{"id":115945,"date":"2005-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005"},"modified":"2016-11-06T11:37:39","modified_gmt":"2016-11-06T06:07:39","slug":"samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  994 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nSamya Sett\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nShambu Sarkar & Anr.\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/08\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nCJI R.C. Lahoti,C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2979 of 2004)<\/p>\n
C.K. Thakker, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe present appeal reminds us of a golden advice given by this
\nCourt before more than four decades.  In State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Naim,
\n(1964) 2 SCR 363, a single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad while
\ndeciding a criminal case, made certain sweeping and uncalled for
\nobservations against the entire police force of the State.  The State,
\ntherefore, approached this Court making grievance against
\nindiscriminate observations by the High Court.   Observing that the
\ncase was exceptional in nature and inherent powers of expunging
\nremarks were called for, this Court, speaking through S.K. Das, J.
\nstated :\n<\/p>\n
“The last question is, is the present case a case of an
\nexceptional nature in which the learned Judge should
\nhave exercised his inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-
\nA Cr.P.C. in respect of the observations complained
\nof by the State Government?  If there is one principle
\nof cardinal importance in the administration of justice,
\nit is this : the proper freedom and independence of
\nJudges and Magistrates must be maintained and they
\nmust be allowed to perform their functions freely and
\nfearlessly and without undue interference by anybody,
\neven by this Court.  At the same time it is equally
\nnecessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and
\nMagistrates must be guided by considerations of
\njustice, fair-play and restraint.  It is not infrequent that
\nsweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for
\nwhich they are made.  It has been judicially
\nrecognized that in the matter of making disparaging
\nremarks against persons or authorities whose conduct
\ncomes into consideration before courts of law in cases
\nto be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a)
\nwhether the party whose conduct is in question is
\nbefore the court or has an opportunity of explaining of
\ndefending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on
\nrecord bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks;
\nand (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the
\ncase, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that
\nconduct.  It has also been recognized that judicial
\npronouncements must be judicial in nature, and
\nshould not normally depart from sobriety, moderation
\nand reserve.” (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tIn the case on hand, a judicial officer is constrained to approach
\nthis Court for expunging remarks made by a single Judge of the High
\nCourt of Calcutta against him.  The remarks were made in the light of
\nan order passed by the appellant in connection with a criminal case
\ninstituted against one Shambhu Sarkar.  It was the case of the
\nprosecution that the accused-Shambhu Sarkar was found possessing
\n1200 grams of ganza on September  21, 2003.  He was, therefore,
\narrested and a case was registered in Naihati P.S. Case No.115  of 1993
\nunder Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
\nAct, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”).  He was produced
\non September 22, 2003 before the appellant who was then working as
\nAdditional District & Sessions Judge, 6th Court, cum- Special Court
\nunder the NDPS Act, Barsat, District 24 Parganas. An application for
\nbail was moved by the accused which was rejected by the appellant.
\nThe case was directed to be listed on November 3, 2003 for the report
\nof the investigating officer.  On November 3, 2003, another bail
\napplication was moved by the accused which was also rejected by the
\nappellant.  The case was then fixed for hearing on November 17, 2003.
\nOn that day, the accused again made an application for bail which was
\nrejected and the case was adjourned to December 1, 2003.  Before that
\ndate, however, on November 21, 2003, an application for bail was
\nmoved on behalf of the accused under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the
\nCode”) contending inter alia that the statutory period for submission of
\ncharge sheet was over and no charge sheet had been submitted by the
\npolice.   The accused was, therefore, entitled to be released on bail.
\nNoting these facts, the appellant passed an order releasing the accused
\non bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.3,000\/- with two sureties of
\nRs.1500\/- each.  On the same day, however, at a later stage, it was
\nstated that the chargesheet had already been submitted.  The case diary
\nwas produced by the prosecution which showed that the cognizance for
\nan offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act had been
\ntaken against the accused.  But as the public prosecutor was not
\npresent, those facts could not be brought to the notice of the court.  In
\nthe circumstances, the appellant recalled the earlier order.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe accused preferred Criminal Revision against the order passed
\nby the appellant in the High Court of Calcutta.  The learned single
\nJudge of the High Court, by an order dated December 5, 2003, allowed
\nthe revision and set aside the order passed by the appellant.  According
\nto the learned single Judge, when the appellant had passed the first
\norder and granted bail to the accused, he could not have recalled the
\norder “in absence” of the accused.  The second order, according to the
\nlearned single Judge, therefore, was “not in accordance with law” and
\nliable to be set aside.  The appellant was accordingly directed to pass a
\nfresh order.  In the light of the directions issued by the High Court, the
\nappellant again heard the matter on December 15, 2003.  The defence
\ncounsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Aslam Babalal Desai  vs.
\nState of Maharasthra,  (1992) 4 SCC 272, and contended that once bail
\nwas granted to the accused under sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the
\nCode, it could not be cancelled or recalled.  The appellant, however,
\ndistinguished Aslam and observed that the principle laid down therein
\nwas not applicable to the case since it was a case of cancellation of bail
\non filing of charge sheet.  In the present case, bail was granted to the
\naccused on the ground of non-submission of charge sheet but in fact
\ncharge sheet had already been submitted on the last day i.e. November
\n21, 2003 and hence the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 167 of
\nthe Code were not attracted.  The appellant also noted that when he had
\npassed the order in the earlier part of the day, the learned public
\nprosecutor in charge of the case was “not present” and thus he could
\nnot inform the court that the charge sheet against the accused had been
\nsubmitted.  Later on, it was found that the charge sheet had been filed
\nagainst the accused.  It was thus clear that sub-section (2) of Section
\n167 of the Code did not apply.  Accordingly, the appellant rejected the
\nprayer for bail.  Against that order, once again the accused approached
\nthe High court by filing Criminal Revision  which was allowed by the
\nlearned single Judge on January 30, 2004.  He set aside the order, dated
\nDecember 15, 2003 and directed the appellant to pass necessary order
\n“forthwith” keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment.
\nWhile deciding the revision, the learned single Judge made certain
\nremarks and passed strictures against the appellant. Being aggrieved by
\nthose remarks and observations, the appellant is before us.  The learned
\nsingle Judge dealing with the revision against the second order passed
\nby the appellant herein,  inter alia stated :\n<\/p>\n
“It is clear from the order dated 15.12.2003 that the
\nlearned Judge completely ignored the direction of
\nthis Court and his order dated 15.12.2003 amounts
\nto clear violation of directions of this Court.
\n\t…..\t\t..\t\t..\t\t..\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter perusing the order of the learned Judge
\ndated 15.12.2003 in the said case I find that the
\nlearned Judge did not realise his mistake and not
\nonly that, by his impolite and arrogant attitude he
\nhas clearly ignored the order of this Court.  His
\norder has made it clear that he did not realize the
\nobservation of this Court that later part of order
\ndated 21.11.2003 was set aside by this Court as the
\nsaid order was bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
\t…..\t\t..\t\t..\t\t..\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Judge did not realize that in our
\ncountry administration of Justice and justice
\ndelivery system deserves that subordinate Courts
\nshould obey, honour and follow the orders and
\ndirections of higher courts.  A subordinate court
\ncannot simply keep aside and ignore the direction of
\nthe higher Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t…..\t\t..\t\t..\t\t..\n<\/p>\n
\tHis conduct was aiming towards dangerous
\ntrend and was about to destroy this system and
\ndiscipline.  The manner in which learned Judge
\npassed the order on 15.12.2003 in spite of Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court’s pronouncement in Aslam Babaial
\nDesai’s case (supra) and direction of this Court
\ndated 5.12.2003 makes it clear that by ignoring
\norder of higher court he has made breach of judicial
\ndiscipline and has damaged out criminal justice
\nsystem.\n<\/p>\n
\t…..\t\t..\t\t..\t\t..\n<\/p>\n
\tIn my opinion the conduct of learned Judge Sri
\nS. Sett is an example of ignoring direction of this
\nCourt for which the entire matter should be placed
\nbefore the Administrative Committee of this Court
\nfor taking appropriate action against the concerned
\nlearned Judge.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOn July 9, 2004, when the matter came up for admission, this
\nCourt granted permission to file Special Leave Petition and issued
\nnotice to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta.  The
\nCourt, however, stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Notice need not go to the respondents impleaded
\nby the petitioner as they have no interest in contesting
\nthe petition”.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.  As already
\nobserved hereinabove, the facts are almost admitted.  The appellant was
\nAdditional District & Sessions Judge and in charge of Special Court
\nunder NDPS Act.  Accused Shambhu Sarkar was produced before him
\non September 22, 2003 and his bail application was rejected.   On
\nNovember 21, 2003, an application for bail was moved by the accused
\npraying for grant of bail on the assertion by the accused that no charge
\nsheet had been submitted within the stipulated period.  The appellant, in
\nabsence of the public prosecutor and in the light of averments made by
\naccused, ordered him to be enlarged on bail.  It was thus a case of
\n“default bail”.  On the same day, however, at a later stage, the public
\nprosecutor appeared, drew attention of the court that the factual basis
\non which the accused was ordered to be  enlarged on bail was incorrect,
\nthe charge sheet had already been submitted and sub-section (2) of
\nSection 167 of the Code could not be invoked.  The appellant
\nconsidered the submission of the public prosecutor,  noted that when
\nthe first order was passed, learned public prosecutor was not present
\nand after observing that the charge sheet had been submitted, recalled
\nthe order.  No doubt, the accused had right to challenge that order and
\nhe in fact challenged the order by filing Criminal Revision.  He
\ncontended before the High Court that the second order was passed by
\nthe appellant recalling the first order in his absence and without giving
\nhim opportunity of hearing.  The learned single Judge of the High
\nCourt, in our opinion, was right in allowing revision petition of the
\naccused and in observing that once the order was passed in favour of
\nthe accused releasing him on bail, it could not have been recalled
\nwithout observing principles of natural justice.  The learned single
\nJudge was also right in setting aside the said order and in directing
\nthe   appellant    to     afford     opportunity     of     hearing   to the
\naccused and to pass an appropriate order “in accordance with law”.
\nThe appellant again heard the matter and rejected the bail application.
\nNegativing the contention of the accused that he was entitled to bail
\nunder sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code and in view of the law
\nlaid in Aslam, the appellant held that neither sub-section (2) of Section
\n167 of the Code nor ratio in Aslam could apply inasmuch as the
\naccused was not enlarged on bail and bail was not cancelled thereafter.
\nAccording to the appellant, within the requisite period,   charge sheet
\nhad been submitted by the   police   and   the   accused was not entitled
\nto the benefit of  default  bail.\n<\/p>\n
\t Now, whether the second order dated December 15, 2003,
\npassed by the appellant was or was not correct is not the matter in issue
\nin the present proceedings.  But, in our opinion, the learned single
\nJudge of the High Court was not justified in passing strictures against
\nthe appellant to which reference has been made by us in the earlier part
\nof the judgment.  It may be recalled  that when the matter had come to
\nthe High Court earlier, the learned single Judge  set aside the order
\npassed by the appellant on November 21, 2003 and directed him to give
\nan opportunity of hearing to the accused and to pass an appropriate
\norder ‘in accordance with law’.  That direction had already been
\ncomplied with and carried out by the appellant. He afforded hearing to
\nthe accused and rejected the application after considering the arguments
\nput forward by the learned advocate.  In our considered opinion,
\ntherefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had attempted ‘to maintain
\nhis own order’ though it was held to be bad by the High Court.  It also
\ncannot be said that the appellant had “completely ignored” the
\ndirections issued by the High Court.  The learned single Judge of the
\nHigh Court is also not correct in observing that from the order dated
\nDecember 15, 2003, passed by the appellant, it is clear that the
\nappellant did not realize his mistake and had shown “impolite and
\narrogant attitude”.   Likewise, it cannot be said that the appellant had
\nnot shown respect to the order of the superior court and his conduct
\nwould destroy judicial system and discipline.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo us, it is clear that the appellant, keeping  in view the directions
\nissued by the High Court, heard the matter afresh after affording
\nopportunity of hearing to the accused and holding that the provisions
\nrelating to ‘default bail’ would not apply and the ratio in Aslam was not
\nattracted, rejected the prayer for bail.  Even if it is assumed that the
\nappellant was not right in rejecting the application for bail of accused, it
\nwas not a case which called for remarks and strictures against him.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court has, in several cases, deprecated the practice on the
\npart of Judges in passing strictures and in making unsavoury,
\nundeserving, disparaging or derogatory remarks against parties,
\nwitnesses as also subordinate officers.\n<\/p>\n
\t In Alok Kumar Roy v. Dr. S.N. Sarma & Another,<\/a> (1968) 1 SCR
\n813, the vacation Judge of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland
\npassed an interim order during vacation in a petition entertainable by
\nDivision Bench.  After reopening of the Court, the matter was placed
\nbefore the Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice in
\naccordance with the High Court Rules.  The learned Chief Justice made
\ncertain remarks as to “unholy haste and hurry” exhibited by the learned
\nvacation Judge in dealing with the case.   When the matter reached this
\nCourt, Wachoo, C.J., observed :\n<\/p>\n
“It is a matter of regret that the learned Chief Justice
\nthought fit to make these remarks in his judgment
\nagainst a colleague and assumed without any
\njustification or basis that his colleague had acted
\nimproperly.  Such observations even about Judges of
\nsubordinate courts without the clearest evidence of
\nimpropriety are uncalled for in a judgment. When
\nmade against a colleague they are even more open to
\nobjection.  We are glad that Goswami, J. did not
\nassociate himself with these remarks of the learned
\nChief Justice and was fair when he assumed that
\nDutta J. acted as he did in his anxiety to do what he
\nthought was required in the interest of justice.  We
\nwish the learned Chief Justice had equally made the
\nsame assumption and had not made these observations
\ncastigating Dutta J. for they appear to us to be without
\nany basis.  It is necessary to emphasis that judicial
\ndecorum has to be maintained at all times and even
\nwhere criticism is justified it must be in language of
\nutmost restraint, keeping always in view that the
\nperson making the comment is also falliable.”
\n(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\tIn State of M.P.  v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Others,<\/a> (1986) 4 SCC 566,
\ndisparaging and derogatory remarks were made by the High Court
\nagainst the State Government.  When the matter came up before this
\nCourt and a complaint was made against these remarks, it was observed
\nby this Court that the remarks were “totally unjustified and
\nunwarranted”.\n<\/p>\n
\tBhagwati, C.J. stated :\n<\/p>\n
“We may observe in conclusion that judges should
\nnot use strong and carping language while criticizing
\nthe conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must
\nact with sobriety, moderation and restraint.  They
\nmust have the humility to recognize that they are not
\ninfallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures
\npassed by them against any party may be mistaken
\nand unjustified and if so, they may do considerable
\nharm and mischief and result in injustice.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta,<\/a> (1990) 2 SCC 533,
\nwhich was an offshoot of Nandlal Jaiswal, certain observations were
\nmade by the High Court against the conduct of Advocate General of the
\nState.  Quoting Justice Cardozo and Justice Frankfurter, the Court
\nstated that the Judges are flesh and blood mortals with individual
\npersonalities and with normal human traits.  Still judicial restraint and
\ndiscipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as
\nthey are to the effectiveness of the army.  The duty of restraint should
\nbe constant theme of judges, observed the Court.  “This quality in
\ndecision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect
\nas to protect the independence of the judiciary.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Court further added :\n<\/p>\n
“The Judge’s Bench is a seat of power.  Not only do
\njudges have power to make binding decision, their
\ndecisions legitimate the use of power by other
\nofficials.  The judges have the absolute and
\nunchallengeable control of the court domain.  But
\nthey cannot misuse their authority by intemperate
\ncomments, undignified banter or scathing criticism
\nof counsel, parties or witnesses.  We concede that
\nthe court has the inherent power to act freely upon
\nits own conviction on any matter coming before if
\nfor adjudication, but it is a general principle of the
\nhighest importance to the proper administration of
\njustice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made
\nagainst persons or authorities whose conduct comes
\ninto consideration unless it is absolutely necessary
\nfor the decision of the case to animadvert on their
\nconduct.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the matter of ‘K’ A Judicial Officer (2001) 3 SCC 54, one of
\nus (R.C. Lahoti, J.), (as his Lordship then was) again considered the
\nrelevant decisions on the point and said :\n<\/p>\n
“Several cases are coming to our notice wherein
\nobservations are being made against the members
\nof subordinate judiciary in the orders of superior
\nforums made on judicial side and judicial officers
\nwho made orders as presiding Judges of the
\nsubordinate Courts are being driven to the
\nnecessity of filling appeals to this Court or
\npetitions before the High Courts seeking
\nexpunging of remarks or observations made and
\nsometimes strictures passed against them behind
\ntheir back.  We would, therefore like to deal with
\na few aspects touching the making of
\nobservations or adverse comments against
\njudicial officers and methodology to be followed
\nif it becomes necessary.\n<\/p>\n
\tA Judge entrusted with the task of
\nadministering justice should be bold and feel
\nfearless while acting judicially and giving
\nexpression his views and constructing his
\njudgment or order.  It should be no deterrent to
\nformation and expression of an honest opinion
\nand acting thereon so long as it is within four-
\ncorners of law that any action taken by a
\nsubordinate judicial officer is open to scrutiny in
\njudicial review before a superior forum with
\nwhich its opinion may not meet approval and the
\nsuperior court may upset his action or opinion.
\nThe availability of such fearlessness is essential
\nfor the maintenance of judicial independence.
\nHowever, sobriety, cool, calm and poise should
\nbe reflected in every action and expression of
\nJudge.”\t\t\t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
  [See also In the matter of : ‘RV’, A Judicial Officer, (2004) 7 SCC
\n729]<\/p>\n
\tIn State of Bihar vs.  Nilmani Sahu & Another,<\/a> (1999) 9 SCC 211
\nwhile disposing of the Special Leave Petition against an order passed
\nby a  single Judge of the High Court of Patna, this Court observed; “We
\nfind that the view taken by the learned single Judge, Justice P.K. Dev,
\nwith due respect, if we can say so, is most atrocious”.\n<\/p>\n
\tFeeling aggrieved by the remarks, an application was made in a
\ndisposed of Special Leave Petition and it was submitted to this Court
\nthat the remarks were not necessary.  Allowing the application and
\ndeleting the remarks, this Court stated that they were “wholly
\ninappropriate”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is universally accepted and we are conscious of the fact that
\njudges are also human beings. They have their own likes and dislikes;
\ntheir preferences and prejudices.  Dealing with an allegation of bias
\nagainst a Judge, in Linahan, Re, (1943) 138 F IInd 650, Frank J. stated;\n<\/p>\n
“If, however, ‘bias’ and ‘partiality’ be defined to
\nmean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind
\nof the Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial, and
\nno one ever will.  The human mind, even at infancy,
\nis no blank piece of paper.  We are born with
\npredispositions and the processes of education, formal
\nand informal, create attitudes which precede
\nreasoning in particular instances and which, therefore,
\nby definition are prejudices.”\n<\/p>\n
Justice John Clarke has once stated :\n<\/p>\n
“I have never known any judges, no difference how
\naustere of manner, who discharged their judicial
\nduties in an atmosphere of pure, unadulterated reason.
\nAlas! we are ‘all the common growth of the Mother
\nEarth’  even those of us who wear the long robe.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
Similar was the view of Thomas Reed Powell, who said;
\n“Judges have preferences for social policies as you
\nand I.  They form their judgments after the varying
\nfashions in which you and I form ours.  They have
\nhands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
\npassions.  They are warmed by the same winter and
\nsummer and by the same ideas as a layman is.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the present case, however, as we have already noted in the
\nearlier part of the judgment, whether the order passed by the appellant
\nwas correct or not, but the remarks made, strictures passed and
\ndirections issued by the learned single Judge of the High Court against
\nthe appellant were improper, uncalled for and unwarranted.  Apart from
\nthe fact that they were neither necessary for deciding the controversy
\nraised before the Court nor integral part of the judgment, in the facts
\nand circumstances of the case, they were not justified.  We, therefore,
\ndirect deletion of those remarks.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005 Author: C Thakker Bench: Cji R.C. Lahoti, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 994 of 2005 PETITIONER: Samya Sett RESPONDENT: Shambu Sarkar & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/08\/2005 BENCH: CJI R.C. Lahoti,C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-115945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSamya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005 - 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\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-06T06:07:39+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T06:07:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3768,\"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\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005\",\"name\":\"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T06:07:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005 - 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\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-06T06:07:39+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T06:07:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005"},"wordCount":3768,"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\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005","name":"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T06:07:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samya-sett-vs-shambu-sarkar-anr-on-12-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samya Sett vs Shambu Sarkar & Anr on 12 August, 2005"}]},{"@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\/115945","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=115945"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115945\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}