{"id":98372,"date":"1979-03-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-03-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979"},"modified":"2017-03-22T23:03:58","modified_gmt":"2017-03-22T17:33:58","slug":"ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979","title":{"rendered":"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1498, \t\t  1979 SCR  (3) 448<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAM LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/03\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1498\t\t  1979 SCR  (3) 448\n 1979 SCC  (2) 192\n\n\nACT:\n     S. 499(1)\tCr.P.C.-No personal bond taken from accused-\nNor was\t the signature\tof the accupsed taken on the reserve\nof surety  bond-Accused jumped\tbail-Sureties if liable-Bond\nexecuted by  surety if\tindependent of\tthe bond executed by\naccused.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD:  Section   499(1)  of   the\t Cr.   P.C.,   which\ncontemplated the  execution of\ta bond by the accused and by\nthe sureties,  did not\timply that  a single  bond was to be\nexecuted by both the accused and the sureties, signed by the\naccused and  counter-signed by\tthe sureties. An undertaking\nof  the\t surety\t in  Form  42,\tSchedule  V  to\t secure\t the\nattendance of  the accused  was\t quite\tindependent  of\t the\nundertaking given  by the accused to appear before the court\nwhenever called\t upon, even  if both the undertakings of the\nsurety and  the accused\t happened to be executed in the same\ndocument for  the sake\tof convenience.\t Each  under  taking\nbeing distinct can be separately enforced. [450 C, 451 B-D]\n     The fact  that an accused would not be released on bail\nwithout his  executing a personal bond does not mean that if\na person  is released  by mistake  without his\texecuting  a\npersonal bond,\tthe sureties  are absolved from securing the\nattendance of  the accused  and his  appearance\t before\t the\ncourt.\tThe   sureties'\t responsibility\t  arises  from\t the\nexeeution of  the surety  bond and  is not  contingent\tupon\nexecution of  a personal  bond by  the accused.\t Nor is\t the\nliability to  forfeiture of  the bond executed by the surety\ncontingent  upon   the\texecution   and\t the   liability  to\nforfeiture of the personal bond executed by the accused. The\nforfeiture of  the personal  bond of  the accused  is not  a\ncondition precedent  to the forfeiture of the bonds executed\nby the sureties. [451 E-F]\n     Abdul Aziz\t &amp; Anr.\t v. Emperor, AIR 1946 All. 116; Mewa\nRam &amp; Anr. v. State, AIR 1953 All. 481; approved.\n     Bakaru Singh  v.  State  of  U.P.,\t AIR  1963  SC\t430;\ndistinguished.\n     Brahma Nand  Misra\t v.  Emperor,  AIR  1939  All.\t682;\nSailesh Chandra Chakraborty v. The State, AIR 1963 Cal. 309;\nover-ruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n154 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  12-11-1971 of\t the<br \/>\nAllahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 865 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shiv Pujan Singh for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     D.P. Uniyal and M. V. Goswai for the Respondent.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY  J.-Jorma\twho  was  convicted  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned Sessions  Judge, Dehradun  under Section  302 Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">449<\/span><br \/>\nsentenced to  suffer imprisonment  for life, was directed by<br \/>\nthe High  Court of  Allahabad to  be  released\ton  bail  on<br \/>\nfurnishing  bail   to  the   satisfaction  of  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Dehradun.  The  District  Magistrate  (Judicial)<br \/>\nDehradun ordered  Jorma to  execute a personal bond in a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.\t5,000\/- and  to furnish two sureties in a sum of Rs.<br \/>\n10,000\/- each.\tRam Lal the present appellant was one of the<br \/>\npersons who  executed a\t surety bond. Another, Abdul Jabbar,<br \/>\nalso executed  a surety\t bond. By some oversight no personal<br \/>\nbond was taken from Jorma nor was his signature taken on the<br \/>\nreverse of  the\t bonds\texecuted  by  the  two\tsureties  as<br \/>\nappeared to  have been\tusually done.  Jorma jumped bail and<br \/>\nthe sureties  were unable to produce him when required to do<br \/>\nso. The\t District Magistrate, Dehradun, therefore, forfeited<br \/>\nthe surety  bonds and issued a warrant of attachment against<br \/>\nthe sureties  under Section  514 of  the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1898.  The appellant\t preferred an  appeal to the<br \/>\nHigh Court  of Allahabad  against the  order of\t forfeiture.<br \/>\nBefore the  High Court it was submitted that the surety bond<br \/>\nexecuted by  the appellant  could not  be forfeite  when  no<br \/>\npersonal bond  had been\t taken from the accused who had been<br \/>\nreleased on  bail. The\tHigh Court over-ruled the submission<br \/>\nof the\tappellant and confirmed the order of forfeiture. The<br \/>\nappellant has  filed this appeal on a certificate granted by<br \/>\nthe High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri  Shiv\t  Pujan\t Singh,\t  learned  Counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant submitted  that the  question\t of  forfeiting\t the<br \/>\nsurety bond  for the  failure of the accused to appear would<br \/>\narise only  if the  accused himself  had executed a personal<br \/>\nbond for  his appearance.  He submitted that someone must be<br \/>\nprimarily bound\t before the  surety could  be bound  and his<br \/>\nbond forfeited.\t He invited  our attention to Section 499 of<br \/>\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and form No. 42 of the<br \/>\nforms in  Schedule V.  He relied  on the decisions in Brahma<br \/>\nNand Misra  v. Emperor, (1), and Sailash Chandra Chakraborty<br \/>\nv. The\tState(2). A  reference was  also to  Bakaru Singh v.<br \/>\nState of  U.P. (3) On the other hand the learned Counsel for<br \/>\nthe State  urged that  the bond to be executed by the surety<br \/>\nwas independent\t of the\t bond to  be executed by the accused<br \/>\nand there  was no impediment in the way of the forfeiture of<br \/>\nthe surety  bond even  in the  absence of  a  personal\tbond<br \/>\nexecuted by  the accused.  He relied  upon the\tdecisions in<br \/>\nAbdul Aziz  &amp; Anr.  v. Emperor(4),  and Mewa  Ram &amp;  Anr. v.<br \/>\nState (5).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">450<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Section 499(1)  of the  Code of Criminal Procedure Code<br \/>\n1898 was in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Before any person is released on bail or released<br \/>\n     on his  own bond,\ta bond\tfor such sum of money as the<br \/>\n     police officer  or Court,\tas the\tcase may  be, thinks<br \/>\n     sufficient shall  be executed by such person, and, when<br \/>\n     he is  released on\t bail, by  one\tor  more  sufficient<br \/>\n     sureties conditioned  that such persons shall attend at<br \/>\n     the time  and place  mentioned in\tthe bond,  and shall<br \/>\n     continue so  to attend  until otherwise directed by the<br \/>\n     police officer or Court, as the case may be&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Now, this  provision contemplated the execution of a bond by<br \/>\nthe accused,  and by  the sureties.  The provision  did\t not<br \/>\nimply that  a single  bond was to be executed by the accused<br \/>\nand the\t sureties, as  it were,\t to be signed by the accused<br \/>\nand counter  signed by the sureties. Form No. 42 of Schedule<br \/>\nV, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;XLII-bond and  bail-bond on a preliminary Inquiry<br \/>\n     before a Magistrate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t (See Sections 496 and 499)<br \/>\n\t  I, (name),  of (place),  being brought  before the<br \/>\n     Magistrate of  (as the  case may  be charged  with\t the<br \/>\n     offence of,  and  required\t to  give  security  for  my<br \/>\n     attendance, in  his Court\tand at the Court of Session,<br \/>\n     if required,  do bind  myself to attend at the Court of<br \/>\n     the said  Magistrate on  every day\t of the\t preliminary<br \/>\n     inquiry into  the said  charge, and, should the case be<br \/>\n     sent for  trial by\t the Court  of Session,\t to be,\t and<br \/>\n     appear, before  the said  Court  when  called  upon  to<br \/>\n     answer the charge against me; and, in case of my making<br \/>\n     default, herein, I bind myself to forfeit to Government<br \/>\n     the sum of rupees<br \/>\n     Dated this\t\t  day of\t\t\t19<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t (Signature)<br \/>\n\t  I  hereby   declare  myself  (or  we\tjointly\t and<br \/>\n     severally declare\tourselves and each of us) surety (or<br \/>\n     sureties) for  the said  (name) that he shall attend at<br \/>\n     the Court\tof on  every day  of the preliminary inquiry<br \/>\n     into the  offence charged\tagainst him, and, should the<br \/>\n     case be sent for trial by the Court of Session, that he<br \/>\n     shall be,\tand appear,  before the said Court to answer<br \/>\n     the charge against him, and, in case of his<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">451<\/span><br \/>\n     making default  therein, I\t bind  myself  (or  we\tbind<br \/>\n     ourselves) to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees<br \/>\n     Dated this\t\t\t  day of\t\t  19<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t(Signature)&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The undertaking\t to be\tgiven by  the accused as may be seen<br \/>\nfrom form  No. 42  of Schedule\tV was to attend the Court on<br \/>\nevery day of hearing and to appear before the Court whenever<br \/>\ncalled upon.  The undertaking  to be given by the surety was<br \/>\nto secure  the attendance  of the  accused on  every day  of<br \/>\nhearing and  his appearance before the Court whenever called<br \/>\nupon. The undertaking to be given by the surety was not that<br \/>\nhe would secure the attendance and appearance of the accused<br \/>\nin accordance  with the\t terms of  the bond  executed by the<br \/>\naccused.  The  undertaking  of\tthe  surety  to\t secure\t the<br \/>\nattendance and presence of the accused was quite independent<br \/>\nof the undertaking given by the accused to appear before the<br \/>\nCourt whenever\tcalled upon,  even if  both the undertakings<br \/>\nhappened to be executed in the same document for the sake of<br \/>\nconvenience.  Each   undertaking  being\t distinct  could  be<br \/>\nseparately enforced.  It is  true that\tbefore a  person  is<br \/>\nreleased on  bail he must execute a personal bond and, where<br \/>\nnecessary, sureties must also execute bonds. There can be no<br \/>\nquestion of  an accused\t being released\t on bail without his<br \/>\nexecuting a  personal bond. But it does not follow therefrom<br \/>\nthat  if  a  person  is\t released  by  mistake\twithout\t his<br \/>\nexecuting a  personal bond  the sureties  are absolved\tfrom<br \/>\nsecuring his attendance and appearance before the Court. The<br \/>\nresponsibility of  the surety  arises from  the execution of<br \/>\nthe surety  bond by him and is not contingent upon execution<br \/>\nof a  personal bond  by the accused. Nor is the liability to<br \/>\nforfeiture of  the bond\t executed by  the surety  contingent<br \/>\nupon the  execution and\t the liability\tto forfeiture of the<br \/>\npersonal bond executed by the accused. The forfeiture of the<br \/>\npersonal bond of the accused is not a condition precedent to<br \/>\nthe forfeiture\tof the\tbonds executed\tby the sureties. The<br \/>\nCalcutta High  Court in\t Sailash Chandra  Chakraborty v. The<br \/>\nState (supra)  and single  Judge of the Allahabad High Court<br \/>\nin Brahma  Nand Misra  v. Emperor,  (supra) proceeded on the<br \/>\nassumption that\t the bond  executed by\tthe accused  and the<br \/>\nsureties was  single and  indivisible and if the accused did<br \/>\nnot join in the execution of the bond, the bonds executed by<br \/>\nthe sureties  alone were invalid. We do not find any warrant<br \/>\nfor this assumption in Section 499 of the Criminal Procedure<br \/>\nCode of\t 1898. We  are\tafraid\tthat  there  has  been\tsome<br \/>\nconfusion of  thought by  the importation  of the  ideas  of<br \/>\n&#8216;debt&#8217; and  &#8216;surety&#8217; from  the civil  law. As pointed out in<br \/>\nAbdul Aziz  &amp;  Anr.  v.\t Emperor(supra)\t under\tSection\t 499<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure  Code, the  surety did  not guarantee the<br \/>\npayment of any sum of money by the person accused<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">452<\/span><br \/>\nwho was\t released on  bail but\tguaranteed the attendance of<br \/>\nthat person and so the fact that the person released on bail<br \/>\nhimself did  not sign  the bond\t for his  attendance did not<br \/>\nmake the bond executed by the surety an invalid one. In Mewa<br \/>\nRam &amp;  Anr. v. State (supra) the difference between a surety<br \/>\nunder the  Code of Criminal Procedure and a surety under the<br \/>\nCivil Law was pointed out and the view taken in Abdul Aziz &amp;<br \/>\nAnr. v.\t Emperor (supra)  was reiterated.  We agree with the<br \/>\nview expressed in Abdul Aziz &amp; Anr. v. Emperor, and Mewa Ram<br \/>\n&amp; Anr. v. State (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>     In Bakaru\tSingh v. State of U.P., (supra) the question<br \/>\npresently under\t consideration did  not arise.\tThe question<br \/>\nwhich was  considered  in  that\t case  was  whether  it\t was<br \/>\nnecessary that\tthe personal  bond of  the accused should be<br \/>\nexecuted on  the other\tside of\t the bond  executed  by\t the<br \/>\nsurety on  the same  paper. It\twas held  that\tit  was\t not<br \/>\nnecessary. And,\t it was\t pointed out that the mere fact that<br \/>\nform No. 42, Schedule V Criminal Procedure Code, printed the<br \/>\ncontents of the two bonds, one to be executed by the accused<br \/>\nand the other by the surety together, did not mean that both<br \/>\nthe bonds  should be  on the  same sheet  of paper.  To\t the<br \/>\nextent that it goes the decision helps the State and not the<br \/>\nappellant. For\tthe reasons  stated  above,  the  appeal  is<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">453<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1498, 1979 SCR (3) 448 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: RAM LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/03\/1979 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) FAZALALI, SYED [&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-98372","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>Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979 - 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\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-22T17:33:58+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-22T17:33:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1629,\"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\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979\",\"name\":\"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-22T17:33:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979 - 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\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-22T17:33:58+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979","datePublished":"1979-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-22T17:33:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979"},"wordCount":1629,"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\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979","name":"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-22T17:33:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-5-march-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Lal vs State Of U.P on 5 March, 1979"}]},{"@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\/98372","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=98372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}