{"id":52884,"date":"1983-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983"},"modified":"2016-03-21T20:44:49","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T15:14:49","slug":"narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983","title":{"rendered":"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1984 Raj 29, 1983 WLN 217<\/div>\n
Author: A D Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: K D Sharma, K Bhatnagar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  Alyan Dutta Sharma, C.J.   <\/p>\n
 1. This is a special appeal filed by Narendra Kumar Somani under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dt. May 5, 1982, by which the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed on the basis of the judgment dt. April 9, 1982, given in S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 7 of 1982 and 80 of 1982 : (AIR 1983 NOC 220) (Rai).\n<\/p>\n
 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, may be briefly stated as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
  Shri Sampat Singh, respondent No. 2 was elected Pradhan, Panchavat Samiti, Shahpura. District Bhilwara, on Dec. 26, 1981. The votes were polled on Dec. 26,<\/p>\n
1981 and the result was announced the very day while the nomination papers were filed on Dec. 25. 1981. Respondent No. 2 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 406. I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for three months, by the Judicial Magistrate, Fir t Class, Shahpura. vide his judgment dated Sept 24, 1974, certified photo-stat copy of which is enclosed with the writ petition and marked Ex. 3. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. Bhilwara. but the same was rejected vide judgment of the Sessions Judge, dt. August 3, 1976. Respondent No. 2 thereafter moved the High Court in revision but his revision petition also was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dt. August 20, 1976.\n<\/p>\n
 3. In another case respondent No. 2 was found guilty by the Munsif Magistrate. Shahpura. of having committed an offence punishable under Section 400. I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default thereof to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 days. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. Bhilwara, against the judgment of the Munsiff Magistrate. Shahpura, dt. April 10, 1974. but the Sessions Judge. Bhilwara upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to one month’s rigorous imprisonment. A revision petition was filed by respondent No. 2 against the judgment of the Sessions Judge before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction of respondent No. 2 under Section 409. I.P.C. but reduced the sentence to the term of imprisonment already undergone by him.\n<\/p>\n
 4. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, an objection was raised by one Shri Sukh Deo Jat in regard to the validity of the nomination of respondent No. 2 on the ground of convictions of respondent No. 2 by competent court of jurisdiction, of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Returning Officer rejected the objection raised by Sukh Deo Jat on Dec. 25. 1981, vide his order marked Ex. 2. Thereafter, as already stated above the election was held and the result of the election was declared in favour of respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
 5. Aggrieved by the election of respondent No. 2 to the office of  the Pradhan. Panchavat Samiti, Shahpura. and by his holding the said office the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court on the following grounds:–\n<\/p>\n
 (1) That respondent No. 2 was not qualified to be elected as Pradhan and to hold the said office because on the day he filed the nomination paper or on the day the nomination papers were scrutinised or on the day he was declared elected as Pradhan he was disqualified to be elected to the office of Pradhan of the Panchavat Samiti by virtue of Section 11 (g) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 15 (k) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1059, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959, further lays down that a person who is disqualified to be elected to the office of the Pradhan of a Panchayat Samiti will also be disqualified to become a member of the Panchavat Simiti. As the period of 6 years not having elapsed from the date of conviction or respondent No. 2 on the date of filing of the nomination paper disqualification incurred, under the Act had not come to an end and was subsisting :\n<\/p>\n
 (2) That the Returning Officer wrongly held that the period of 6 years: commenced from the Hate when the respondent No. 2 was convicted by the trial court. A person can be deemed to be convicted only when all the remedies available to him under the law have exhausted so as to make his conviction final. The convictions of respondent No. 2 became final when his appeals and revision petitions were dismissed:\n<\/p>\n
 (3) That the respondent No. 2 is ex facie a usurper of the office of Pradhan. Panchavat Samiti. Shahpura and is therefore, liable to be ousted.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The petitioner therefore, prayed that a writ in the nature of quo warranty be issued against respondent No. 2 ousting him from the office of Pradhan, Panchavat Samiti. Shahpura and till then he may be restrained from functioning as Pradhan till the decision of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why the writ petition be not, admitted. In response to the notice, respondent No. 2 Shri Sam-pat Singh appeared in Court through his Advocate Shri M. M. Singhvi and raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. The objection was that the remedy against
\nimproper acceptance of nomination paper is by way of an election petition under Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Up-Samitis (Election) Rules, 1960 and that Narendra Kumar petitioner’s real brother Shri Shyam Sunder Somani had already filed an election petition in the Court of the District Judge. Bhilwara. on this very ground that the nomination paper of Sampat Singh was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer on Dec. 25, 3981 and therefore the extraordinary writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be availed of by Shri Narendra Kumar. petitioner, for challenging the election of Shri Sampat  Singh. The learned single Judge of this Court heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the state of admission and came to a conclusion that the writ peti-tion was liable to be dismissed in virw of the derisions of the High Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7 of 1982 Mahaveer Singh v. Raghunath and S. B. Civil  Writ Petition No. P.O of 1982. Laxmi-dan v. Narpat Karan decided on April 9, 1982 : (AIR 1981? NOC 220). Aggriev-ed by this order. Narendra Kumar has filed this special appeal, as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why this special appeal be not admitted. Mr, M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for Sampat Singh respondent No. 2 and Mr. R. P. Dave. Deputy Government Advocate, for the State of Rajasthan and the Returning Officer, appeared in response to the show cause notices and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard by us at the stage of admission. Upon perusal of the record and hearing the arguments of both the sides, we are of the opinion that this special appeal has no substance and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission for the following reasons:–\n<\/p>\n
  The first contention put forward by Mr. Marudhar Mridul. learned counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant being a tax-payer of the Panchavat Samiti. Shahpura. has a vital interest in all the matters pertaining to the said Panchayat Samiti and has a right to challenge the election of Sampat Singh. respondent No. 2 by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further urged that the appellant cannot be deprived of his right to challenge the election of Sampat Singh, respondent No. 2 to the office of the Pradhan. Panchavat Samiti, Shahpura merely because Section 13 of the Act of 1959 provides that, the election of a Pradhan or Up-Pradhari of a Panchavat Samiti can be called in question by any member thereof by way of an election petition on the prescribed grounds and within the prescribed period. Mr. Maru-dhar Mridul further submitted that the right to file a writ petition of quo warranto is recognised by Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this right cannot be taken away by any ordinary law made by the State Legislature. According to his submission, the learned single Judge of this Court, committed an error in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the basis of the decision Riven by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 7\/82 Mahaveer Sinch v. Raghunath and S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 80 of 1982 Laxmidan v. Narpat Karan, decided by this Court on April 9, 1982 : (AIR 1983 NOC 2201 because in the two decisions the question involved was whether the election was vitiated on account of the vole being cast by one voter, twice over. On the other hand-in the instant case the question involved is whether Sampat Sinch respondent No. 2 was disqualified to be elected to the office of Pradhan Panchayat Samiti. Shahpura.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for Sampat Singh. respondent No. 2 refuted the above contention of Mr. Marudhar Mridul. learned counsel for the appellant by arguing that the election of Sampat Singh. respondent No, 2 to the office of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sangaria. was challenged by Sohan Das, a defeated candidate, in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class. Shahpura. by way of an election petition on the ground that at the date of filing the nomination form or at the date of scrutiny there of or at the date of election Sampat Singh stood convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. This election petition filed by Sohan Das was dismissed with costs by the learned Munsif vide his iudgment dated July 21. 1982 (certified copy of which has been produced by Mr. M. M. Singhvi in this special appeal). Mr. M. M. Singhvi further urged that the election of Sampat Singh respondent No. 2 to the office of Pradhan. Panchavat Samiti. Shahpura. also was challenged by Shvam Sunder, (who is none else but the brother of Narendra Kumar appellant) a defeated candidate by wav of an election petition under Section 13 of the<\/p>\n
Act on this very ground of his having been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 406 read with Section 109. I.P.C. but this election petition also was dismissed by the District Judge, Bhil-wara. vide his judgment dated Sept. 24, 1982 (Photo-stat certified copy of which has been filed in this special appeal). It was further urged by Mr. M. M. Singhvi. learned counsel for respondent No. 2. on the strength of the referred-to-above two decisions given in the election petitions filed by Sohan Das and Shvam Sunder that the appellant is not entitled to challenge the election of Sampat Singh respondent No. 2 to the office of the Pradhan. Panchavat Samiti. Shahpura. on these very grounds on which basis the election was challenged by Sohan Das and Shyam Sunder.\n<\/p>\n
 10. We have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. At the outset, we may observe that the appellant is not a member of the Panchavat Samiti. Shahpura. He therefore, is not entitled to challenge the election of Sampat Singh. respondent No. 2 to the office of Pradhan. Panchavat Samiti, Shahpura, by way of election petition under, Section 13 of the Act of 1959 read with R. 3 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
 11. The next question that arises for determination is whether a writ in the nature of quo warranto can be issued in respect of an elective office like the present one. After taking into consideration a good number of authorities on this point our answer to this question is that the High Court is empowered in an appropriate case to issue such a writ regarding an election dispute, but it will not ordinarily assume to itself this function which has been adequately provided for in the statutory provisions dealing with the conduct of an election except for strong and compelling reasons, because interference with elections on mere technicalities would amount to interference with the decisions of the people who have recorded their votes and expressed their confidence in their representatives. The matter would be entirely different if the elected candidate suffered from any disqualification at the date of the election rendering his election invalid or if any irregularity committed in the course of elections is of a nature touching the substance of an election and has resulted in the voters not being able to express their views freely and properly and if there was any corrupt practice<\/p>\n
which has materially affected the result of the election or if the basis of the election, namely, the electoral roll is illegal and no election on its basis can
\nthe permitted to stand or if the delimitations of the constituencies was invalid resulting in a considerable number of voters having been disenfranchised or if there was shown to have existed some such other material circumstance having the effect of rendering the election invalid.\n<\/p>\n
 12.    Keeping     the     aforesaid     principles in     view  we     proceed   to   find   out\nwhether there exists grave and compelling reasons justifying our interference with the election of the returned candidate, i. e, respondent No. 2. Mr. Marudhar Mridul invited our attention\nto Section 11 of the Act which lays down the qualifications for election or appointment of a Panch. It reads as follows:-- \n  \n\n  \"Section 11. Qualification of Panchas--Every person, who is entitled to vote at an election in any Panchavat circle or a ward thereof for the purpose of this Act. shall be qualified for election or appointment as a Panch unless such\nperson : \n   \n\n (a) to (f) are not relevant for our purposes. \n \n\n (g) has been convicted by a competent court, of an offence involving moral turpitude.\"   \n \n\n There are 3 Provisos added to this section, Clause (ii) of which is quoted below in extenso:-- \n  \"(ii) For the purposes of Clause (c) (g). (i) and (m) any person shall become eligible after lapse of six years from the date of his dismissal or conviction, as the case may be, or earlier if he is declared eligible for election by a general or\nspecial order of the State Government in this behalf, and\" \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 From a bare reading of Clause (g) of Section 11 and Clause (ii) of its proviso, it is obvious that a person though convicted by a competent court of an offence involving moral turpitude becomes eligible for election or appointment as a panch after a lapse of 6 years from the date of his conviction, or earlier, if he is declared eligible for election by a general or special order of the State
\nGovernment in this behalf. Mr. Marudhar Mridul vehemently contended before us that in the case of respondent No.  2,  namely Kampat Singh six years<\/p>\n
must be counted from the date on which the revision petition filed by him against his convictions and sentences in both the criminal cases were decided by the High Court. Mr. M: M. Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contended that the period of 6 years could be computed from the date of his conviction by the trial Court and the confirmation of his conviction by the revisional court will not provide a fresh date for commencement of the said period.\n<\/p>\n
 13. We have applied our minds to this controversy. In our opinion. 6 years will be counted from the date of the convictions of the respondent No. 2 by the trial court because in an appeal or revision from a conviction the appellate Court or the revisional Court, as the case may be. may reverse the finding and the sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such appellate Court or revisional Court or commit for trial or alter the finding maintaining the sentence or with or without altering the sentence, alter the nature of the extent of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. In the instant case, the appellate Court and the revisional Court upheld the convictions of respondent No. 2 while reducing the extent of the sen-tences awarded to him by the trial Court If the appellate or the revisional Court had reversed the findings of conviction and the sentence and acquitted respondent No. 2. his acquittal would have taken effect retrospectively from the date on which his conviction was recorded by the trial Court, Reference in this connection may be made to Manni Lal v. Parmai Lal. AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 330. In our opinion, when the convictions of respondent No. 2 are upheld by the appellate Court and the revisional Court, it cannot be said that the date of his conviction should be treated as the date on which his convictions were upheld by the superior court in support of our above view, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Sohan Das v. Sampat Singh, 1982 Rajasthan LR 918 wherein Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. M. Lodha expressed a similar view. The relevant portion of the judgment of His Lordship is quoted below:–\n<\/p>\n
   \"In the instant case,    the    controversy\nis only about the date of conviction and\n\nundoubtedly the trial Court's judgment recorded the conviction and the appellate or revisional Court refused to interfere so far as the finding about the conviction is concerned. and he only confirmed it. \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 In that view of the matter. I am firmly of the view that the date of conviction for the purposes of counting the period of six years, as mentioned in sub-Clause (2) of the proviso to Section 11 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, is the date when the accused is first convicted by the trial Court The judgment of the Election Tribunal therefore requires no interference and the writ petition is dismissed summarily.”\n<\/p>\n
 14.    It will not    be out   of    place    to mention that under Section  389. Cr, P. C. the appellate  Court   may,     for     reasons    to be recorded by it  in writing, order that the     execution    of     sentence     appealed against be  suspended  during    the     pendency of an   appeal  by a convicted    person and also if the convicted person is in confinement   that he  be   released   on   bail or on his own bond.  Under this    section the appellate Court   has     no     power    to pass an order that the conviction of   the appellant,   who has been    tried    in    due course of law by a    subordinate    court should  be  treated  as   suspended pending the disposal  of his  appeal.     The section deals merely with the suspension of sentence pending decision of the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. If it had been the  intention  of     the     Legislature that pending his     appeal     conviction   of the   appellant  would  remain     suspended and it would revive only  from the date of the judgment of the  appellate Court, if  his  appeal  is dismissed,  and  his  conviction by the trial Court is upheld, the Legislature would have expressly said so in the Cr. P.  C. or in any other law. On the  other  hand,   the  Legislature  enacted Sub-sec.   (4)  of Section  389 which says     that when  the  appellant  is  ultimately     sentenced   to  imprisonment   for   a   term     or to imprisonment for life,  the  time,  during which his sentence remains suspended and  the time during which he is    at large,   shall   be  excluded   in     computing the period  of imprisonment     to be still undergone by   him.  Hence,  we have    no doubt in our minds that the date of conviction does not change  in  a case where the appellate or the revisional  Court,  as the case may be. has upheld or confirmed the conviction  of any     appellant    or the petitioner, as the case may be  while dismissing his appeal  or    revision    petition. In such a case the date of judgment of the appellate or the revisional Court cannot legally be the date of his conviction which starts from the date when he was convicted by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
 15. Consequently, respondent No. 2 became eligible for election as Panch after lapse of 6 years from the date of his conviction by the trial Court although earlier he was disqualified on account of having been convicted for of fences involving moral turpitude punishable under Sections 406 and 409. I.P.C. it will not be out of place to mention that the defeated candidate, namely. Shyam Sunder, who is no other person but the brother of the petitioner, challenged the election of respondent No. 2 to the office of Pradhan. Panchayat Samiti. Shah-pura. on this very ground but his election petition was dismissed by the District Judge, Bhilwara. after full trial thereof. In the absence of any material on the record, we cannot say that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner at the instance of the defeated candidate but we can say that this is not an appropriate case for invoking jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to respondent No. 2. as, in our opinion, respondent No. 2 was not disqualified to be elected as Pradhan. Panchavat Samiti. Shahpura. at the date of his election, because of the lapse of the period of 6 years from the date of his convictions by the trial Court of offences involving moral turpitude punishable under Sections 406 and 409. I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
 16. The special appeal has, therefore, no substance and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983 Equivalent citations: AIR 1984 Raj 29, 1983 WLN 217 Author: A D Sharma Bench: K D Sharma, K Bhatnagar JUDGMENT Alyan Dutta Sharma, C.J. 1. This is a special appeal filed by Narendra Kumar Somani under Section 18 of the […]<\/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":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNarendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983 - 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\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T15:14:49+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T15:14:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983\"},\"wordCount\":3291,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983\",\"name\":\"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T15:14:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983 - 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\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-21T15:14:49+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983","datePublished":"1983-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T15:14:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983"},"wordCount":3291,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983","name":"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T15:14:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendra-kumar-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-24-march-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 March, 1983"}]},{"@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\/52884","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=52884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}