{"id":271399,"date":"1971-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971"},"modified":"2018-05-31T15:56:37","modified_gmt":"2018-05-31T10:26:37","slug":"ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 16, 1972 SCR (1)1084<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMESH CHANDRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/10\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR   16\t\t  1972 SCR  (1)1084\n 1973 SCC  (3) 689\n\n\nACT:\nSurety\tBond-To\t Produce  truck\t \"whenever  ordered  by\t the\ncourt\"Executed\tin  one Sub-Divisional\tMagistrate's  Court-\nForfeited by another Sub-Divisional Magistrate's  Court-Plea\nof jurisdiction cannot be raised for first time in the\tHigh\nCourt-Plea   one   interlaced  with   questions\t  of   fact-\nConstruction of bond.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant declared himself surety in the court of a Sub-\nDivisional  Magistrate and bound himself to produce a  truck\n\"whenever  ordered by the court\" to produce. the  same.\t  He\nwas  given  notice  to produce the  truck  by  another\tSub-\nDivisional  Magistrate\tin  the same district  and  when  he\nfailed\tto produce the same the Magistrate passed  an  order\nforfeiting the surety bond and directing the realisation  of\nthe  amount  covered by the bond as fine.  In  his  revision\napplication before the High Court the appellant took a\tplea\nthat the bond could be forfeited only by the court in  which\nit  was executed.  The High Court did not allow the plea  to\nbe raised on the ground that the plea was not raised  either\nbefore the Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD  :\t (1) The High Court rightly  refused  the  appellant\npermission  to urge the ground as to want  of  jurisdiction.\nSuch a plea of jurisdiction is interlaced with questions  of\nfact.\tIt may be that the case was transferred, or  that  a\nparticular court was abolished, or that allocation of  busi-\nness  was  changed or redistributed.  The  records  indicate\nmany probabilities and that was why the High Court  declined\nto go into the question. [1087 B]\n(2)  Even  if  the appellant were permitted  to\t raise\tthis\nquestion  in the present case without any question  of\tfact\nand purely on the construction of the bond, it would  appear\nthat  the  appellant  bound himself  to\t produce  the  truck\nwhenever  ordered by the court to produce the  same.   There\nwas  no\t undertaking to produce the truck  in  a  particular\ncourt.\t The undertaking was to the court of the  Magistrate\nand  the  Magistrate  exercises jurisdiction  in  the  whole\ndistrict under s. 12<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\t The\nword  'court'  in  the bond in the present  case  means\t the\nMagistrate's court which dealt with the case.\tFurthermore,\nthe  bond  provided that in case of  default  the  appellant\nbound  himself\tto  forfeit to\tthe  Government\t the  amount\ncovered by the bond. [1088 C]\nBallabhdas  Motiram Gupta v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 Bom.\t178,\nheld inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 239\t ,of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nMay  17,  1968\tof  the Allahabad  High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nRevision No. 1130 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
E. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
O. P. Rana, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    1085<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
\nRay, J. This appeal is by special leave against the judgment
\ndated  17 May, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court.  The  order
\nof  the\t Allahabad  High  Court was  passed  on\t a  revision
\napplication  of\t the appellant against the  order  dated  28
\nJanuary,  1966\tof  the\t Civil\tand  Sessions  Judge,\tAgra
\nrejecting  the revision against the order of the  Magistrate
\ndated  5  June,\t 1965  forfeiting the  surety  bond  of\t the
\nappellant  and directing the sum of Rs. 20,000\tbe  realised
\nfrom the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  bond came to be furnished by the appellant under  these
\ncircumstances.\tOne Kishan Lal Gupta made an application for
\nobtaining custody of truck No. RJZ-1724 in the case of State
\nv. Sua Lal under the Essential Commodities Act<\/a> in the  court
\nof  the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli  Kheragarh.\t The
\ntruck  had been seized by the police on the allegation\tthat
\nit was carrying, essential commodities to a prohibited area.
\nThe truck was in the custody of the police at Fatehpur Sikri
\nPolice Station.\n<\/p>\n
On 16 December, 1963 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate  Kiraoli,
\nKheragarh,  Agra ordered delivery of the truck be  given  on
\nfurnishing  two\t sureties  of,\tRs.  10,000  each  with\t the
\npersonal  bond of the like amount.  The prosecution filed  a
\nrevision  against  the\torder.\t The  Additional  District
\nMagistrate, Kheragarh rejected the revision application on 1
\nJanuary,  1964\twith  the observation that it  was  for\t the
\nMagistrate  to\tdecide as to who was to be  given  temporary
\ncustody of the truck and the matter required  clarification.
\nThe prosecution moved that the truck should be given to\t the
\ncustody of the Manager, Government Roadways of the  Regional
\nTransport    Officer.\t Eventually,   the    Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate Kiraoli-Kheragarh on 9 January, 1964 ordered that
\nthe  truck  might be given to the custody  of  reliable\t and
\nindependent person on furnishing two independent sureties of
\nRs. 20,000 each and the personal bond of the like amount.
\nIt  is in this context of events that the appellant  on-  13
\nJanuary, 1964 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
\nKiraoli-Klieragarh,  Agra declared himself surety for  truck
\nNo. RJZ-1724 and gave a bond as follows –\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  do hereby bind myself to produce the\tsaid
\n\t      truck whenever ordered by the court to produce
\n\t      the  same\t and in case of\t my  making  default
\n\t      therein  I  bind\tmyself\tto  forfeit  to\t the
\n\t      Government the sum of Rs. 20,000”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On 13 January, 1964 the appellant also gave a personal\tbond
\nthat  he  owned\t property worth\t Rs.  1,05,000\tand  further
\ndeclared that be would not dispose of his property till\t the
\nbond is discharged by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
1086<\/span><\/p>\n
On 1 May, 1965 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh gave
\nnotice\tto  the appellant and the other\t surety\t Kishan\t Lal
\nGupta that the truck had not’ been produced in the court and
\nthe sureties were informed to produce the truck in the court
\nof the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh on 10 May,\t1965
\nand also show cause as to why the surety bond of Rs.  20,000
\nshould not be forfeited.\n<\/p>\n
On  5  June, 1965 the Sub-Divisional  Magistrate,  Kheragarh
\npassed\tan  order  recording that in spite  of\tnotices\t the
\nsureties  did not produce the truck And failed to  make\t any
\nresponse.  The Sub-Divisional Magistrate further recorded in
\nthe  order  that under order dated 10 May, 1965\t the  surety
\nbond was forfeited and notice was given to the appellant  to
\nshow  cause as to why the said amount of the surety was\t not
\nto  be realised from the appellant.  In spite of service  of
\nthe  notice on the appellant he did not make  any  response.
\nThe Sub-Divisional Magistrate under these circumstances on 5
\nJuno, 1965 passed an order that the amount of Rs. 20,000  of
\nthe  surety bond should be realised from the appellant as  a
\nfine.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant made an application in revision\tagainst\t the
\n,order\tof the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.   The\t application
\nwas  before the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra who  rejected
\nthe revision application on 28 January, 1966.
\nThe  appellant\tthereafter went up in revision to  the\tHigh
\nCourt  ‘at  Allahabad  against the order of  the  Civil\t and
\nSessions,  Judge  ,dated 28 January, 1966.  The\t High  Court
\nsaid that there was no explanation as to why the truck\twas.
\nnot  produced.\tThe High Court found it a clear\t case  that
\nthe  entire  amount  of\t the  bond  be\trecovered  from\t the
\nappellant.   On behalf of the appellant prayer was made\t for
\nreduction   of\tthe  amount.   The  High  Court\t  found\t  no
\njustification for the same.  Before the High Court the point
\nwas  raised that the surety bond was given in one court\t and
\nit  was forfeited in another court.  The High Court did\t not
\nallow the question to be raised on the ground that the point
\nhad  not  been raised either before the\t Magistrate  or\t the
\nSessions  Judge, and, therefore, the High Court declined  to
\nallow any such question to be raised.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for the appellant contended that the bond was\texe-
\ncuted in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli
\nand the order of forfeiture of the surety bond was passed by
\nthe Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kheragarh and it was only the
\ncourt of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kiraoli which  could
\nforfeit the bond amount and no other court could.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    1087<\/span><\/p>\n
The  High Court rightly refused the appellant to  urge\tthis
\nground\tas  to\twant of jurisdiction of the  court  of\tSub-
\nDivisional Magistrate, Kheragarh to forfeit the bond amount.
\nSuch a plea of jurisdiction is interlaced with questions  of
\nfact.\tIt  may be that the case was  transferred  from\t the
\ncourt of one Magistrate to the court of another.  It may  be
\nthat a particular court is abolished and the jurisdiction of
\nthe  abolished court is transferred to the other court.\t  It
\nmay   be   that\t allocation  of\t business  is\tchanged\t  or
\nredistributed among Magistrates Court from time to time.  If
\nthis  particular  ground had been urged at the\tproper\ttime
\nthese facts could have been elucidated.\n<\/p>\n
It  will  appear from the records that the surety  bond\t was
\ngiven  on  13 January, 1964 in the court  of  Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate,  Kiraoli Kheragarh, Agra.  The personal bond  of
\nthe  appellant\twas given on the same day  before  the\tsame
\nMagistrate.  The notice dated 1 May, 1965 for production  of
\nthe truck and for forfeiture of the surety money in  default
\nof  production\twas  given by the  court  of  Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate,- Kiraoli Kheragarh, Agra and was signed by\tSub-
\nDivisional  Magistrate, Kheragarh.  The order dated 5  June,
\n1965  was  also by the court of\t Sub-Divisional\t Magistrate,
\nKiraoli-Kheragarh,   Agra  and\tsigned\t by   Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate, Kheragarh.\tThe judgment dated 28 January,\t1966
\nof  the court of Sessions Judge, Agra also stated  that\t the
\ncase  was  pending before  Sub-Divisional  Magistrate,\tKhe-
\nragarh.\t These facts indicate many probabilities and that is
\nwhy the High Court rightly declined to go into the question.
\nCounsel for the appellant relied on the provisions contained
\nin section 514<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code and the  Bench
\ndecision  of  the Bombay High Court  in\t Ballabhdas  Motiram
\nGupta v. Emperor reported in A.I.R. 1943 Bom. 178 in support
\nof  the proposition that the bond given to a court could  be
\nforfeited  only by that court.\tIn the Bombay case the\tbond
\nwas given by the accused for his appearance in the court  of
\nthe.   Chief Presidency Magistrate.  The bond was  forfeited
\nby an order of the 8th Presidency Magistrate to whose  court
\nthe case had been transferred.\tThe terms of the bond in the
\nBombay case were that the accused bound himself to attend in
\nthe court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 29  February
\nnext  to answer to the charge and to continue so  to  attend
\nuntil otherwise directed by the court.\tThe accused attended
\non 29 February and thereafter continued to attend the  court
\nof  the Chief Presidency Magistrate until 20 April when\t the
\ncase  was  transferred\tto the court  of  Eighth  Presidency
\nMagistrate.   The  accused continued to\t appear\t before\t the
\nEighth\tPresidency Magistrate until 5 December when he\tmade
\nthe  default.\tThe  question was whether  the\taccused\t had
\nbroken\tthe condition and the bond.  The Bombay\t High  Court
\ncame to
\n1088<\/span>
\nthe  conclusion\t that he did not.  The reason was  that\t the
\naccused\t had  undertaken to attend the court  of  the  Chief
\nPresidency’  Magistrate and to continue so to attend,  i.e.,
\nto attend the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate until
\notherwise directed by the court.  It was held that the court
\nof the Chief Presidency Magistrate could direct the  accused
\nto  cease  attendance in the Chief  Presidency\tMagistrate’s
\ncourt but it could not direct him to attend some other court
\nwhich he had not undertaken to attend.\tOn’ the construction
\nof  the bond it was found that the accused did not commit  a
\nbreach of the bond.\n<\/p>\n
Even if the appellant were permitted to raise this  question
\nin the present case without any question of fact and purely
\non  the\t construction of the bond it would appear  that\t the
\nappellant  bound  himself  to  produce\tthe  truck  whenever
\nordered by the court to produce the same.  Therefore,  there
\nwas  no\t undertaking to produce the truck  in  a  particular
\ncourt.\t The undertaking was to produce the  truck  whenever
\nordered\t by the court.\tThe undertaking was to the court  of
\nthe  Magistrate.  The_Magistrate exercises  jurisdiction  in
\nthe  whole  district  under  section  12<\/a>  of  the   Criminal
\nProcedure Code.\t Furthermore, the bond provided that in case
\nof  default  the appellant bound himself to forfeit  to\t the
\nGovernment the amount covered by the bond sum of Rs. 20,000.
\nTherefore  purely on a construction of the surety  bond\t the
\nappellant  became  liable to the State for the\tsum  of\t Rs.
\n20,000 by reason of default to produce the truck when he was
\ncalled\tupon to do so.\tThe word ‘court’ in the bond in\t the
\npresent\t case will mean the Magistrate’s court\twhich  dealt
\nwith the case.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
K.B.N.\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n1089<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 16, 1972 SCR (1)1084 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. PETITIONER: RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/10\/1971 BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. PALEKAR, D.G. CITATION: 1972 AIR 16 1972 SCR (1)1084 1973 […]<\/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-271399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971 - 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\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-31T10:26:37+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-31T10:26:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1669,\"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\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-31T10:26:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971 - 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\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-31T10:26:37+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971","datePublished":"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-31T10:26:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971"},"wordCount":1669,"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\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971","name":"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-31T10:26:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chandra-vs-state-of-u-p-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Chandra vs State Of U.P on 14 October, 1971"}]},{"@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\/271399","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=271399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}