http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THAKUR NARWAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/1962

BENCH:

ACT:      Criminal Trial-Offences committed in Princely State prior  to merger with Indian Dominion-If and when the  Indian Penal  Code  applicable  to  such offences-Madhya Bharat  Ordinance No.  1 of  1948- Part 1948-Part  B States  (Laws) Act,  1951 (3  of 1951) s. 6.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  had committed certain offences in the  State of  Jhabua in  1948, when the Jhabua State was  not a part of Dominion of India. He was tried in 1955 under the Indian Penal Code, for the offences  committed  in  the  erstwhile  State  of Jhabua in  1948.  The  question  was  whether  the appellant could  be tried in 1955 under the Indian Penal Code  for offences  committed in 1948 in the erstwhile State of Jhabusa.      The Raja  of Jhabua  State by  a notification had made  applicable amongst  other laws the Penal Code of India to the State of Jhabua. After Jhabua State became  part of  the State of Madhya Bharat, the  Rajpramukh   by  Ordinance   No.  1  of  1948 continued the  laws already  in force  in State of Jhabua. The  Part B  States (Laws)  Act 1951 (3 of 1951) s.  6 while  repealing all the existing laws of the  State inter  alia saved  the laws  dealing with  any   penalty,  forfeiture   or   punishment incurred  in  respect  of  any  offence  committed against any law repealed. ^      Held,  in   1948,  when   the  offences  were committed the 974 law in  the State  of Jhabua  was the Indian Penal Code and  that law continued by the Ordinance 1 of 1948 of  the Rajpramukh  and the repealing Act, in the Part B States (Laws) Act 1951, and any penalty incurred in  respect of  any offence  committed in 1948 was punishable under the Indian Penal Code as applied to Jhabua State.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  :  Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1961.      Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated  September  26,  1956  of  the  Madhya

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) At Indore in Cr. A. No. 8 of 1956.      B.K. Banerjee  and Takur  Das Taneja, for the Appellant.      I.N. Shroff, for the respondent.      1962. February  2. The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KAPUR, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and  order of  the High  Court of  Madhya Bharat upholding  the conviction  of the appellant under ss.  380 and  451 of  the Indian Penal Code. The question for decision is whether the appellant could be tried in 1955 under the Indian Penal Code for offences  committed by  him in  1948 when  the State  of  Jhabua,  in  which  the  offences  were committed, was not a part of Dominion of India and whether the  State  Penal  Code  did  contain  any provision corresponding  to the  Sections  of  the Indian Penal  Code under  which the  appellant has been convicted.      In Jhabua  State there  is Thikana  Jhaknawda which was  a Jagir.  Its  thakur,  Thakur  Narayan Singh, died  on November 11, 1945, without leaving a son.  His two  widows adopted Gajendrapal Singh, the second  son of His Highness the Raja of Jhabua on July  15, 1946.  Representations  made  by  the appellant claiming  the succession  to the Thikana were  rejected   by  His   Highness.  His  further representation to  the then  Political  Agent  was also 975 rejected. It is alleged that the appellant entered in a  conspiracy with  about 150  persons  and  on January 18, 1948, forcibly entered the Thikana and took possession  of it  and remained  in  unlawful possession for  about 7 months when he gave up the possession. The  prosecution against  him  and  15 others under  ss. 121,  295 and  455 of the Indian Penal Code  started on  October 7,  1955.  He  was convicted under  ss. 451  and 380  of  the  Indian Penal Code  but all the other accused persons were acquitted  by  the  Sessions  Judge.  Against  his conviction the  appellant took  an appeal  to  the High Court but his appeal was dismissed and he has come in appeal to this Court by Special Leave.      When the appeal was heard on January 9, 1962, the question  whether the appellant could be tried in 1955  under the  Indian Penal Code for offences committed in 1948 in the erstwhile State of Jhabua and whether  there were  similar provisions in the penal laws  of that  State  at  the  time  of  the commission of  the offences  was raised.  As  this question had  not been raised in any of the courts below we  adjourned the  hearing of  the appeal to enable the parties to place the necessary material before us.  The  argument  was  confined  to  this question only  as we did not find any substance in any of the other points in the appeal.      According to  the Report  of the  Council  of Administration on  the  administration  of  Jhabua State for  1935-41 p.  48, the then Raja of Jhabua State by  notification applied  amongst other laws the Penal Code of India to the State of Jhabua. By Ordinance 1  of 1948  issued  by  the  Rajapramukh after the State of Jhabua became part of the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

of Madhya  Bharat which was replaced by Regulation of Government  Act  (Act  14  of  1948)  the  laws already in  force in Jhabua were continued in that part of  the State  of Madhya  Bharat. On February 22, 1951, the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, (Act 976 III of  1951) was  enacted. Section  6 of that Act related to repeals and savings. It provided:           "If  immediately  before  the  appointed      day, there  is in  force in  any Part B State      any law  corresponding to  any of the Acts or      Ordinances now  extended to  that State, that      law  shall,   save  as   otherwise  expressly      provided in this Act, stand repealed:           Provided  that   the  repeal  shall  not affect,           (a)   the previous  operation of any law                so repealed or..................           (b)  any right, privilege, obligation or                liability  acquired,   accrued,  or                incurred, under any law so repealed           (c)  any    penalty,    forfeiture    or                punishment incurred  in respect  of                any offence  committed against  any                law so repealed......           and    any    such.........remedy    may           be........enforced........and  any  such           penalty........may be imposed as if this           Act had not been passed." Thus it  is clear  that in 1948, when the offences were committed  by the  appellant, the  law in the State of Jhabua was the Indian Penal Code and that law  was   continued  by   the  Ordinance  of  the Rajpramukh and  the Repealing  Act and any penalty incurred in  respect of  any offence  committed in 1948 is  punishable under the Indian Penal Code as applied to Jhabua State.      This appeal is therefore without force and is dismissed.                                  Appeal dismissed. 977