{"id":90492,"date":"1959-05-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-05-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2"},"modified":"2017-08-28T10:50:44","modified_gmt":"2017-08-28T05:20:44","slug":"krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2","title":{"rendered":"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 1390, \t\t 1960 SCR (1) 452<\/div>\n
Author: K L.<\/div>\n
Bench: Kapur, J.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKRISHAN KUMAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE UNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/05\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nBENCH:\nKAPUR, J.L.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR 1390\t\t  1960 SCR  (1) 452\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal Trial-Misappropriation-Servant receiving goods\t but\nfailing\t to  account  to  master--Proof\t of  conversion,  if\nnecessary--False  explanation  by servant,  whether  can  be\ntaken into consideration-Prevention of Corruption, 1947\t (II\nOf 1947), s. 5(1)(c).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was employed as an Assistant Store Keeper  in\nthe  Central Tractor Organisation, Delhi.  He took  delivery\nof a consignment of iron and steel received by rail for\t the\nOrganisation and removed them from the railway siding.\t The\ngoods  did  not\t reach\tthe  Organisation.   The   appellant\nabsented himself from duty on the following days and when he\nwas called he gave a false explanation that he had not taken\ndelivery  of  the  goods.  The appellant  1  was  tried\t for\nmisappropriation of the goods, under S. 5(1)(c)\t   of\t the\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1947.  At the\n453\ntrial,\the took the defence that he had moved the  goods  to\nanother\t siding but this was not accepted and the  appellant\nwas convicted.\tThe appellant contended that his  conviction\nwas  bad  as  the prosecution had failed to  prove  that  he\nconverted the goods to his own use and did not apply them to\nthe purpose for which he had received them.\nHeld,  that the appellant had been rightly  convicted.\t The\noffence\t  of  misappropriation\twas  established  when\t the\nprosecution proved that the servant received the goods, that\nhe was under a duty to account to his master and that he had\nnot  done  so.\t If the failure to account  was\t due  to  an\naccidental  loss then the facts being within  the  servant's\nknowledge,  it was for him to explain the loss; it  was\t not\nfor  the prosecution to eliminate all possible\tdefences  or\ncircumstances  which  may exonerate him.  The  giving  of  a\nfalse explanation was an element which the Court could\ttake\ninto consideration in determining the guilty intention.\n Harakrishna  Mehtab  v. Emperor, A.I.R.  (1930)  Pat.\t209;\nLarnier\t v.  Rex, (1914) A.C. 221; Emperor v.  Santa  Singh,\nA.I.R.\t(1944)\tLah. 338; Emperor v.  Chattur  Bhuj,  (1935)\nI.L.R.\tPat. 108; Rex v. William, (1836) 7 C. & P.  338\t and\nReg v. Lynch, (1854) 6 Cox.  C. C. 445, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 114
\nof 1957.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nDecember  6, 1955, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit  Bench)
\nDelhi  in Criminal Appeal No. 25-D of 1953, arising  out  of
\nthe  judgment and order dated August 27, 1953, of the  Court
\nof  the\t special judge at Delhi in Criminal Case  No.  3  of
\n1953.\n<\/p>\n
  R. L. Anand, and S. N. Anand, for the appellant.
\n   H.\t  J. Umrigar, and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
\n   1959.   May 21.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nKAPUR J.-This appeal by special leave is brought against the
\njudgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court  of\tthe   Punjab
\nconfirming the order of conviction of the appellant under s.
\n5(1)(c)\t of  the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947  (11  of
\n1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  The High  Court
\nreduced\t the  sentence\tof the\tappellant  to  nine  months’
\nrigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
454<\/span><\/p>\n
   The appellant was employed as an Assistant  Store  keeper
\nin  the\t Central Tractor Organisation at Delhi\tand  amongst
\nother  duties  his  duty  was  the  taking  of\tdelivery  of
\nconsignment  of goods received by rail for  Central  Tractor
\nOrganisation  and  in that capacity he is  alleged  to\thave
\nmisappropriated a major portion of a wagon load of iron\t and
\nsteel  weighing\t about 500 Mds. received  at  Delhi  Railway
\nStation\t from  the Tata Iron & Steel Co.,  Tatanagar,  under
\nRailway\t Receipt  No. 039967 dated August  12,\t1950.\tThis
\nconsignment  of\t goods was taken delivery of on\t October  2,
\n1950  at  the Lahori Gate Depot.  The consignment  had\tbeen
\nlying  at the Railway depot for a considerable time and\t the
\nCentral\t  Tractor  Organisation\t was,  before\ttaking\t the
\ndelivery, making efforts to have the wharfage and  demurrage
\ncharges reduced but it only succeeded in getting a reduction
\nof Rs. 100.  The appellant paid Rs. 2,332-4-0 for  demurrage
\nby  means of credit notes P. N. and P. 0. on October 2,\t and
\non the following day he paid a further sum of Rs. 57-3-0  by
\na  credit  note\t P. Q. The prosecution case  was  that\tthis
\nconsignment  never reached the Central Tractor\tOrganisation
\nand  that  the\tappellant had removed these  goods  and\t had
\nmisappropriated them.  He was absent from work after October
\n4,  1950, on the alleged ground of illness but he  was\tsent
\nfor  on\t October  7, and appeared  before  the\tDirector  of
\nAdministration\tMr.  F. C. Gera and he gave  an\t explanation
\nthat  he (the appellant) had lost the Railway Receipt  along
\nwith  another Railway Receipt and blank credit\tnotes  which
\nhad  been  signed by the Petrol and Transport  Officer.\t  He
\nalso  stated that he did not know that the goods covered  by
\nthat   Railway\tReceipt\t had  been  cleared.\tAfter\tthis
\nexplanation the appellant was. handed over to the police and
\na  case\t was registered against him at the instance  of\t Mr.
\nF.C. Gera on October 7, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
   On  the  following  day, that is, October  8,  1950,\t the
\nappellant made a statement to Sub-Inspector Sumer Shah Singh
\nthat  he  had  given the goods to Gurbachan  Singh  who\t was
\ntraced and in the presence of this Sub-Inspector who was not
\nin  uniform at the time Gurbachan Singh handed over Rs.\t 200
\nto the appellant
\n455<\/span>
\nwhich\tthe  Sub-Inspector  took  possession  of  and\tthen
\nGurbachan  Singh took the party which consisted of the\tSub-
\nInspector,  Dharam Vir of the Central  Tractor\tOrganisation
\nand  witness Kartar Singh to the premises, of Amar Singh  at
\nKotia  Khan  where  iron and steel  goods  were\t seized\t and
\nrecovery  memos\t prepared.   Of the  goods  covered  by\t the
\nconsignment  seven  packages were later recovered  from\t the
\nLahori Gate Goods Depot.\n<\/p>\n
 The  defence of the appellant was that he took delivery  of
\nthe  goods  on October 2 and 3 and removed them\t to  another
\nRailway Siding known as Saloon Siding where the goods of the
\nCentral Tractor Organisation used occasionally to be stacked
\nin order to save wharfage and demurrage.  In his evidence he
\nstated\tthat he removed these goods to the Saloon Siding  on
\nOctober\t 2 and 3 by means of a truck of the Central  Tractor
\nOrganisation  which  was  driven  by  Sukhdev  Singh.\t The
\nappellant  produced  Sukhdev  Singh and\t two  chowkidars  in
\nsupport of his defence that he had removed these goods\tfrom
\nthe  Lahori Gate Depot to the Saloon Siding by means of\t the
\ntruck of Sukhdev Singh and on some on carts.  The High Court
\nhas  not  accepted this evidence.   Therefore  the  position
\ncomes  to this that the goods received in  that\t consignment
\nwere, according to the appellant’s own showing, removed from
\nthe  Lahori  Gate  Depot  but it is  not  proved  that\tthey
\nreached’  the  Saloon  Siding and they\tdid  not  reach\t the
\nCentral\t Tractor Organisation.\tThere is also the fact\tthat
\nthe appellant gave false explanation on October 7, 1950,  as
\nto  what had happened to the Railway Receipt or\t the  credit
\nnotes  which  he  had  received\t from  the  Central  Tractor
\nOrganisation  and  there  is  the  further  fact  that\t the
\nappellant  was absent from duty from October 4 to October  7
\ntill he was sent for Mr. F.C. Gera.\n<\/p>\n
 The  prosecution  also tried to show that  the\t goods\twere
\nremoved by Gurbachan Singh to Amar Singh’s place from  where
\ncertain iron and steel goods were recovered.  Now these iron
\nand  steel  goods  do not tally with the  goods\t which\twere
\nreceived from Tatanagar under Railway Receipt No. 039967 and
\nthe goods
\n456<\/span>
\nseized from Amar Singh’s place have not been shown to be  of
\nthe Tata Iron & Steel Co’s manufacture.\t Therefore the\tcase
\nreduces\t itself to this that the appellant took delivery  of
\nthe  goods.  These goods were removed-from the\tLahori\tGate
\nRailway\t Depot by the appellant and they never\treached\t the
\nCentral\t Tractor  Organisation.\t The prosecution  sought  to
\nconnect the goods found at Amar Singh’s place with the goods
\nreceived, taken delivery of and removed by the appellant but
\nthey  failed  to do so because neither the identity  of\t the
\ngoods  is the same nor has Gurbachan Singh been produced  to
\ndepose that it was the appellant who asked him to remove the
\ngoods for being taken to Amar Singh’s place.
\n In  this  view of the matter the question for\tdecision  is
\nwhether\t the  case of the prosecution should be held  to  be
\nproved that the appellant had misappropriated the goods.  It
\nemerges\t from  the evidence of both parties that  the  goods
\nwere received by the appellant and removed by him; and\tthey
\nnever  reached\tthe Central Tractor  Origanisation.   Indeed
\nbefore the High Court it was not disputed that the appellant
\ntook delivery of the whole consignment at Lahori Gate  Depot
\nand  ”\the  was responsible for the actual  removal  of\t two
\nconsiderable portions of the consignment on the 2nd and\t 3rd
\nof October.  ”\n<\/p>\n
The offence of which the appellant; has been convicted is s.
\n5(1) (c) of the Act which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      5.    (1) ” A public servant is said to commit
\n\t      the offence of  criminal\tmisconduct  in\t the
\n\t      discharge of his duty\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (c)   if\t he  dishonestly   or\tfraudulently
\n\t      misappropriates or otherwise converts for\t his
\n\t      own use any property entrusted to him or under
\n\t      his control as a public servant or allows\t any
\n\t      other person so to do “;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  word  dishonestly’ is defined in s. 24  of\t the  Indian
\nPenal Code to be
\n\t      ” Whoever does anything with the intention  of
\n\t      causing\twrongful  gain\tto  one\t person\t  or
\n\t      wrongful loss to another person. is said to do
\n\t      that thing dishonestly’.\n<\/p>\n
457<\/span><\/p>\n
” Fraudulently has been defined in the Indian Penal Code  in
\ns. 25 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” A person is said to do a thing\tfraudulently
\n\t      if  he does that thing with intent to  defraud
\n\t      but, not other-, wise.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Wrongful gain includes wrongful retention and wrongful\tloss
\nincludes  being\t kept out of the property as well  as  being
\nwrongfully   deprived\tof  property.\tTherefore   when   a
\nparticular  thing  has gone into the hands of a\t servant  he
\nwill  be  guilty  of  misappropriating\tthe  thing  in\t all
\ncircumstances  which show a malicious intent to deprive\t the
\nmaster\tof it.\tAs was said by Fazl Ali, J., in\t Harakrishna
\nMahtab v. Emperor (1):\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t Now  I do not mean to suggest\tthat  it  is
\n\t      either necessary or possible in every case  of
\n\t      criminal\tbreach\tof trust to  prove  in\twhat
\n\t      precise\tmanner\tthe  money  was\t  spent\t  or
\n\t      appropriated by the accused; because under the
\n\t      law,  even temporary retention is an  offence,
\n\t      provided\tthat it is dishonest…………   I
\n\t      must point out that the essential thing to  be
\n\t      proved in case of criminal breach of trust  is
\n\t      whether the accused was actuated by  dishonest
\n\t      intention\t  or  not.   As\t the   question\t  of
\n\t      intention is not a matter of direct proof, the
\n\t      Courts  have  from  time\tto  time  laid\tdown
\n\t      certain  broad  tests  which  would  generally
\n\t      afford useful guidance in deciding whether  in
\n\t      a\t particular case the accused had or had\t not
\n\t      mens  area  for  the crime.  So  in  cases  of
\n\t      criminal\tbreach\tof  trust  the\tfailure\t  to
\n\t      account  for  the money proved  to  have\tbeen
\n\t      received\tby  the ‘accused or giving  a  false
\n\t      account of its use is generally considered  to
\n\t      be a strong circumstance against the accused.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  The offence under s. 5(1)(c) is the same as  embezzlement,
\nwhich  in English law, is constituted when the property\t has
\nbeen  received\tby  the accused for or in  the\tname  or  on
\naccount\t of the master or employer of the accused and it  is
\ncomplete when the -servant fraudulently misappropriates that
\nproperty. (Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 10, 3rd Edition,
\np.  787) In Larnier v. Rex (2) the offence  of\tembezzlement
\nwas
\n(1) A.I. R. (1930) Patna 209.\t  (2) (1914) A.C. 221,
\n458<\/span>
\ndescribed  as a wilful appropriation by the accused  of\t the
\nproperty  of  another.\tA court of Justice, it was  said  in
\nthat  case “cannot reach the conclusion that ,the crime\t has
\nbeen  committed unless it be a just result of  the  evidence
\nthat  the  accused in what was done or omitted\tby  him\t was
\nmoved by the guilty mind.”\n<\/p>\n
  So the essence of the offence with which the appellant was
\ncharged is that after the possession of the property of\t the
\nCentral Tractor Organisation he dishonestly or\tfraudulently
\nappropriated  the  property entrusted to him  or  under\t his
\ncontrol\t as a public servant and deprived the  owner,  i.e.,
\nCentral Tractor Organisation of that property.
\n  It is not necessary or possible in every case to prove  in
\nwhat  precise  manner the accused person has dealt  with  or
\nappropriated  the goods of his master.\tThe question is\t one
\nof  intention and not a matter of direct proof but giving  a
\nfalse account of what he has done with the goods received by
\nhim.  may  be  treated a  strong  circumstance\tagainst\t the
\naccused\t person.   In  the case of a  servant  charged\twith
\nmisappropriating  the  goods of his master the\telements  of
\ncriminal offence of misappropriation will be established  if
\nthe prosecution proves that the servant received the  goods,
\nthat  he was under a duty to account to his master  and\t had
\nnot  done  so.\t If the failure to account  was\t due  to  an
\naccidental  loss then the facts being within  the  servant’s
\nknowledge, it is for him to explain the loss.  It is not the
\nlaw  of this country that the prosecution has  to  eliminate
\nall  possible defences or circumstances which may  exonerate
\nhim.  If these facts are within the knowledge of the accused
\nthen he hag to prove them.  Of course the prosecution has to
\nestablish  a prima facie case in-the first instance.  it  is
\nnot enough to establish facts which give rise to a suspicion
\nand  then by reason of s. 106 of the Evidence Act  to  throw
\nthe onus on him to prove his innocence.\t See Harries,  C.J.,
\nin Emperor v. Santa Singh In the present case the  appellant
\nreceived the consignment of goods which came from Tatanagar.
\nIt is admitted that he removed them and it was found by
\n(1)  A.I.R. (1944) Lah. 338 at P. 346.\n<\/p>\n
459<\/span><\/p>\n
the  High Court that they never reached the Central  Tractor
\nOrganisation.\tHe  gave an explanation in court  which\t has
\nbeen  found  to be false.  Before Mr. F. C. Gera he  made  a
\nstatement to the effect that he had lost the Railway Receipt
\nand therefore had never got the delivery of the goods  which
\nwas also false.\t In these circumstances, in our opinion, the
\ncourt\twould  be  justified  in  concluding  that  he\t had
\ndishonestly misappropriated the goods of the Central Tractor
\nOrganisation.  The giving of false explanation is an element
\nwhich  the  Court can take into consideration.\t(Emperor  v.
\nChattur\t Bhuj (1)).  In Rex v. William (2).  Coleridge,\t J.,
\ncharged the jury as follows :”\n<\/p>\n
\t      The circumstances of the prisoner having quit-
\n\t      ted  her\tplace  and gone off  to\t Ireland  is
\n\t      evidence\tfrom -which you may infer  that\t she
\n\t      intended\tto appropriate the money and if\t you
\n\t      think that she did so intend, she is guily  of
\n\t      embezzlement”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Again in Reg v. Lynch (3), Moore, J., said:-
\n\t      ”\t You  have  further  the  fact\tthat,  after
\n\t      getting the money, the prisoner absconded\t and
\n\t      did not come back till he was in custody.\t You
\n\t      may infer that he intended to appropriate this
\n\t      money,   and   if\t  so,  he   is\t guilty\t  of
\n\t      embezzlement.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  appllent’s\t counsel relied on certain  observations  in
\ncertain\t decided cases which, according to  his\t submission,
\nsupport his contention that the prosecution has to prove not
\nonly receipt of goods by the accused but also to prove\tthat
\nhe  converted them to his own use and did not apply them  to
\nthe  purpose  for which he received them.   He\treferred  to
\nGhulam\tHaider v. Emperor(4) ;In re Ramakkal &\tOthers\t(5);
\nBolai Chandra Khara v. Bishnu Bejoy Srimani (6) Bhikchand v.
\nEmperor\t (7) ;Pritchard v. Emperor (8).\t So  broadly  stated
\nthis  submission does not find support even from  the  cases
\nrelied\tupon  by  the appellant’s  counsel.   They  are\t all
\ndecisions  on the peculiar circumstances of each  case.\t  In
\nGhulam Haider’s case (4)
\n(1)  (1935) I.L.R. 15 Patna 108.   (5)\tA.I.R.\t 1938\tMad.\n<\/p>\n
172.
\n(2)  (1836) 7 C. & P. 338.\t (6)\tA.I.R.\t 1934\tCal.\n<\/p>\n
425.
\n(3)  1854 6 Cox.  C.C. 445.\t  (7)\tA.I.R.\t1934   Sindh\n<\/p>\n
22.
\n(4)  AI.R. 1938 Lah. 534.\t  (8)\tA.I.R.\t 1928\tLah.\n<\/p>\n
382.
\n460<\/span>
\nthe  proposition  was  qualified by  saying  that  proof  of
\nreceipt and failure to account ” is a long way towards proof
\nof misappropriation but not the whole way.” In that case the
\nbooks in which receipts ought to have been entered were\t not
\nproduced  and  there was absence of ”  clear  accounts.”  In
\nRamakkal’s  case  (1)  the accused was\tthe  receiver  of  a
\ncurrency  note found by a child and it was held\t that’\tmere
\nintention to misappropriate or even preparation to that\t end
\nwas not an offence.  It was a case brought to the High Court
\nat  an\tintermediate stage for quashing the charge  and\t the
\nHigh  Court did not do so.  Bolai Chandra Khara’s  case\t (2)
\nonly  emphasised that proof of one element of  the  criminal
\nbreach\tof trust is not enough for conviction and  proof  of
\nnon-payment  of money collected by a gomastha must be  given
\nby the prosecution. In Bhikchand’s case (3) it was held that
\nit is only on proof of non-payment of money received by\t the
\naccused that ” presumption will arise of  misappropriation.”
\nIn Pritchard’s case (4) also the prosecution did not produce
\nthe   books  of\t account  showing  nonpayment.\t All   these
\ndecisions  must be confined to their peculiar facts  and  in
\ntheir  ultimate\t analysis  do not  support  the\t proposition
\ncontended for by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
What  the prosecution have proved in this case is  that\t the
\nappellant took delivery of the goods on October 2 and 3. His
\nown statement on oath shows that he removed these goods from
\nthe  Railway  Siding.\tThis  removal  is  also\t proved\t  by
\ndocumentary  evidence in the form of gate passes.  There  is
\nalso  proof  of the fact that the goods did  not  reach\t the
\nCentral\t Tractor Organisation.\tThe appellant has  given  an
\nexplanation  that  he  removed these  goods  to\t the  Saloon
\nSiding.\t  This explanation has not been accepted.  The\tpro-
\nsecution  have also proved that the appellant in  the  first
\ninstance  gave\ta false explanation that he  had  not  taken
\ndelivery  of the goods.\t He had absented himself  from\tduty
\nand  had to be called by the Officer-in-charge.\t He has\t set
\nup the defence of removal to the Saloon Siding which was not
\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 172.     (3) A.I.R. 1934 Sindh 22.
\n(2)  A.I.R. 1934 Cal, 425.     (4) A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 382.\n<\/p>\n
461<\/span><\/p>\n
The  prosecution also set out to prove that the\t goods\twere
\ndisposed of by the appellant by giving them to one Gurbachan
\nSingh  who in turn put these at the premises of\t Amar  Singh
\nand  some  steel goods were’ recovered from  there  but\t the
\nprosecution have neither produced Gurbachan Singh nor has it
\nbeen proved that the goods are part of the consignment which
\nwas taken delivery of by the appellant.\t If under the law it
\nis  not necessary or possible for the prosecution  to  prove
\nthe manner in which the goods have been misappropriated then
\nthe failure of the prosecution to prove facts it set out  to
\nprove would be of little relevance.  The question would only
\nbe  one of intention of the appellant and the  circumstances
\nwhich have been above set out do show that the appellant  in
\nwhat he has done or has omitted to do was moved by a  guilty
\nmind.\n<\/p>\n
In  our opinion the appellant was rightly convicted  and  we
\nwould therefore dismiss this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 1390, 1960 SCR (1) 452 Author: K L. Bench: Kapur, J.L. PETITIONER: KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. RESPONDENT: THE UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/05\/1959 BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. IMAM, SYED JAFFER CITATION: 1959 AIR […]<\/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-90492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 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\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2\" \/>\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=\"1959-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-28T05:20:44+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T05:20:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2\"},\"wordCount\":2881,\"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\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2\",\"name\":\"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-28T05:20:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 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":"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 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\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-28T05:20:44+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959","datePublished":"1959-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T05:20:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2"},"wordCount":2881,"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\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2","name":"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-28T05:20:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishan-kumar-vs-the-union-of-india-on-21-may-1959-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishan Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 May, 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\/90492","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=90492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90492\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}