{"id":7352,"date":"1959-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959"},"modified":"2016-12-27T03:15:07","modified_gmt":"2016-12-26T21:45:07","slug":"the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959","title":{"rendered":"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 360, \t\t 1960 SCR (2) 355<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHIRALAL G. KOTHARI AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n30\/11\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nKAPUR, J.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  360\t\t  1960 SCR  (2) 355\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal Law-Pardon-Conspiracy and allied offences Tender of\nPardon of approver for main offence-Separate trial of  other\naccused\t for subsidiary offence-Examination of\tapprover  as\nsuch   for  subsidiary\toffence-Legality-Code  of   Criminal\nProcedure, 1898, (Act V of 1898), ss. 339, 377(1).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOn  March  9,  1956,  a conspiracy  to\tdivulge\t the  budget\nproposals on receiving valuable consideration was discovered\nand a case was registered under s. 165A of the Indian  Penal\nCode, s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947,  s.\n5  of  the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and s.  120B  of\t the\nIndian Penal Code.  Investigation started on March 10, 1956,\nand  thereafter pardon was tendered to M by  the  Additional\nDistrict  Magistrate  under s. 337 of the Code\tof  Criminal\nProcedure.    Owing  to\t technical  legal   difficulties   a\ncomplaint  under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read\twith\ns.  120B  of  the Indian Penal Code was\t filed\tagainst\t the\npersons\t involved and proceedings began before a  magistrate\non  this complaint.  In the course of these proceedings\t the\nprosecution  wanted  to examine M as an\t approver,  but\t the\naccused persons objected that as the proceedings before\t the\nmagistrate were only under s. 5 of the Official Secrets\t Act\nread with S. 12 OB of the Indian Penal Code and as no pardon\ncould  be  tendered  under s. 337 of the  Code\tof  Criminal\nProcedure  for these offences, M could not be treated as  an\napprover but could be examined only as an ordinary  witness.\nIt  was contended for the prosecution that as the person  to\nwhom  pardon  was tendered was expected to  tell  the  whole\ntruth\tincluding  details  of\tother  subsidiary   offences\ncommitted in the course of the commission of the offence for\nwhich  pardon  was  tendered, such pardon must\tbe  held  to\ninclude\t the  subsidiary offences though not of\t the  nature\nmentioned in s. 377(1), and therefore M could be  considered\nas an approver in the present proceedings.\nHeld, that a pardon under s. 377(1) of the Code of  Criminal\nProcedure  could  be  tendered\tonly  with  respect  to\t the\noffences mentioned therein and that as s. 5 of the  Official\nSecrets\t Act read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code\t was\nnot  covered  by the words of s. 337(1) no pardon  could  be\ngranted for an offence of this nature.\tConsequently, as the\nproceedings before the magistrate were only with respect  to\nthese  offences, M could not be treated as an  approver\t for\nthe purpose of these proceedings.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 25 to
\n27 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
356<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and order dated June 25, 1957,  of
\nthe  Punjab  High Court, in Criminal Revisions\tNos.  184-D,
\n185-D  and 186-D of 1956, arising out of  the  judgment\t and
\norder dated October 23, 1956, of the\tSessions      Judge,
\nDelhi,\tin Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 249, 250\t and
\n251 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
Bipin Behari Lal and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
\nG. C. Mathur and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent in Cr.  A.
\nNo.25 of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
A.  G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent in Cr.  A. No. 26  of
\n1958.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent in Cr.  A. No. 27 of 1959 did not appear.
\n1959.  November 30.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nWANCHOO\t  J.-These   three  appeals  arise  out\t  of   three
\ncertificates granted by the Punjab High Court in a  criminal
\nmatter.\t  They\twill  be dealt with together  as  the  point
\nraised in them is common.  The brief facts necessary for the
\npurpose\t are these: There is a Government Printing Press  at
\nRashtrapati  Bhavan  known as  Rashtrapati  Bhavan  Printing
\nPress  which  is located in the President’s  estate  in\t New
\nDelhi.\tJacobs was the General Foreman of this Press.  Every
\nyear  the budget proposals are printed at this\tPress  under
\nthe supervision of Jacobs.  As usual, Jacobs supervised\t the
\nprinting  of  budget proposals in his official\tcapacity  in
\nFebruary  1955 also.\t     It appears that Jacobs  entered
\ninto  a\t conspiracy  to\t divulge  the  budget  proposals  on
\nreceiving valuable consideration for the same.\tConsequently
\nthe proposals were divulged to D. P. Chadda and were  passed
\non to certain businessmen of Bombay, including Nandlal\tMore
\nand  Hiralal G. Kothari through one A. L. Mehra.   All\tthis
\nwas done against the provisions of the Official Secrets Act,
\nNo. XIX of 1923.  Further an offence was committed under the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, No. 11 of 1947, also  inasmuch
\nas  money  was\tpaid  to Jacobs\t for  divulging\t the  budget
\nproposals.\t     The  same thing  happened\tin  February
\n1956, with ‘respect to the
\n\t\t\t    357<\/span>
\nbudget proposals for 1956-57.  This was discovered on  March
\n9,  1956,  and a case was registered under s. 165-A  of\t the
\nIndian\tPenal Code, s. 5(2) of the Prevention of  Corruption
\nAct,’ s. 5 of the Official Secrets  Act and s. 120-B  of the
\nIndian\tPenal  Code and investigation started on  March\t 10,
\n1956.  Thereafter, pardon was tendered to A.L. Mehra by\t the
\nAdditional  District Magistrate on March 23, 1956, under  s.
\n337  of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\t The  four  offences
\nmentioned   above  were\t specified  in\tthe  order  of\t the
\nAdditional  District Magistrate tendering pardon  to  Mehra.
\nThereafter owing to technical legal difficulties a complaint
\nunder s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of
\nthe Indian Penal Code was filed against the persons involved
\nand  it was, stated in that complaint that proceedings\twith
\nthe respect to the charge under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act would be taken separately.  Proceedings\tthen
\nbegan  before  a magistrate on this complaint.\t It  may  be
\nmentioned  that no proceedings have yet started\t insofar  as
\nthe  offences under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of  Corruption
\nAct and s. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code are concerned.
\nIn  the course of these proceedings before  the\t magistrate,
\nthe  prosecution  wanted to examine Mehra  as  an  approver.
\nThereupon   the\t accused  persons  objected  that   as\t the
\nproceedings  before the magistrate were only under s.  5  of
\nthe  Official Secrets Act and s. 120-B of the  Indian  Penal
\nCode,  Mehra  could not be examined as an  approver  and  in
\nconsequence the case could not be committed to the Court  of
\nSession but should be disposed of by the magistrate himself.
\nThe  magistrate\t held  that Mehra could\t be  treated  as  an
\napprover  and proceedings before him were therefore  in\t the
\nnature\tof  commitment proceedings.  Thereupon there  was  a
\nrevision to the Sessions Judge who took the view that as the
\nproceedings  before  the magistrate were under s. 5  of\t the
\nOfficial Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian  Penal
\nCode and as no pardon could be tendered under s. 337 of\t the
\nCode  of Criminal Procedure for these offences, Mehra  could
\nnot  be treated as an approver and had to be examined as  an
\n46<\/span>
\n358<\/span>
\nordinary  witness  and the proceedings must be\theld  to  be
\ntrial proceedings before the magistrate and not\t  commitment
\nproceedings.   He therefore recommended\t  to the High  Court
\nthat the order of the magistrate be  set aside.
\nThe   High   court   upheld  the  view\t of   the   Sessions
\nJudge  and  ordered accordingly.   It  granted\tcertificates
\nunder  Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution; and that  is\t how
\nthese three appeals have been filed by the State before us.
\nThe only question that has been urged before us is that\t the
\nview of the magistrate is correct and Mehra could be treated
\nas an approver and examined as such for the purposes of\t the
\nproceedings  before  him.   The question  whether  the\tcase
\nshould be committed to the Court of Session does not survive
\nnow  as\t we are told that one of the accused has  asked\t for
\ntrial by the Court of Session as provided under s. 13(2)  of
\nthe Official Secrets Act.  The High Court examined s. 337 of
\nthe  Code of Criminal Procedure and came to  the  conclusion
\nthat a pardon under that section could only be tendered with
\nrespect\t to  certain  offences mentioned  therein.   It\t was
\nfurther of the view that as s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act
\nread with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was not  covered
\nby the words of s. 337(1) and as the proceedings before\t the
\nmagistrate  were only with respect to these offences,  Mehra
\ncould not be treated as an approver, to whom pardon had been
\ntendered, for the purpose of these proceedings.
\nA  mere perusal of s. 337 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure
\nshows  that the view of the High Court is correct.   Section
\n337(1)\tprovides  for tender of a pardon in respect  of\t the
\nfollowing offences, namely-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  Any offence triable exclusively by the High Court or
\nCourt of Session ;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Any  offence  punishable with  imprisonment  which\t may
\nextend\tto seven years;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  Any offence under any of the  following\tsections  of
\nthe Indian Penal Code: 161, 165, 165-A, 216-A, 369, 401, 435
\nand 477-A.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    359<\/span><\/p>\n
Thus pardon can only be tendered with respect to an  offence
\nwhich falls in one of these categories.\t It is not  disputed
\nthat an offence under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act\tread
\nwith  s.  120-\tB of the Indian Penal\tCode  does  not fall
\nwithin any of these categories.\t So if the proceedings\twere
\nwith  respect only to an offence under s. 5 of the  Official
\nSecrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,  s.
\n337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply and no
\npardon\tcould  be  tendered to any  person.   It  is  urged,
\nhowever,  that s. 337(1) contemplates tender of a pardon  on
\ncondition  of  the person pardoned making a  full  and\ttrue
\ndisclosure  of\tthe whole of the  circumstances\t within\t his
\nknowledge relative to the offence and to every other  person
\nconcerned, whether as principal or abettor in the commission
\nthereof;  and this means that the person to whom  pardon  is
\ntendered  is  expected\tto tell the  whole  truth  including
\ndetails\t of  any other subsidiary offence which\t might\thave
\nbeen  committed\t in  the course of  the\t commission  of\t the
\noffence\t for  which  pardon is tendered\t and  therefore\t the
\npardon\tso tendered must be held to include  the  subsidiary
\noffence,  even though, if the subsidiary offence alone\twere
\ncommitted and were not of the nature mentioned in s. 337(i),
\nno  pardon could have been tendered for the same.   Reliance
\nin  this connection is placed also on s. 339 of the Code  of
\nCriminal Procedure, which provides that where any person who
\nhas  accepted pardon either by wilfully concealing  anything
\nessential or by giving false evidence, does not comply\twith
\nthe Condition on which the tender was made, he may be  tried
\nfor the offence in respect of which the pardon was  tendered
\nor  for any other offence of which he appears to  have\tbeen
\nguilty in connection with the same matter.  It is said\tthat
\nthe specific provision for trial for any other offence which
\nmight have been committed in connection with the same matter
\nin  s.\t339  shows that the pardon  would  cover  the  other
\noffence also even though it may not be an offence for  which
\nthe pardon was and could be tendered.\n<\/p>\n
We are of opinion that no such inference could be drawn from
\nthe use of these words in s. 339, for that
\n360<\/span>
\nsection\t deals\twith a\tdifferent  contingency\t altogether,
\nnamely,\t whether  the  conditions of  the  pardon  had\tbeen
\ncomplied   with.    It\t is  to\t  be   remembered   that   a
\npardon-\t -tendered  under  s.  337  is\ta  protection\tfrom
\nprosecution.   Failure\t to comply with\t the  conditions  on
\nwhich  the  pardon  is\ttendered  removes  that\t protection.
\nAll  that  s. 339 says, provided the  requisite\t certificate
\nunder  that  section is given by the Public  Prosecutor,  is
\nthat  the  person  to whom the pardon  is  tendered  can  be
\nprosecuted for the offence for which the pardon was tendered
\nas  also any other offence of which he appears to be  guilty
\nin connection with the same matter.  This would be just\t the
\nsame  as if s. 339 merely stated that on failure  to  comply
\nwith the conditions of the pardon such pardon would be\tfor-
\nfeited.\t , The words of s. 339 therefore are of no  help  in
\nconstruing  s. 337 and we must look to the words of  337  in
\ndeciding  whether a pardon could be tendered for an  offence
\nunder s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of
\nthe Indian Penal Code.\tThe fact that in the application  in
\nwhich\tthe   police  requested\t the   Additional   District
\nMagistrate  for\t tender\t of pardon or in the  order  of\t the
\nAdditional District Magistrate tendering pardon, s. 5 of the
\nOfficial Secrets Act was mentioned along with other offences
\nfor  which  pardon could be tendered would not mean  that  a
\npardon\tcould be tendered for an offence under that  Act  if
\nunder  the law as provided in s. 337(1) no pardon  could  be
\ntendered  for an offence under s. 5 of the Official  Secrets
\nAct.   As  we read s. 337(1), it is to\tour  mind  perfectly
\nclear that pardon can only be tendered under that  provision
\nwith  respect to the three categories of offences  mentioned
\ntherein and already indicated above and none other.  As s. 5
\nof the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian
\nPenal  Code does not fall within any of these categories  no
\npardon\tcan  be\t tendered  with\t respect  to  that  offence.
\nTherefore, Mehra to whom pardon has been tendered, could not
\nbe  examined  as an approver in the  proceedings  which\t are
\nconcerned  ,only with an offence under s. 5 of the  Official
\nSecrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    361<\/span><\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel  for the appellant drew  our  attention  to
\nthree  cases in support of the view that a pardon  under  s.
\n337(1)\tcould be tendered not only for the offences  of\t the
\nkind enumerated therein but also other\toffences which might
\nbe committed in the course of the commission of the offences
\nenumerated  therein but which might not be within the  terms
\nof  s.\t337(1).\t  These cases are:  Queen-Empress  v.  Ganga
\nCharan\t(1)  ; Harumal Parmanand v. Emperor (2);  and  Shiam
\nSunder\tv.  Emperor  (3).   These  cases  however  refer  to
\ndifferent  circumstances altogether and were  not  concerned
\nwith  ‘the  interpretation  of\ts. 337(1)  of  the  Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure.  In all these cases the  question\tthat
\narose  before  the courts was whether an  approver  who\t was
\nprosecuted  under  s. 339 for certain offences could  be  or
\nshould\tbe so prosecuted.  They also turned on the terms  of
\nthe pardon granted in those particular cases.  It was  there
\nheld  that  where a question arose how far  a  pardon  would
\nprotect\t an approver, it. should not be treated in a  narrow
\nspirit,\t bearinG  in mind that in countenaiicing  tender  of
\npardons to accomplices the law does not invite a cramped and
\nconstrained  statement\tby’  the  approver  but\t requires  a
\nthorough and complete disclosure of all the facts within his
\nknowledge  bearing upon the offence or offences as to  which
\nhe  gave  evidence.  The considerations which apply  when  a
\ntrial is taking place tinder s. 339 of the Code of  Criminal
\nProcedure  are\tentirely different.  The proviso to  s.\t 339
\nshows  that at his trial, an approver is entitled  to  plead
\nthat he has complied with the condition upon which tender of
\npardon\twas made and if he succeeds in proving that  he\t has
\ncomplied with the conditions upon which the tender was\tmade
\nhe  is\tprotected  from\t prosecution  with  respect  to\t all
\noffences  which appear to have been committed in  connection
\nwith the matter giving rise to the offence for which  pardon
\nwas tendered.  These three cases really turn on the question
\nwhether\t the accused had complied with the  conditions\tupon
\nwhich the pardon was tendered to him and it was held that be
\nhad so complied.\n<\/p>\n
(1) I.L.R. 11 All. 79.\t\t(2) A.I.R. 1915 Sind 43,
\n(3)  A.I.R. 1921 All. 234,
\n362<\/span>
\nIn  those circumstances, the trial under s. 339 was held  to
\nbe  bad.  We are not concerned in the present case  with  s.\n<\/p>\n
339.\t What\twe   have   to\t decide\t  is\twhether\t   a
\npardon under S. 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can
\nbe granted in the case of an offence under s.\t  5  of\t the
\nOfficial Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of\t  the Indian
\nPenal  Code.   To that there can be only one answer  on\t the
\nterms  of s. 337(1), namely, that no pardon can\t be  granted
\nfor  an offence of this nature.\t Therefore, as\tthe  present
\nproceedings  before the magistrate are only for\t an  offence
\nunder s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of
\nthe  Indian  Penal  Code, Mehra cannot\tbe  examined  as  an
\napprover in that court.\t There is no force in these  appeals
\nand they are hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 360, 1960 SCR (2) 355 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. PETITIONER: THE STATE Vs. RESPONDENT: HIRALAL G. KOTHARI AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/1959 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. IMAM, SYED JAFFER KAPUR, […]<\/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-7352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959 - 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\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959\" \/>\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=\"1959-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-26T21:45:07+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-26T21:45:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959\"},\"wordCount\":2316,\"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\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959\",\"name\":\"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-26T21:45:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959\"}]},{\"@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":"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959 - 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\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-26T21:45:07+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959","datePublished":"1959-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-26T21:45:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959"},"wordCount":2316,"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\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959","name":"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-26T21:45:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-vs-hiralal-g-kothari-and-others-on-30-november-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State vs Hiralal G. Kothari And Others on 30 November, 1959"}]},{"@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\/7352","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=7352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7352\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}