{"id":47850,"date":"1951-05-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1951-05-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951"},"modified":"2019-03-22T05:40:30","modified_gmt":"2019-03-22T00:10:30","slug":"manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951","title":{"rendered":"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR  315, \t\t  1951 SCR  671<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Bose<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara, Bose, Vivian<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMANOHAR LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/05\/1951\n\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR  315\t\t  1951 SCR  671\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1961 SC 418\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nPunjab\tTrade  Employees Act, 1940, ss. 2-A (i) and  (j),  7\n(1), 16 --Shopkeeper without employees--Sate by son on close\nday-- Liability of shopkeeper--Scope of s. 2-A (i) and (j).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSection\t 7  sub-s. (1) of the Punjab  Trade  Employees\tAct,\n1940,  as amended in 1943, provided that \"save as  otherwise\nprovided  by this Act, every shop shall remain closed  on  a\nclose day.\" Sub- section (2) (i) stated that \"The choice  of\na  close  day shall rest   with the owner or occupier  of  a\nshop  ......  and shall be intimated\n  87\n672\n  to  the prescribed authority.\" Clauses (i) and (j)  of  s.\n2-A provided that nothing in the Act shall apply to  persons\nemployed  in a\t managerial capacity and the members of\t the\nfamily of the\temployer. The appellant owned a shop and  on\na  close day the   appellant's son sold an article from\t the\nshop,  and the appellant   was convicted under s. 16 of\t the\nAct.  It was contended on his\tbehalf that s. 7 of the\t Act\nwas ultra vires as it did not fall under   any of the  items\nin  either  the Provincial or the  Concurrent\t Legislative\nList  of the Government of India Act, 1935, and\t that,\t  in\nany  event as he did not employ any labour and was also\t the\nmanager\t of the shop he cannot be convicted in view  of\t the\nprovisions of clauses (i) and (j) of s. 2-A of the Act.\nHeld, by the Full Court--(i) that the provincial  Government\ncould  under  item  No. 27 in List 1I  regulate\t the  hours,\nplace,\tdate   and manner of sale of any commodity and s.  7\nof  the Act was\t  not ultra vires; the matter could also  be\nbrought\t under\titem 27\t  in List III  \"welfare\t of  labour;\nconditions of labour ;\"\n  (ii)\tclause (j) of s. 2-A did not protect  the  appellant\nbecause the   conviction was not for the sale by the son but\nfor  the  appellant   having kept the shop open on  a  close\nday;\n(iii)  the appellant  was not entitled to be exempted  under\nel. (i) of s. 2-A even though he was himself the manager  of\nthe    shop, because his capacity and liability as an  owner\nmust  be  kept\t  distinct from that of a  manager  for\t the\npurposes of the Act.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:\t Criminal Appeal No.<br \/>\n11 of 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal  under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the  Constitution  of<br \/>\nIndia  against the Judgment and Order dated the 10th  April,<br \/>\n1950,  of the High Court of Judicature at Simla in  Criminal<br \/>\nRevision  No. 449 of 1949.  The facts of the case appear  in<br \/>\nthe judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>Kundan\tLal  Arora for the appellant. S.N.  Chopra  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     1951.  May 23. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\n     Bose  J. &#8211;This is a criminal appeal against a  convic-<br \/>\ntion  under  section 16 of the Punjab Trade  Employees\tAct,<br \/>\n1940, as amended in 1943, read with section 7(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant is a shopkeeper who owns and runs a\tshop<br \/>\nin the Cantonment Area of Ferozepore.  He has no &#8220;employees&#8221;<br \/>\nwithin the meaning of the Act but is assisted by his son  in<br \/>\nrunning the shop. The shop is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">673<\/span><br \/>\ndivided into two sections.  In one, articles of haberdashery<br \/>\nare sold; in the other, articles of stationery.<br \/>\nSection 7(1) of the Act as amended requires that       &#8220;Save<br \/>\nas otherwise provided by this Act, every shop  &#8230;&#8230;  shall<br \/>\nremain\tclosed\ton a close day.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Sub-section (2)(i) states  that&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  choice  of\t a close day shall rest with  the  owner  or<br \/>\noccupier  of a shop  &#8230;&#8230;  and shall be intimated  to\t the<br \/>\nprescribed authority within etc.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appellant made the following choice. He elected  to<br \/>\nclose the haberdashery section on Mondays and the stationery<br \/>\nsection\t on Saturdays and gave the necessary  intimation  to<br \/>\nthe prescribed authority to that effect.<br \/>\n    On\tMonday, the 17th of May, 1948, the  appellant&#8217;s\t son<br \/>\nsold a tin of boot polish to a customer from the  haberdash-<br \/>\nery,  section  of  the shop. The appellant  was\t present  in<br \/>\nperson\tat the time of the sale. Monday was a close day\t for<br \/>\nthe haberdashery section and so the appellant was prosecuted<br \/>\nunder section 16 read with section 7. The trying  Magistrate<br \/>\nheld that in selling the article of haberdashery on a  close<br \/>\nday and in not observing Monday as a close day the appellant<br \/>\nhad infringed the provisions of section 7(1) of the Act.  He<br \/>\naccordingly  convicted him and imposed a fine of Rs.  20.  A<br \/>\nrevision  application  to the High Court failed.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt held that as the appellant had failed to keep his shop<br \/>\nclosed\tone  day in the week, his conviction was  proper.  A<br \/>\ncertificate for leave to appeal to this Court, on the ground<br \/>\nthat  a substantial question of law relating to the  Govern-<br \/>\nment of India Act, 1935, was involved, was granted and\tthat<br \/>\nis how we come to be seized of the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t learned  counsel for the appellant  contended\tthat<br \/>\nsection 7 of the Act is ultra vires in that it does not fall<br \/>\nunder  any  of\tthe items in either the\t Provincial  or\t the<br \/>\nConcurrent Legislative Lists in the Government of India Act,<br \/>\n1935. In our opinion, the matter can come either under\titem<br \/>\nNo. 27 in List II or item No. 27 in List III.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">674<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    Item No. 27 in List II covers &#8220;trade and commerce within<br \/>\nthe  Province.&#8221;\t In  our opinion,  a  Provincial  Government<br \/>\ncould, under that entry, regulate the hours, place, date and<br \/>\nmanner\tof sale of any particular commodity or\tcommodities.<br \/>\nIt could, for example, state that the sale of explosives  or<br \/>\nother dangerous substances should only be in selected areas,<br \/>\nat  specified times or on specified days when extra  precau-<br \/>\ntions for the general safety of the public and those direct-<br \/>\nly concerned could be arranged for. That would appear to  be<br \/>\nobvious.  In the same way, it could, if it so  pleased,\t say<br \/>\nthat  there  shall be no sales on a particular\tday,  say  a<br \/>\nSunday or a Friday, or on days of religious festivals and so<br \/>\nforth. Instead of doing that, it has chosen to regulate\t the<br \/>\ninternal trade of the Province in this manner which is\tonly<br \/>\none of the various ways in which it could have acted.<br \/>\n    The\t matter\t can also be brought under item 27  in\tList<br \/>\nIII:   &#8220;welfare\t of labour; conditions of labour.&#8221;  The\t im-<br \/>\npugned section is a general one and applies to all kinds  of<br \/>\nshops; that is to say, to those in which labour is  employed<br \/>\nas  well as to those which are run by the owners  and  their<br \/>\nfamilies.   The Act in which the section occurs is  directed<br \/>\nat  regulating\tthe hours of employment of persons  who\t are<br \/>\nemployed in the business  of  shops or commercial establish-<br \/>\nments.\tTherefore, in so far as section 7 covers  establish-<br \/>\nments  where  labour is employed, it  is  undoubtedly  intra<br \/>\nvires. But it was argued that the section can have no appli-<br \/>\ncation\tto  shops which an owner runs with  or\twithout\t the<br \/>\nassistance  of his family.  Reliance for this was placed  on<br \/>\nsection\t 2-A (i) and (j) which is as follows: &#8220;2-A.  Nothing<br \/>\nin this Act shall apply to&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) persons employed in a  managerial capacity\t&#8230;&#8230;<br \/>\nand\n<\/p>\n<p>(j)  the  members  of the family of the\t employer.&#8221;  It\t was<br \/>\nargued\tthat the sale was by the son. He is not affected  by<br \/>\nthe Act. Therefore. he was entitled to sell and he could not<br \/>\nsell unless the shop was kept<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">   675<\/span><br \/>\nopen to enable him to do so.  So also as regards the  appel-<br \/>\nlant, the owner, who was there in a managerial capacity.  In<br \/>\nour opinion, this is fallacious because the conviction\there<br \/>\nis not for the sale but for keeping the shop open on a close<br \/>\nday.  Section 2-A (j) does not give the son a right to\tkeep<br \/>\nthe  shop open or, for that matter, a right to sell. All  it<br \/>\nsays is that he, being a member of the family, shall not  be<br \/>\naffected by the provisions of the Act. Section 7(1), on\t the<br \/>\nother  hand, is directed against the owner of the shop,\t not<br \/>\nagainst\t his family.  It compels the owner to keep his\tshop<br \/>\nclosed one day in a week.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\twas  then contended that if a person employed  in  a<br \/>\nmanagerial capacity cannot be affected by the Act, then\t the<br \/>\nappellant who was there in that capacity cannot be compelled<br \/>\nto close the shop under section 7. This is also\t fallacious.<br \/>\nIt happens in the present case that the owner and the manag-<br \/>\ner are the same but the Act obviously makes provision for  a<br \/>\nclass  of  case in which they are different.  The  owner  is<br \/>\nobliged\t to  close the shop one day in a  week,\t though\t the<br \/>\nmanager\t of the shop can work without, for  example,  having<br \/>\nthe  twenty-four consecutive hours of rest every week  which<br \/>\nsection\t 7-A  enjoins. The appellant&#8217;s capacity\t as  manager<br \/>\nwill  have to be separated from his character as  owner\t for<br \/>\nthis  purpose.\t Section 2-A(i) does not control  section  7<br \/>\n(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>    Lastly,  it was argued that the scheme of the Act  makes<br \/>\nit  plain  that\t it is for ameliorating\t the  conditions  of<br \/>\nlabour employed in shops. It cannot therefore apply to shops<br \/>\nin which no labour is employed, particularly when the family<br \/>\nof the &#8220;employer&#8221; is expressly excluded from the purview  of<br \/>\nthe Act. For this reason also, it cannot fall under item  27<br \/>\nin List III. We are of opinion that such a narrow  interpre-<br \/>\ntation cannot be placed upon the entry. The legislature\t may<br \/>\nhave felt it necessary, in order to reduce the possibilities<br \/>\nof  evasion to a minimum, to encroach upon the liberties  of<br \/>\nthose  who would not otherwise have been affected.  That  we<br \/>\nthink it had power to do. Further, to require a\t shopkeeper,<br \/>\nwho employs one or two men, to close and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">676<\/span><br \/>\npermit his rival, who employs perhaps a dozen members of his<br \/>\nfamily, to remain open, clearly places the former at a grave<br \/>\ncommercial disadvantage. To permit such a distinction  might<br \/>\nwell  engender\tdiscontent  and in the end  react  upon\t the<br \/>\nrelations  between  employer  and employed.  All  these\t are<br \/>\nmatters of policy into which we cannot enter but which serve<br \/>\nto  justify a wide and liberal interpretation of  words\t and<br \/>\nphrases in these entries.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Agent for the appellant: Vidya Sagar.\n<\/p>\n<p>Agent for the respondent: P.A. Mehta.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 315, 1951 SCR 671 Author: V Bose Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara, Bose, Vivian PETITIONER: MANOHAR LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/05\/1951 BENCH: BOSE, VIVIAN BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/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-47850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1951-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-22T00:10:30+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951\",\"datePublished\":\"1951-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T00:10:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951\"},\"wordCount\":1367,\"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\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951\",\"name\":\"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1951-05-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T00:10:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951\"}]},{\"@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":"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1951-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-22T00:10:30+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951","datePublished":"1951-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T00:10:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951"},"wordCount":1367,"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\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951","name":"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1951-05-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T00:10:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-on-23-may-1951#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manohar Lal vs The State on 23 May, 1951"}]},{"@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\/47850","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=47850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}