{"id":80242,"date":"1957-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957"},"modified":"2015-07-04T12:28:46","modified_gmt":"2015-07-04T06:58:46","slug":"the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR  587, \t\t  1957 SCR  770<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S J Imam<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Imam, Syed Jaffer<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHAMMED SAYEED\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/03\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nBENCH:\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nSARKAR, A.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR  587\t\t  1957 SCR  770\n\n\nACT:\nSurety\tbond-Undertaking  to forfeit sum of  money  to\tKing\nEmperor Qaisar-e-Hind on failure to Produce accused- Whether\nbond  legal and enforceable-Code of Criminal Procedure,\t ss.\n499, 514, and 555-Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, cl. 4.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn 1953 the respondent executed a surety bond undertaking to\nproduce,  the accused before the Magistrate and\t to  forfeit\nRs.  500  to King Emperor, Qaisar-e-Hind as  penalty  if  he\nfailed\tto do so.  Upon his failure to produce the  accused,\nthe Magistrate forfeited the bond to the extent of Rs.\t300.\nThe contention of the respondent was that the bond not being\nin favour of the Government, could not be forfeited.\nHeld,  that  the bond was a bond unknown to the law  of\t the\nRepublic  of India under the Code of Criminal  Procedure  at\nthe  time of its execution and could not be forfeited.\t The\nrespondent did not execute a bond by which he bound  himself\nto  forfeit  the said sum either to the\t Government  of\t the\nUnion  of India or that of the State of Uttar Pradesh.\t To'\nbe a valid bond, the undertaking should have been to forfeit\nto  the Government and not to the King Emperor.\t  The  words\nKing  Emperor  Qaisar-e-Hind  in the bond  executed  by\t the\nrespondent  could  not be read, by virtue Of cl.  4  of\t the\nAdaptation of Laws Order, 1950, to mean Government.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 130  of<br \/>\n1955.\n<\/p>\n<p>I  Appeal under Article 134 (1) (C) of the  Constitution  of<br \/>\nIndia  from the judgment and order dated March 11, 1955,  of<br \/>\nthe  Allahabad\tHigh  Court (Lucknow Bench)  at\t Lucknow  in<br \/>\nCriminal Revision No. 60 of 1954 arising out of the judgment<br \/>\nand order dated February 21, 1954, of the Sessions Judge  at<br \/>\nGonda in Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n<p>G.C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.<br \/>\n1957.  March 26.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nIMAM  J.-This  is an appeal by the State  of  Uttar  Pradesh<br \/>\nagainst\t the  decision\tof the Allahabad  High\tCourt  on  a<br \/>\ncertificate  granted by that Court that the case was  a\t fit<br \/>\none for appeal to this Court,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">771<\/span><br \/>\nThe  undisputed\t facts\tare  that  one\tMohammad  Yasin\t was<br \/>\nprosecuted under s. 379, Indian Penal Code.  He was released<br \/>\non  bail.   The respondent along with one Ram  Narain  stood<br \/>\nsurety for him, having executed surety bonds under s. 499 of<br \/>\nthe  Code of Criminal Procedure, undertaking to produce\t the<br \/>\naccused\t Yasin before the Court to answer the charge and  to<br \/>\nforfeit\t Rs.  500 each to King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind  as  a,<br \/>\npenalty\t if  they  failed to do so.   Yasin  absconded;\t All<br \/>\nattempts to secure his presence before the Court were of  no<br \/>\navail.\tConsequently notices were issued under S. 514 of the<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure to the sureties to\t  show cause<br \/>\nwhy  their  bonds should not be-forfeited.  The\t Magistrate&#8217;<br \/>\nafter  giving  the matter his consideration,  ordered  their<br \/>\nbonds  to be forfeited to the extent of Rs. 300\t each.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent  appealed  to  the Sessions Judge  of  Gonda\t who<br \/>\ndismissed  his appeal.\tDissatisfied with the orders of\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate  and the Sessions Judge, -the respondent filed  a<br \/>\ncriminal  revision in the High I Court and Mulla J.  allowed<br \/>\nhis  application and set aside the order of  the  Magistrate<br \/>\nforfeiting the bond executed by him.  At the request of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate the learned Judge granted the  requisite<br \/>\ncertificate by virtue of which the present appeal is  before<br \/>\nus.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  only  question for consideration is  whether  the\tbond<br \/>\nexecuted  by  the  respondent  was one\tunder  the  Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure and therefore capable of being  forfeited<br \/>\nin  accordance\twith  the provisions  of  s.  514,  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  Code.   Section 499 of the  Code,  requires\tthat<br \/>\nbefore any person is released on bail or released on his own<br \/>\nbond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer  or<br \/>\nCourt,\tas  the\t case may be,  thinks  sufficient  shall  be<br \/>\nexecuted  by such person, and, when he is released on  bail,<br \/>\nby  one\t or more sufficient sureties conditioned  that\tsuch<br \/>\nperson\tshall attend at the time and place mentioned in\t the<br \/>\nbond,  and  shall  continue so: to  attend  until  otherwise<br \/>\ndirected by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.<br \/>\nIn  Schedule  V of the Code of\tCriminal  Procedure  various<br \/>\nforms  are  set\t out and a. 555 of the\tCode  provides\tthat<br \/>\n,subject to the power conferred by s. 554 and by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">772<\/span><br \/>\nArt.  227 of the Constitution, the forms set forth  in\tthat<br \/>\nSchedule,  with such variation as the circumstances of\teach<br \/>\ncase  require,\tmay  be used  for  the\trespective  purposes<br \/>\ntherein\t mentioned, and if used shall be  sufficient.\tForm<br \/>\nXLII  of that Schedule sets forth the contents of a bond  to<br \/>\nbe  executed by an accused and his surety.  The bond  is  in<br \/>\ntwo parts-one part to be signed by the accused and the other<br \/>\npart  to  be  signed by his surety or  sureties.   Both\t the<br \/>\naccused and the sureties in executing such a bond  guarantee<br \/>\nthe attendance of the accused in Court whenever called\tupon<br \/>\nto answer the charge against him and in case of default also<br \/>\nbind  themselves to forfeit to Government the specified\t sum<br \/>\nof  money mentioned therein.  This is what the\tbond  should<br \/>\nstate  since  the  Adaptation of  Laws\tOrder,\t1950,  dated<br \/>\nJanuary\t 26,  1950.   &#8216;Previous\t to  that  Order  the\tword<br \/>\nGovernment  did not appear in the bond.\t By virtue of cl.  4<br \/>\nof  the\t said  Order, whenever an  expression  mentioned  in<br \/>\ncolumn 1 of the Table thereunder occurred (otherwise than in<br \/>\na  title or preamble or in a citation or description  of  an<br \/>\nenactment) in an existing Central or Provincial Law  whether<br \/>\nan  Act, Ordinance or Regulation mentioned in the  Schedules<br \/>\nto  the Order, then unless that expression was by the  Order<br \/>\nexpressly  directed to be otherwise adapted or modified,  or<br \/>\nto  stand  unmodified,\tor to be  omitted,  there  shall  be<br \/>\nsubstituted  therefor the expression set opposite to  it  in<br \/>\ncolumn,\t 2 of the said Table.  In column 1 of the Table\t the<br \/>\nwords  &#8221; Crown &#8221; &#8221; Her Majesty &#8221; and &#8221; His Majesty &#8221;  appear<br \/>\nand against them in column 2 the word &#8216;Government&#8221;  appears.<br \/>\nThe plain reading of this clause is that wherever the  words<br \/>\n&#8221;  Crown  &#8220;, &#8220;Her Majesty &#8221; or &#8221; His Majesty &#8221;\tappear,\t for<br \/>\nthem,  the word &#8221; Government &#8221; shall be substituted  in\t the<br \/>\nexisting  Central or Provincial Laws mentioned in the  First<br \/>\nSchedule  to -the Order.  The Code of Criminal Procedure  is<br \/>\none  of\t the  Central Laws mentioned-in\t the  said  Schedule<br \/>\nwherein\t Schedule  V of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  is<br \/>\nmentioned  and the Order directs that throughout Schedule  V<br \/>\nof  the\t Criminal  Procedure Code,  except  where  otherwise<br \/>\nprovided, for the words &#8221; Her Majesty The Queen<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">773<\/span><br \/>\nand  &#8220;His Majesty The King&#8221; the word &#8220;Government&#8221;  shall  be<br \/>\nsubstituted.   Previous\t to the Adaptation  of\tLaws  Order,<br \/>\n1950,  there was the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1948 and\t the<br \/>\nwords &#8220;Empress of India&#8221; appearing in the bond were repealed<br \/>\nand  in place thereof the, words &#8221; Her Majesty the  Queen  &#8221;<br \/>\nwere  substituted.  India attained Dominion status  in\t1947<br \/>\nand  became  a\tRepublic in 1950.  The\tAdaptation  of\tLaws<br \/>\nOrder,\t1948  and that of 1950 were consequential  upon\t the<br \/>\nchange\tof status of India into a Dominion and then  into  a<br \/>\nSovereign  Republic.  Since January 26, 1950, therefore,  no<br \/>\nbond  executed\tin favour of the Empress of India  could  be<br \/>\nsaid  to  be  a bond executed under  the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure.   The bond which the respondent had executed\t was<br \/>\nto forfeit to the King Emperor a certain sum of money if  he<br \/>\nmade  default  in procuring the attendance  of\tthe  accused<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  court.  He did not execute a bond by  which  he<br \/>\nbound  himself\tto  forfeit  the  said\tsum  either  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  of\tthe Union of India or that of the  State  of<br \/>\nUttar Pradesh.\tThe bond executed: by him in 1953 was a bond<br \/>\nunknown\t to the law of the Republic of India under the\tCode<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure at the time of its execution.  Section<br \/>\n514  of\t the  Criminal Procedure Code empowers\ta  court  to<br \/>\nforfeit a bond which has been executed under the  provisions<br \/>\nof  that Code and since the bond executed by the  respondent<br \/>\nis  not\t one under the Code of\tCriminal  Procedure,  resort<br \/>\ncould not be had to the provisions of s. 514 of the Code  to<br \/>\nforfeit the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was, however, urged on behalf of the State that under cl.<br \/>\n4  of  the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, the form  of\t the<br \/>\nbond   stood  amended  by  the\tsubstitution  of  the\tword<br \/>\n&#8220;Government&#8221;  therein in place and stead of the\t words\t&#8220;Her<br \/>\nMajesty The Queen&#8221; and the bond should be read\taccordingly.<br \/>\nThe  words King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind must be deemed  as  no<br \/>\nlonger\texisting  in the forfeited bond.  Clause  4  of\t the<br \/>\nOrder, however, directs that the word &#8220;Government&#8221; shall  be<br \/>\nsubstituted  for the words &#8221; Crown &#8220;, &#8221; Her Majesty &#8221; and  &#8221;<br \/>\nHis Majesty &#8220;. There is no mention therein of the words King<br \/>\nEmperor\t or  Emperor of India, Queen Empress or\t Empress  of\n<\/p>\n<p>-India or Qaisar-e-Hind as being so<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">774<\/span><br \/>\nsubstituted.   The words King Emperor Qaisar-e-Hind  in\t the<br \/>\nbond executed by the respondent cannot therefore be read, by<br \/>\nvirtue of cl. 4 of the Order, to mean Government.  There has<br \/>\nundoubtedly been some error,  carelessness or negligence  on<br \/>\nthe  part of those on whom a duty lay to make the  necessary<br \/>\nchanges in the phraseology of the bond set out in Schedule V<br \/>\nof  the Code of Criminal Procedure to be executed  under  s.\n<\/p>\n<p>499.  The fact, however, remains that the respondent had not<br \/>\nbound himself either to the Government of the Union of India<br \/>\nor  that  of  the State of Uttar Pradesh to  have  his\tbond<br \/>\nforfeited  on his failure to produce the accused before\t the<br \/>\ncourt and he is entitled to say that no order of  forfeiture<br \/>\ncould be passed against him with respect to a bond which was<br \/>\nnot one under the Code and which was one unknown to the law,<br \/>\nas  contained  in the Code, at the, time of  its  execution.<br \/>\nThe  objection\traised\tby  the\t respondent  to\t the   order<br \/>\nforfeiting the bond executed by him is a substantial one and<br \/>\nthe  said  order was made under a, misapprehension  that  it<br \/>\ncould  be  made\t under\ts.  514\t of  the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">775<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 587, 1957 SCR 770 Author: S J Imam Bench: Imam, Syed Jaffer PETITIONER: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHAMMED SAYEED DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/1957 BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BHAGWATI, [&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-80242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957 - 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\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957\" \/>\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=\"1957-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-04T06:58:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-04T06:58:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957\"},\"wordCount\":1481,\"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-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957\",\"name\":\"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-04T06:58:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 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":"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957 - 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\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-04T06:58:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957","datePublished":"1957-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-04T06:58:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957"},"wordCount":1481,"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-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957","name":"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-04T06:58:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-mohammed-sayeed-on-26-march-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammed Sayeed on 26 March, 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\/80242","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=80242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}