{"id":47674,"date":"1961-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961"},"modified":"2017-09-06T09:43:41","modified_gmt":"2017-09-06T04:13:41","slug":"gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961","title":{"rendered":"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 496, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 364<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGIAN CHAND AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/11\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  496\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (1) 364\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1966 SC1209\t (9)\n RF\t    1975 SC 182\t (7,8)\n RF\t    1975 SC2083\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n     Smuggled Goods-Goods  Seized by  the  police-\nDelivery  of   goods   to   customs   authorities-\nProsecution for offence under Sea Customs Act-Onus\nof proof-Goods,\t if seized under the Act-\"Seized\",\nmeaning of-Sea\tCustoms Act, 1878 (8 of 1878), ss.\n167 (81), 178, 178A, 180.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     On receipt of information that some smugglers\nwere  transporting   gold   from   Amritsar   into\nJullundur, the\tpolice made a raid of the house of\nthe first appellant in Jullundur and in the course\nof the\tsearch certain\tbars of gold were found on\nthe person of some of the inmates of the house and\nin the\thouse itself. The gold found was seized by\nthe police and the appellants were prosecuted on a\ncharge of  receiving  stolen  property.\t The  case\nhowever\t was   not  proceeded  with  and,  in  the\nmeantime, the  customs authorities  contacted  the\npolice and  on the  order of  the Magistrate on an\napplication under  s. 180  of the Sea Customs Act,\n1878, made by them the gold bars were delivered to\nthem. Proceedings  were taken  by the Collector of\nCustoms for  confiscation of the gold under s. 167\n(8) of the Act, and the appellants were prosecuted\nfor an offence under s. 167 (81) of the Act on the\nground that  the gold  was smuggled  and that  the\nappellants, did the acts specified in that section\nknowing that  the gold\twas of that character. The\nMagistrate took\t the view  that s. 178A of the Act\nwas applicable\tto the\tcase so that the burden of\nproving that  the gold\twas not\t smuggled could be\nlaid on\t the appellants.  The question was whether\nthe possession obtained by the customs authorities\nunder s.  180 of  the Act  was such that the goods\ncould be  treated as  that seized  under  the  Act\nwithin the meaning of s. 178A of the Act.\n^\n     Held, that the taking possession of the goods\nby  the\t  customs  authorities\t when  they   were\ndelivered to  them under s. 180 of the Sea Customs\nAct, 1878,  did not  amount to a seizure under the\nAct within the meaning of s. 178A of the Act.\n     A seizure under the authority of law involved\na deprivation  of possession  and when\tthe police\nseized the  goods the  appellants lost\tpossession\nwhich vested in the police so\n365\nthat when  the possession  was transferred  to the\ncustoms authorities by virtue of the provisions in\ns. 180\tthere was  no fresh seizure under the Act.\nAccordingly, s.\t 178 was  not  applicable  to  the\ncase.\n     The term  \"seized\" in  s. 178A  means  \"taken\npossession of  contrary to the wishes of the owner\nof property\".\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE   JURISDICTION:  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 194 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and
\nOrder dated  January 20,  1960, of the Punjab High
\nCourt in Criminal Revision No. 1485 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
     Porus A.  Mehta,  J.  B.  Dadachanji,  O.\tC.
\nMathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     H.\t R.  Khanna  and  P.  D.  Menon,  for  the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     1961. November  13. The Judgment of the Court
\nwas delivered by
\n     AYYANGAR,\tJ.-The\t three\t appellants   were
\nconvicted  by\tthe  First   Class  Magistrate\tof
\nJullundur of  an offence  under s. 167 (81) of the
\nSea Customs Act for “having acquired possession of
\nsmuggled  gold\t and  for  carrying,  keeping  and
\nconcealing the\tsaid gold  with intent\tto defraud
\nthe Government\tknowing that  the  gold\t had  been
\nsmuggled into  India from  a foreign  country  and
\nthat no\t duty had  been paid  thereon,”\t and  were
\nsentenced to  terms of\timprisonment. Appeals were
\nfiled  by  the\taccused\t to  the  Sessions  Judge,
\nJullundur but  the convictions\twere upheld though
\nthe sentence  was reduced in the case of the third
\nappellant. A revision petition preferred therefrom
\nto the\tHigh Court  of Punjab  was  dismissed  and
\nthereafter the appellants obtained leave from this
\nCourt under Art. 136 of the Constitution and filed
\nthe appeal which is now before us.\n<\/p>\n
     A few  facts are  necessary to  be stated\tto
\nappreciate the point raised for decision. The City
\nInspector of Police, Jullundur is stated to have
\n366<\/span>
\nreceived information  that some\t smugglers were on
\nthe point  of transporting gold from Amritsar into
\nJullundur and at about mid-night on July 16, 1958,
\nfurther\t information   that  some   of\tthese  had
\nactually come  and were\t present in  the house\tof
\nGian Chand-the\tfirst appellant.  A raid-party was
\naccordingly orgainsed  and the\thouse of the first
\nappellant was  cordoned and raided at about 3 A.M.
\non the\tearly morning  of  July\t 17,1958.  In  the
\ncourse of  the search  certain bars  of gold  were
\nfound on  the person of some of the inmates of the
\nhouse and  in the  house itself,  as also  a large
\namount of  cash. Thereafter  the first\tappellant,
\nhis wife-the  third appellant-and  her brother-the
\nsecond appellant-were arrested, the gold found was
\nseized and  a complaint\t filed charging\t the three
\naccused of  offences under  ss. 411 and 414 of the
\nIndian Penal Code. This charge of receiving stolen
\nproperty preferred  against the\t three\tappellants
\nwas, however,  not proceeded  with and\tthe Police
\nInspector made a report to the Court on January 7,
\n1959, that no case had been made out against them,
\nand the case was thereupon dropped. Meanwhile, the
\nAssistant Collector  of Customs contacted the City
\nPolice at Jullundur and made an application to the
\nCourt of the First Class Magistrate, Jullundur for
\nthe delivery  of these\tgold-bars to  the  Customs
\nauthorities obviously  under s.\t 180  of  the  Sea
\nCustoms Act  to the  terms of which we shall refer
\nlater, and  they were  delivered  to  the  Customs
\nauthorities on\tJanuary 7,  1959, this\tbeing  the
\ndate on\t which the  case  against  the\tappellants
\nunder ss. 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code was
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     Very soon\tthereafter a  notice was issued to
\nthe appellants\tto show\t cause why the gold in the
\npossession of  the Customs  authorities should not
\nconfiscated under  s. 167  (8) of  the Sea Customs
\nAct, and after considering the explanations of the
\nappellants the Collector passed an order directing
\nthe confiscation of the gold. That order has
\n367<\/span>
\nbecome final and this appeal is not concerned with
\nthe correctness\t of the\t order of  confiscation of
\nthe gold under s. 167 (8).\n<\/p>\n
     During the\t proceedings  before  the  Customs
\nauthorities   for   confiscation,   sanction   was
\naccorded  to   prosecute  the  appellants  for\tan
\noffence under  s. 167  (81) which  runs\t in  these
\nterms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “167.\t The  offences\tmentioned  in  the
\n     first column  of the following schedule shall
\n     be punishable  to the extent mentioned in the
\n     third column  of the  same with  reference to
\n     such offences respectively:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t      Section of
\n\t\t\t      this Act to
\n     Offences\t\t      which off-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Penalties
\n\t\t\t      ence has
\n\t\t\t      reference.\n<\/p>\n
     If\t    any\t     person\t\t   General
\nsuch person
\nknowingly,\t\t  and\t\t      with
\nshall on con-\n<\/p>\n
intent\t\tto\t     defraud\t       the
\nviction before
\nGovernment of  any duty\t\t\t\t a
\nMagistrate
\npayable thereon,  or to\t\t\t\tbe
\nliable to
\nevade\t      any\t   prohibition\t\tor
\nimprisonment
\nrestriction for the time\t\t       for
\nany term
\nbeing in  force under or\t\t       not
\nexceeding
\nby virtue  of this Act with\t\t       two
\nyears, or
\nrespect thereto\t acquires\t\t\tto
\nfine, or to
\npossession of, or is in\t\t\t     both.\n<\/p>\n
any way concerned in
\ncarrying, removing, depo-\n<\/p>\n
siting, harbouring, keep-\n<\/p>\n
ing or concealing or in
\nany manner dealing with
\nany goods which have
\nbeen unlawfully removed
\nfrom a ware-house or
\nwhich are chargeable with
\na duty which has not
\nbeen paid or with respect
\n368<\/span>
\nto the importation or
\nexportation of which any
\nprohibition or restriction
\nis for the time being in
\nforce as aforesaid; or
\n     If any person is in
\nrelation to any goods in
\nany way knowingly con-\n<\/p>\n
cerned in any fraudulent
\nevasion or attempt at
\nevasion of any duty
\nchargeable thereon or of
\nany such prohibition or
\nrestriction as aforesaid
\nor of any provision of
\nthis Act applicable to
\nthose goods,”\n<\/p>\n
and it is the correctness of the conviction in the
\nprosecution that  followed which  is the  subject-
\nmatter of the appeal now before us.\n<\/p>\n
     It will be seen from the terms of s. 167 (81)
\nthat there  are two distinct matters which have to
\nbe established\tbefore\ta  person  could  be  held
\nguilty of  the offence there set out: (1) that the
\ngoods in  this case  (gold) were  smuggled,  i.e.,
\nimported into  the country  either without payment
\nof duty\t or in contravention of any restriction or
\nprohibition imposed  as regards the entry of those
\ngoods, and  (2) that  the accused knowing that the
\ngoods  were   of  that\t character  did\t the  acts
\nspecified in  the latter part of the provision. It
\nis  clear   that  in  the  absence  of\tany  valid
\nstatutory provision  in that  behalf the  onus\tof
\nestablishing  the  two\tingredients  necessary\tto
\nbring home  the offence\t to an\taccused is  on the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
     In regard\tto the\tfirst of the above matters
\nthe position  stands thus: With a view to conserve
\nthe foreign exchange resources of this country, in
\nline with provisions framed for a like object by
\n369<\/span>
\nseveral other  Governments, the\t Foreign  Exchange
\nRegulation Act,\t 1947, was enacted which came into
\nforce on  March 25,  1947. Section 8(1) of the Act
\nenacted:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “8. (1)  The Central\tGovernment may, by
\n     notification in  the Official  Gazette, order
\n     that, subject  to such exemptions, if any, as
\n     may be  contained\tin  the\t notification,\tno
\n     person shall,  except  with  the  general\tor
\n     special permission of the Reserve Bank and on
\n     payment of\t the fee, if any, prescribed bring
\n     or send  into India any gold or silver or any
\n     currency notes  or bank notes or coin whether
\n     Indian or foreign.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation.-The  bringing   or  sending
\n     into any  port or\tplace in India of any such
\n     article as aforesaid intended to be taken out
\n     of India  without being removed from the ship
\n     of conveyance  in which  it is  being carried
\n     shall nonetheless be deemed to be a bringing,
\n     or as  the case may be sending, into India of
\n     that  article   for  the\tpurposes  of  this
\n     section.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the same day on which the Act came into force a
\nnotification  was   issued  under   this   section
\nreading:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(1) Restrictions  on import of gold and
\nsilver.-\n<\/p>\n
\t  In exercise  of the  powers conferred by
\n     sub-s. 1  of s.  8 of  the\t Foreign  Exchange
\n     Regulation Act,  1947 (Act\t 7 of 1947) and in
\n     supersession  of\tthe  notification  of  the
\n     Government\t of  India  in\tthe  late  Finance
\n     Department No.  12 (11) FI\/47, dated the 25th
\n     March,  1947,   the  Central   Government\tis
\n     pleased  to   direct  that\t except\t with  the
\n     general or\t special permission of the Reserve
\n     Bank no person shall bring or send into India
\n     from any place outside India-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) any  gold coin,  gold bullion,  gold
\n     sheets or\tgold ingot whether refined or not;
\n     ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
370<\/span><\/p>\n
Virtually therefore  a\tban  was  imposed  on  the
\nimport of  gold into the country. This prohibition
\nnaturally resulted  in the  rise of  the  internal
\nprice of  gold compared\t to  its  external  price,
\ni.e., its  price in  the international markets and
\nthis gave  a great  incentive to  smuggling in the
\ncommodity.  As\t a  result  Parliament\tenacted\t a
\nprovision (s.  178  A  of  the\tSea  Customs  Act)
\nreading:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “178 A.  (1) Where  any goods\t to  which
\n     this section  applies are\tseized under  this
\n     Act in  the reasonable  belief that  they are
\n     smuggled goods,  the burden  of proving  that
\n     they are  not smuggled  goods shall be on the
\n     person from  whose possession  the goods were
\n     seized.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
shifting  the\tonus  of   proof  in   respect\tof
\nparticular commodities\tseized under  the  Act\tin
\nstated\tcircumstances  that  the  goods\t were  not
\nsmuggled, on the person from whose possession they
\nwere  taken.   Sub-section   (2)   set\t out   the
\ncommodities to\twhich the section applied and gold
\nwas specified  as one  such. The  details  of  the
\ncircumstances in  which this  provision found  its
\nplace  in   the\t statute   book\t as  well  as  its
\nconstruction have  been dealt with in Collector of
\nCustoms, Madras\t v. Nathella  Sampathu Chetty  and<\/a>
\nneed not  here be repeated. Suffice it to say that
\nif the\tterms of  the section  were satisfied  the
\ngold seized  in the present case would be presumed
\nto be smuggled and the burden of proving that they
\nare not,  would be  on the  person from\t whom they
\nwere seized.\n<\/p>\n
     Without   much   of   a   discussion   or\t a
\nconsideration  of   the\t several   provisions  the
\nlearned First  Class Magistrate held that s. 178 A
\nof the\tSea Customs Act was applicable to the case
\nand that  accordingly the onus was properly on the
\naccused. Before\t considering his  reasoning it\tis
\nnecessary to  refer to\ta few  other provisions of
\nthe Sea Customs Act
\n371<\/span>
\nwhich have  a  bearing\ton  the\t point\tnow  under
\ndiscussion. Section  178 of the Act which empowers
\nCustoms Officers  to effect  a\tseizure\t of  goods
\nsuspected by them to be smuggled, enacts:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “178. Any  thing liable  to confiscation
\n     under this\t Act may be seized in any place in
\n     India either  upon land  or water,\t or within
\n     the Indian\t customs waters\t by any officer of
\n     Customs or other person duly employed for the
\n     prevention of smuggling.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 180 under the provisions of which the gold
\nseized by  the police  as a result of their search
\non July\t 17, 1958, came into the possession of the
\nCustoms authorities, runs in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “180.\t When\tany   things   liable\tto
\n     confiscation under this Act are seized by any
\n     Police-officer on\tsuspicion that\tthey  have
\n     been stolen, he may carry them to any police-
\n     station  or   Court  at   which  a\t complaint
\n     connected with  the stealing  or receiving of
\n     such things  has been  made,  or  an  enquiry
\n     connected with  such stealing or receiving is
\n     in progress,  and there  detain  such  things
\n     until the\tdismissal of such complaint or the
\n     conclusion of  such enquiry  or of\t any trial
\n     thence resulting.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In every  such case  the  Police-officer
\n     seizing the  things shall send written notice
\n     of their seizure and detention to the nearest
\n     custom-house;  and\t  immediately  after   the
\n     dismissal of  the complaint or the conclusion
\n     of the  enquiry or trial, he shall cause such
\n     things to\tbe conveyed  to, and deposited at,
\n     the  nearest   custom-house,  to\tbe   there
\n     proceeded against according to law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  question  that  now  arises  is  whether  the
\npossession obtained  by the  Customs department by
\ngoods being  “conveyed to  and\tdeposited  at  the
\nnearest Custom-house” within the last words of the
\nsecond
\n372<\/span>
\nparagraph of  s. 180  are goods\t which\thave  been
\nseized under  the Act  within the opening words of
\ns. 178A. In the first place, it would be seen that
\nthese  three   sections\t which\thave  to  be  read
\ntogether draw  a distinction between seizure under
\nthe Act\t and a\tseizure under  provisions of other
\nlaws. A seizure under the Act is one for which the
\nauthority to  seize is conferred by the Act and in
\nthe context  it could  be referred to as a seizure
\nunder s.  178. The  seizure from  the owner of the
\nproperty under\ts. 180\tis not a seizure under the
\nAct but\t by a police officer effecting the seizure
\nunder other  provisions of  the law,  for instance
\nthe Criminal  Procedure Code.  And  that  is  made
\nclear  by   appropriate\t language   in\tthe  first
\nparagraph of  s.  180.\tLearned\t Counsel  for  the
\nrespondent-State has  urged that  “the\tconveyance
\nand  deposit”\tin  the\t  office  of  the  Customs
\nauthority under\t the second  paragraph of  s.  180
\nalso involves a seizure under the Act and for this
\npurpose relied\ton the meaning of the word ‘seize’
\ngiven in  Ballantyne’s Law  Dictionary where it is
\nequated to  “taking a thing into possession”. This
\nhowever\t might\t be  the   meaning  in\tparticular
\ncontexts when  used in\tthe sense  of the  cognate
\nLatin expression  “Seized” while in the context in
\nwhich it  is used in the Act in s. 178A it   means
\n‘take possession  of contrary to the wishes of the
\nowner of the property’. No doubt, in cases where a
\ndelivery is  effected by  an owner of the goods in
\npursuance of  a demand\tunder legal right, whether
\noral or backed by a warrant, it would certainly be
\na case\tof seizure  but the  idea that\tit is  the
\nunilateral act\tof the\tperson seizing is the very
\nessence of the concept.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  another matter  to which\t reference
\nshould be made which, in our opinion, conclusively
\nestablishes that  the delivery of the goods to the
\nCustoms authorities  under the\tlatter part  of s.
\n180 is\tnot  seizure  under  the  Act  within  the
\nmeaning of s. 178A. The last part of sub-s. (1) of
\ns. 178A\t lays
\n373<\/span>
\nthe burden  of proving\tthat  the  goods  are  not
\nsmuggled on  “the person from whose possession the
\ngoods are  taken”. Assuredly  when the\tgoods  are
\ndelivered  to\tthe  Customs  authorities  by  the
\nMagistrate they\t are not taken from the possession
\nof the\tpersons accused\t in criminal case so as to
\nthrow the  burden of  proof on\tthem and  it would
\nlead to\t an absurdity  to hold\tthat  the  section
\ncontemplated  “proof   to  the\tcontrary”  by  the
\nMagistrate under  whose orders\tthe  delivery  was
\neffected. For  the purpose  of deciding\t the point
\narising in  this case we do not think it necessary
\nto enter into the philosophy or refinements of the
\nlaw as to the nature of possession. When the goods
\nwere seized by the police they ceased to be in the
\npossession of  the accused  and\t passed\t into  the
\npossession of  the police  and when they were with
\nthe  Magistrate\t it  is\t unnecessary  to  consider
\nwhether the  Magistrate had  possession or  merely
\ncustody of  the goods.\tThe  suggestion\t that  the
\ngoods continued\t to be,\t at  that  stage,  in  the
\npossession  of\tthe  accused  does  not\t embody\t a
\ncorrect\t appreciation\tof  the\t  law  as  regards
\npossession. A ‘seizure’ under the authority of law
\ndoes not  involve a  deprivation of possession and
\nnot merely  of custody\tand  so\t when  the  police
\nofficer\t seized\t  the  goods,\tthe  accused  lost
\npossession which  vested in  the police. When that
\npossession  is\t transferred,  by  virtue  of  the
\nprovisions contained  in s.  180  to  the  Customs
\nauthorities, there  is no  fresh seizure under the
\nSea Customs Act. It would, therefore, follow that,
\nhaving regard  to the  circumstances in\t which the
\ngold came  into\t the  possession  of  the  Customs
\nauthorities, the terms of s. 178A which requires a
\nseizure under  the  Act\t were  not  satisfied  and
\nconsequently that  provision cannot  be availed of
\nto throw  the burden  of proving that the gold was
\nnot smuggled, on the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     Through the  learned Magistrate  held that s.
\n178A applied  to the case, he also entered into an
\nelaborate discussion  of the  positive evidence in
\nthe case, so that it is not quite clear whether he
\nwould
\n374<\/span>
\nhave reached  the same\tconclusion, viz., that the
\ngold was  smuggled, even  without reference to the
\nrule as to onus enacted by that section.\n<\/p>\n
     When  the\t matter\t was  before  the  learned
\nSessions Judge\the first  held that s. 178A of the
\nCustoms Act  did apply\tto the case before him but
\nproceeded  also\t to  deal  with\t the  case  on\tan
\nalternative footing that the provisions of s. 178A
\nwere not  applicable to\t the case  and set out the
\ncircumstances which  led him  to that  conclusion.
\nThe learned Single Judge who heard the revision in
\nthe High  Court,  however,  dealt  with\t the  case
\nsolely on the footing that s. 178A was applicable.
\nThe constitutional  validity of\t that section  was
\nchallenged  before  the\t High  Court  and  figured
\nprominently in the grounds of appeal to this Court
\nbut  this  point  has  been  decided  against  the
\nappellants by  this  Court  and\t is  therefore\tno
\nlonger a  live issue.  If, as  we have pointed out
\nearlier, the  delivery to  the Customs authorities
\nunder s. 180 is not a seizure under the Act within
\ns. 178A\t it would  follow that the judgment of the
\nHigh Court  cannot be  upheld for it has proceeded
\non the\tsole  basis  of\t the  provisions  of  that
\nsection being  attracted. We  have already pointed
\nout that the learned Sessions Judge had upheld the
\nconviction of  the appellants  by  an  independent
\nfinding\t that\tthe  prosecution   had\tpositively
\nestablished that  the goods were smuggled and that
\nthe accused  had knowingly  done the acts referred
\nto in  s. 167(81)  with which  they were  charged.
\nThis part  of the  case of the prosecution has not
\nbeen considered\t by the\t learned Judge in the High
\nCourt and  this would  have to\tbe done before the
\nrevision petition of the appellants could properly
\nbe disposed  of. The appeal is accordingly allowed
\nand the\t order of  the High  Court set\taside. The
\ncase will  be remitted\tto the\tHigh Court for the
\nrevision petition of the appellants being disposed
\nof in the light of this judgment and in accordance
\nwith law.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Appeal allowed. Case remitted
\n375<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 496, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 364 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: GIAN CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB. […]<\/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-47674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961 - 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\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-06T04:13:41+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T04:13:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2971,\"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\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961\",\"name\":\"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-06T04:13:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961 - 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\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-06T04:13:41+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961","datePublished":"1961-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T04:13:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961"},"wordCount":2971,"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\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961","name":"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-06T04:13:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-and-others-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-13-november-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gian Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 November, 1961"}]},{"@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\/47674","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=47674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}