{"id":54536,"date":"1971-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971"},"modified":"2016-02-16T23:06:49","modified_gmt":"2016-02-16T17:36:49","slug":"darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971","title":{"rendered":"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2372, \t\t  1972 SCR  (1) 571<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Shelat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDARSHAN SINGH RAM KISHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nDUA, I.D.\nROY, SUBIMAL CHANDRA\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 2372\t\t  1972 SCR  (1) 571\n 1971 SCC  (2) 654\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of  Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of\t1898),\ts.  1964(2)-\nCharge\tsheet  by police-No reference to  or  allegation  of\ncriminal conspiracy-Magistrate framing charges for  offences\nincluding under s. 120-B, I.P.C.Whether prior consent  under\ns. 196A(2), Cr.P.C., necessary.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  police filed a charge-sheet against the  appellant\t and\nanother\t  for  various\toffences  in  connection  with\t the\nfabrication  of a British passport.  The offences  mentioned\nin the charge-sheet against the appellant were ss.  419\/109,\n468  and 471, I.P.C., and against the other accused ss.\t 419\nand  471 read with s. 468.  The Magistrate did\tnot  examine\nany witnesses, but after perusing the charge-sheet and other\ndocuments  filed  before him under s. 173,  Cr.P.C.,  framed\ncharges against the two accused and committed them for trial\nbefore the Sessions Court.  The charges against the  accused\nincluded  the offence under s. 120B, I.P.C., the  object  of\nthe  conspiracy being, to commit the non-cognizable  offence\nof forging the passport.\nThe  appellant\tfiled an application in the High  Court\t for\nquashing the committal order on the ground that no  consent,\nas  required by s. 196A(2), Cr.P.C., having  been  obtained,\nthe Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the\noffence\t of  conspiracy.   The\tHigh  Court  dismissed\t the\napplication.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : (1) Cognizance takes place when the Magistrate  takes\njudicial notice of an offence.\tTherefore, when a Magistrate\ntakes cognizance of an offence under s. 190, Cr.P.C. upon  a\npolice\treport,\t prima\tfacie he does  so  of  the  offences\nalleged in the report. [573 H; 574 A]\nIn  the\t present case the charge-sheet did not refer  to  or\ncharge either of the accused with criminal conspiracy.\t The\ncognizance which the Magistrate took was therefore, only, of\nthe offences alleged in the chargesheet, and it was only  at\nthe  later  stage  of passing the committal  order  that  he\nconsidered that a charge under s. 120B was more\t appropriate\nthan that of abetment. [574 F-H]\n(2)  Even on the basis that it is not the sections  referred\nto  in the charge-sheet that matter, but the  offence  prima\nfacie disclosed by the allegations, in the present case\t the\noffence 'primarily and essentially disclosed in the  charge-\nsheet and other documents was one of abetment of forgery and\nof the false impersonation. [575 F-H]\nTherefore,  the\t Magistrate did not take cognizance  of\t the\noffence\t under s. 120B, I.P.C., and hence, consent under  s.\n196A(2) Cr.P.C., was not a condition precedent. [576 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 100  of<br \/>\n1969.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">572<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nJanuary\t 8,  1969  of  the Bombay  High\t Court\tin  Criminal<br \/>\nApplication No. 1341 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>C.   L. Sareen and J. C. Talwar, for the appellant.<br \/>\nP.   K. Chatterjee and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nShelat,\t J. The appellant and one Bakshi Singh Sunder  Singh<br \/>\nwere  accused  No. 2 and accused No. 1 respectively  in\t the<br \/>\ncommittal proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate, 28th<br \/>\nCourt,\tGreater Bombay.\t This appeal, by special  leave,  is<br \/>\ndirected  against the judgment of the High Court  of  Bombay<br \/>\nrefusing  to  quash  the order of committal  passed  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  facts relevant to this appeal are few and may first  be<br \/>\nstated.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  October 31, 1963, one Jivansingh Uttam Singh obtained  a<br \/>\nBritish\t passport  bearing No. 183459 at  Nairobi.   On\t the<br \/>\nstrength of that passport he was returning to India with his<br \/>\nfamily.\t On his way he died on board the ship.\tAccording to<br \/>\nthe  prosecution  that passport came into the hands  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   Bakshi  Singh  desired  to\t go  to\t the  United<br \/>\nKingdom,  but  had  no passport.  The  appellant  agreed  to<br \/>\narrange\t his journey and also for that purpose to  obtain  a<br \/>\npassport for him.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  allegation was that the appellant prepared an  applica-<br \/>\ntion for a visa in the name of Bakshi Singh.  It was further<br \/>\nalleged\t that  with  a view to procure\tthe  said  visa\t the<br \/>\nphotograph of the said deceased Jivansingh was removed\tfrom<br \/>\nthe said passport and that of Bakshi Singh substituted.\t The<br \/>\nvisa  having  in this fashion been  obtained,  Bakshi  Singh<br \/>\njourneyed to the United Kingdom having on his way made\tsome<br \/>\nintermediate halts.  The British authorities suspected\tthat<br \/>\nthe,  passport was a forged document and repatriated  Bakshi<br \/>\nSingh  to India.  On his arrival he was handed over  to\t the<br \/>\nSpecial Police, Bombay.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Special Police carried out investigation in the  course<br \/>\nof  which  they\t recorded statements  of  certain  witnesses<br \/>\nincluding that of Tanna Singh, the younger brother of Bakshi<br \/>\nSingh.\tOn completion of the investigation, the police filed<br \/>\na charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate.  That  charge-<br \/>\nsheet is not before us.\t But   counsel\tfor  the   appellant<br \/>\ninformed us that Bakshi Singh was  therein   charged   under<br \/>\nsecs. 419 and 471 read with sec. 468, and    the   appellant<br \/>\nwas charged under secs. 419\/109, 468 and 471 of\t the   Penal<br \/>\nCode.\tCounsel also. informed us- that the  Magistrate\t did<br \/>\nnot examine any witnesses, during the committal<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">573<\/span><br \/>\nproceedings  but  on a perusal of the charge-sheet  and\t the<br \/>\ndocuments  filed  before him under sec. 173 of the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal  Procedure he framed the charges and committed,  by<br \/>\nhis  order  dated September 13, 1968, Bakshi Singh  and\t the<br \/>\nappellant  for\ttrial before the Sessions  Court.   By\tthat<br \/>\norder  he directed the said Bakshi Singh to stand his  trial<br \/>\nunder  secs. 120B, 419, 467 and 471 read with sec. 467,\t and<br \/>\nthe  appellant under secs. 120B and 467 of the\tPenal  Code.<br \/>\nThe  offence of criminal conspiracy charged under sec.\t120B<br \/>\nwas  that  the\tsaid  Bakshi Singh  and\t the  appellant\t had<br \/>\nconspired to forge the said passport for the use of the said<br \/>\nBakshi Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the High Court various contentions were raised on  behalf<br \/>\nof  the appellant in support of his application\t under\tsec.<br \/>\n561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure including that  under<br \/>\nsec.  196A  (2).   That contention was that  no\t consent  as<br \/>\nrequired  by  sec. 196A(2) having been first  obtained,\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate  had\t no jurisdiction to take cognizance  of\t the<br \/>\noffence\t of conspiracy, and therefore, the  committal  order<br \/>\nwas  without  jurisdiction and had to be quashed.   In\tthis<br \/>\nappeal\twe  are concerned only with that contention  as\t the<br \/>\nspecial\t leave ranted to the appellant has been limited\t to<br \/>\nthat ground alone.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sub-sec.  2 of sec. 196A, which is relevant to\tthe  present<br \/>\ncase,  provides that no court shall take cognizance  of\t the<br \/>\noffence of criminal conspiracy punishable under sec. 120B of<br \/>\nthe  Penal  Code in a case&#8217; inter alia where the  object  of<br \/>\nsuch  conspiracy  is to commit any  non-cognizable  offence.<br \/>\nThere  is  no  doubt  that the\tcharge,\t as  framed  by\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate  and\t for which he committed\t the  appellant\t and<br \/>\nBakshi Singh to stand their trial before the Sessions Court,<br \/>\nwas  for  criminal conspiracy, the object of  which  was  to<br \/>\nforge  the  said  passport, a  non-cognizable  offence.\t  In<br \/>\nrespect\t of  that offence, sec.\t 196A(2)  would\t undoubtedly<br \/>\napply.\tWhat that section prohibits is taking cognizance  of<br \/>\nan  offence  of criminal conspiracy unless  consent  to\t the<br \/>\ninitiation of proceedings against the person charged with it<br \/>\nhas been first obtained.\n<\/p>\n<p>As provided by sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a<br \/>\nMagistrate may take cognizance of an offence either (a) upon<br \/>\nreceiving  a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or\t (c)<br \/>\nupon information received from a person other than a  police<br \/>\nofficer\t or even upon his own information or suspicion\tthat<br \/>\nsuch an offence has been committed.  As has often been\theld<br \/>\ntaking\tcognizance  does not involve any  formal  action  or<br \/>\nindeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate<br \/>\napplies his mind to the suspected commission of an  offence.<br \/>\nCognizance,  therefore,\t takes\tplace  at  a  point  when  a<br \/>\nmagistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence.\tThis<br \/>\nis the position whether the magistrate takes<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">574<\/span><br \/>\ncognizance  of\tan  offence on a complaint or  on  a  police<br \/>\nreport, or upon information of a person other than a  police<br \/>\nofficer.   Therefore, when a magistrate takes cognizance  of<br \/>\nan  offence upon a police report, prima facie he does so  of<br \/>\nthe offence or offences disclosed in such report.<br \/>\nIt is not in dispute that the charge-sheet submitted by\t the<br \/>\npolice officer for the purpose of initiation of\t proceedings<br \/>\nby  the magistrate was for offences under sees. 419 and\t 471<br \/>\nread  with  sec. 468 against Bakshi Singh  and\tunder  sees.<br \/>\n419\/109,  471  and 468 against the appellant.\tThe  charge-<br \/>\nsheet  admittedly did not refer to or charge either of\tthem<br \/>\nwith criminal conspiracy under sec. 120B.  Prima facie it is<br \/>\nnot possible to say that at the stage when the police  filed<br \/>\nthe  charge-sheet  the\tMagistrate took\t cognizance  of\t the<br \/>\noffence,  under\t sec. 120B, for, that was  not\tthe  offence alleg<br \/>\ned  in\tthe  charge-sheet to have  been\t committed  by<br \/>\neither of the two accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>True  it is that the Magistrate ultimately drew\t up  charges<br \/>\nwhich  included the offence under sec. 120B, the  object  of<br \/>\nwhich was to forge the passport, an offence under sec.\t467.<br \/>\nThe Magistrate also did not consider it necessary to examine<br \/>\nany  witnesses\tand frame the charges on a  perusal  of\t the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet  submitted to him by the police, the  statement<br \/>\nof   witnesses\t recorded  by  the   police   during   their<br \/>\ninvestigation  and such other documents as were filed  under<br \/>\nsec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure &amp;,fore him.\t The<br \/>\nmaterials  before  him,\t therefore, were the  same  as\twere<br \/>\nbefore\tthe police officer who had filed  the  charge-sheet.<br \/>\nBut  while drawing up the charges and passing his  order  of<br \/>\ncommittal, the\tMagistrate  considered\tthat  though   the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet  filed  before him alleged\t the  commission  of<br \/>\noffences under secs. 419\/109, 471 and 468, the proper charge<br \/>\non the materials before him, although they were the same  as<br \/>\nbefore\tthe police officer, warranted a charge\tof  criminal<br \/>\nconspiracy  for\t forging  a passport.  It  is  quite  clear,<br \/>\nhowever,  that\tthe  cognizance which he  took\twas  of\t the<br \/>\noffences  alleged  in  the charge-sheet because\t it  was  in<br \/>\nrespect of those offences that the police had applied to him<br \/>\nto  initiate  proceedings  against  Bakshi  Singh  and\t the<br \/>\nappellant  and not for the offence under sec. 120B.  It\t was<br \/>\nat a later stage, i.e., at the time of passing the committal<br \/>\norder  that he considered that a charge under sec. 120B\t was<br \/>\nthe more appropriate charge and not a charge under sec.\t 109<br \/>\nof the Penal Code.  That being so, it must be held that\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate took cognizance of the offence of abetment of  an<br \/>\noffence of forgery and impersonation so far as the appellant<br \/>\nwas concerned and not of the offence of criminal conspiracy,<br \/>\nand therefore, sec. 196A(2) did not apply.<br \/>\nCounsel\t in this connection relied on  certain\tobservations<br \/>\nmade  in a minority judgment of S. K. Das, J.,\tin  Pramatha<br \/>\nNath<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t575<\/span><br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1271682\/\">Taluqdar  v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar.<\/a> (1) The question  involved<br \/>\nthere  was, whether a second complaint could be\t entertained<br \/>\nby a magistrate who or whose predecessor had on the same  or<br \/>\nsimilar\t allegations dismissed a previous complaint, and  if<br \/>\nso,  in\t what  circumstances  should  such  a  complaint  be<br \/>\nentertained.   Arising-. out of this question  a  contention<br \/>\nwas  raised whether on the complaint, as it was framed,\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate  had the jurisdiction to, take cognizance of\t the<br \/>\noffences  alleged  in  the complaint in the,  absence  of  a<br \/>\nsanction  under\t sec. 196A.  The  second  complaint  alleged<br \/>\noffences  under secs. 467 and 471 read with sec. 109 of\t the<br \/>\nPenal Code.  But in para 5 thereof, there was an  allegation<br \/>\nas  to criminal conspiracy and it was on the basis  of\tthat<br \/>\nallegation that sec. 196A(2) was sought to be involved.\t  It<br \/>\nwas in this connection that the learned Judge at page 315 of<br \/>\nthe report, observed :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;It  would  not  be  proper  to  decide\tthe,<br \/>\n\t      question\tof sanction me-rely by\ttaking\tinto<br \/>\n\t      consideration  the offences mentioned  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      heading  or  the\tuse  of\t the  expression   &#8221;<br \/>\n\t      criminal\tconspiracy&#8221; in para, 5.\t The  proper<br \/>\n\t      test  should&#8217; be whether the allegations\tmade<br \/>\n\t      in   the\tpetition  of   complaint   disclosed<br \/>\n\t      primarily\t  and  essentially  an\toffence\t  or<br \/>\n\t      offences for which a consent in writing  would<br \/>\n\t      be   necessary  to  the  initiation   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      proceedings  within the meaning of s.  196A(2)<br \/>\n\t      of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  It is<br \/>\n\t      from  that point of view that the petition  of<br \/>\n\t      &#8216;complaint must be examined.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The learned Judge ultimately held that though the offence of<br \/>\ncriminal conspiracy was alluded to in para 5 of thesaid<br \/>\ncomplaint, the offence &#8220;primarily and essentially&#8221; chargedwas<br \/>\nabetment by conspiracy under sec. 109 of the Penal Code, and<br \/>\ntherefore. no consent under sec. 196A(2) was required.In<br \/>\nBiroo\t  Sardar  v. Ariff (2) the view also taken was\tthat<br \/>\nitis  not the, sections referred to which matter but  the<br \/>\noffence prima facie disclosed.\tFollowing that decision, the<br \/>\nHigh  Court of Bombay in Ramchandra v.\tEmperor(3)  observed<br \/>\nthat  the  question  whether sanction is  necessary  or\t not<br \/>\ndepends\t not on the sections referred to in a complaint\t but<br \/>\nthe offence prima facie disclosed&#8217;. by the facts alleged  in<br \/>\nit.\n<\/p>\n<p>It   is\t clear\tfrom  the  charge-sheet\t submitted  to\t the<br \/>\nmagistratethat\tthe offence of criminal conspiracy  was\t not<br \/>\neven  referred to.  The offence &#8220;primarily and\tessentially&#8221;<br \/>\nalleged\t therein was oneof abetment of forgery\tunder  secs.<br \/>\n468 and 471 and of false,<br \/>\n(1) [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 297.\t  (2) A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 579.<br \/>\n(3)  A.I.R. 1939 [Bom.] 129.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">576<\/span><\/p>\n<p>impersonation  under sec. 419 read with sec. 109.   Assuming<br \/>\nthat the Magistrate before taking cognizance had persued the<br \/>\nstatements  of\twitnesses  recorded  by\t the  police  during<br \/>\ninvestigation, it was conceded by counsel, after he  himself<br \/>\nhad  gone  through them from the record, that  none  of\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses had alleged therein either directly or  indirectly<br \/>\nof  the appellant having entered into a criminal  conspiracy<br \/>\nwith  Bakshi Singh for forging the passport.  It- cannot  be<br \/>\ndisputed  that the charge-sheet also prima  facie  disclosed<br \/>\nthe  offence of abetment.  That being so, it is\t ,impossible<br \/>\nto sustain the argument that the Magistrate took  cognizance<br \/>\nof the offence under sec. 120B, and therefore, consent under<br \/>\nsec.  196A(2) was required as a condition precedent or\tthat<br \/>\nthe committal order and the proceedings for committal which<br \/>\nbe took were vitiated for want of such consent.<br \/>\nThe appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t     Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">577<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2372, 1972 SCR (1) 571 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: DARSHAN SINGH RAM KISHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1971 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. DUA, I.D. ROY, SUBIMAL CHANDRA CITATION: [&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-54536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971 - 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\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-16T17:36:49+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-16T17:36:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1932,\"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\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971\",\"name\":\"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-16T17:36:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971 - 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\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-16T17:36:49+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971","datePublished":"1971-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-16T17:36:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971"},"wordCount":1932,"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\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971","name":"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-16T17:36:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-ram-kishan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-2-september-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/54536","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=54536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}