{"id":119771,"date":"1968-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968"},"modified":"2018-08-29T15:16:05","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T09:46:05","slug":"nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968","title":{"rendered":"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1636, \t\t  1969 SCR  (2) 411<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nNANI GOPAL MITRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/10\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1636\t\t  1969 SCR  (2) 411\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1976 SC1471\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n    Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947 s. 5(1), (2)\t and\n(3)-After  conviction of appellant under s. 5(2) and  before\nhearing\t of  appeal  by\t High  Court,  s.  5(3)\t repealed-If\npresumption in s. 5(3) could be invoked an appeal.\n    S.\t5A-Magistrate  not giving  reasons  for\t  permitting\nOfficer\t other than D.S.P. to investigate-If  non-compliance\nwith section.\n    Particulars-Insufficient   particulars  given   in\t the\ncharge-Appellant  not  complaining at trial or\tbefore\tHigh\nCourt-Effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    In\tconnection  with an investigation  in  January\t1958\nrelating to another case, the appellant, who was employed as\na  railway  guard  on  the Eastern  Railway,  was  found  in\npossession  of pecuniary resources disproportionate  to\t his\nknown  sources\tof income.  As it was thought that  he'\t had\ncome   in  possession  of  these  pecuniary   resources\t  by\ncommitting acts of misconduct defined in clauses (a) ,to (d)\nof s. 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947, on\nthe  recommendation of the Deputy Superintendent  of  Police\nfor  the  area, an Inspector of Police was appointed  by  an\nOrder dated 27th February 1959 of the Magistrate, Ist Class,\nSahibganj,  to investigate the case against  the  appellant.\nThe   Investigating   Officer,\tupon   completion   of\t the\ninvestigation\tand   after   obtaining\t sanction   of\t the\nappropriate  authority\tfor prosecution\t of  the  appellant,\nsubmitted a charge sheet on March 31, 1960.  The Trial Court\nconvicted  the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Act and  s.411\nI.P.C.\tIn appeal, by a judgment dated September 14,  1965,.\nthe High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of\t the\nappellant  under s. 411 I.P.C. but confirmed his  conviction\nunder s. 5(2) of the Act and reduced the sentence awarded by\nthe Trial Court.\n    On\tDecember  18,  1964  Parliament\t enacted  the  Anti-\nCorruption  Laws (Amendment) Act 40 of 1964  which  repealed\nsub-section  (3) of s. 5 of the. Act and enlarged the  scope\nof criminal misconduct in s. 5 by inserting a new clause (e)\nin  s.\t5(1)  of  the  Act.   In  appeal  to this  Court  it\nwas contended on behalf of the appellant (i) that s. 5(3) of\nthe Act having been repealed while the appeal was pending in\nthe. High Court, the presumption enacted in s. 5(3) was\t not\navailable to  prosecuting authorities after the repeal\t'and\nit was not open to the High Court to invoke the\t presumption\nin   considering  the\tcase  against  the  appellant;\t the\npresumption  contained in s. 5(3) was a rule  of  procedural\nlaw  and as alterations in the form of procedure are  always\nretrospective\tin  character,\tunless\tit   was    provided\notherwise,   it was not open to the High Court to apply\t the\npresumption  in\t the present case; (ii) that  the  statutory\nsafeguards under s. 5A of the Act had not been complied with\nas  the Magistrate had not given reasons for entrusting\t the\ninvestigation  to a Police Officer below the rank of  Deputy\nSuperintendent Police; and (iii) that the charge against the\nappellant under s. 5(2) the Act was defective as there\twere\nno  specific  particulars of misconduct as  envisaged  under\nclauses (a) to (d) of s. 5(1) of the Act, nothing was stated\nabout the amounts the appellant took as bribes and  the\n412\npersons\t from  whom he had taken such bribes  so  that\tthe,\nappellant  had\tno  opportunity to  rebut  the\t presumption\nraised under s. 5(3) of\t the Act and to prove his innocence.\nHELD:  Dismissing the appeal v:\n   (i) The High Court was right\t invoking  the\t presumption\nunder  s.  5(3) of the Act .even though it was\trepealed  on\nDecember 18, 1964 by the Amending Act.\nAlthough  as  a\t general rule the amended  law\trelating  to\nprocedure operates retrospectively, there is another equally\nimportant   principle, which is also embodied in s. 6 of the\nGeneral\t Clauses  Act,\tthat  a statute\t should\t not  be  so\nconstrued  'as to create new disabilities or obligations  or\nimpose new duties ties in respect of transactions which were\ncomplete at the time the amending Act came into force.\t The\neffect of the application of this principle is that  pending\ncases  although\t instituted  under  the old  Act  but  still\npending are governed by the new procedure' under the amended\nlaw,  but  whatever  procedure\twas  correctly\tadopted\t and\nconcluded  under the old law cannot be opened again for\t the\npurpose of applying the new procedure.\tIn the present case,\nthe trial of the appellant was taken up when s. 5(3) of\t the\nAct  was still\toperative.  The conviction of the  appellant\nwas  pronounced on March 31, 1962 long before  the  amending\nAct was promulgated. It Was not therefore possible to accept\nthe  contention that the conviction pronounced by the  trial\nCourt  had  become illegal or in any way  defective  in\t law\nbecause of the amendment to procedural law made on  December\n18, 1964.  [417 G; 418 D]\n    James  Gardner v, Edward A. Lucas, [1878] 3 A.C. 582  at\np. 603; King V, Chandra Dharrna, [1905] 2 K.B. 335; In re  a\nDebtor [1936] .1 Ch.237 and In re Vernazza; [1960] A.C. 965;\nreferred to.\n    (ii)  Although the Magistrate's order on  the,  petition\nfiled  by   the DepUty Superintendent of  Police  suggesting\nthat the Inspector of Police be empowered to investigate the\ncase  does  not\t state\tany reasons  for  his  granting\t the\npermission  sought,  the High Court  had  rightly  concluded\n'that as the Magistrate was working in the area for a period\nof  two years prior to the passing of the order in  question\nhe must have known that the Deputy Superintendent of  Police\ncould not devote his whole. time to the investigation of the\ncase  and  therefore  the inspector  of\t Police\t .should  be\nentrusted to do the investigation. [419 F]\n    (iii)  The\tcharge, as framed, dearly  stated  that\t the\nappellant   accepted   gratification   other   than    legal\nremuneration  and obtained pecuniary advantage\t.by  corrupt\n,and illegal means.  The  absence of sufficient\t particulars\ncould  not invalidate the charge though it may be  a  ground\nfor  asking  for. better particulars.  The  appellant  never\ncomplained  in\tthe trial court or the High Court  that\t the\ncharge did not contain the necessary particulars, he ,\twas.\nmisled on that account in his defence.\tIn view this and the\nprovisions  of\ts. 225 Cr. P.C. it could not  be  said\tthat\ncharge was defective. [421 F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Criminal\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n181 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Appeal  by\tspecial leave from the judgment\t and  order,<br \/>\ndated September14, 1965 of the Patna High Court in  Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal No. 268\tof 1962.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.C. Agarwala, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>D. Goburdhun, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special  leave,<br \/>\nfrom  the judgment of the Patna High Court  dated  September<br \/>\n14,  1965  in Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 1962 filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant against the judgment of the Special Judge, Santhai<br \/>\nPargangs, Dumka dated March 31, 1962.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In January, 1958 the appellant was employed as a Railway<br \/>\nGuard  on  the Eastern Railway and was posted  at  Sahibganj<br \/>\nRailway Station.  On January 18, 1958 Hinga Lal Sinha  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n<p>47) who was in charge of squad of traveling ticket examiners<br \/>\ncaught\thold of Shambu Pada Banerji (P,.W. 54) as  he  found<br \/>\nhim working as a bogus traveling ticket examiner in a train.<br \/>\nP.W.47 handed Shambu Pada Banerji to Md. Junaid (P.W.48) who<br \/>\nwas a police officer in charge of Barharwa Railway  outpost.<br \/>\nA  Fard\t Beyan was recorded on the statement of P.W. 47\t and<br \/>\nG.R.P. Case No. 12 (1)58 was registered against Shambu\tPada<br \/>\nBanerji.  In connection with the investigation of that\tcase<br \/>\nthe  house of the appellant which was at a distance  of\t 300<br \/>\nyards  from   Sahebganj\t  Railway station  was\tsearched  on<br \/>\nJanuary\t 19,  1958 at about 3. p.m.  by P.W. 56\t along\twith<br \/>\nother  police Officers, Md. Junaid (P.W. 48) and  Dharrnadeo<br \/>\nSingh  (P.W. 57 ). Various articles were recovered from\t the<br \/>\nhouse  of  the appellant and a search list  (Ex.  5\/17)\t was<br \/>\nprepared. A charge sheet was submitted in G.R.P. Case No. 12<br \/>\n(1)58  against the appellant and Shambu Pada Banerji.\tBoth<br \/>\nof  them were tried and convicted by the Assistant  Sessions<br \/>\nJudge,\tDumka  by  a  judgment\tdated  June  12,  1961.\t The<br \/>\nappellant flied Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 1961 against\t his<br \/>\nconviction  under s. 474\/466 of the Indian Penal Code.\t The<br \/>\nappeal was allowed  by the High Court by its judgment  dated<br \/>\nSeptember  14,\t1962 on the ground that there was  no  proof<br \/>\nthat  the  appellant  was in  conscious\t possession  of\t the<br \/>\nincriminating articles.\n<\/p>\n<p>During the course of the investigation of G.R.P. Case No. 12<br \/>\n(1)58, the Investigating Officer (P.W.\t56) found a  sum  of<br \/>\nRs.  51,000 standing to the credit of the appellant  in\t the<br \/>\nEastern Railway Employees&#8217; Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,<br \/>\nCalcutta.  He  also  found the appellant  in  possession  of<br \/>\nNational   Savings Certificates of the value of\t Rs.  8,000.<br \/>\nOn August 24, 1958 the Investigating Officer (P.W.56) handed<br \/>\nover charge of the investigation of G.R.P. Case No.  12(1)58<br \/>\nto  P.W. 46 of Sahebganj Government Railway Police  Station.<br \/>\nP.W.  46 completed the investigation on February  26,  1958.<br \/>\nSince  by that time it was found that the appellant  was  in<br \/>\npossession  of pecuniary resources disproportionate  to\t his<br \/>\nknown  sources of income it was thought that he had come  in<br \/>\npossession of these pecuniary resources by committing<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">414<\/span><br \/>\nacts of misconduct as defined in clauses (a) to (d) of\tsub-<br \/>\ns. (1)\ts. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ( Act<br \/>\n2 or 1947 ), hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Act&#8217;, and since<br \/>\nthe  investigation of a case under the Act could be  carried<br \/>\nonly in accordance with the provisions of s. 5A of the\tAct,<br \/>\nunder  the orders of the superior officers, the\t case  being<br \/>\nG.R.P.\tCase No. 12 (1)58 was split up in the sense  that  a<br \/>\nnew  case  against  the\t appellant  being  Sahebganj  Police<br \/>\nStation\t Case  No.  11(2)59  was  started  upon\t the   first<br \/>\ninformation  report of P.W. 46 made on February 26, 1959  to<br \/>\nGokhul Jha (P.W. 45), Officer in charge of Sahebganj  Police<br \/>\nStation.  By  his  order dated February 27,  1959  Sri\tR.P.<br \/>\nLakhaiyar,  Magistrate First Class, Sahibganj  accepted\t the<br \/>\nrecommendation of the Deputy Superintendent of Police\tthat<br \/>\nInspector   Madhusudan Haldar, P.W. 55 may  investigate\t the<br \/>\ncase.  Accordingly Madhusudan Haldhar, P.W. 55 proceeded  to<br \/>\ninvestigate  the  case and after obtaining sanction  of\t the<br \/>\nappropriate  authority\tfor  prosecution  of  the  appellant<br \/>\nsubmitted  a charge sheet on March 31, 1960. Cognizance\t was<br \/>\ntaken  and  the\t case  was  transferred\t to  Sri  Banerji  a<br \/>\nMagistrate First Class who committed the appellant and\tthe.<br \/>\ntwo  co-accused Baldeo Prasad and Mrs. Kamla Mitra to  stand<br \/>\ntrial  before the Court of Session.  By his  judgment  dated<br \/>\nMarch  31,   1962,  the\t  Special  Judge,  Santhai  Parganas<br \/>\nconvicted the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Act and s. 411,<br \/>\nIndian\tPenal Code.  The appellant and the other  co-accused<br \/>\nBaldeo\tPrasad\tand Mrs. Kamla Mitra were acquitted  of\t the<br \/>\ncharge\tof  conspiracy under s. 120(B) read  with  ss.\t379,<br \/>\n411,406\t and 420, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the\tAct.<br \/>\nThe Special Judge also acquitted the appellant of the charge<br \/>\nunder  s. 474\/466, Indian Penal Code.  The matter was  taken<br \/>\nin  appeal  to the High Court which by\tits  judgment  dated<br \/>\nSeptember 14, 1965 set aside the conviction and sentence  of<br \/>\nthe appellant under s. 411, Indian Penal Code and  confirmed<br \/>\nthe  conviction of the appellant under s. 5(2) of  the\tAct.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court, however, reduced the sentence of  6  years<br \/>\nsimple\timprisonment  and a fine of Rs. 40,000\tto  2  years<br \/>\nimprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Section  5 of the Act, as it stood before its  amendment<br \/>\nby Act 40 of 1964, read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;5.(1)\tA  public  servant is  said  to\t commit\t the<br \/>\noffence\t of  criminal  misconduct in the  discharge  of\t his<br \/>\nduty&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t  (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or<br \/>\n\t      agrees  to accept or attempts to\tobtain\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      any  person  for\thimself\t or  for  any  other<br \/>\n\t      person,  any gratification (other\t than  legal<br \/>\n\t      remuneration  ) as a motive or reward such  as<br \/>\n\t      is  mentioned  in section 161  of\t the  Indian<br \/>\n\t      Penal Code, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t  (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or<br \/>\n\t      agrees  to  accept or attempts to\t obtain\t for<br \/>\n\t      himself or for<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">415<\/span><br \/>\n\t      any  other person,any valuable thing   without<br \/>\n\t      consideration or for a consideration which  he<br \/>\n\t      knows  to be inadequate, from any person\twhom<br \/>\n\t      he  knows\t to  have been, or to be  or  to  be<br \/>\n\t      likely  to be concerned in any  proceeding  or<br \/>\n\t      business transacted or about to be  transacted<br \/>\n\t      by  him, or    having any connection with\t the<br \/>\n\t      official functions of himself or of any public<br \/>\n\t      servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any<br \/>\n\t      person   whom   he  knows to be interested  in<br \/>\n\t      or  related  to  the person so concerned, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   if\t he  dishonestly   or\tfraudulently<br \/>\n\t      misappropriates or otherwise converts for\t his<br \/>\n\t      own use any property entrusted to him or under<br \/>\n\t      his control as a public servant or allows\t any<br \/>\n\t      other person so to do, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (d)  if he, by corrupt or illegal means or  by<br \/>\n\t      otherwise\t abusing  his  position\t as   public<br \/>\n\t      servant, obtains for himself or for any  other<br \/>\n\t      person   any  valuable  thing   or   pecuniary<br \/>\n\t      advantage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    (2)\t  Any\tpublic\tservant\t  who\t commits    criminal<br \/>\nmisconduct in the discharge of his duty shall be  punishable<br \/>\nwith  imprisonment for a term which shall not be  less\tthan<br \/>\none year but which may extend to seven years and shall\talso<br \/>\nbe liable to fine:\n<\/p>\n<p>    Provided  that  the court may, for any  special  reasons<br \/>\nrecorded  in writing, impose a sentence of  imprisonment  of<br \/>\nless than one year.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (3)\t In  any  trial\t of  an\t offence  punishable   under<br \/>\nsubsection  (2)\t the fact that the accused  person  or\t any<br \/>\nother person on his behalf is in possession, for &#8216;which\t the<br \/>\naccused person cannot satisfactorily  account,\tof pecuniary<br \/>\nresources or property disproportionate to his known  sources<br \/>\nof  income may be proved, and on such proof the court  shall<br \/>\npresume,  unless  the contrary is proved, that\tthe  accused<br \/>\nperson is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge  of<br \/>\nhis official duty and his conviction therefore shall not  be<br \/>\ninvalid\t by  reason  only that it is based  solely  on\tsuch<br \/>\npresumption.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (4)\t The provisions of this section-shah be in  addition<br \/>\nW,  and\t not in derogation of, any other law  for  the\ttime<br \/>\nbeing  in force, and nothing contained herein  shall  exempt<br \/>\nany public servant from any proceeding which<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">416<\/span><br \/>\nmight, apart from this section,\t be instituted against<br \/>\nOn December 18, 1964, Parliament enacted the Anti-Corruption<br \/>\nLaws  (Amendment)  Act 1964  (Act No. 40  of   1964)   which<br \/>\nrepealed  subs.\t (3 ) of s. 5 of the Act  and  enlarged\t the<br \/>\nscope Of criminal misconduct in s. 5 of the Act by inserting<br \/>\na  new\tclause (e) in s. 5(1) of the Act  to  the  following<br \/>\neffect:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;(e) if he or any person on his behalf is in  possession<br \/>\nor has, at any time during the period of his office, been in<br \/>\npossession,   for   which   the\t  public   servant    cannot<br \/>\nsatisfactorily account, of pecuniary  resources or  property<br \/>\ndisproportionate to his known  sources\tof  income.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\twas  in the first place contended on behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  that\t s.  5\t(3)  of\t the  Act  was\trepealed  by<br \/>\nParliament  while the appeal was pending in, the High  Court<br \/>\nand the presumption enacted in s. 5 (3 ) of the Act was\t not<br \/>\navailable to the prosecuting authorities after the repeal of<br \/>\nthe  sub-section  on  December 18, 1964.  The  argument\t was<br \/>\nstressed. that it was not open to  the High Court to  invoke<br \/>\nthe  presumption  contained  in\t s. 5( 3 )  of\tthe  Act  in<br \/>\nconsidering  the  case against the appellant.  It  was\talso<br \/>\nsaid  that the presumption contained in s. 5(3) of  the\t Act<br \/>\nwas a rule of procedural law and not a rule of\t substantive<br \/>\nlaw   and alterations in the form of procedure\tare  always.<br \/>\nretrospective in character unless there is some good  reason<br \/>\nor  other  why\t they  should  not  be.\t  It  was  therefore<br \/>\nsubmitted that the judgment of the High Court was  defective<br \/>\nin  law\t as it applied to the present case  the\t presumption<br \/>\ncontained  in s. 5(3) of the Act even after its repeal.\t  We<br \/>\nare unable to accept the contention put forward on behalf of<br \/>\nthe appellant as correct.  It is true that as a general rule<br \/>\nalterations in the, form of procedure&#8217; are retrospective  in<br \/>\ncharacter  unless  there is some good reason or\t other\t why<br \/>\nthey should not be.  In James Gardner v. Edward A. Lucas(1),<br \/>\nLord Blackburn stated:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;Now  the  general rule, not  merely  of<br \/>\n\t      England and Scotland, but, I believe, of every<br \/>\n\t      civilized nation, is ex. pressed in the maxim,<br \/>\n\t      Noya constitutio futuris formam imponere debet<br \/>\n\t      non prateritis&#8217;&#8211;prima facie, any new law that<br \/>\n\t      is made affects future transactions,  not past<br \/>\n\t      ones. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the<br \/>\n\t      subject-matter  of an Act might be such  that,<br \/>\n\t      though  there  were not any express  words  to<br \/>\n\t      shew   it,  might\t  be\tretrospective.\t For<br \/>\n\t      instance, I think it is perfectly settled that<br \/>\n\t      if  the  Legislature intended to frame  a\t new<br \/>\n\t      procedure, that<br \/>\n[1878] III App.Cass.582 at p.603<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">417<\/span><br \/>\n\t      instead  of proceeding in this form  or  that,<br \/>\n\t      you should proceed in another and a  different<br \/>\n\t      way; clearly there bygone transactions are  to<br \/>\n\t      be sued for and enforced according to the\t new<br \/>\n\t      form of procedure. Alterations in the form  of<br \/>\n\t      procedure\t are  always  retrospective,  unless<br \/>\n\t      there  is some good reason or other  why\tthey<br \/>\n\t      should  not  be.\tThen, again,  I\t think\tthat<br \/>\n\t      where   alterations   are made in\t matters  of<br \/>\n\t      evidence,\t certainly  upon the reason  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      thing,  and  I think  upon   the\t authorities<br \/>\n\t      also,  those are retrospective, whether  civil<br \/>\n\t      or criminal.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In  the King v. Chandra\t Dharma (1),  Lord   Alverstone.C.J.<br \/>\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;The  rule is clearly established  that,<br \/>\n\t      apart from any special circumstances appearing<br \/>\n\t      on  the  face  of\t the  statute  in  question,<br \/>\n\t      statutes\twhich make alterations in  procedure<br \/>\n\t      are  retrospective.  It has been held  that  a<br \/>\n\t      statute  shortening  the\ttime  within   which<br \/>\n\t      proceedings can be taken is retrospective (The<br \/>\n\t      Ydun,  1899 p. 236.), and it seems to me\tthat<br \/>\n\t      it is impossible to give &#8216;any good reason\t why<br \/>\n\t      a\t statute  extending the\t time  within  which<br \/>\n\t      proceedings  may be taken should not  also  be<br \/>\n\t      held  to be retrospective.  If the case  could<br \/>\n\t      have  been brought within the  principle\tthat<br \/>\n\t      unless  the language is clear a statute  ought<br \/>\n\t      not  to  be  construed so\t as  to\t create\t new<br \/>\n\t      disabilities  or\tobligations, or\t impose\t new<br \/>\n\t      duties  in respect of transactions which\twere<br \/>\n\t      complete\tat the\ttime when the Act came\tinto<br \/>\n\t      force,   Mr.Compton  Smith  would\t have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      entitled\t to   succeed;\tbut  when   no\t new<br \/>\n\t      disability  or obligation has been created  by<br \/>\n\t      the  statute,  but  it only  alters  the\ttime<br \/>\n\t      within which proceedings may be taken, it\t may<br \/>\n\t      be held to apply to offenses .completed before<br \/>\n\t      the  statute  was passed.\t That  is  the\tcase<br \/>\n\t      here.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It is therefore clear that as a general rule the amended law<br \/>\nrelating  to procedure operates retrospectively.  But  there<br \/>\nis  another equally important principle, viz. that a statute<br \/>\nshould not be, so construed as to create new disabilities or<br \/>\nobligations or impose new duties in respect of\ttransactions<br \/>\nwhich  were complete at the time the amending Act came\tinto<br \/>\nforce&#8211;(See In re a Debtor(1) and In re Vernazza(3).The same<br \/>\nprinciple  is  embodied in s. 6 of the General\tClauses\t Act<br \/>\nwhich is to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t    &#8220;6. Effect of repeal. &#8216;Where this Act or<br \/>\n\t      any  Central Act or Regulation made after\t the<br \/>\n\t      commencement   of\t  this\tAct,   repeals\t any<br \/>\n\t      enactment hitherto made or here-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(1) [1905] 2 K.B. 335.\t     (2) [1936] 1 ch. 237.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) [1960] A.C. 965.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">418<\/span><\/p>\n<p>after  to  be made, then,  unless  a   different   intention<br \/>\nappears, the repeal shall not&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t  (b)  affect the previous operation of\t any<br \/>\n\t      enactment so repealed or anything duly done or<br \/>\n\t      suffered thereunder; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t  (e)\taffect\tany   investigation,   legal<br \/>\n\t      proceeding   or remedy in respect of any\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      right,   privilege,  obligation,\t  liability,<br \/>\n\t      penalty,\t  forfeiture   or   punishment\t  as<br \/>\n\t      aforesaid;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      and  any such investigation, legal  proceeding<br \/>\n\t      or  remedy  may be  instituted,  continued  or<br \/>\n\t      enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture  or<br \/>\n\t      punishment may be imposed as if the  repealing<br \/>\n\t      Act or Regulation had not been passed.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    The effect of the application of this principle is\tthat<br \/>\npending\t cases\talthough instituted under the  old  Act\t but<br \/>\nstill  pending are governed by the new procedure  under\t the<br \/>\namended\t law,  but whatever procedure was correctly  adopted<br \/>\nand  concluded under the old law cannot be opened again\t for<br \/>\nthe  purpose of applying the new procedure. In\tthe  present<br \/>\ncase, the trial of the appellant was taken up by the Special<br \/>\nJudge,\t Santhai   Parganas  when s. 5 (3) of  the  Act\t was<br \/>\nstill  operative.   The. conviction  of\t the  appellant\t was<br \/>\npronounced on March 31, 1962 by the  Special Judge,  Santhai<br \/>\nParganas  long before the amending Act was promulgated.\t  It<br \/>\nis  not\t hence\tpossible  to  accept  the  argument  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  that\t the conviction pronounced  by\tthe  Special<br \/>\nJudge,\tSanthai\t Parganas has become illegal or in  any\t way<br \/>\ndefective in law because of the amendment to procedural\t law<br \/>\nmade on December 18,  1964.  In our opinion, the High  Court<br \/>\nwas   right  in invoking the presumption under s. 5  (3)  of<br \/>\nthe Act even though it was repealed on December 18, 1964  by<br \/>\nthe  amending  Act. We ,accordingly reject the\targument  of<br \/>\nthe appellant on tiffs aspect of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\twas next argued on behalf of the appellant that\t the<br \/>\nstatutory  safeguards under s. 5A of the Act have  not\tbeen<br \/>\ncomplied  with and the Magistrate has not given reasons\t for<br \/>\nentrusting  the investigation to a police officer below\t the<br \/>\nrank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.  Section 5A of\t the<br \/>\nAct provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;Notwithstanding  anything\tcontained in  the   Code  of<br \/>\nCriminal  Procedure,  1898,  no\t police\t officer  below\t the<br \/>\nrank&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   (a)\tin the presidency towns\t of   Madras<br \/>\n\t      and Calcutta, of an assistant commissioner  of<br \/>\n\t      police,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">419<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   (b) in the presidency town of Bombay,  of<br \/>\n\t      a superintendent of police, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   (c) elsewhere, of a deputy superintendent<br \/>\n\t      of  police,     shall investigate any  offence<br \/>\n\t      punishable Under section\t    161, section 165<br \/>\n\t      or section 165A of the Indian Penal B\tCode<br \/>\n\t      or under sub-section (2) of section 5 of\tthis<br \/>\n\t      Act,\t without the order of  a  presidency<br \/>\n\t      magistrate or a magistrate of the first class,<br \/>\n\t      as  the  case  may  be,  or  make\t any  arrest<br \/>\n\t      therefore without a warrant:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.<br \/>\nIn the present case the officer-incharge of Sahibganj police<br \/>\nstation\t (P.W. 45) filed a petition dated February 27,\t1959<br \/>\n(Ex. 1) to the First Class Magistrate upon which the  Deputy<br \/>\nSuperintendent\tof  Police  made  an  endorsement   (Ex.1\/1)<br \/>\nsuggesting  that  Inspector  Haldhar  may  be  empowered  to<br \/>\ninvestigate the case.  The order of the Magistrate is Ex.1\/2<br \/>\nand is dated February 27, 1959.The order states:  &#8220;Inspector<br \/>\nSri  M.S.  Haldhar is&#8217; allowed to do it&#8221;.  The\tevidence  of<br \/>\nP.W.  11 is that he was posted at Sahebganj as a  Magistrate<br \/>\nfrom  1956  and used to do the work  of\t the  Sub-divisional<br \/>\nOfficer also in his absence.  He passed the order (Ex.\t1\/2)<br \/>\nauthorising M.S. Haldhar to investigate the case because the<br \/>\nDeputy Superintendent of Police used to remain busy with his<br \/>\nwork and the present case needed a whole-time investigation.<br \/>\nIt  was\t argued on behalf of the appellant  that  there\t was<br \/>\nnothing\t in the endorsement of the   Deputy   Superintendent<br \/>\nof Police that he was busy and therefore the inquiry  should<br \/>\nbe  entrusted  to  Sri\tHaldhar.  But  the  High  Court\t has<br \/>\nobserved  that P.W. 1 was a Magistrate working at  Sahibganj<br \/>\nfor a period of two years prior to the passing to the  order<br \/>\nin  question  and  he  must  have  known  that\tthe   Deputy<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police could not devote his whole-time  to<br \/>\nthe  investigation of the case\tand therefore the  Inspector<br \/>\nof  Police should be entrusted to do the investigation.\t  On<br \/>\nthis  point the\t High Court has come to the conclusion\tthat<br \/>\nthe  order of the  Magistrate was not\tmechanically  passed<br \/>\nand the permission of the Magistrate authorising Haldhar  to<br \/>\ninvestigate the case was not  illegal  or  improper.  In our<br \/>\nopinion\t Counsel on behalf of the appellant has been  unable<br \/>\nto make good his argument on this point.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was then said that the charge against the  appellant<br \/>\nunder  s.  5(2) of the Act was defective as  there  were  no<br \/>\nspecific  particulars of misconduct as envisaged under\tcls.\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) to (d) of s. 5 (1) of the Act. It was suggested that the<br \/>\ncharge\twas  &#8216;defective\t in  as\t much  as  it  deprived\t the<br \/>\nappellant of the opportunity to rebut the presumption raised<br \/>\nunder s. 5(3) of the Act.  .The charge against the appellant<br \/>\nreads as follows &#8216;:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">420<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;First&#8211;That  during  the\tperiod\tof  1956  to\t19th<br \/>\nJanuary,  1958 at Sahebganj Police Station Sahebganj  G.R.P.<br \/>\nand Sahebganj Local, District Santhai Parganas and at  other<br \/>\nplaces,\t within and without the said district, you, being  a<br \/>\npublic\tservant viz. Guard of trains in the Eastern  Railway<br \/>\nof  the Railway Department and while holding the said  post,<br \/>\nhabitually  accepted or obtained from persons  for  yourself<br \/>\ngratifications other than legal remuneration as a motive  or<br \/>\nreward\tsuch  as mentioned in sec. 161 of the  Indian  Penal<br \/>\nCode, habitually accepted or obtained for yourself  valuable<br \/>\nthings\twithout consideration or for a\tconsideration  which<br \/>\nyou  know  to be inadequate from persons  having  connection<br \/>\nwith  your  official function, habitually,  dishonestly\t and<br \/>\nfraudulently,  misappropriated\tor otherwise  converted\t for<br \/>\nyour  own use properties entrusted to you or put under\tyour<br \/>\ncontrol as a guard of trains or otherwise, and habitually by<br \/>\ncorrupt\t and  illegal means, or by  otherwise  abusing\tyour<br \/>\nposition as a public servant obtained for yourself  valuable<br \/>\nthings\tor pecuniary advantage, with the result that  during<br \/>\nthe search of your house at Sahebganj aforesaid on 19-1-1958<br \/>\nand  during  the  investigation\t of the\t Sahebganj  G.R.P.S.<br \/>\nCase  no.  12 dated 19-1-58 u\/s 170 etc.  I.P.C.,  you\twere<br \/>\nfound,\tduring the month of Jan. 1958 in possession of\tcash<br \/>\namount\tto the\textent\tof Rs. 59,000 and  other  properties<br \/>\nfully described in  the appendix no. 1 attached herewith and<br \/>\nforming\t part  of this charge [of Sahebganj  P.S.  Case\t No.<br \/>\n11(2)59],  and that the said cash amount and properties\t are<br \/>\ndisproportionate  to your known sources of income  and\tthat<br \/>\nyou cannot satisfactorily account the possession of the same<br \/>\nand  that  you thereby committed the  offenses\tof  criminal<br \/>\nmisconduct,  under  clauses  (a) to (b) of s.  5(1)  of\t the<br \/>\nPrevention  of\tCorruption  Act,  1947\t(Act  II  of  1947),<br \/>\npunishable  under  Sec. 5(2) of the  said  Act,\t within\t the<br \/>\ncognizance of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n    It\twas  argued  that the charge did  not  disclose\t the<br \/>\namounts\t the appellant took as bribes and the  persons\tfrom<br \/>\nwhom   he   had\t taken such bribes  and\t the  appellant\t had<br \/>\ntherefore  no opportunity to prove his innocence.   But,  in<br \/>\nour view, this circumstance does not invalidate the  charge,<br \/>\nthough it may be a ground for asking for better particulars.<br \/>\nThe charge, as flamed,\tclearly\t stated. that the  appellant<br \/>\naccepted  gratification\t other than legal  remuneration\t and<br \/>\nobtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal.  means.<br \/>\nThe  charge,  no  doubt,  should  have\t contained    better<br \/>\nparticulars so as to enable the appellant to prove his case.<br \/>\nBut<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">421<\/span><br \/>\nthe  appellant\tnever complained in the trial court  or\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  that the charge did not contain  the  necessary<br \/>\nparticulars.   The record on the other hand  disclosed\tthat<br \/>\nthe  appellant understood the case against him\tand  adduced<br \/>\nall  the   evidence  which  he wanted to  place\t before\t the<br \/>\nCourt.\t Section  225 of the  Criminal Procedure  Code\tsays<br \/>\n&#8220;that  no  error  in stating either the offence\t B   or\t the<br \/>\nparticulars  required to be stated in the  charge,  and\t  no<br \/>\nomission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be<br \/>\nregarded  at any stage of the case as material,\t unless\t the<br \/>\naccused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it<br \/>\nhas occasioned a failure of justice.&#8221;  It also appears\tthat<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tnever raised any objection either before the<br \/>\nSpecial\t Judge\tor in the High COurt on the score  that\t the<br \/>\ncharge\twas defective and that he was misled in his  defence<br \/>\non  the ground that no particulars of the persons from\twhom<br \/>\nthe bribes were taken were mentioned. We accordingly  reject<br \/>\nthe argument of the  appellant\ton  this  point.<br \/>\nFor  the reasons expressed we hold that the judgment of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  dated September 14, 1965 is  correct  and\tthis<br \/>\nappeal must be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.K.P.S.\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">422<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1636, 1969 SCR (2) 411 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: NANI GOPAL MITRA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/10\/1968 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. CITATION: 1970 [&hellip;]<\/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-119771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-29T09:46:05+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T09:46:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968\"},\"wordCount\":3555,\"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\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968\",\"name\":\"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T09:46:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968\"}]},{\"@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":"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-29T09:46:05+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968","datePublished":"1968-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T09:46:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968"},"wordCount":3555,"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\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968","name":"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T09:46:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nani-gopal-mitra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-on-15-october-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nani Gopal Mitra vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 1968"}]},{"@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\/119771","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=119771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}