17. Mr. Ram Jethmalani in support of his contentions referred to thefollowing judgments : State of Rajasthan vs. Teg Bahadur and Others, (2004) 13SCC 300; State vs. Siddarth Vashisth@Manu Sharma and Others, 2001 III AD (DELHI)829; Sohan Lal alias Sohan Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 11 SCC534; Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294; M/s. T.D. Kumar andBros. Private Ltd. vs. Iron and Steel Controller and Others, AIR 1961 Calcutta258 (V 48 C 59); R vs . R Turnbull (63 Criminal Appeal Report 132); Budhsen andOrs. vs. State vs. UP, 1970 (2) SCC 128; Duraipandi Tewar and Ors. vs. State ofTamil Nadu, 1973 (3) SCC 680; Hari Nath and Anr. vs. State of UP, 1988 (1) SCC14; Bollavaran P N Reddy and Ors. vs. State of A P, 1991 (3) SCC 434; LaxmipatChoraria vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 938; Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi vs.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 3031; The King vs. Thomas Dwyer and AllenFerguson, (1925) 2 K B 799; Sharad Birdi Chand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra,AIR 1984 SC 1622; Ramgopal vs. State, AIR 1972 SC 656; State of H P vs. OmParkash, AIR 1972 SC 975; Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari vs. State, AIR 2005 SC 2804; RajaRam vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2000 (7) SC 549; Emperor vs. Ardali Mian, AIR1933 Patna 496; Jagdeo Singh vs. Emperor, 24 Cr L J 69; Sukhram vs. State of M.P.,1989 C C Cases 135 (SC); Zahira Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 (2) SCC 158;Satyajeet Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 (1) SCC 115; Tokh Ram vs.State, 1982 Cr L J; P Varadrajulu Naidu vs. King Emperor, ILR 42 Mad 885;Kessowji Issur Great Indian Peninsula, 34 Indian Appeals 115 = ILR Vol.XXXI PC381; Arjan Singh vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 1951 SC 193; Empress of India and Anr.,ILR 5 ALL.218; Abinash Chandra Bose vs. Bimal Krishna Sen and Anr, AIR 1963 SC316; Ukha Kohle vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1531; State of Gujarat vs.Mohanlal, AIR 1987 SC 1321; Bir Singh and Ors. vs. State of UP, AIR 1978 SC 59;Rajeshwar Prasad vs. State of W B, AIR 1965 SC 1887; M P Lohia vs. State of WestBengal, JT 2005 (2) SC 105; The King vs. Parke, (1903) K B 432; Ramchander vs.State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1036; Emperor vs. Ram Singh, AIR 1948 Lah. 24; RaoHarnarain vs. Gumani Ram, AIR 1958 Punjab 273; Smt. Padmavati vs. R K Karanjia,AIR 1963 SC MP 61; Sebastian vs. Karunakaran, AIR 1967 Ker. 177; Banu Singh vs.Emperor, X CWN 962; Ramanathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 1204; Stateof Delhi vs. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961; M.P. Narayana Menon, 1925 MADRAS106; Mohinder Singh vs. State, AIR 1963 SC 415; Zahiruddin vs. Emperor, AIR 1947PC 75; R vs. Preston, (1993) 4 ALL E R 838; Practice Note, (1982) 1 ALL E R 734;Jagjit Singh alias Jagga Vs. State of Punjab, 2005(3)SCC 689; Maruti Rama NaikVs. State of Maharashtra, 2003(10) SCC 670; Hallu and others Vs. State of MadhyaPradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1936; Duraipandi Thevar and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,1973(3) SCC 680; Somappa Vamanappa madar Shankarappa Ravanappa Kaddi Vs. TheState of Mysore, AIR 1979 SC 1831; Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another Vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135; Tapinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another,AIR 1970 SC 1566; Soma Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1453; KanhaiMishra alia Kanhaiya Misar Vs. State of Bihar, 2001(3) SCC 451; Willie (William)Slaney Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116; State of Punjab Vs. SwaranSingh, 2005 (6) SCC 101; Basavaraj R.Patil and others Vs. State of Karnataka andothers, AIR 2000 SC 3214; Dal Singh Vs. King-Emperor, AIR 1917 PC 25; HabeebMohammad Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51; State of Kerala vs. Ammini andothers, AIR 1988 Ker. 1; Sidharth and others vs. State of Bihar, 2005 (12) SCC545; Damodar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (12) SCC 336 and Budhsen and anotherVs. State of UP, 1970 (2) SCC 128. The propositions of law are well establishedand are not in dispute.