{"id":74572,"date":"1957-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957"},"modified":"2018-02-06T13:00:55","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T07:30:55","slug":"jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957","title":{"rendered":"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 124, \t\t 1958 SCR 762<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJASWANT SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/10\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1958 AIR  124\t\t  1958 SCR  762\n\n\nACT:\n       Criminal trial-Sanction in respect of one offence-Trial\tfor\n       two  offences  requiring\t sanction-If  trial  wholly   void-\n       Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,\t 1947  (II  of\t1947),\tss.\n       5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) and 6.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       Sanction\t was  given  under  s.\t6  of  the  Prevention\t of\n       Corruption  Act, 1947, for the prosecution of the  appellant\n       for  having  received  illegal gratification  from  one\tPal\n       Singh.  He was charged with and tried for two offences under\n       s. 5(1)(a) of the Act for habitually accepting or  obtaining\n       illegal\tgratification  and under S. 5(1)(d)  for  receiving\n       illegal\tgratification  from Pal Singh.\tThe  Special  judge\n       found  both charges proved and convicted the appellant.\t On\n       appeal, the High Court held that the appellant could neither\n       be tried nor convicted of the offence under S. 5(1)(a) as no\n       sanction\t had  been given in respect of it  but\tupheld\tthe\n       conviction  for\tthe  offence under  S.\t5(1)(d)\t for  which\n       sanction had been given.\t It was argued that the\t conviction\n       even  for  the offence under S. 5(1)(d) was illegal  as\tthe\n       trial was wholly void and without jurisdiction :\n       Held,  that the contention that the trial for  two  offences\n       requiring  sanction  is wholly void, where the  sanction\t is\n       granted\tfor  only  one offence and not for  the\t other,\t is\n       unsustainable.\tThe  want of sanction for  the\toffence\t of\n       habitually  accepting  bribes does not make  the\t taking\t of\n       cognizance  of the offence of taking a bribe from Pal  Singh\n       void nor the trial for that offence illegal and the Court  a\n       Court without jurisdiction.\n       Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, (1939) F.C.R. 159 and  Basirul-\n       Huq v. The State of West Bengal, (1953) S.C.R. 836, referred\n       to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CRIMINAL\t APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 66\t of
\n       1954.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 31st  December,
\n       1953 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 540\t of
\n       1953,  arising out of the judgment and order dated the  14th
\n       September, 1953, of the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar, in
\n       Corruption Case No. 13\/1-10\/3 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n
       Shaukat Hussain, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       Gopal Singh and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
\n       1957.  October 25.  The following judgment of the Court\twas
\n       delivered by
\n       763<\/span>
\n       KAPUR J.-The sole point in this appeal against the  judgment
\n       and  order of the Punjab High Court pronounced  on  December
\n       31,  1953, is the validity and effect of the sanction  given
\n       under s. 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2\t of
\n       1947), hereinafter termed the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       The   appellant\t was  prosecuted  for\treceiving   illegal
\n       gratification  and  the\tcharge\tagainst\t him  was  in\tthe
\n       following terms:\n<\/p>\n
       “That,  you,  Jaswant Singh, while employed  as\ta  Patwari,
\n       Fatehpur\t Rajputan  habitually  accepted\t or  obtained\tfor
\n       yourself illegal gratification and that you received in\tthe
\n       sum of Rs. 50 on 19-3-1953 at Subzi Mandi Amritsar from\tPal
\n       Singh  P. W. as a reward for forwarding the application\tEs.
\n       P.  A.  with  your recommendation for  helping  Santa  Singh
\n       father of Pal Singh in the allotment of Ahata No. 10 situate
\n       at  village  Fatehpur  Rajputan\tand  thereby  committed\t an
\n       offence of Criminal misconduct in the discharge of your duty
\n       mentioned in section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption
\n       Act,  1947, punishable under sub-section 2 of section  5\t of
\n       the aforesaid Act and within my cognizance.  ”
\n       The  Special  Judge found that the  appellant  had  accepted
\n       illegal\tgratification from Pal Singh, Hazara Singh,  Harnam
\n       Singh,  Joginder\t Singh, Atma Singh, Hari  Singh\t and  Ganda
\n       Singh  and  that he had received Rs. 50 from  Pal  Singh\t on
\n       March 19, 1953, at Subzi Mandi, Amritsar.  He then held:
\n       “The  charge  under section 5 (1)(a) of\tthe  Prevention\t of
\n       Corruption  Act,\t 1947,\thas been  established  against\thim
\n       beyond  reasonable  doubt.   He\tis  guilty  of\tan  offence
\n       punishable  under sub-section (2) of section 5 of  the  said
\n       Act.  ”\n<\/p>\n
       The appellant took an appeal to the High Court of the Punjab
\n       and  Dulat  J.  held  that  taking  into\t consideration\tthe
\n       sanction which will be quoted hereinafter:
\n       ”  The  appellant  could\t neither  have\tbeen  charged\tnor
\n       convicted  of  what  is probably a much\tgraver\toffence\t of
\n       habitually accepting bribes.”\n<\/p>\n
       97<\/span>
\n       764<\/span><\/p>\n
       But  he\theld  that sanction was valid  qua  the\t charge\t of
\n       accepting  illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from\tPal  Singh.
\n       The  conviction\twas therefore upheld but the  sentence\twas
\n       reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence\t of
\n       fine maintained.\n<\/p>\n
       The  argument raised by the appellant in this court is  that
\n       as the sanction was confined to illegal gratification of Rs.
\n       50  paid\t by  Pal Singh and the charge  was  for\t habitually
\n       accepting  illegal  gratification  the  trial  was   without
\n       jurisdiction  and the appellant could not be convicted  even
\n       for  the offence which was mentioned in the  sanction.\tThe
\n       sanction was in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
       ”  Whereas I am satisfied that Jaswant Singh Patwari son\t of
\n       Gurdial\tSingh Kamboh of village Ajaibwali had  accepted\t an
\n       illegal\tgratification of Rs. 50 in 5 currency notes of\tRs.
\n       10  denomination\t each from one Pal Singh son  of  S.  Santa
\n       Singh  of  village Fatehpur Rajputan,  Tehsil  Amritsar\tfor
\n       making a favorable report on an application for allotment of
\n       an ahata to S. Santa Singh father of the said S. Pal Singh.
\n       And  whereas  the evidence available in\tthis  case  clearly
\n       discloses  that\tthe  said  S.  Jaswant\tSingh  Patwari\thad
\n       committed  an offence under Section 5 of the  Prevention\t of
\n       Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
       Now  therefore,\t1,  N. N. Kashyap,  Esquire  I.C.S.  Deputy
\n       Commissioner,   Asr,  as\t required  by  Section\t6  of\tthe
\n       Prevention  of Corruption Act of 1947, hereby  sanction\tthe
\n       prosecution  of\tthe  said S. Jaswant  Singh  Patwari  under
\n       section 5 of the said Act.”\n<\/p>\n
       Section 6(1) of the Act provides for sanction as follows:
\n       ”  No Court shall take cognizance of an\toffence\t punishable
\n       under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code or
\n       under  sub-section (2) of section 5 of this Act, alleged\t to
\n       have  been  committed by a public servant, except  with\tthe
\n       previous sanction.  ” Section 5 (1)(a) relates to a case\t of
\n       a   public   servant  if\t he  habitually\t  accepts   illegal
\n       gratification and s. 5(1)(d)
\n       765<\/span>
\n       if  he obtains for himself any valuable thing  or  pecuniary
\n       advantage.   The\t contention  comes  to\tthis  that  as\tthe
\n       sanction\t  was  only  for  receiving  Rs.  50   as   illegal
\n       gratification from Pal Singh and therefore an offence’ under
\n       s.  5  (1)(d)  the prosecution, the  charge  and\t conviction
\n       should  have been under that provision and had that been\t so
\n       there  would have been no defect in the jurisdiction of\tthe
\n       court  trying the case nor any defect in the conviction\tbut
\n       as  the\tappellant  was tried under the charge  of  being  a
\n       habitual\t receiver of bribes and the sanction was  only\tfor
\n       one single act of receiving illegal gratification the  trial
\n       was  wholly  void  as  it was a trial  by  a  court  without
\n       jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
       The  sanction under the Act is not intended to be nor is\t an
\n       automatic formality and it is essential that the\t provisions
\n       in  regard  to  sanction should be  observed  with  complete
\n       strictness; Basque Agarwala v. King Emperor (1).\t The object
\n       of the provision for sanctions is that the authority  giving
\n       the  sanction  should be able to consider  for  itself  tile
\n       evidence\t  before  it  comes  to\t a  conclusion\t that\tthe
\n       prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden.
\n       In Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King (2) the Judicial
\n       Committee of the Privy Council also took a similar view when
\n       it observed:\n<\/p>\n
       ” In their Lordships’ view, to comply with the provisions of
\n       cl.  23\tit must be proved that the sanction  was  given\t in
\n       respect\tof the facts constituting the offence charged.\t It
\n       is plainly desirable that the facts should be referred to on
\n       the  face of the Sanction, but this is not essential,  since
\n       cl. 23 does not require the sanction to be in any particular
\n       form,  nor  even\t to  be\t in  writing.\tBut  if\t the  facts
\n       constituting  the offence charged are not shown on the  face
\n       of  the sanction’ the prosecution must prove  by\t extraneous
\n       evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning
\n       authority.   The\t sanction  to  prosecute  is  an  important
\n       matter;\t it  constitutes  a  condition\tprecedent  to\tthe
\n       institution  of the prosecution and the Government  have\t an
\n       absolute discretion to grant or withhold their sanction.
\n       (1)[1945] F.C.R. 93,98\t(2) [1948] L.R. 75 I.A.30, 37
\n       766<\/span>
\n       It  should be clear from the form of the sanction  that\tthe
\n       sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it\tand
\n       after  a consideration of all the circumstances of the  case
\n       sanctioned the prosecution, and therefore unless the  matter
\n       can be proved by other evidence, in the sanction itself\tthe
\n       facts  should be referred to indicate that  the\tsanctioning
\n       authority   had\t applied  its  mind  to\t  the\tfacts\tand
\n       circumstances  of the case.  In Yusofalli Mulla Noorbhoy\t v.
\n       The  King (1) it was held that a valid sanction on  separate
\n       charges\tof hoarding and profiteering was essential to  give
\n       the  court  jurisdiction to try the  charge.   Without  such
\n       sanction\t the prosecution would be a nullity and\t the  trial
\n       without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
       In   the\t present  case\tthe  sanction  strictly\t  construed
\n       indicates the consideration by the sanctioning authority\t of
\n       the   facts  relating  to  the  receiving  of  the   illegal
\n       gratification  from  Pal Singh and therefore  the  appellant
\n       could   only  be\t validly  tried\t for  that  offence.\tThe
\n       contention that a trial for two offences requiring  sanction
\n       is  wholly  void,  where the sanction  is  granted  for\tone
\n       offence\t and  not  for\tthe  other,  is\t in   our   opinion
\n       unsustainable.\t Section   6(1)\t of  the   Act\t bars\tthe
\n       jurisdiction  of the court to take cognizance of an  offence
\n       for  which  previous sanction is required and has  not  been
\n       given.\tThe  prosecution  for  offence\tunder  s.   5(1)(d)
\n       therefore  is  not barred because the  proceedings  are\tnot
\n       without\tprevious sanction which was validly given  for\tthe
\n       offence of receiving a bribe from Pal Singh, but the offence
\n       of  habitually receiving illegal gratification could not\t be
\n       taken  cognizance of and the prosecution and trial for  that
\n       offence\twas void for want of sanction which is a  condition
\n       precedent  for the courts taking cognizance of  the  offence
\n       alleged\tto  be committed and therefore the High\t Court\thas
\n       rightly set aside the conviction for that offence.  In  Hori
\n       Ram  Singh  v.  The Crown(1) the charges\t against  a  public
\n       servant were under ss. 409 and 477A, Indian Penal Code,\tone
\n       for  dishonestly\t converting  and  misappropriating  certain
\n       medicines entrusted to the public servant and the other\tfor
\n       wilful  omission\t with intent to defraud to  record  certain
\n       entries in the
\n       (1)(1949) L.R. 76 I.A.158
\n       (2)[1939] F.C.R.159.\n<\/p>\n
       767<\/span><\/p>\n
       account\tbooks of the hospital where he was employed.   Thus
\n       two  distinct offences were committed in the course  of\tthe
\n       same transaction in which the one, under s.  477A,    Indian
\n       Penal Code, required sanction under,s.  270(1)\t of\tthe
\n       Government  of India Act and the other under s. 409,  Indian
\n       Penal  Code, did not.  But the bar to taking  cognizance\t of
\n       the former offence was not considered a bar to the trial for
\n       an offence, for which no sanction was required and therefore
\n       the proceedings under s. 477A were quashed as being  without
\n       jurisdiction  but the proceedings under s. 409 Indian  Penal
\n       Code  were allowed to proceed.  Similarly the Supreme  Court
\n       in Basir-ul-Huq v. The State Of West Bengal<\/a> (1) held s. 195,
\n       Criminal\t Procedure  Code to be no bar to the  trial  for  a
\n       distinct\t offence not requiring sanction although  disclosed
\n       by  the\tsame facts if the offence is not  included  in\tthe
\n       ambit  of an offence requiring such sanction.  The  want\t of
\n       sanction\t for  the offence of  habitually  accepting  bribes
\n       therefore  does\tnot make the taking of\tcognizance  of\tthe
\n       offence of taking a bribe of Rs. 50 from Pal Singh void\tnor
\n       the  trial  for that offence illegal and the court  a  court
\n       without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
       The  submission next raised is that the evidence in  support
\n       of being habitually a receiver of bribes has caused  serious
\n       prejudice  to  the  defence of the  appellant  but  no  such
\n       prejudice  has been shown nor does the judgment of the  High
\n       Court which has proceeded on the evidence in support of\tthe
\n       charge of Pal Singh’s transaction, indicate the existence of
\n       any  prejudice  and there was nothing  indicated\t before\t us
\n       leading,\t to  the conclusion of prejudice or  to\t consequent
\n       failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
       The High Court came to the conclusion that the trial for the
\n       offence of habitually accepting illegal gratification  could
\n       not  be validly tried and evidence led on that charge  could
\n       not be considered but the conviction of receiving a bribe of
\n       Rs.  50\tfrom Pal Singh is well founded and  also  that\tthe
\n       appellant  has  not been prejudiced in the  conduct  of\this
\n       defence.\n<\/p>\n
       (1)  [1953] S.C.R. 836.\n<\/p>\n
       768<\/span><\/p>\n
       No arguments were addressed to this court on the correctness
\n       of the finding of the High Court in regard to the conviction
\n       for  receiving  illegal gratification from  Pal\tSingh.\t We
\n       agree  with the opinion of the High Court that  the  offence
\n       under  S. 5(1) (d) of receiving illegal bribe of Rs. 50\thas
\n       been made out and would therefore dismiss this appeal.
\n       Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 124, 1958 SCR 762 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: JASWANT SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/1957 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. CITATION: 1958 AIR 124 […]<\/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-74572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957 - 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\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957\" \/>\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=\"1957-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-06T07:30:55+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T07:30:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957\"},\"wordCount\":1853,\"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\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957\",\"name\":\"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T07:30:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957\"}]},{\"@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":"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957 - 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\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-06T07:30:55+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957","datePublished":"1957-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T07:30:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957"},"wordCount":1853,"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\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957","name":"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T07:30:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-singh-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-25-october-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jaswant Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 October, 1957"}]},{"@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\/74572","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=74572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}