{"id":119850,"date":"1960-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960"},"modified":"2017-02-16T18:28:29","modified_gmt":"2017-02-16T12:58:29","slug":"state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960","title":{"rendered":"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Bom 21, (1961) 63 BOMLR 362, ILR 1961 Bom 735<\/div>\n
Bench: Patel<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
(1) This  is  a Reference, which it is not possible for me to accept on the grounds  made out in the judgment of reference.  A few  facts  may shortly  be  stated for the purposes of the  judgment.  I  will employ  the  nomenclature used for the parties  in the trial  Court.<\/p>\n
 (2) The petitioners in the Sessions  Court were three of the  accused  along with one  Nathumal  Damumal  trading  in  Deolali  Camp in Nasik District.  Nathumal  Damumal was Accused  No. 1  Accused  No. 2 Messrs.  India  Drugs  Laboratory  Private Ltd., is  a  drug  manufacturing  company  in Calcutta.  Accused  Nos.  4  to 6 are Directors  of   Accused No.  2.  Accused  No. 1  purchased  15,000 lbs., of  tincture laricis  BP 1891 manufactured  by  accused  No. 2 on  15th March 1956.  Accused  No. 1  transported this tincture to Indore  and  thereafter   sent  5000 lbs to  Nasik  by rail and 10000 lbs by  truck  to  Malegaon. Drugs Department   got  information  about these drugs having  been   consigned by accused  No.  1, as  a result of which, at both  the places, i.e. at  Nasik  and  at  Malegaon, the  officers  intercepted  the  goods.  Samples were taken by  the Drugs  Inspector  at Nasik  when the  goods were lying  in the  railway  yard  and sent  for chemical analysis to the  Analyser. The Analyser  certified that  the samples  were  not according  to the standard   specified  in the Act.  As  a  result of  this  certificate all the  accused  were  prosecuted  under Section  18(a)(I),(ii) and  (iii)   of the Drugs  Act, 1940.  Accused  No. 2 had also given a  warranty  to  accused No.  1,  and therefore, an  offence  under Section 28  was also alleged  against  accused Nos. 2 to 6. Preliminary inquiry  was held   by the learned Magistrate and at that  stage  it  was  contended on behalf of  accused Nos.  2  to  6  that  so far as they were  concerned the  offence  was completed  at Calcutta  and  therefore  they could  not  be tried at  Nasik for the  offences  charged  against  them.  It  appeared to the  learned  Magistrate that  an  offence under Section  109 of the  Indian Penal Code  was  made out  from the  evidence  on record. HeH   v v v             Z    He, therefore  held  that if  an offence  of abetment  is made out,  then clearly  the  Nasik Court would  have  jurisdiction to  try  these offences  even if the  facts stated  in the complaint  made out a clear offence  only at Calcutta, regarding  the sale  and  the manufacture  of  these  goods. Against  this  judgment  accused  Nos. 4, 5  and  6  went  in revision to   the  Sessions  Court challenging the order oft  learned  trial  Magistrate. The  learned Sessions Judge  tool  the  view that  in view of  the  fact  that the  sale in favour of  accused  No.  1 was completed by accused No.  2  and  the others  in Calcutta and  they  had  nothing  to do  with  transport  of  the goods  from Calcutta  to Nasik  or  Malegaon, they  could  not  be said to have  committed  any  offence  within the  jurisdiction of  the Nasik Court.  He  also  was  of the  view  that in the original  complaint  Section 109  was not  mentioned  at  all.  Therefore,  apparently  he  thought  that  a  charge under  Section  109 could not  be  framed  against  the  accused.  Under  these  circumstances,  he  made  the reference  for  quashing the  proceedings  against  accused  Nos. 2 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
 (3)  The question is, whether  the  accused  can  be  regarded as having  committed  any offence within   the  jurisdiction of the Court within the  meaning  of  Section 18(a)  of the Drugs  Act, 1940. Section  18, so  far  as  is  relevant, for  the  purpose of  this Act and the  charge is  to  this  effect:\n<\/p>\n
 “. . . . . . no person shall himself or by any  other  person on his behalf-\n<\/p>\n
 (a) (1) manufacture for  sale,  (2)  sell, (3) stock,  (4) exhibit  for sale, or  (5)  distribute-\n<\/p>\n
 (I)  any  drug  which is not of standard  quality;\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) any  misbranded  drug;\n<\/p>\n
 (iii)  any  patent  or proprietary medicine,  unless there is displayed  in the  prescribed  manner on the label  or  container thereof, the true  for  mula  or  list  of ingredients  contained  in it in  a  manner  readily    intelligible  to  the members of  the   medical  profession;\n\n \n\n*  *  *  *  *  *              *\n\n \n\nIt is undoubtedly  true that  the offence  of  manufacture  is  completed  at  Calcutta  as soon as the  accused  manufactured  the goods at Calcutta   for the purpose of sale.  They  cannot  clearly,  therefore,  be charged in Nasik for  manufacture  for  sale.  Similarly it is  also clear that they  having  sold  the goods  to  accused No. 1 at Calcutta,  they cannot  be charged at  Nasik for  this offence  either. \"Stocking  or  exhibiting\"  for  sale  would  also  not   be  triable at  Nasik since  they  are  not  stocking   or  exhibiting  for    sale  either  by themselves  or  by anyone else  on their behalf at  Nasik.  The question is, whether  they  can be  regarded as having  distributed  the goods  at  Nasik  for the purposes  of  sale.  It is true  that if  they  themselves  had  consigned  the goods  from  Calcutta  to  Indore  or  from Indore to Nasik, then there  could have been  no  question  of  any  argument  regarding  distribution.  But in this case the  goods  were sold to  accused No. 1 at  Calcutta  and the  transaction was complete  there. It, however, appears to me  that the word \"distribute\"  is wide enough  to  include  the  repose of the  goods  at  Nasik,  even after  a completed  sale  at  Calcutta.  The  bill given  to accused  No. 1  and which is on record clearly  shows that  accused Nos. 2 to 6 were selling  these goods  to  Shahenshah  Medical Stores,  Nasik  Road,  Nasik. They  knew, therefore, clearly  enough that  the  goods  were  bound for Nasik. It  may  be  that  accused  No. 1  thought   it inconvenient  to take  the  goods  by  the direct  road and  had  to adopt  the circuitous  road  to avoid  the  Prohibition Act.  But  it  was  clearly  known to these accused  that the   goods  were bound  to  travel  to Nasik   for the purposes  of the Medical  Stores  at Nasik.  Webster's  Dictionary  gives  several meaning  of the  word  \"distribute\" as follows:  (1)  to  divide among  several  or  many  to deal out; apportion; allot; (2)  to  spread out so  as  to cover a surface or  a space; (3)  to divide  or  separate, as  into  classes, orders, kinds, or  species;  to  classify;  assort,  as  specimens,  letters, etc.   The same meaning  is  found  in the  Oxford's  Concise  Dictionary. Murry's  Standard  Dictionary gives  a  somewhat  better  definition.  The second  meaning  attached  to  the word is  \"to spread  or  disperse  abroad,  through  a  whole  space or  over a whole surface;   properly, so  that  each part of the space  or surface  receives a portion;  less definitely, to spread generally  scatter.\"  It  is clear  that the  ordinary  and general  meaning of  the  word  \"distribute\"   is sufficient to convey  spreading  of the  goods  anywhere  by whatever  means that  may  be employed.  Even though  the  sale  was complete  at  Calcutta,  there can be  no doubt  that they were  intended  for  Nasik.  The  process of  distribution  commenced at  Calcutta  and  ended  at  Nasik  where  the goods  came  to  repose for the purposes of  sale.\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
 (4) It  is contended  that  the  first or the third  meaning  assigned  in Webster’s  Dictionary as   stated  above is the proper  meaning  to  be given  to  it.  A  word is  bound  to  have  several  meanings,  but  the meaning  to  be assigned  to  it  must  depend  upon  the context in which  the  word is  found.  The  Act is  enacted  to control  the  rampant evil  of  misnamed  drugs  or  sub-standard  drugs  from being   sold.  Such  drugs may  in some  cases   prove  seriously injurious  to the purchaser. It  was for the protection  of the public  that the  stringent  provisions  have been  made.  While construing  a  Statute a  reasonable   meaning  has  to be  assigned to  words  used, having  due  regard to the  context in which  they  are  used  and  the  objects  of the Act.  The Legislature  has used  the  words “sell,  stock, exhibit   for sale  or  distribute.”  Each word  must  be  given  a distinct  meaning and if  a legitimate meaning  is to  be given to each  one of the words,  there  can be  no doubt  that the  word “distribute”  must have  the meaning, which I  have indicated  above.  To  give  it  any other  meaning would  be to frustrate  the purpose of the Act and enable manufacturers  to manufacture  drugs  irresponsibly  and  spread  them throughout  the  length  and breadth   of  the  country  and escape  the  consequences  for  such  manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
 (5)  Mr.  Paranjape has relied on the case of  Uttam  Chand  v. Emperor, ILR 39  Cal  344,  where the question  of interpretation  of the Excise Act was  involved. One  Lakhi  Ram  was found with  certain quantity  of  opium at  a place  different  from the  place of  business  of his master. Both  Lakhi  Ram and  his master  were prosecuted  and it was  held  by  the  Court that the  expression “on  behalf of” connoted  some benefit to the person on whose behalf another person might act.  This case  has no application to the  present  case,  because  I  am  not  considering  the  phrase “by  any other person on his  behalf” in the  earlier  part of  Section 18   I  am concerned with the word  “distribute” alone.  If  once this conclusion is  reached,  then  there is  no doubt  that  Section 179  will apply,  since  one of the  ingredients  of the offence of  distribution is  the  actual reaching of the goods  at  the place for which  they were intended.  They have  reached Nasik,  and if that is  so,  as held in  In re  Jivandas  Savchand, 32  Bom LR  1195: (AIR  1930  Bom 490) (FB), Section  179  must  apply.\n<\/p>\n
 (6) There is  another  aspect from which  this  matter may be  viewed. The learned  Magistrate  held a preliminary  inquiry and then this question of  jurisdiction  came  up.  If  these accused sold the goods  to accused  No. 1 at Calcutta,  which  enabled  accused No. 1 to commit  the  offence under Section 18  at Nasik,  then clearly  they  have  abetted   the  offence  committed  by accused  No.1.  in  that case  Section 180 of the Criminal  Procedure Code  becomes  applicable  and  the offence  can be tried  at  Nasik.\n<\/p>\n
 (7) It  is  argued, however,  by  Mr.  Paranjape that in the  complaint, there is no allegation  that  these  accused  abetted  accused No.1 in  the commission of  any offence  and,  therefore, the  accused  could  not be  charged under Section 109 for abetment. There is  a clear answer  to this  contention in the provisions  of the Criminal  Procedure Code,  which  enable  the Court  to frame  proper  charges  for  offences  disclosed in the allegations  and in  proper  cases even  alter  it at  any  stage of the trial in accordance  with the  evidence, provided  no  prejudice is  caused to the  accused.  In this case  there   can  be no question  of prejudice  because we are  still at  the  stage of charge.  The  learned trial  Magistrate  has clearly  indicated Section 109 as being applicable  to the  case.  Since the  offence  is  clearly  made out  on the allegations,  charge for  this offence must  be  framed.\n<\/p>\n
 (8) The  result  is that  the reference   made by the learned  Sessions  Judge  must  be rejected. In view of  what  I  have  stated  above, I  direct the  learned Magistrate, if  he has not  already done  so, to frame  an additional  charge  under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and proceed with  the  trial.\n<\/p>\n
                 (9) Reference  rejected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960 Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Bom 21, (1961) 63 BOMLR 362, ILR 1961 Bom 735 Bench: Patel ORDER (1) This is a Reference, which it is not possible for me to accept on the grounds made out in the judgment of reference. A […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960 - 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\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-16T12:58:29+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-16T12:58:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960\"},\"wordCount\":1315,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960\",\"name\":\"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-16T12:58:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960 - 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\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-16T12:58:29+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960","datePublished":"1960-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-16T12:58:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960"},"wordCount":1315,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960","name":"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-16T12:58:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-nathumal-damumal-and-ors-on-6-october-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Nathumal Damumal And Ors. on 6 October, 1960"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/119850","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=119850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}