{"id":259547,"date":"1968-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968"},"modified":"2017-03-24T11:06:06","modified_gmt":"2017-03-24T05:36:06","slug":"ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968","title":{"rendered":"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh on 30 April, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh on 30 April, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1422, 1969 SCR (1) 145<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAJAIB SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJOGINDER SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n30\/04\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR 1422\t\t  1969 SCR  (1) 145\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1988 SC 805\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898) ss. 195\t (1)(b)\t 479\nA(6) and 559-Complaint under ss. 193<\/a>, 195<\/a>, 211<\/a> and 120B<\/a> IPC-\nFiled by successor-in-office of Magistrate-Validity-s.\t559,\nscope of.\nIndian\tPenal Code<\/a> (45 of 1860) ss. 193<\/a>, 195<\/a>, 211<\/a>  and\t120B<\/a>\ncomplaint-Filed\t  by  successor-in-office   of\t Magistrate-\nValidity.\nPolice Act<\/a> (5 of 1861) s. 42-Applicability<\/a>.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA magistrate acquitted Bhagwant Rai of the charge under\t ss.\n325<\/a>\/34<\/a>\tI.P.C.\tand  observed  that  he\t had  been   falsely\nimplicated.    The  magistrate's   successor-in-office\t the\nrespondent  filed  a complaint under ss. 193<\/a>, 195<\/a>,  211<\/a>\t and\n120B<\/a>  I.P.C., against the appellants.  The  appellants\tcon-\ntended\tthat (i) prosecution for offences under ss. 193<\/a>\t and\n195<\/a>  I.P.C.,  was barred under s. 479A(6)<\/a>  Cr.\t P.C.;\t(ii)\naccording  to  s. 195(1)(b)<\/a> Cr. P.C.,  only  the  Magistrate\nbefore\twhom the original proceedings were taken could\tfile\nthe complaint in respect of ss. 193<\/a>, 195<\/a> and 211<\/a> IPC;(iii)s.\n42  of\tthe  Police Act<\/a> barred the  prosecution\t as  it\t was\ncommenced   after  the\tperiod\tprescribed;  and  (iv)\t the\ncomplaint only disclosed two offences under ss. 193<\/a> and\t 195<\/a>\nI.P.C. and no other.\nHELD:The appeal must be dismissed.\n(i)  In\t view of the ruling of this Court in  Shabir  Husain\nBholu  v.  State of Maharashtra<\/a> and Baban Singh\t v.  Jagdish\nSingh<\/a>,\tthe prosecution for offences under ss. 1913<\/a> and\t 195<\/a>\nIPC was barred under s. 479A(6)<\/a> Cr.  P.C. [148 B]\n(ii)  The complaint was properly filed by the  successor-in-\noffice\tof the Magistrate.  Section 559<\/a> Cr.  P.C. enables  a\nsuccessor-in-office  of a Magistrate do file,  a  complaint.\nThis  section  applies to all Magistrates. and there  is  no\nreason\tto limit it to Magistrates whose courts\t are  perma-\nnent.  Sub-s. (2) has not the effect of limiting s.  559(1)<\/a>.\nSection\t 559(2)<\/a> applies when there is a doubt as to who\t the\nsuccessor  is, and that doubt can be resolved in the  manner\nlaid  down in sub-s.(2). The subsection does not  mean\tthat\nuntil a successor is determined under sub-s.(2)\t  there\t  is\nno successor for the purpose of sub-s. (1). [148 F-H;149  A]\nBehram\tv.Emperor,  37 Cr.  L.J. 776-Lah.  108;\t Bara  Bapen\nManihi v. Gopi\tManjhi,\t A.I.R.\t 1927  Pat.  327.  (In\t re:\nSubramanian Chettiar, A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 442, followed.\n(iii)  Section\t42<\/a>  of\tthe police Act\tdoes  not  apply  to\nprosecutions under the Indian Penal Code<\/a> or other Acts. [149\nC]\nMulad Ahmad v. State of U.P., [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 38,\t 44-\n45 followed.\n(iv) As\t the complaint on the face of it mentioned ss.\t193<\/a>,\n195<\/a>, 211<\/a> and 120B<\/a>, so there was no force. in the  contention\nthat the complaint only disclosed two offences under ss. 193<\/a>\nand 195<\/a> I.P.C. and no other F149 F]\n146\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 157  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nFebruary 1, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal  Misc.
\nNo. 8 of 1964 in Cr.  Revision No. 1375 of 1963.
\nNishat\tSingh Grewal, Ravindra Bana and O. P. Rana, for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri,\tJ. This appeal by special leave is directed  against
\nthe judgment of the High Court of Punjab dismissing Criminal
\nMiscellaneous  Petition No. 8 of 1964.\tThis petition  arose
\nout  of\t the following facts.  Bhagwant Rai and\t Chhota\t Ram
\nwere  tried, under s. 325<\/a>, I.P.C<\/a>., read with s. 34<\/a>,  I.P.C<\/a>.,
\nin  the\t Court of Shri Harish Chander Gaur,  Magistrate\t 1st
\nClass,\tPatiala.   Ajaib Singh, Sub Inspector,\tone  of\t the
\nappellants  before  us,\t had  investigated  the\t case.\t The
\nMagistrate, by his order dated April 5. 1957, acquitted both
\nthe accused and, inter alia, observed that Bhagwant Rai\t had
\nbeen  falsely  implicated  in the case as he  was  not\teven
\npresent\t on the, day of the occurrence at Patiala.   On\t the
\napplication  of\t Bhagwant Rai, Shri Joginder  Singh  ‘Karam-
\ngarhia’,  Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, who succeeded\tShri
\nHarish\tChander Gaur, filed a complaint under ss. 193<\/a>,\t195<\/a>,
\n211<\/a>  and  120B<\/a>,\t I.P.C<\/a>., on October 31,\t 1958,\tagainst\t six
\npersons\t including the appellants, Ajaib Singh\tand  Malkiat
\nSingh.\t Shri  O. P. Gaur.  Magistrate First Class,  by\t his
\norder  dated June 1, 1959, discharged the  accused,  holding
\nthat  the  complaint was not competent as it was  barred  by
\nsub-s. (6) of S. 479A<\/a>, Cr.  P.C., because the, complaint had
\nnot  been  filed by or directed to be filed by\tShri  Harish
\nChander\t Gaur,\twho had disposed of the case ending  in\t the
\nacquittal  of Bhagwant Rai.  In the revision  filed  against
\nthis  order the Additional Sessions Judge upheld this  view.
\nThe   High  Court  (Capoor,  J.),  on  revision,  found\t  it
\nunnecessary  to consider the, scope of s. 479A<\/a>,\t Cr.   P.C.,
\nvis-a-vis  s.  476<\/a>, Cr.\t P.C., because two of  the  offences
\nmentioned  in  the  complaint, namely. s.211  and  s.  120B<\/a>,
\nI.P.C<\/a>.,\t did not fall within the purview of s.479A.  Capoor,
\nJ.,  further held that s. 42<\/a> of the Police Act.1861, had  no
\napplication  to a case in which a complaint was made by\t the
\nCourt under s. 476<\/a>, Cr.\t P.C. Capoor, J., also held that  as
\nthe order of Shri Joginder Singh, Magistrate, directing\t the
\nmaking\tof  the complaint against the  respondents  was\t not
\nappealed  from and had become final, the competency  of\t the
\nCourt  to make the complaint under s. 211<\/a>,  I.P.C<\/a>.,  against
\nJaswant\t Singh, one of the accused, could not be  considered
\nat that stage.\tThe High
\n147<\/span>
\nCourt  accordingly  set\t aside\tthe  order  of\tthe  learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge and directed that the\t respondents
\nbe proceeded against according to law.\n<\/p>\n
On  the case going back fresh objections were  filed  before
\nthe  Magistrate\t trying the case but these  were  overruled.
\nRevision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge\t who
\naccepted  the prayer of Kirpal Singh and recommended to\t the
\nHigh Court that the criminal proceedings pending against him
\nin  the Court of Magistrate First Class, Patiala.  might  be
\nquashed.   He,\thowever,  declined  to\tinterfere  with\t the
\nproceedings  pending  against the appellants mainly  on\t the
\nground\tthat  the objections now taken by  them\t before\t the
\nTrial  Magistrate had been heard and finally disposed of  by
\nCapoor, J., in his order dated April 4, 1961.
\nIn the meantime, the appellants put in Criminal\t Miscellane-
\nous  Petition  No. 8 of 1964, in criminal revision,  in\t the
\nHigh Court, praying that along with the recommendation\tmade
\nby  the\t learned  Additional Sessions  Judge,  Patiala,\t for
\nquashing the criminal proceedings against Kirpal Singh,\t the
\ngrounds\t  urged\t  by   them  might  also   be\ttaken\tinto
\nconsideration.\tCapoor, J., accepted the recommendation made
\nby  the\t learned  Additional Sessions  Judge,  Patiala,\t and
\nquashed the criminal proceedings against Kirpal Singh.\t He,
\nhowever, directed that Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8
\nof 1964 should be placed before another Bench for  disposal.
\nThe matter was then placed before Sharma, J., who held\tthat
\nall the points urged in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition\t had
\nbeen taken into consideration and repelled by Capoor, J., in
\nhis order dated April 4, 1961.\tSharma, J., observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The learned counsel, however, omitted to take
\n\t      note  of the fact that the  revision  petition
\n\t      finally  was  accepted in the terms,  ‘As\t the
\n\t      order   under   revision\t is   not    legally
\n\t      sustainable,  it\tmust be set  aside  and\t the
\n\t      respondents  must be proceeded with  according
\n\t      to law.’ Therefore, what the order (said)\t was
\n\t      that  the\t criminal  case as a  whole  was  to
\n\t      proceed against all the respondents and so the
\n\t      petitioners could not be heard now to say that
\n\t      the  case was remanded to the trial court\t for
\n\t      trial   of   the\trespondents   for   offences
\n\t      punishable under sections 211<\/a> and 120-B<\/a> of the
\n\t      Indian Penal Code.  In the circumstances,\t the
\n\t      trial   Court   cannot   be   said   to\thave
\n\t      misconstrued  the\t order of  Capoor,  J.,\t The
\n\t      other  grounds urged by them in  the  Criminal
\n\t      Miscellaneous  as\t already pointed out  by  me
\n\t      were  taken into consideration by Capoor,\t J.,
\n\t      and findings given against the petitioners and
\n\t      that being so, these cannot be agitated  again
\n\t      at this stage.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
148<\/span><\/p>\n
He   accordingly   dismissed  the   Criminal   Miscellaneous
\nPetition.  The appellants having obtained special leave, the
\nappeal is now before us.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that on\t the
\nfacts  prosecution  for\t offences under\t ss.  193<\/a>  and\t195<\/a>,
\nI.P.C<\/a>.,\t was  barred  under s. 479A(6)<\/a>,\t Cr.   P.C.  In\t our
\nopinion,  this\tcontention must be accepted in view  of\t the
\nruling\tof  this Court in Shabir Hussain Bholu v.  State  of
\nMaharashtra<\/a>(1) and Baban Singh v.Jagdish Singh<\/a>(2).
\nThe  learned counsel next contends that the complaint  could
\nonly  be  filed by the Magistrate before whom  the  original
\nproceedings  were taken.  He says that according to  s.\t 195<\/a>
\n(1)  (b), Cr.  P.C., a complaint in respect of ss. 193<\/a>,\t 195<\/a>
\nand  211<\/a> I.P.C., can only be made by the Court in which\t the
\nproceedings out of which the offences arose took place.\t  We
\nsee  no\t force in this contention.  Section  559<\/a>  enables  a
\nsuccessor-in-office  of\t a Magistrate to file  a  complaint.
\nThe relevant portion of s. 559<\/a> reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “559.  (1) Subject to the other provisions  of
\n\t      this Code, the powers and duties of a Judge or
\n\t      Magistrate  may be exercised or  performed  by
\n\t      his successor in office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   When there is any doubt as to who is the
\n\t      successor\t in  office of any  Magistrate,\t the
\n\t      Chief  Presidency Magistrate in  a  Presidency
\n\t      town, and the District Magistrate outside such
\n\t      towns, shall determine by order in writing the
\n\t      Magistrate who shall, for the purposes of this
\n\t      Code   or\t  of  any.  proceedings\t  or   order
\n\t      thereunder,  be deemed to be the successor  in
\n\t      office of such Magistrate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This section was substituted for the original s. 559<\/a> by\t the
\nCode<\/a> of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act<\/a> (XVIII of  1923).
\nSince the amendment it has been held, and we think  rightly,
\nthat  a\t successor  in office of a  Magistrate\tcan  file  a
\ncomplaint under s. 476<\/a>, Cr.  P.C., in respect of an  offence
\nunder s. 195<\/a>, I.P.C<\/a>., committed before his predecessor. (See
\nBehram v. Emperor(3) Bara Bapen Manjhi v. Gopi Manjhi(4) and
\nIn re: Subramaniam Chettiar(5).\t This section applies to all
\nMagistrates  and there is no reason why the plain  terms  of
\nthe section should be cut down to limit it, as suggested  by
\nthe learned counsel for the appellant, to Magistrates  whose
\ncourts\tare  permanent.\t It seems to us further\t clear\tthat
\nsub-s.(2)  has not the effect of  limiting  s.559(1).Section
\n559(2)<\/a> applies when there is a doubt as
\n(1)  [1963] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 501.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  27 Cr.  L. J. 776-Lah. 108.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I. R. 1967 S.C. 68.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A. 1. R. 1927 Pat. 327.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  A. 1. R. 1957 Mad. 442.\n<\/p>\n
149<\/span><\/p>\n
to  who the successor is, and that doubt can be resolved  in
\nthe  manner laid down in sub-s. (2).  The  sub-section\tdoes
\nnot mean, as contended by the learned counsel, that until  a
\nsuccessor  is  determined  under  sub-s.  (2)  there  is  no
\nsuccessor  for the purposes of sub-s. (1).  If there  is  no
\ndoubt  about  who  the successor is, then  that\t person\t can
\nexercise  the powers under sub-s. (1).\tWe accordingly\thold
\nthat the complaint was properly filed by Shri Joginder Singh
\n‘Karamgarhia’, Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
There is equally no force in the third point raised by -,,he
\nlearned\t counsel that s. 42<\/a>, Police Act<\/a>, creates a  bar\t and
\nthe  prosecution  is time-barred under this  section.\tThis
\nCourt held in Mulud Ahmed, v. State of U.P<\/a>. (1) that s.\t 42<\/a>,
\nPolice Act<\/a>, does_not apply to prosecutions under the  Indian
\nPenal  Code<\/a> or other Acts.  Subba Rao, J., as he  then\twas,
\nobserved
\n\t      “The  period  of three months  prescribed\t for
\n\t      commencing a prosecution under this section is
\n\t      only  with respect to prosecution of a  person
\n\t      for  something done or intended to be done  by
\n\t      him under the provisions of the Police Act<\/a>  or
\n\t      under general Police powers given by the\tAct.
\n\t      Section  42<\/a>  does\t not  apply  to\t prosecution
\n\t      against any person for anything done under the
\n\t      provisions of any other Act. . . . A  combined
\n\t      reading  of  these  provisions  leads  to\t the
\n\t      conclusion  that\ts.  42\tonly  applies  to  a
\n\t      prosecution  against a person for\t an  offence
\n\t      committed\t under the Police Act<\/a>.. ..  but\t the
\n\t      prosecution  in  the present case was  for  an
\n\t      offence under s. 212<\/a> of the Indian Penal\tCode
\n\t      which is an offence under a different act\t and
\n\t      for  which a much higher punishment  is  pres-
\n\t      cribed.  By reason of s. 36<\/a> of the Police Act,
\n\t      section  42<\/a>  thereof cannot apply\t to  such  a
\n\t      prosecution.”\n<\/p>\n
The fourth point which the learned counsel urges is that the
\ncomplaint  only discloses two offences under s. 193<\/a>  and  s.
\n195<\/a>,  I.P.C<\/a>.,  and  no other, and it was  an  abuse  of\t the
\nprocess of the Court.  There is no force in this  contention
\nas the complaint on its face mentions ss. 193<\/a>, 195<\/a>, 211<\/a>\t and
\n120B<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  counsel finally urges that the  complaint\t had
\nbeen  filed because of a private feud and it is not  in\t the
\ninterest  of justice that the complainant should be  allowed
\nto proceed with the complaint.\tThis point was not taken  in
\nthe  High  Court at any stage and we do not allow it  to  be
\nraised at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n(1) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 38, 44-45.\n150<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh on 30 April, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 1422, 1969 SCR (1) 145 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: AJAIB SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: JOGINDER SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/04\/1968 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. RAMASWAMI, V. CITATION: 1968 AIR 1422 1969 SCR (1) 145 […]<\/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-259547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAjaib Singh vs Joginder Singh 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\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-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=\"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh on 30 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-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=\"2017-03-24T05:36:06+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh on 30 April, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-24T05:36:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968\"},\"wordCount\":1708,\"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\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968\",\"name\":\"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh 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\":\"2017-03-24T05:36:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh 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":"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh 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\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh on 30 April, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-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":"2017-03-24T05:36:06+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh on 30 April, 1968","datePublished":"1968-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-24T05:36:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968"},"wordCount":1708,"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\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968","name":"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh 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":"2017-03-24T05:36:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajaib-singh-vs-joginder-singh-on-30-april-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajaib Singh vs Joginder Singh 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\/259547","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=259547"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259547\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}