{"id":132019,"date":"1985-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985"},"modified":"2017-03-28T11:44:09","modified_gmt":"2017-03-28T06:14:09","slug":"ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985","title":{"rendered":"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 697, \t\t 1985 SCR (2) 891<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nIBRAHIM BACHU BAFAN & ANR ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/02\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR  697\t\t  1985 SCR  (2) 891\n 1985 SCC  (2)\t24\t  1985 SCALE  (1)257\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1987 SC1472\t (4)\n F\t    1989 SC1234\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\n\t  Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226-Detention\norder  under   COFE.   POSA   quashed-Whether\tamounts\t  to\n'revocation'-Whether  detaining\t  authority  precluded\tfrom\nmaking a fresh order on identical grounds  under s. 11(2) of\nthe Act\n      Conservation  of Foreign\tExchange and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities   Act,  1974, ss  11 (1)  and 11(2) and\nGeneral Clauses Act , 1897, s. 21.\n      Detention\t order-Quashed\tby  High  Court\t under\twrit\nJurisdiction-Subsequent order  of detention made on the same\ngrounds\t Whether   valid  and  legal-When  is  an  order  of\ndetention 'revoked' - Effect of 'declaration' issued under s\n9.\n      Words & Phrases :\n     \"Revoke\" and \"Revocation\" - Meaning of-S. 11 COFEPOSA,I\n,Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n      The  petitioners in  the two  separate writ  petitions\nwere detained  pursuant to orders made under s. 3 (1) of the\nConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling\nActivities Act\t1974. The  detention orders wore assailed in\nthe High  court. During\t the course  of hearing\t of the writ\npetitions the  detention orders\t were revoked  but  the same\nday  fresh   orders  of\t  detention  were   passed  and\t the\npositioners were  again detained.  The positioners  assailed\nthe second  detention orders in the High Court by fresh writ\npetitions. The\tHigh  Court  quashed  the  detention  orders\nholding that  they were\t violative of  Article 2215)  of the\nConstitution and  directed the\trelease of  the petitioners.\nFresh detention\t orders were  passed on the same grounds and\nthe petitioners wore again detained.\n      In  the writ petitions to this Court, it was contended\non behalf  of the petitioners that the power conferred under\ns. 11(2)  of the  Act was not available to be exorcised whom\nthere has  been no revocation under s. 11(1) of the Act of a\nprevious order of detention but has been quashed by the High\nCourt in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.\n892\n\t Allowing the Petitions,\n^\n      HELD:  1. (i)  Where an  order of\t detention under the\nConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling\nActivities Act,\t 1974 is  quashed by  a Court in exercise of\nextraordinary Jurisdiction,  the power\tof  making  a  fresh\norder under  sub-s. (2)\t of s.\tI I  is not  available to be\nexercised. [898 F]\n\t (ii) The pronounced judicial view of this Court was\nthat repeated  orders of  detention  are  not  to  be  made.\nParliament while  making provision  in s.  11(2) of  the Act\nmust be\t taken to  have been  aware  of\t such  view  and  in\nconferring the\tpower of  making repeated orders, safeguards\nhave been  provided under  sub.\t s.  (1)  by  confining\t the\nexercise of power to limited situations. [898 E]\n      (iii)  Clothing the  prescribed authority\t to exercise\npower under  s. 3  even in  a situation\t where the Court has\nintervened to  bring about  nullification of  the  order  of\ndetention would give rise to complicated situations. [898 E]\n     In the  instant case,  the orders\tof detention made on\nAugust 20  1984 on  the same  grounds on  which the previous\norders had  been made and which had been quashed by the High\nCourt are  not tenable in law- Once those orders are held to\nbe invalid,  the declarations  made subsequently  under s. 9\ncould not be made and would have no effect. [898 F-G]\n      2. The law of preventive detention within the ambit of\nwhich  the   Act  is   covered\thas  bean  accepted  by\t the\nConstitution.  Challenge   to  legislations   of  preventive\ndetention  as\tbeing  ultra  vires  the  Constitution\thas,\ntherefore, been\t repelled by  this Court  on more  than\t one\noccasion. The  inbuilt safeguards  provided by the different\nstatutes  dealing   with  preventive   detention  have\tbeen\naccepted to  be in  keeling with  the rule  of law. There is\njudicial consensus  that under the preventive detention law,\nbefore the  Act in  question came  into the  field, reported\norders of  detention could  not\t be  made.  This  Court\t had\nclearly indicated  that more  than one order of detention on\nthe  same   grounds  in\t  succession  would  not  be  valid.\nNotwithstanding the  aforesaid legal  position, s.  11(2) of\nthe Act\t authorises making  of another detention order under\nB- (3) against the same person. [895 G-H]\n      3,  The power conferred under cls. (a) and (b) of sub-\ns. (1)\tof s.  I  l  is\t in  fact  extension  of  the  power\nrecognised under s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, the power\nis exercisable\tby the authority making the order, the named\nauthorities under  cls. (a)  and (b) of s. 11 (1) of the Act\narc also  entitled to  exercise the power of revocation When\nthe High  Court exercise  jurisdiction under  Article 226 of\nthe Constitution it does not make an order of revocation. By\nissuing a  high\t prerogative  writ  like  habeas  corpus  or\ncertioraris it\tquashes the  order impugned before it and by\ndeclaring the order to be void and striking down the same it\nnullifies the  order. The ultimate effect of cancellation of\nan order  by revocation and quashing of the same in exercise\nof the\thigh Prerogative  jurisdiction vested  in  the\tHigh\nCourt  may be the same but the manner in which the situation\nis obtained is Patently\n893\ndifferent and  while one  process is  covered by s. 11(1) of\nthe Act,  the other  A is  not known  to the  statute and is\nexercised by  an authority  beyond the purview of sub-s. (1)\nOF s.  I l  of the  Act. It  is therefore,  clear that\tin a\nsituation where\t the order  of detention has been quashed by\nthe High  Court, sub-s.\t (2) of\t s. ll is not applicable and\nthe detaining  authority is  not entitled  to  make  another\norder under s. 3 of the Act on the same grounds.\n\t\t\t\t\t  [897 G-H; 898 A-C]\n      4.  Revoke is  the verb  and revocation  is its  noun.\nThese words  have no  statutory definition  and,  therefore,\nwould take  the\t commonsense  meaning  available  for  these\nwords. The  true meaning  of the  verb revoke  and the\tnoun\nrevocation seems  to signify that revocation is a process of\nrecall of what had been done The word revoke carries with it\nthe idea  of cancellation by the same power which originally\nacted and  not to  setting aside  of an\t original  order  be\nhigher forum  of power\tor jurisdiction\t It  does  not\tmean\nrepudiation. . [897 C; F; G]\n      Black's  Law Dictionary,\tWharton's  Law\tLexican\t The\nShorter\t Oxford\t English  Dictionary,  Webster's  Third\t New\nInternational Dictionary and the Corpus Juris Secundum, 1952\nEdition, V 1. 77, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      ORIGINAL JURISDICTIOlN: Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 1541
\n& 1542 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
\n      Ram  Jethamalani, Miss  Kamini Jaiswal  and J.B. Patel
\nfor the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
      T\t U. Mehta,  Mrs. ‘H.  Wahi and\tR.N. Poddar  for the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n      RANGANATH MISRA, J. In each of these application under
\nArticle\t of  32\t the  Constitution  the\t petitioner  therein
\nchallenges the\torder of  detention made  against him  under
\nConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
\nActivities Act,\t 1974 (COFEPOSA)  (referred to\tas the ‘Act’
\nhereinafter). As  the facts  are more  or less\tthe same and
\ncommon\t contentions   have   been   advanced,\t these\t two
\napplications are being disposed of by a common order.\n<\/p>\n
      Petitioner  in Writ  Petition No. 1541184 was detained
\nwith effect  from December  28, 1983,  pursuant to  an order
\nmade under  Section 3(1) of the Act on December 7, 1983. The
\ndetention was  assailed before\tthe Gujarat  High Court in a
\nwrit petition  filed OF\t January 22,  1984. While  the\tsaid
\napplication was being heard, the
\n894<\/span>
\norder of  detention was revoked on April 5, 1984, but on the
\nsame day  another order\t under s.  3(1) of  the Act was made
\ndirecting his detention and he was detained pursuant to that
\norder with  effect from\t the very  day. The  second order of
\ndetention was  challenged by  a new writ petition before the
\nHigh Court.  A Division\t Bench of  that Court by order dated
\nAugust 8,  1984, quashed  the same by holding that the order
\nof  detention\twas  violative\t of  Article  22(5)  of\t the
\nConstitution and  directed  the\t petitioner  to\t be  set  at
\nliberty.  On  August  20,  1984,  a  fresh  order  was\tmade
\ndetaining the  petitioner and  with effect from the same day
\nthe petitioner\twas detained  again On the date of detention
\nthe petitioner\twas served  with documents  along  with\t the
\ngrounds of  detention- The  writ petition  has been filed in
\nthis Court challenging that order of detention
\n      So  far as the petitioner in writ petition No. 1542\/84
\nis concerned,  he was  detained with effect from January 12,
\n1984, pursuant\tto an  order under  s. 3  of the  Act  dated
\nJanuary 2, 1984. that order of detention was assailed before
\nthe High  Court and  in course\tof the\thearing of  the writ
\nposition, the  order of\t detention was\trevoked on  April 5,
\n1984- On  the self-same\t day another  order of detention was
\npassed and the petitioner was detained with effect from that
\ndate.  On   April  5,  1984,  the  petitioner  assailed\t his
\ndetention by  filing a\tsecond writ  petition. On  August 8,
\n1984, the  High Court  quashed that  order of  detention  on
\nsimilar grounds as in the connected writ petition. On August
\n20, 1984,  a fresh  order of  detention was made under which
\nthe  petitioner\t has  been  taken  into\t custody.  His\twrit
\npetition assails that order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
      During  the tendency  of these  writ petitions  before
\nthis Court  the Act  was amended  by Central  Act 58\/84. The
\nAmending Act  received assent of the President on August 30,
\n1984 but  became effective  from July  31,1984- Section 9 of
\nthe principal  Act of  1974 was\t amended by s. 2 of this Act
\nand the\t amended provision  authorised making of declaration
\nby the\tCentral Government  or any  officer of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment not\tbelow of the rank of Additional Secretary to
\nthat Government\t on  the  basis\t of  satisfaction  that\t the
\ndetenu-“(a) smuggles or is likely to smuggle goods into, out
\nof or  through any  area highly\t vulnerable to smuggling; or\n<\/p>\n
(b) abets  or is likely to abet the smuggling of goods into,
\nout of\tor through  any area highly vulnerable to smuggling,
\nor (c)\tengages or  is likely  to engage  in transporting or
\nconcealing or  keeping smuggled\t goods in  any\tarea  highly
\nvulnerable to  smuggling-” A  declaration as contemplated by
\nthe amended provision was made by the Additional
\n895<\/span>
\nSecretary to  the Government  of India\tin the\tMinistry  of
\nFinance A  (Department of Revenue) in respect of each of the
\npetitioners on\tSeptember 18, 1984, and this declaration has
\nbeen placed  on\t record\t along\twith  an  affidavit  of\t the
\nrespondents. Under  s. 10  of the  Act the maximum period of
\ndetention is  one year\twhere section  9 is not invoked, but
\nwhere a\t declaration is made, the maximum period is extended
\nup to  two years.  When rule  was  issued  an  affidavit  in
\nopposition has\tbeen filed justifying the order of detention
\nand the petitioner has also filed a rejoinder.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Jethmalani  appearing On  behalf of  the detenu  in
\neach  of   these  writ\t petitions  advanced   a  number  of
\ncontentions but\t ultimately pressed one of them which in our
\nopinion entitles  each of the petitioners to succeed and the
\norder of  his detention\t to be\tquashed. That  contention is
\nthat the  power conferred  under s.  11(2) of the Act is not
\navailable to be exercised where there has been no revocation
\nunder s.  11(1) of  the Act of a previous order of detention
\nbut has\t been quashed  by the  High Court in exercise of its
\nextraordinary  jurisdiction.   In  order   to  have  a\tfull
\ncomprehension  of  the\tpoint  advanced\t by  counsel  it  is
\nnecessary to  refer to\ts. 11  of the Act. Section ll of the
\nAct provides: “(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of s.
\n21 of  the General  Clauses Act, 1897, a detention order may
\nat any\ttime be revoked or modified-(a) notwithstanding that
\nthe order  has been made by an officer of a State Government
\nby that\t State Government  or by the Central Government; (b)
\nnotwithstanding that  the order. has been made by an officer
\nof the\tCentral Government  or by a State Government, by the
\nCentral Government;  (2) The revocation of a detention order
\nshall not bar the making of another detention order under s.
\n3 against the same person.”\n<\/p>\n
      Law  of preventive detention within the ambit of which
\nthe  Act  is  covered  has  accepted  by  our  Constitution.
\nChallenge to  legislations of  preventive detention as being
\nultra virus  the Constitution  has, therefore, been repelled
\nby this\t Court\ton  more  than\tone  occasion.\tThe  inbuilt
\nsafeguards provided  by the  different statutes dealing with
\npreventive detention  have been\t accepted to  be in  keeping
\nwith the rule of law. There is Judicial consensus that under
\nthe preventive\tdetention law,\tbefore the  Act in  question
\ncame into  the field, repeated orders of detention could not
\nbe made. this Court had clearly indicated that more than one
\norder of  detention on the same grounds in successions would
\nnot be\tvalid. Notwithstanding the aforesaid legal position,
\ns. 11(2) of the Act authorises making of
\n896<\/span>
\n“another  detention  order  under  s.  3  against  the\tsame
\nperson.” Counsel  for both  the parties have agreed that all
\nthe three  orders of  detention made  in these cases were on
\nthe same  grounds. Mr.\tMehta for the respondents has fairly
\nconceded that  as the  law declared  by this Court stood and
\nbut for\t the enabling provisions in s. 11(2) of the Act, the
\nimpugned orders would not stand a moment’s scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr. Jethmalani does not intend to dispute the vires of
\nsub-s. (2)  of s.  I l\tin  these  writ\t petitions  but\t has
\ncontended that\tthe ambit  and scope  of sub-s. (2) of s. 11
\nextends to  orders of  revocation  covered  by\tsub-s.\t(1).
\nOtherwise stated, in situations not covered by sub-s. (1) an
\norder under  sub-s. (2) cannot be made. The heading of s. 11
\nis “Revocation\tof Detention  Orders’. Sub-s. (1) authorises
\nrevocation by  two authorities, namely,-(a) if the order has
\nbeen made  by an  officer of  a State  Government, the State
\nGovernment or  the Central  Government may revoke the order;
\nand (b)\t if the\t order has  been made  by an  officer of the
\nCentral Government  or by  a Stat  Government, revocation is
\npermissible by the Central Government. Sub-section (1) of s.
\n11 indicates  that the\tpower  conferred  under\t it  in\t the
\nsituations envisaged  in clauses  (a) and (b) is exercisable
\nwithout prejudice  to the provisions of s. 21 of the General
\nClauses Act.  That section  provides that  a power  to issue
\norders includes\t a power  exercisable in the like manner and
\nsubject to  the like sanction and conditions if any, to add,
\nto amend  vary or  rescind such\t order. Under  s. 21  of the
\nGeneral Clauses\t Act, therefore,  the  authority  making  an
\norder of detention would be entitled to revoke that order by
\nrescinding  it.\t  We  agree   with  the\t submission  of\t Mr.
\nJethmalani  that   the\twords\t“without  prejudice  to\t the
\nprovisions of s.21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 ‘ used in
\ns. 11(1)  of the  Act give  expression\tto  the\t legislative
\nintention  that\t without  affecting  that  right  which\t the
\nauthority making the order enjoys under s. 21 of the General
\nClauses Act,  an order\tof detention is also available to be
\nrevoked or  modified by authorities named in clauses (a) and\n<\/p>\n
(b) of\ts. 11(1)  of the  Act. Power conferred under clauses\n<\/p>\n
(a) and\t (b) of s. I l(l ) of the Act could not be exercised
\nby the\tnamed authorities under s. 21 of the General Clauses
\nAct as\tthese  authorities  on\twhom  such  power  has\tbeen
\nconferred under\t the Act  are different\t from those who made
\nthe  orders.   Therefore,  conferment\tof  such  power\t was
\nnecessary as  Parliament rightly  found that  s. 21  of\t the
\nGeneral Clauses\t Act was not adequate to meet the situation.
\nThus, while  not  affecting  in\t any  manner  and  expressly
\npreserving the\tpower under s. 21 of the General Clauses Act
\nof the\toriginal authority making the order, power to revoke
\nor modify has bean conferred on the named authorities.\n<\/p>\n
897<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  The rule relating to interpretation of statutes is
\ntoo well  settled A  to be  disputed that  unless a contrary
\nintention  is\texpressly  or\tby   necessary\t implication
\navailable, words  used in a statute should be given the same
\nmeaning. this  position is  all the  more so  where the word
\noccurs in  two limbs  of the  same section.  We,  therefore,
\nagree with  the\t contention  advanced  by  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioners that  the word ‘revocation’ in sub-s (2) has the
\nsame meaning  and covers  the same situations as provided in
\nsub-s. (1)  of s. 11 of the Act. This would necessarily mean
\nthat the  power under  sub-s. (2)  would be  exercisable  in
\ncases covered by sub-s. (1).\n<\/p>\n
      This  leads  us  to  examine  the\t tenability  of\t the
\nsubmission of  Mr. Jethmalani  as to the true meaning of the
\nword ‘revocation’.  ‘Revoke’ is the verb and ‘revocation’ is
\nits noun.  These words\thave no\t statutory  definition\tand,
\ntherefore, would  take the commonsense meaning available for
\nthese words. Black’s Law Dictionary gives the meaning of the
\nword ‘revoke’  to be  “the recall of some authority or thing
\ngranted or a destroying or making void of some deed that had
\nexistence  until  the  act  of\trevocation  made  it  void.”
\nWharton’s Law  Lexican gives  the meaning to be “the undoing
\nof a  thing granted  or a  destroying or making void of some
\ndeed that  had existence until the act of revocation made it
\nvoid.” The  Shorter  Oxford  English  Dictionary  gives\t the
\nmeaning of  the word  ‘revocation’  to\tbe  “the  action  of
\nrecalling; recall  of persons;\ta call or summons to return;
\nthe action  of rescinding  or  annulling,  withdrawing.\t The
\nmeaning of  the word  ‘revoke’ has been given as “to recall,
\nbring back,  to restore, to retract, to withdraw, recant, to
\ntake back  to  one-self.”  The\ttrue  meaning  of  the\tverb
\n‘revoke- and  its noun,\t therefore,  seem  to  signify\tthat
\nrevocation is  a process  of recall  of what  had been done.
\nAccording,  to\t the  Webster’s\t  Third\t New   International
\nDictionary, the\t word means-“an\t act of recalling or calling
\nback, the act by which one having the right annuls Something
\npreviously dose\t According to the Corpus Juris Secudum, 1952
\nEdition, Vol 77, the word ‘revoke’ carries with it “the idea
\nof cancellation by the same power which originally acted and
\nnot to setting aside of an original order by higher forum Or
\npower or jurisdiction It does not mean repudiation ”\n<\/p>\n
     The power conferred under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s.
\n(1) of\ts. 11  is in  fact extension of the power recognised
\nunder s.  21 of\t the General Clauses Act and while under the
\nGeneral\t Clauses  Act,\tthe  power  is\texercisable  by\t the
\nauthority making  the order,  the  named  authorities  under
\nclauses (a)  and(b) of s. 11(1) of the Act are also entitled
\nto exercise the power of revocation. When the High Court
\n898<\/span>
\nexercises jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nit does\t not make  an order of revocation. By issuing a high
\nprerogative  writ  like\t habeas\t corpus\t or  certioraris  it
\nquashes the  order impugned  before it\tand by declaring the
\norder to be void and striking down the same it nullifies the
\norder. The  ultimate effect  of cancellation  of an order by
\nrevocation and\tquashing of the same in exercise of the high
\nprerogative jurisdiction vested in the High Court may be the
\nsame but  the manner  in which\tthe situation is obtained is
\npatently different  and while  one process  is covered by s.
\n11(1) of  the Act, the other is not known to the statute and
\nis exercised  by an  authority beyond  the purview  of\tsub-
\nsection (I  ) of  s. I\tl of  the Act. It is, therefore, our
\nclear opinion  that  in\t a  situation  where  the  order  of
\ndetention has  been quashed by the High Court, sub-s. (2) of
\n11 is  non applicable  and the\tdetaining authority  is\t not
\nentitled to  make another  order under s 3 of the Act on the
\nsame grounds.\n<\/p>\n
\t     We\t are of\t the view  that this seems to be the
\nlegislative scheme.  The pronounced  judicial view  of\tthis
\nCourt was  that repeated  orders of  detention are not to be
\nmade. Parliament  while making\tprovision in g. 11(2) of the
\nAct, must  be taken  to have  been aware of such view and in
\nconferring the power of making repeated orders, safe. guards
\nhave  been  provided  under  sub-s.  (1)  by  confining\t the
\nexercise  of  power  to\t limited  situations.  Clothing\t the
\nprescribed authority  to exercise power under s. 3 even in a
\nsituation where\t the Court  has intervened  to\tbring  about
\nnullification of  the order  of detention would give rise to
\ncomplicated situations and keeping the scheme of the section
\nin view\t we are\t of the clear opinion that where an order is
\nquashed\t by   a\t  Court\t  in   exercise\t  of   extraordinary
\njurisdiction, the  power of  making a fresh order under sub-
\nsection (2) of s. 11 is not
\n available to be exercised.\n<\/p>\n
      In view of this conclusion of ours, the orders made on
\nAugust 20,  1984, on  the same grounds on which the previous
\norder of  detention had been made and which had been quashed
\nby the\tHigh Court are not tenable in law. Once those orders
\nare held  to be\t invalid, the declarations made subsequently
\nunder s.  9 of\tthe Act\t could not be made and would have no
\neffect. Leaving\t all other  questions  mooted  in  the\twrit
\npetitions and partly argued before us by Mr. Jethmalani open
\nfor examination\t in suitable  cases,  we  allow\t these\twrit
\npetitions on  the  rationale  of  our  conclusion  indicated
\nabove. The  petitioner in each of these cases is directed to
\nbe set at liberty forwith.\n<\/p>\n
 A.P. J.\t\t\t\t    Petition allowed\n899<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 697, 1985 SCR (2) 891 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: IBRAHIM BACHU BAFAN & ANR ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/02\/1985 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH […]<\/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-132019","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIbrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985 - 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\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985\" \/>\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=\"1985-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-28T06:14:09+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T06:14:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985\"},\"wordCount\":2481,\"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\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985\",\"name\":\"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T06:14:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985\"}]},{\"@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":"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985 - 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\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-28T06:14:09+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985","datePublished":"1985-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T06:14:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985"},"wordCount":2481,"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\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985","name":"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T06:14:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-bachu-bafan-anr-etc-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-12-february-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ibrahim Bachu Bafan & Anr Etc vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 12 February, 1985"}]},{"@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\/132019","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=132019"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132019\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132019"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132019"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132019"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}