.  He  is  permitted  to  appear
\nthrough\t an Advocate, or an Attorney and can file a  written
\nstatement and examine witnesses for the purpose of  clearing
\nhis character.\tThe only point which Mr. Umrigar attempts to
\nmake  in regard to the reasonableness of this  procedure  is
\nthat  the suspected person is not allowed  to  cross-examine
\nthe witnesses who deposed against him and on whose  evidence
\nthe proceedings were started.  In our opinion this by itself
\nwould  not make the procedure unreasonable having regard  to
\nthe avowed intention of the legislature in making the enact-
\nment.\tThe  law is certainly an extraordinary one  and\t has
\nbeen  made  only to meet those exceptional  cases  where  no
\nwitnesses  for fear of violence to their person or  property
\nare willing to depose publicly against certain’ bad  charac-
\nters whose presence in certain areas constitutes a menace to
\nthe  safety  of the public residing  therein.\tThis  object
\nwould  be wholly defeated if a right to confront  or  cross-
\nexamine\t these\twitnesses  was given to the
\n744<\/span>
\nsuspect.   The power to initiate proceedings under the\t Act
\nhas  been vested in a very high and responsible officer\t and
\nhe  is expected to act with caution and\t impartiality  while
\ndischarging  his duties under the Act.\tThis  contention  of
\nMr. Umrigar must, therefore, fail.\n<\/p>\n
    The last point made by Mr Umrigar does not seem to us to
\nbe tenable.  It is true that a procedure different from what
\nis laid down under the ordinary law has been provided for  a
\nparticular  class of persons against whom proceedings  could
\nbe  taken under section 27<\/a> (1) of the City of Bombay  Police
\nAct, but the discrimination if any is based upon a  reasona-
\nble  classification  which is within the competency  of\t the
\nlegislature  to make. Having regard to the  objective  which
\nthe legislation has in view and the policy underlying it,  a
\ndeparture  from\t the  ordinary procedure  can  certainly  be
\njustified  as the best means of giving effect to the  object
\nof the legislature.  In our opinion, therefore, there is  no
\nsubstance in the petition and it shall stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent  for  the petitioner: P.K. Chatterjee.
\nAgent for the respondents: P.A. Mehta.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 221, 1952 SCR 737 Author: B Mukherjea Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara PETITIONER: GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER. […]<\/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-251699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952 - 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\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-13T10:57:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T10:57:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952\"},\"wordCount\":2234,\"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\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952\",\"name\":\"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T10:57:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952 - 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\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-13T10:57:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952","datePublished":"1952-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T10:57:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952"},"wordCount":2234,"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\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952","name":"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T10:57:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbachan-singh-vs-the-state-of-bombay-and-another-on-7-may-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurbachan Singh vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 7 May, 1952"}]},{"@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\/251699","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=251699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}