{"id":110187,"date":"1974-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974"},"modified":"2017-02-10T07:24:24","modified_gmt":"2017-02-10T01:54:24","slug":"bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974","title":{"rendered":"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 522, \t\t 1975 SCR (2) 470<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBANKATLAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/10\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  522\t\t  1975 SCR  (2) 470\n 1975 SCC  (4) 598\n\n\nACT:\nMaintenance of Internal Security Act 1971-S. 3(1) (a) (iii)-\nscope of-\"Supply and Service\" meaning of.\nWhether detaining authority bound to convey all the  details\nof previous convictions of the detenu.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nPursuant to two orders of detention under s. 3(1) (a)  (iii)\nof  the\t Maintenance  of internal  Security  Act,  1971\t the\npetitioner was detained on the ground that he was  indulging\nin   adulteration  of  essential  foodstuffs  and   was\t  in\npossession of donkey dung, sawdust, gypsum, ICI colours\t and\ncoloured  plastic  paper  used\tand  intended  for  use\t  in\nadulteration  of foodstuffs; that the samples of  foodstuffs\nsold  by  him, on examination were found to  contain  highly\nadulterated material; that the recovery of huge quantity  of\nadulterated foodstuffs and adulterated material which is un-\nhygenic\t and  injurious\t to public  health  proved  that  by\nindulging  in the business of manufacture, sale and  storage\nfor sale of such essential commodities he had been acting in\na   manner  prejudicial\t to  the  maintenance  of   supplies\nessential  to  the  community  and  that  he  could  not  be\nprevented from doing so by prosecution under the  Prevention\nof  Food Adulteration Act.  Before the confirmation  of\t the\norder of detention by the Government the petitioner filed  a\nhabeas\tcorpus\tpetition before the High  Court,  which\t was\ndismissed.   In a petition under article 32 of\tthe  Consti-\ntution\tit was contended (i) that the grounds  of  detention\nwere non-existent; (ii) that the grounds communicated to the\ndetenu\tdid not have a direct nexus with the maintenance  of\nsupplies and services essential to the community; and  (iii)\nthat  in  an  affidavit\t filed before  the  High  Court\t the\nDistrict  Magistrate relied upon an earlier prosecution\t and\nconviction  of the petitioner under the Prevention  of\tFood\nAdulteration  Act, but failed to mention this ground in\t the\norder  of  detention, in consequence of\t which\tthe  grounds\ncommunicated were vague.\nDismissing the petition,\nHELD  : (1) It cannot be said that the grounds of  detention\nwere non-existent.  On the report of the public analyst\t the\nchilli\t powder\t and  haldiwhole  would\t be  deemed  to\t  be\nadulterated  articles of food falling within the  definition\nof  cl.\t (c)  and (f) respectively and\tAmchoor\t within\t the\ndefinition  of cl. (b) and (c) of s. 2(1) of the  Prevention\nof  Food  Adulteration\tAct,  1954.  In\t the  light  of\t the\ninformation  received  by the detaining authority  that\t the\npetitioner  had been systematically adulterating  foodstuffs\non a large scale, the discovery in bulk of extraneous matter\nstored in the premises which could be used for\tadulteration\ncould not be said to be irrelevant. [477 H; 478 A-B]\n(2)(a)\tSupplies  in the context of s. 3(1)(a)\t(iii)  means\nsupply of essential commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome\nform.\tIt  does not mean the supply  of  their\t adulterated\nsubstitutes.   Engagement in the process of adulteration  of\nfoodstuffs meant for sale is an activity highly\t prejudicial\nto the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the\ncommunity,  more so when it is done in an  organised  manner\nand on a large scale. [478 F-G]\nMisri Lal v. The State A.I.R 1951 Pat. 134 F. B. over-ruled,\nand  Hari  Ram v. State (1974) 25, Raj.\t Law Weekly  p.-  26\napproved.\n(b)  Food adulteration activity particularly of an organised\nkind  is  an  activity prejudicial  to\tthe  maintenance  of\nsupplies and services essential to the life of the community\nwhich  may  justify  an order of  detention  under  s.\t3(1)\n(a)(iii) of the Act.  One of the primary necessaries of life\nis  food;  one of the elementary obligations  of  a  welfare\nstate  is to ensure food to its citizens.  The\tconcepts  of\n\"Supplies\"  and\t services\" intermingle in the  discharge  of\nthat obligation by the State.  Maintenance\n471\nof sale of pure food stuffs to the public is both a 'supply\"\nand a \"service'.  A person who sells adulterated food to the\npeople not only evinces a tendency to disrupt the even\tflow\nof  essential  supplies but also interrupts service  to\t the\ncommunity.\n[479 G-H]\nHaradhan  Saha\tv. State of West Bengal, Writ<\/a>  petition\t No.\n1999 of 1973 decided on 21-8-1974 referred to.\n(c)  one broad test for the exercise of the power which\t the\ndetaining authority may keep in View, particularly in a case\nof adulteration of foodstuffs is whether the material before\nit about the activities of the person sought to be  detained\nin  the proximate past and present, is such as to enable  it\nto  make a reasonable prognosis of the probability  of\tthat\nperson\tto behave similarly in the future.  In\tthe  present\ncase  on  the material before him  the\tDistrict  Magistrate\ncould  reasonably  be satisfied that  unless  detained,\t the\ndetenu\twould  be likely to continue the  food\tadulteration\nactivity  in the future and it was, therefore, necessary  to\ndetain him. [481 B & D]\n(3)  The  mere\tfact that all the details  of  his  previous\nprosecutions  and their results or his conviction  were\t not\nconveyed to the detenu did not contravene art. 22(5) of\t the\nConstitution  and s. 8(1) of the Act.  All these  fact\twere\nwithin\tthe knowledge of the detenu.  There  was  sufficient\nindication  in\tthe  first as well as the  second  order  of\ndetention  about the previous prosecution of the  petitioner\nfor  food  adulteration\t offences.   What  constitutes\t the\nsubstance  of the grounds is the factum of the raid and\t the\ndiscovery of adulterated chilli powder, Amchur, Haldi and  a\nlarge quantity of odd materials such as sawdust, donkey dung\netc. which, in the opinion of the detaining authority,\twere\nsuspected\t  adulterants. The presence\tof     these\nsuspected adulterants in bulk, safely stored in tins   may\nnot  by itself amount to an offence under the penal law\t but\nit  was\t a relevant circumstance which could be\t taken\tinto\naccount\t  by  the  detaining  authority\t in   reaching\t its\nsubjective satisfaction. [381 H; 482 B; 481 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 292 of 1974.
\nPetition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
\nA.   K.\t Sen,  Badri  Das Sharma and S. K.  Bagga,  for\t the
\nPetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
L.   M.\t Singhvi,  S.  M.  Jain and  S.\t K.  Jain,  for\t the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSARKARTA  J. The petitioner challenges the validity  of\t the
\norder  of  his detention made by  the  District\t Magistrate,
\nJodhpur\t under\ts.  3(1)(a)  (iii)  of\tthe  Maintenance  of
\nInternal  Security Act, 1971 (for short the Act)  and  prays
\nfor a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.\n<\/p>\n
The  order  of detention was passed on March 18,  1974.\t  In
\npursuance thereof, the petitioner was taken into custody  on
\nMarch 19, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
The  detention order (for short, the first order) which\t was
\nserved on the detenu at the time of his arrest on March\t 19,
\n1974. states
\n“…….whereas, the said Shri Bankat Lal has been indulging
\nin  rampant adulteration of essential foodstuff\t and  supply
\nthereof for consumption by the community at large, operating
\na factory and firm under the name and style of Laxmi  Narain
\nMoondra\t situated  in  Makrana\tMohalla,  Jodhpur  for\tsuch
\nadulteration,  so  much so, that 170 odd  bags\tof  material
\nwhich  among  other things, includes 7 tins of\tsawdust,  15
\nbags of colour (yellow and Gherwa), 70 bags of chilli  seed,
\nblack colour leaves, which look like tea leaves, one bag  of
\ngypsum (khaddi) power and a tin of
\n472<\/span>
\nanimal\tdung, used and intended for use in  adulteration  of
\nfoodstaffs,  which  are piosonous and  injurious  to  public
\nhealth\twere recovered from your godown and one\t floor\tmill
\nowned and\/or controlled by the said Shri Bankatlal;\n<\/p>\n
3.   And,  whereas recovery from the godown and\t flour\tmill
\nmentioned   in\tthe  preceding\tparagraph,   also   includes
\nfoodstuff like Haldi, Mirchi, and Amchoor, which on chemical
\nexamination  by\t the Public Analyst have been  found  to  be
\nadulterated  for which prosecution is  contemplated  against
\nthe  said  Shri\t Bankatlal  under  the\tPrevention  of\tFood
\nAdulteration Act, 1954;\n<\/p>\n
4.   And, further there is reasonable apprehension that\t the
\nsaid Shri Bankatlal will continue to indulge in adulteration
\nand   sale  of\tadulterated  foodstuffs\t and   thereby\t act
\nprejudicial  in\t the  matter  of  maintenance  of   supplies
\nessential  to the community and frustrate the  objective  of
\nsupply\tof  pure- foodstuffs to the community at  large\t and
\nthere  is  no other way to prevent him from acting  in\tsuch
\nprejudicial manner otherwise than by invoking the provisions
\nof  s.\t3  (1)\t(a) (iii) of  the  Maintenance\tof  Internal
\nSecurity Act.\n<\/p>\n
5.   And,  therefore,  in exercise of the  powers  conferred
\nupon me by S. 3 (2) of the Maintenance of Internal  Security
\nAct, I order the detention of Shri Bankatlal.. . ”
\nThe  second  order  containing further\tparticulars  of\t the
\ngrounds\t of detention was served on the petitioner on  March
\n20, 1974.  It reads:\n<\/p>\n
“x\t\t       x\t\t\t x
\nI .  That on 11-3-1974 between 11 – 30 a.m. and 2 p.m. Dr.
\n(Miss)\t  Raj  Kumari,\tDistrict Chief\tMedical\t and  Health
\nOfficer Jodhpur\t    together  with……. . . . . . went  to
\nSumer Market… . . .where one Shri Hiranand son of Shri Lal
\nChand  Sindhi, retailer gave credible information  that\t you
\nare owning a business firm named as ‘Laxmi Narain Moondra  a
\nwholesale concern at ‘Killikhana’, Makrana Mohalla,  Jodhpur
\nand  you  are doing wholesale business\tof  adulteration  of
\nessential  commodities\t(foodstuffs)  by  adultering   cheap
\nunhygenic  and injurious materials like\t colours,  saw-dust,
\ngypsum,\t Gharu\tand sand with chilly-seeds,  Haldi,  Dhania,
\nAmchur,\t tea-leaves  and flour and  manufacture\t adulterated
\nfoodstuffs for sale to the general public as pure  varieties
\nof  such essential commodities.\t When the party raided\tyour
\nabove  shop and four godowns situated in the  same  premises
\nand  searched  there between 11-3-1974\tand  14-3-1974,\t the
\ninformation  given  by\tShri Hiranand  was  confirmed.\tYou,
\ntogether  with your son were found present in your shop\t and
\non  the\t search of your premises the  checking\tparty  found
\nunder\tyour  ownership\t and  control  huge  quantities\t  of
\nadulterated foodstuffs as well as the materials used by\t you
\nfor  the purpose of adulterating essential  commodities.   A
\nperusal\t of the recovery memos of the articles\tseized\tshow
\nthat  you  possessed  the  stock  of  following\t adulterated
\narticles for manufacture, sale and storage of foodstuffs for
\nsale under your control.\n<\/p>\n
473<\/span><\/p>\n
(a)  On 11-3-1974 in your main shop:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  Eleven  full  bags and seven half-bags  of\t adulterated
\nchilli powder, weighing 80 Kg. to 20 Kg. each.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) One  quintal bag of Haldi powder and two half  bags  of
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  Ten to twenty kg. bags of Amchur powder.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) one tin of Dhaniya mixed with refuse.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  Two tins of Tumba oil.\n<\/p>\n
Samples of each of the above foodstuffs were taken on 11  3-
\n1974 by paying you. the price of each sample in the presence
\nof Motbirs and forms IV and V were given to you; sealing the
\narticles  in your, presence and copy of the  recovery  memo,
\nwas also furnished to you.\n<\/p>\n
(b) On 11-3-1974 Two rooms in the main shop containing above
\nfoodstuffs were scaled in your presence containing:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Sixty bags of chilli powder.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Ten bags of Haldi.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Five bags of Amchur.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Five bags of unhusked Amchur.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  On\t 11-3-1974-The\tfollowing material used by  you\t for
\nadulteration was recovered from your main shop.
\n(1)  One bag of gypsum `Khaddi).\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Half  bag\tof red colour used for\tmixing\twith  chilli
\npowder.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  One package of I. C. I. colour containing green  colour
\nsuspected to be used for colouring adulterated Dhaniya.
\n(4)  One packet containing ‘saffron colour’ used for  mixing
\nwith Haldi powder.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  Red coloured plastic paper used for mixing purposes.
\n(6)  Weights and weighing machines.\n<\/p>\n
(d)  On\t 12-3-1974  at\t3 25-From your godown No.  1  and  2
\nrented\tto  you by Shri Ramesh Chandra Mathur  of  the\tsame
\nlocality:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Sixty-two\tbags  of  chilli unhusked  seeds,  used\t for
\nadulterating in chillies.\n<\/p>\n
(e)  On 13-3-1974 from above godown:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Thirty-four bags of chilli seeds.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Ten tins of black used-ten-leaves-like material.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Ninety-nine tins of white powder.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Two bags of suspected soap stone powder.\n<\/p>\n
474<\/span><\/p>\n
(f)  On 13-3-1974 and 14-3-1974.\n<\/p>\n
From the flour mill under your control in which food licence
\nNo. 1666 Book No 10 dated 13-3-1973 in the name of your wife
\nSrimati Ramadevi was also recovered.-\n<\/p>\n
1. Eleven bags of husked seeds of chillies.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Two tins suspected to contain ‘Donkey dung.’\n<\/p>\n
3.   Eleven tins of suspected material with sawdust.\n<\/p>\n
4.   one tin of yellow saw dust.\n<\/p>\n
5.   One tin of suspected mango seed powder.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Two tins of waste material of Dhaniya.\n<\/p>\n
2.   That the samples of foodstuffs sold by you to the\tFood
\ninspector  on 11-3-1974 were examined by the Public  Analyst
\nand found on examination highly adulterated containing:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Chilli powder-total ash 8.12 % and ash insoluble in
\nH.   C. C. 1 .99 %, contains silicious matter sand etc.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Haldi  which  contains 46 .24 % heavily  infested\twith
\ninsects in such material.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Amchur which contains 20 % extraneous matter.
\nThis further confirms your dealing in adulterated foodstuffs
\nand its supply to the community.\n<\/p>\n
3  That\t it Was found from the statements of Hira  Nand\t and
\nyour landlord Ramesh Chandra Mathur whose premises are\tren-
\nted  by you for hoarding and manufacturing above  foodstuffs
\nthat  you are engaged in such business for a long  time\t now
\nand  you put such a( ulterated commodities for sale  to\t the
\ninnocent customers as pure foodstuffs.\n<\/p>\n
4.   That  in  order  to escape\t the  consequences  of\tyour
\nactions,  you  deliberately failed to  produce\tyour  firm’s
\nRegistration   certificate  issued  under  the\t‘Shops\t and
\nCommercial Establishment Act’.\n<\/p>\n
5.   That  you deliberately refused to open the\t flour\tmill
\nestablished  under  your control in the name  of  your\twife
\nSrimati\t Ramadevi  and\tprevented the  Health  Officer\tfrom
\ntaking\tthe  search  of the above  mill\t in  your  presence.
\nHowever,  by invokingy the provisions of section 10  of\t the
\nPrevention  of\tFood Adulteration Act, 1954,  the  mill\t was
\nunlocked  in  the presence of motbirs and  huge\t adulterated
\nfoodstuffs  and\t material used for  adulterating  foodstuffs
\nwere recovered.\n<\/p>\n
6.   That   in\t your  main  shop,  you\t  fraudulently\t and
\ndeliberately   exhibited   writings  on\t  cardboard   styled
\n‘foodstuffs   not  for\thuman  consumption’  to\t avoid\t the
\nchecking.  However, the recovery of the adulterated articles
\non  the contrary prove that none of these articles are\tused
\nother than as foodstuffs.\n<\/p>\n
475<\/span><\/p>\n
7.   That the recovery of huge quantity of above adulterated
\nfoodstuffs  and adulterated material which is unhygenic\t and
\ninjurious  to  the  public  health goes\t to  prove  that  by
\nindulging  in the business of manufacture sale\tand  storage
\nfor sale of such essential commodities you have been  acting
\nprejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to\t the
\ncommunity and have been doing so for several years past\t and
\nfurther, that you are likely to continue to indulge in\tthis
\nnefarious  activity  injurious\tto  the\t public\t health\t and
\nprejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to\t the
\ncommunity and that you could not be prevented from doing  so
\nby   mere   prosecution\t under\tthe   Prevention   of\tFood
\nAdulteration Act, which is being contemplated and therefore,
\nit was necessary to detain you by invoking the provisions of
\ns. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of Maintenance of Internal Security\tAct,
\n1971.”\n<\/p>\n
Now  some  other material facts may be set out.\t  The  State
\nGovernment  approved  the order of detention  on  March\t 23,
\n1974.  On or about the 6th ‘April, 1974 the petitioner moved
\nthe  High  Court  of  Rajasthan under  Article\t226  of\t the
\nConstitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus on the
\nground\tthat  his  detention was illegal.   The\t High  Court
\ndismissed  the\twrit application on May 6,  1974.   The\t re-
\nference\t to the Advisory Board was made on April 10,1974  in
\ncompliance  with s. 10.\t The detenu made  a  representation,
\ndated  16\/17th\tApril  1974, which  was\t despatched  by\t the
\nSuperintendent,\t Central Jail, Jodhpur, on April  17,  1974,
\nand  was received by the Government on April 20, 1974.\t The
\nGovernment   then  forwarded  that  representation  to\t the
\nAdvisory  Board which considered it and heard the detenu  in
\nperson\tand  reported  to  the\tGovernment  that  there\t was
\nsufficient  cause for the detention.  The  State  Government
\nconfirmed the detention order on May 11, 1974.
\nMr. Ashok Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner has  tried
\nto  make out these points in his arguments: (1) The  grounds
\nof detention are non-existent; (2) The grounds\tcommunicated
\nto the detenu are not germane having a direct nexus with the
\nmaintenance  of\t supplies  and\tservices  essential  to\t the
\ncommunity;  (3)\t The District Magistrate had stated  in\t his
\naffidavit  before  the High Court that\tbefore\tpassing\t the
\norder of detention, he had come to know that the  petitioner
\nhad   been  prosecuted\tand  convicted\tearlier\t under\t the
\nPrevention of Food Adulteration Act.  This ground which must
\nhave  weighed  with the District Magistrate  in\t making\t the
\ndetention  order,  was\tnot  mentioned\tin  the\t grounds  of
\ndetention   communicated   to  the  detenu   who   was,\t  in
\nconsequence,  deprived of the opportunity of explaining\t the
\ncircumstances in which he was earlier convicted.  Failure to
\ndo so leaves the ground communicated vague and the detention
\nis on that account illegal.\n<\/p>\n
In  elaboration of the first point, Mr. Sen submits that  in
\nthe first place, the donkey dung, saw-dust, gypsum, I. C. I.
\nColours,  coloured plastic paper, dhaniya waste, etc.  which
\nwere found in the premises were not adulterants.  They\twere
\nkept there for innocuous purposes.\n<\/p>\n
476<\/span><\/p>\n
The  donkey-dung  was  meant for being\tused  as  fuel;\t the
\nsawdust\t was there for preserving slabs of  ice.   Secondly,
\nthere  was no evidence, whatever, that these  articles\twere
\nbeing used to adulterate the spices or other foodstuffs\t for
\nsale.  It is stressed that none of the foodstuffs taken from
\nthe  premises  was  found adulterated or  mixed\t with  these
\nalleged\t adulterants  viz., donkey-dung, sawdust  I.  C.  I.
\ncolour\tetc.   The only extraneous matter in the  sample  of
\nchilli\tpowder detected by the Public  Analyst-proceeds\t the
\nargument-was  1\t .99  %, sand.\tPresence  of  such  a  small
\npercentage of sand in that sand-swept country may be an\t act
\nof God and not of the petitioner; and the same could be\t the
\nreason\tfor  the  presence of stone-dust in  the  sample  of
\nAmchoor.   About  the presence of insects, 46 .24 %  in\t the
\nsample of Haldi-whole it is contended that the same had also
\nbeen brought about by the process of nature and not by human
\nhand.  Strictly Speaking, maintains the Counsel, none of the
\nfoodstuffs  in the premises had been found adulterated;\t the
\nthree samples examined by the Public Analyst were only\tsub-
\nstandard.   It is urged that there was no nexus between\t the
\nalleged adulterants and the foodstuffs the samples of  which
\nwere  found  sub-standard.   The  detaining  authority\t had
\ntherefore  in taking into account these alleged\t adulterant,
\nerred  and  based the order of detention  on  an  irrelevant
\nconsideration.\t Since it cannot be predicated,\t argues\t the
\nCounsel, to what extent the authority was influenced by this
\nirrelevant matter, the order stands vitiated.
\nDr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the State, submits that the
\nreports of the Public Analyst, far from excluding,  strongly
\nindicated  the possibility of the samples of, chilli  powder
\nand  Amchoor containing a substantial percentage, of  animal
\ndung, sawdust, gypsum and waste matter.\t     In\t particular,
\nit is stressed that the dust and stones found in Amc   were
\nprobably of gypsum.  The Analyst, it is pointed out, did not
\nsay  that  duststones  and coriander  seeds  were  the\tonly
\ncomponents  of\twhat  he compendiously\tdescribes  as  20  %
\n“extraneous matter”.  It is further submitted that the fibre
\nand insoluble ash found in the chilli powder might be due to
\nthe  mixing of the adulterants (other than I. C. I.  colour)
\nfound in the premises.\tOn these premises, it is maintained,
\nthe  seizure  of the aforesaid adulterants  along  with\t the
\nadulterated  foodstuffs\t for sale, was highly  relevant\t and
\ngermane to the object of the detention viz., maintenance  of
\nsupplies and services essential to the community.
\nTaking the first points first, the presence of\tdonkey-dung,
\nsawdust, gypsum, I. C. I. colours, refuse, coloured plastic,
\npapers\tetc. stored in tins, bags or other  receptacles,  in
\npremises  where spices and other foodstuffs were also  lying
\nstored, some of which were found adulterated was by itself a
\nsuspicious circumstance.  The petitioner held no license  to
\ndeal  in I. C. I. colours or gypsum etc.  At no\t stage,\t the
\npetitioner said that the animal dung had been stored by\t him
\nfor  use as fuel and we doubt very much that donkey dung  is
\nso  used.   Nor did he say that the sawdust  had  been\tkept
\nthere  for preserving ice or for other domestic\t use.\tWith
\nwinter\twaning,\t the season must still be cool on  the\t11th
\nMarch.\t The  question on fusingice in that season  did\t not
\narise.\tAlthough sawdust, gypsum, I. C. I. colours etc.\t are
\narticles of innocent
\n477<\/span>
\nuse,  yet  in  the circumstances of  the  case,\t they  could
\nfurnish\t reason for the detaining authority to suspect\tthat
\nthey  were  kept  there\t for  ‘use  as\tadulterants.\tThis
\nsuspicion was strengthened by the fact that thee samples  of
\nchilli\tpowder, Amchoor and Haldi-whole were found  by\tthe-
\nPublic\tAnalyst to be highly adulterated containing 1. 45  %
\nextraneous  matter  and\t 46.24%\t insects.   True,  that\t the
\nAnalyst\t did  not find any artificial  colouring  matter  in
\nthese  samples.\t But at the same time he did not  positively
\nexclude the possibility of sawdust, donkey-dung, gypsum\t and
\nrefuse\thaving\tbeen used in adulterating t`e  samples.\t  He
\ndetected  in  Amchoor, 20. 0 % extraneous  matter  including
\n“dust-stones, and other edible seeds namely coriander  etc.”
\napart  from insects.  Gypsum is rock chalk.  Chemically,  it
\nis  hydrous  calcium salphate.\tThe “dust stones”  could  be
\ncalcium\t sulphate.  Then, the use of “etc.” by\tthe  Analyst
\nshows that this extraneous matter could include other things
\nalso.\tThe result of the analysis of chilli powder  was  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     Moisture content\t\t\t   6.82%\n     Total Ash\t\t\t\t   8.12%\n     Ash insoluble in HCI\t\t   1.99%\n     Crude fibre\t\t\t  28.16%\n<\/pre>\n
It is evident that there was an excess of insoluble ash (1 .
\n99  %)\twhich according to the particulars conveyed  to\t the
\ndetenu, was siliclous matter, sand etc.\t The possibility  of
\ngypsum being a component of this insoluble ash had not\tbeen
\nruled out.\n<\/p>\n
There could be no doubt that on the basis of the reports. of
\nthe  public Analyst, the chilli powder, Amchoor\t and  Haldi-
\nwhole  taken from the premises of the petitioner were  prima
\nfacie adulterated articles.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 2(1)  of the Prevention of Food  Adulteration\tAct,
\n1954 provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “an  article  of food shall be  deemed  to  be
\n\t      adulterated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   if\t the  article  contains\t any   other
\n\t      substance which affects’, or if the article is
\n\t      so  processed  as to affect,  injuriously\t the
\n\t      nature. substance or quality thereof,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   if any inferior or cheaper substance has
\n\t      been  substituted\t wholly or in part  for\t the
\n\t      article  so  as  to  affect  injuriously\t the
\n\t      nature, substance or quality thereof; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (f)   if\tthe  article consists wholly  or  in
\n\t      part   of\t any  filthy,  putrid,
\n\t      disgusting,  rotten,  decomposed\tor  diseased
\n\t      animal  or vegetable substance or\t is  insect-
\n\t      infested\tor  is\totherwise  unfit  for  human
\n\t      consumption…………..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  the report of the Public Analyst the chilli\t powder\t and
\nHaldiwhole  would be deemed to be ‘adulterated\tarticles  of
\nfood’  falling within the above quoted clauses (c)  and\t (f)
\nrespectively, while Amchoor would be covered both by clauses\n<\/p>\n
(b) and (c).\n<\/p>\n
Two  things emerge clear from the above discussion.   First,
\nthat  the  chilli powder, Amchoor and Haldi-whole  of  which
\nsamples were
\n478<\/span>
\ntaken  were  adulterated articles of food.  Second,  in\t the
\nlight of the information received by the detaining authority
\nthat  the  petitioner had been\tsystematically\tadulterating
\nfood-stuffs  on\t a  large-scale, the discovery\tin  bulk  of
\nextraneous  matter  stored in the premises, which  could  be
\nused for adulteration, could not be said to be,\t irrelevant.
\nBy no stretch of reasoning, therefore, could it be said that
\nthe grounds of detention were non-existent.
\nThis takes us to the second point.  It raises the  question:
\nIs food adulteration activity an activity prejudicial to the
\nmaintenance of supplies and services to the community?\t For
\nreasons\t that  follow, the answer to this question,  in\t our
\nopinion must be in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
Section 3(1) of the Act runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
“The Central Government or the State Government may,\n<\/p>\n
(a)  if\t satisfied with respect to any person  (including  a
\nforeigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting in
\nany manner prejudicial to\n<\/p>\n
(i)\t  ..\t\t   …\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t  ..\t      ..\n<\/p>\n
(ii  the maintenance of supplies and- services essential  to
\nthe community,
\nit is necessary so to do, make an order directing that\tsuch
\nperson be detained.”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (2) specially empowers the District\t Magistrate,
\nAdditional  District  Magistrate  and  the  Commissioner  of
\nPolice\tto  make an order on the basis of  their  subjective
\nsatisfaction.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tnot  disputed that spices  such\t as  chilli  powder,
\nAmchoor,  Haldi\t etc.  are  ‘foodstuffs’  and  as  such\t are
\ncommodities   essential\t to  the  life\tof  the\t  community.
\n‘Supplies’  in\tthe context of s. 3(1) (a) (iii)  means\t the
\nsupply of essential commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome
\nform.\tIt  does not mean the supply  of  their\t adulterated
\nsubstitute.    There  can  be  no  doubt   therefore,\tthat
\nengagement  in\tthe process of\tadulteration  of  foodstuffs
\nmeant  for  sale, is an activity highly prejudicial  to\t the
\nmaintenance  of\t supplies  and\tservices  essential  to\t the
\ncommunity,  more so when it is done in an  organised  manner
\nand on a large scale.\n<\/p>\n
In  Misri  Lal v. The State (1), a Full Bench of  the  Patna
\nHigh Court, ,speaking through Imam J. (as he then was)\ttook
\na different view in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I do not think that the words ‘maintenance of
\n\t      supplies\t and  services\tessential   to\t the
\n\t      community\t could reasonably carry the  meaning
\n\t      that any one who adulterated foodstuffs  would
\n\t      be  acting  in  a manner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\n\t      maintenance  of supplies or the continuity  of
\n\t      supplies.\t   It  is  true\t  that\t adulterated
\n\t      foodstuff\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.    A.I.R. 1951 Pat. 134 F.B.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      479<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      supplied\tto the community may be\t harmful  to
\n\t      its  health,  but supplying  such
\n\t      adulterated foodstuff would not be prejudicial
\n\t      to the maintenance of supplies.  The Act\tdoes
\n\t      not   speak   of\t profiteering,\t much\tless
\n\t      profiteering  at the expense of the health  of
\n\t      the community.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  above,  we\t think, is too narrow a\t view.\t If  it\t was
\nintended  to lay it down as an absolute proposition of\tlaw,
\nthat  in no circumstances food adulteration activity can  be
\nprejudicial  to\t the maintenance of  supplies  and  services
\nessential to the community, we would, with respect, disappr-
\nove it as not enunciating a correct principle.\tThe view  in
\nMisri  Lal’s case (supra) was dissented from by a  Bench  of
\nthe  Rajasthan\tHigh  Court  in\t Hari  Ram  v.\tState.\t (1)
\nCommenting  on the decision of Misri lal’s case, that  Court
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  our\topinion\t the crucial  words  of\t the
\n\t      statute are”acting in a manner prejudicial  to
\n\t      the  maintenance of supplies”.  The burden  is
\n\t      not  on  maintenance  as\tit  merely   imports
\n\t      continuity.  The essence of the matter is that
\n\t      the act should not prejudicial to the  supply.
\n\t      A\t person is said to act to the  detriment  or
\n\t      acts injuriously.\t The next question is supply
\n\t      of what?\tWe have already said- the  commodity
\n\t      which  is\t essential to  the  community.\t Ata
\n\t      (flour) is certainly one of such articles\t and
\n\t      probably\tthe most basic for keeping the\tsoul
\n\t      and body together.  If ata is adulterated with
\n\t      some  powder,  what  is  supplied\t is  not   a
\n\t      commodity\t essential to the community but\t its
\n\t      counterfeit.   The object of the Security\t Act
\n\t      is to deal effectively with the threats to the
\n\t      organized\t  life\tand  to\t the   security\t  of
\n\t      India…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “In  essence we regret to have to repeat\tthat
\n\t      supply means the supply of essential commodity
\n\t      and  not\tits counterfeit and  those  who\t are
\n\t      engaged  in the process of  counterfeiting  an
\n\t      essential\t  commodity  are  certainly   acting
\n\t      prejudicially to the maintenance of Supply  of
\n\t      the  essential  commodity.   In  Our  opinion,
\n\t      therefore, adulterating an essential commodity
\n\t      is acting prejudicially to the maintenance  of
\n\t      its supply and the provisions of sec. 3(1) (a)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) are clearly attracted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  seems to be the correct line of approach, but it\tdoes
\nnot  stop  at maintenance of “supplies”\t only.\t It  extends
\nfurther to “services”, also. one of the primary\t necessaries
\nof  life  is food; one of the elementary  obligations  of  a
\nwelfare\t state\tis  to ensure food  to\tits  citizens.\t The
\nconcepts  of  “supplies” and “services” intermingle  in\t the
\ndischarge  of that obligation by the State.  Maintenance  of
\nsale of pure foodstuffs to the public, therefore, is both  a
\n“supply”  and a “service”.  A person who  sells\t adulterated
\nfood  to the people not only evinces a tendency\t to  disrupt
\nthe  even  flow of essential supplies  but  also  interrupts
\nservice\t to  the community.  Recently in Jagdish  Prasad  v.
\nState  of Bihar, a decision to which one of us was a  party-
\nthe  connotation, scope and inter-relationship of the  terms
\n“supplies” and “services9” in s. 3 (1)
\n(1)  (1974) 25 Raj.  Law Weekly p. 26.\n<\/p>\n
480<\/span><\/p>\n
(a)  (iii) of the Act came up for examination in the context
\nof  blackmarketing  in foodgrains.  What was said  then\t may
\nusefully be extracted now:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Light  and power” thus are  commodities;  so
\n\t      also  food and water.  Yet who will deny\tthat
\n\t      light is a service or drinking water, for that
\n\t      matter?\tThe touchstone of social control  is
\n\t      that  it\tmast be a thing\t essential  for\t the
\n\t      existence\t of the community; when\t crystalised
\n\t      it is supplies when sublimated it is services.
\n\t      It  depends  in most cases on the\t angle\tfrom
\n\t      which  you  view and lens you  use.   Food  is
\n\t      supplies, so shipping and wagons kerosene\t and
\n\t      gasoline.\t  And yet they are services.   At  a
\n\t      feeding  centre  for  starving  children\t you
\n\t      supply food, serve gruel.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Food  adulteration activity, therefore, particularly  of  an
\norganized  kind,  as  in the present case,  is\tan  activity
\nprejudicial  to\t the maintenance of  supplies  and  services
\nessential to the life of the community which may justify  an
\norder of preventive detention under s. 3(1) (a)(iii).
\nWe  will, however, sound a note of caution.  The  Act  gives
\nextraordinary  power  of  high\tpotency\t to  the  Executive.
\nExercised  with due discretion and care, it may prove to  be
\nan  effective weapon for fighting social evils,\t encompassed
\nby  the\t statute,  that are eating into the  vitals  of\t the
\nNation\tand pose a capriciously, the power may turn into  an
\nengine of oppression, posing a threat to the democratic\t way
\nof life, itself.  The need for utmost good faith and caution
\nin  the exercise of this power, therefore, cannot  be  over-
\nemphasised.\n<\/p>\n
But  every  petty,  or\tordinary  act  of  adulteration\t  of
\nfoodstuffs will not justify preventive action under the Act.
\nIt  is only adulteration carried on habitually or in  a\t big
\nway  that throws out of gear the even tempo of\tlife.\tOnly
\nbig  whales  plunging  to prey\tunleash\t tidal\twaves  which
\ndisturb\t the  even  keel of communal life,  the\t little\t fry
\nacting in a small way in their little world, matter  little.
\nThey hardly cause a ripple to the even flow of supplies\t and
\nservices.    In\t simple\t ordinary  cases  of   adulteration,
\ntherefore,  where there are no circumstances  pre-indicative
\nof  the offender’s propensity to indulge in adulteration  in
\nthe  future, it may not be proper to exercise the  power  of
\npreventive  detention.\t Where the malaise is  outgrown\t and
\nmalignant  the preventive “radiotherapy” sanctioned  by\t the
\nAct   can  properly  be\t applied.   It\tis  here  that\t the
\ndistinction between the concepts of preventive detention and
\npunitive  incarceration comes in for  importance.   Speaking
\nfor this Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal<\/a>\t (1)
\nthe learned Chief Justice brought out this distinction thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The   power   of\t preventive   detention\t  is
\n\t      qualitatively    different   ‘from    punitive
\n\t      detention.  The power of preventive  detention
\n\t      is   a   precautionary  power   exercised\t  in
\n\t      reasonable  anticipation.\t It may or  may\t not
\n\t      relate  to an offence.  It is not\t a  parallel
\n\t      proceeding.    It\t  does\tnot   overlap\twith
\n\t      prosecution even if it relies on certain facts
\n\t      for  which prosecution may be launched or\t may
\n\t      have  been launched.  An order  of  preventive
\n\t      detention may be
\n\t      (1)   Writ  Petition No. 1999 of 1973  decided
\n\t      on 21-8-1974.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      481<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      made  with  or  without  prosecution  and\t  in
\n\t      anticipation   or\t after\tdischarge  or\teven
\n\t      acquittal.  The pendency of prosecution is  no
\n\t      bar  to an order of preventive detention.\t  An
\n\t      order  of preventive detention is also  not  a
\n\t      bar to prosecution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One  broad  test therefore, for the exercise  of  the  power
\nwhich  the  detaining authority may usefully keep  in  view,
\nparticularly  in a case of adulteration of foodstuffs, is  :
\n“Whether the material before it about the activities of\t the
\nperson\tsought\tto be detained, in the\tproximate  past\t and
\npresent,  is such as to enable it to make a reasonable\tpro-
\ngnosis of the probability of that person to behave similarly
\nin the future.\tThe nature and process of the activity,\t its
\nmagnitude,  its\t impact\t on the\t public\t generally  and\t the
\nincidence  of  the  evil in the locality  or  in  the  State
\ngenerally,  are\t some  of the  relevant\t factors  which\t the
\nauthority  may usefully take into consideration in  arriving
\nat its satisfaction.\n<\/p>\n
Here  it  is clear from the facts and  circumstances  stated
\nabove\tthat  on  the  material\t before\t him  the   District
\nMagistrate  could  reasonably  be  satisfied  that,   unless
\ndetained,  the detenu would be likely to continue  the\tfood
\nadulteration  activity\tin the future and it  was  therefore
\nnecessary  to detain him.  Accordingly this contention\talso
\nmust be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
In  regard  to the third point, viz.,  non-communication  of
\nparticular of the previous conviction of the petitioner,  it
\nmay  be observed that the District Magistrate, Shri  Zutshi,
\nwho  made  the\tdetention order,  averred  in  the  counter-
\naffidavit which he had filed before the High Court, that  at
\nthe  time  of making the impugned order, he  knew  that\t the
\npetitioner  had\t been  previously  prosecuted  for  offences
\npunishable  under the Prevention of Food  Adulteration\tAct,
\nbut the judgment of the case in which he was prosecuted, was
\nnot  available.\t Thus the detaining authority did  not\tknow
\nwhether\t the  previous\tprosecution of\tthe  petitioner\t had
\nresulted in his conviction.  That was why he did not mention
\nthe   fact  of\tthis  conviction,  as\tdistinguished\tfrom
\nprosecution, in the particulars of the ‘grounds of detention
\ncommunicated  to  the detenu.  It is note  worthy  that\t the
\ngrounds\t of  detention were incorporated  by  the  detaining
\nauthority  in the order of detention itself, which has\tbeen
\nquoted\t in   extenso  earlier\tin  this   judgment.\tWhat
\nconstitutes  the substance of the grounds is the  factum  of
\nthe  raid and the discovery of adulterated   chilli  powder,
\nAmchur and Haldi and a large quantity of odd materials\tsuch
\nas  sawdust,  donkey-dung etc. which in the opinion  of\t the
\ndetaining  authority  were-and\twe think  for  good  reasons
\nsuspected  adulterants.\t  The presence\tof  these  suspected
\nadulterants  in\t bulk,\tsafely stored in tins,\tmay  not  by
\nitself amount to an offence under the penal law but it was a
\nrelevant  circumstance which could be taken into account  by
\nthe   detaining\t  authority  in\t reaching   its\t  subjective
\nsatisfaction.\n<\/p>\n
The  mere  fact,  therefore, that all  the  details  of\t his
\nprevious  prosecutions and their results or  his  conviction
\nwere  not conveyed to the detenu did not contravene Art.  22
\n(5)  of the Constitution and s. 8(1) of the Act.  All  these
\nfacts were within the knowledge of the detenu.\tIn any case,
\nhe could, if he so desired, ask for these particulars. it
\n482<\/span>
\nhas  been  admitted before us, as was done before  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tthat the petitioner was only once convicted  for  an
\noffence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Art.\tThat
\nconviction,  it\t is submitted by Mr. Sen, was based  on\t his
\nconfession  and the petitioner had made that  confession  on
\nthe advice of his Counsel in order to escape the  harassment
\nof a protracted trial.\n<\/p>\n
As  already noticed, there was sufficient indication in\t the
\nfirst  as  well as the second order of detention  about\t the
\nprevious   prosecution\t of  the  petitioner  for   a\tfood
\nadulteration  offence.\t He  was  heard\t in  person  by\t the
\nAdvisory Board and had every opportunity to explain the cir-
\ncumstances  in\twhich  he  was\tpreviously  prosecuted\t and
\nconvicted.   Thus  the\tobjection with regard  to  the\tnon-
\ncommunication  of these details of previous prosecution\t and
\nconviction is merely an afterthought.\n<\/p>\n
No other point was raised before us
\nIn  the\t result the petition fails and is  dismissed.\tRule
\ndischarged.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\n<\/p>\n
Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
483<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 522, 1975 SCR (2) 470 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: BANKATLAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/10\/1974 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BHAGWATI, P.N. CITATION: 1975 AIR 522 1975 […]<\/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-110187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974 - 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\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-10T01:54:24+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T01:54:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974\"},\"wordCount\":4906,\"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\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974\",\"name\":\"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-10T01:54:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974 - 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\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-10T01:54:24+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974","datePublished":"1974-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T01:54:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974"},"wordCount":4906,"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\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974","name":"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-10T01:54:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bankatlal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-17-october-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bankatlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 1974"}]},{"@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\/110187","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=110187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110187\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}