# THAKUR NARWAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF MABHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 973
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-01-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1961
- **Bench:** J.L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/thakur-narwar-singh-v-the-state-of-mabhya-pradesh-2365
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Tria/,-Offences committed in . Princely Bt,at,e
prior to merger with Iwrlian Dominion-If and when the Indian
Penal Code applicable to such offences-Madhya Bharat Ordinance No. 1of1948-Part B 8t,ates (Laws) Act, 1951
(~ qf
1951) •. 6.
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
J ndian 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
iipplicable amongst other laws the Penal Code of India to the
,
State of Jhabua. After Jhabua State became part of the State
of Madhy~ Bharat, the Rajpramukh by Ordinance No. I 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 peoality, forfeiture or pu.nishmeot
incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law
repealed.
Held, in 1948, when the offences were committed the
..
196%
i\ 1 / s. Ballabhdas
Agarwal
v.
Tiu Slate of Bihar
Kapur J.
F.~t;ruary 2
1962
na1..,.NtJ;"f/A
••
Th Sl.U of
.11.dlgo Pr.Us•
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1£62) SUPP.
law in the State of Jhabua was the Tndian Penal Code and
that law continued by the Ordinance I 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 "as punishable under the Indian Proa!
Code as applied to Jhabua State.
CIUMINAL APPELLATE JurusnrnTl<.:N: Criminal
Appeal No. 130 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated September 26, 1956, of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court (lnrlore Bench) At In<lore in
Cr. A. No. 8 of 1956.
B.K. Banerjee and Talcur Das Taneja, for the
Appellant.
l.N. Shroff, for the respondent.
1962. February 2. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
KAPUR, J.-Thia appeal is directed against
the judgment ·and order of the High Court of
Madhya Bharat upholding the conviction of the
appella11t under ss. 380 and 451 of the Indian
Penal Codt'.
The quest ion 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
pid 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
whiah was a Jagir. Its thakur, Thakur Narayan
Singh, died on November 11, I 945, without leaving
a son. Hi8 two widows adopted Gajendrapal Singh,
the second son of His HighneBS the Raja of Jnabua
on July 15, 1946. Representations made by the
appellant olaiming thP. suooession to the Thikana.
were rejected by His HighneBS. His further representation to the then Political Agent wa.e also
• '
!
'
-~.
\
-.
-;
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
975
rejected. It is alleged that the appellant entered
in a conspiraoy 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 poasession. 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
Jud~e. 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 I

## Text

"
2. S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
973
of the rules of natural justice or violation of any
principle oflaw which would be a good ground for
011r interference direct with the orders of the
Board of Revenue in an appeal under Art. 136 of
the Constitution.
In our opinion the appeal is without force and
is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
THAKUR NARWAR SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF MABHYA PRADESH
(J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal Tria/,-Offences committed in . Princely Bt,at,e
prior to merger with Iwrlian Dominion-If and when the Indian
Penal Code applicable to such offences-Madhya Bharat Ordinance No. 1of1948-Part B 8t,ates (Laws) Act, 1951
(~ qf
1951) •. 6.
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
J ndian 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
iipplicable amongst other laws the Penal Code of India to the
,
State of Jhabua. After Jhabua State became part of the State
of Madhy~ Bharat, the Rajpramukh by Ordinance No. I 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 peoality, forfeiture or pu.nishmeot
incurred in respect of any offence committed against any law
repealed.
Held, in 1948, when the offences were committed the
..
196%
i\ 1 / s. Ballabhdas
Agarwal
v.
Tiu Slate of Bihar
Kapur J.
F.~t;ruary 2
1962
na1..,.NtJ;"f/A
••
Th Sl.U of
.11.dlgo Pr.Us•
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1£62) SUPP.
law in the State of Jhabua was the Tndian Penal Code and
that law continued by the Ordinance I 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 "as punishable under the Indian Proa!
Code as applied to Jhabua State.
CIUMINAL APPELLATE JurusnrnTl<.:N: Criminal
Appeal No. 130 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated September 26, 1956, of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court (lnrlore Bench) At In<lore in
Cr. A. No. 8 of 1956.
B.K. Banerjee and Talcur Das Taneja, for the
Appellant.
l.N. Shroff, for the respondent.
1962. February 2. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
KAPUR, J.-Thia appeal is directed against
the judgment ·and order of the High Court of
Madhya Bharat upholding the conviction of the
appella11t under ss. 380 and 451 of the Indian
Penal Codt'.
The quest ion 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
pid 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
whiah was a Jagir. Its thakur, Thakur Narayan
Singh, died on November 11, I 945, without leaving
a son. Hi8 two widows adopted Gajendrapal Singh,
the second son of His HighneBS the Raja of Jnabua
on July 15, 1946. Representations made by the
appellant olaiming thP. suooession to the Thikana.
were rejected by His HighneBS. His further representation to the then Political Agent wa.e also
• '
!
'
-~.
\
-.
-;
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
975
rejected. It is alleged that the appellant entered
in a conspiraoy 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 poasession. 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
Jud~e. 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 issuad by the Rajapramukh
after the State of Jhabua beoame part of the State
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 Sta~ of Madhya Bharat. On February
22, 1951, the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, (Act
Ilfl
Thakur Narwar
Singh
v.
TM 81.U of
M adhJ• Praduh
trapurJ.
1962
1mr1ur Narw11.1
Singh
v.
Th.Stataof
Madk7a Pradesh
KapUT J.
97G
SUPREi\IE COURT 1-tEPORTS [1952] SUPP.
III" of 1951) was enactecl. Seoti;:..u il of U1at Act
relates to rnpeals and savin$s·
Ii; provided :
" If immediately uefore the appointed
day, there is in force in any Part B State any
law corresponaing to any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to thD,t State, that law
shall, save
as otherwise expressly provided
in this Act, stand repealed :
Provided that the repeal shall not affect,
(a)
the preyious operation of any law so
repealed or ...•••............
(b) any right, prtvilege, 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
~o repealed ..... .
rnd any such ............... remedy may be ..... .
enfo1wid ........ ., ...... and any such penalty ..... .
may be
1imposyd as if this Act had not been
passed.'
Thus it is clear that in 1948, when the offences
were committed by t.he appellant, t.he law in the
State of .Jbabua was the Indian Penal Code and
that law m1s con tin !ltld by the Ordinance of the
Rajpra.mukh and
L'B Repealing Act and any
penalty incurrerl in respect. of any .offence committed in 1948 is rmnishah le under the
Indian
Penal Code as applic·l to .Jhabua State.
,
This appeal is t,herefore without force and is
dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
'
'
·~
1
I
------~