{"id":139562,"date":"1967-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967"},"modified":"2015-08-31T05:42:49","modified_gmt":"2015-08-31T00:12:49","slug":"state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967","title":{"rendered":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1550, \t\t 1967 SCR (3) 871<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADIGA BOOSENA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/05\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1550\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 871\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1974 SC 639\t (6,7,8,10,12,13)\n\n\nACT:\nAndhra\tPradesh (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937 (Act  10\nof   1937)  S.\t4(1)(a)-Seized\tcommodity   not\t  chemically\nexamined-Witnesses' smell, if conclusive proof-\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondents  were prosecuted under S.  4(1)(a)  of\t the\nAndhra\tPradesh\t (Andhra  Area)\t Prohibition  Act,  on\t the\nallegation  that they were found transporting  arrack.\t The\nrespondents  denied  the  offence and pleaded  that  a\tmere\nstatement by the witnesses that there was a strong smell  of\narrack, emanating from the tins, when they were pierced\t was\nnot  sufficient to establish that the tins contained  arrack\nand that the samples of the commodity should have been\tsent\nfor  opinion  of the Chemical Examiner.\t The trial  and\t the\nappellate   courts  rejected  the  respondents'\t pleas\t and\nconvicted  them\t but  the High\tCourt  acquitted  them.\t  In\nappeal, to this Court.\nHELD  :\t The  prosecution  has\tnot  established  that\t the\nrespondents were guilty under s. 4(1)(a) of the Act.\nMerely\ttrusting  to the smelling sense of  the\t Prohibition\nOfficers,  and basing a conviction, on an opinion  expressed\nby  those officers, could not justify the conviction of\t the\nrespondents.   Better proof, by a technical person, who\t bad\nconsidered  the matter from a scientific point of view,\t was\nnot  only desirable, but even necessary, to establish  -that\nthe  article seized was one coming within the definition  of\n'liquor'. [874-E]\nBaidyanath  Mishra  v. The State of Orissa, Crl.   Ap.\t No.\n270\/1964\non 17-4-1967; distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
\n6 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the Judgment and\torder  dated
\nJanuary\t 17,  1964  of\tthe Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in
\nCriminal Revision Case No. 215 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
P. Ram Reddy and K. Javaram, for the appellant.
\nThe respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, on behalf
\nof the State of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant herein, Mr. P.
\nRam  Reddy,  learned  counsel, challenges  the\torder  dated
\nJanuary 17, 1964, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court,  setting
\naside  the  conviction of the respondents,  for\t an  offence
\nunder  s.  4 (I) (a), of the Andhra  Pradesh  (Andhra  Area)
\nProhibition  Act, 1937 (Act X of 1937),\t hereinafter  called
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
L9Sup. Cl\/67-12
\n872<\/span>
\nAccording  to  the prosecution, the respondents\t were  found
\ntransporting,  in  a bullock cart, on the early\t morning  of
\nJune 10 1962 fifty gallons of arrack.  It is the case of the
\nprosecution that the prohibition staff found, on the day  in
\nquestion, a bullock cart, driven by the first respondent, in
\nwhich  the  fifty gallons of arrack were found in  13  tins.
\nAccordingly, they were prosecuted for an offence under s.  4
\n(  1  )(a), of the Act.\t All the  respondents  substantially
\ndenied,\t having committed the offence, with which they\twere
\ncharged.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution let in the evidence of the Prohibition\tSub-
\nInspector,   P.W.1,  and  another  petty  officer   of\t the
\nprohibition   staff,  P.W.4.  The  evidence  of\t these\t two
\nwitnesses, was to the effect that when the bullock cart,  in
\nquestion,  came near them, there was a smell of arrack.\t  In
\nparticular,  P.W.4 has stated that the tins, which  were  in
\nthe bullock cart, were pierced with bayonet, and when smelt,
\nthey  gave  a strong smell of arrack.\tTo  corroborate\t the
\nevidence of these two officers, the other witnesses,.  P.Ws.
\n2 and 3, who were stated to have witnessed this\t occurrence,
\nalong with the prohibition party, were also examined.\tThey
\nstated that when the bullock cart came near them, they got a
\nstrong\tsmell of arrack, and that the 12 tins  were  pierced
\nwith bayonet ends and their contents verified.\tOnly some of
\nthe witnesses have been cross-examined, and the respondents,
\nhave  suggested to them that during that hour of the  night,
\nit  would  not have been possible for them to  identify\t the
\npersons,  who were stated to have been in the bullock  cart.
\nNo  doubt, no specific suggestion, that the  commodity\tthat
\nwas  seized, is not one to which the Act applies,  has\tbeen
\nmade.\tDuring\tthe trial, however the question\t appears  to
\nhave   been  raised,  among  other  contentions,  that\t the
\nprosecution  has not established the  necessary\t ingredients
\nfor  establishing  that the respondents have  committed\t the
\noffence,  under s. 4(1) (a), of the Act.  The  trial  Court,
\nadverting  to this aspect, has referred to the\tevidence  of
\nP.Ws.1\tto  4,\twho  speak- to a  strong  smell\t of  arrack,
\nemanating  from\t the cart, and the tins being  pierced\twith
\nbayonet ends.  In view of this evidence, the trial Court  is
\nof the opinion that the ground for coming to the conclusion,
\nthat   it  was\tarrack\tthat  was  being   transported,\t  is
\nestablished.   Ultimately,  the\t trial\tCourt  accepted\t the
\nevidence of the prosecution, found the respondents guilty of
\nthe  offence  under s. 4 (I) (a) of the Act,  and  sentenced
\neach  of  them\tto undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for\t six
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondents  challenged their  conviction,\t before\t the
\nlearned Sessions Judge, Kurnool.  Before the appellate Court
\nalso, the respondents pleaded that there is no proper proof,
\nin  this  case,\t that the tins\tcontained  arrack.   A\tmere
\nstatement,  by the witnesses, that there was a strong  smell
\nof  arrack, emanating from the tins. when they were  pierced
\nwith bayonet ends, is not sufficient to
\n873<\/span>
\nestablish  the\tguilt  of  the\taccused.   They\t have\talso
\nspecifically  raised  the  contention that  samples  of\t the
\ncommodity  should  have, been sent for the  opinion  of\t the
\nChemical Examiner.  This plea, of the respondents, was again
\nbrushed aside, by the learned sessions Judge, on the  ground
\nthat the prohibition officer must be considered to have\t got
\nsufficient  experience\tof smelling and\t knowing  whether  a
\nliquid\twas arrack, or not, and, inasmuch as he has  deposed
\nthat  the  liquid  was found to be arrack,  by\tsmell,\tthat
\nstatement  can\tbe accepted as proof of the  nature  of\t the
\nliquid that was being transported, by the respondents.\t The
\nlearned\t Sessions  Judge  has also stated  that\t no  further
\ntesting\t is called for.\t The learned Sessions Judge  in\t the
\nend, confirmed the conviction of the respondents.
\nThe  respondents  carried the matter further,  to  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Andhra Pradesh, in revision.\tThe High  Court\t has
\naccepted  the  plea of the respondents that, in\t this  case,
\nthere  has been no proper proof that the commodity that\t was
\nfound to be transported, was’ airrack.\tThe High Court is of
\nthe  view that when the accused have denied the\t offence  of
\ncarrying  any  arrack, the prosecution should have  got\t the
\ncommodity examined, by a Chemical Examiner, and, inasmuch as
\nthat  procedure\t has  not  been\t adopted,  the:\t High  Court
\nultimately, set aside the conviction of the respondents.
\nOn behalf of the appellant State, Mr. Ram Reddy urged  that,
\nIn  this  case, inasmuch as the prosecution has let  in\t the
\nevidence of the Prohibition Inspector and the petty officer,
\nwho  must be considered to be well aware of arrack the\tHigh
\nCourt was not justified in interfering with the decisions of
\nthe  subordinate Courts.. Counsel has also pointed out\tthat
\nthe  prosecution witnesses have spoken to the fact that\t the
\ncontents  of the tins were examined, by being  pierced\twith
\nbayonet\t ends  and  it\tis,  after  such  examination.\t the
\nProhibition  Sub-Inspector satisfied himself that  the\ttins
\ncontained arrack.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  no  appearance, on  behalf  of  the\trespondents,
\nbefore, us, in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
This  will  be a convenient stage to refer to  the  relevant
\nprovisIons   of\t  the  Act.   Section  3   defines   certain
\nexpressions. `Intoxicating drug’ is defined, under s. 3 (8),
\nand s. 3 (9) defines ‘liquor’, under which the commodity, in
\nquestion,  is  stated  to fall.\t  ‘Liquor’  includes  toddy,
\nspirits of wine, methylated spirits, spirits, wine, beer and
\nall  liquid consisting of or containing alcohol.   Under  s.
\n4(1)(a), whoever imports, exports, transports or  possesses.
\nliquor or any intoxicating drug, shall be punished imprison-
\nment  which may extend to six months or with fine which\t may
\nextend to one thousand rupees, or with both.  In this  case,
\naccording   to\t the  prosecution,   the   respondents\t had
\ntransported liquor.\n<\/p>\n
874<\/span><\/p>\n
The  expression ‘liquor’, as mentioned earlier,\t is  defined
\nunder  :s.  3(9).  The prosecution will\t therefore  have  to
\nestablish that the .commodity in question comes under one or
\nother of the various items referred to in the definition  of
\n‘liquor’.   The question is whether the prosecution  has  so
\nestablished, in this case.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, the\tHigh
\nCourt\twas   perfectly\t justified  in\tholding\t  that\t the
\nprosecution  has  not established that the  respondents\t are
\nguilty of an offence, under s. 4 (1 )(a) of the Act.  It  is
\nneedless to state that, in this case, unless the prosecution
\nproves\tthe contravention of the provisions -of the Act,  in
\nquestion, it cannot succeed in establishing the guilt of the
\naccused.   For\tthat purpose, the prosecution will  have  to
\nestablish  two things: (i) that the article seized from\t the
\naccused\t is  ‘liquor’, under s. 3 (9) of the Act;  and\t(ii)
\nthat the accused ‘transported’ the same.\n<\/p>\n
Except for a general statement, contained in the evidence of
\nthe witnesses, particularly P.Ws. 1 and 4, that there was  a
\nstrong smell of alcohol, emanating from the tins, which were
\npierced\t ,open, there is no other satisfactory\tevidence  to
\nestablish  that\t the  article  is  one\tcoming\twithin\t the
\ndefinition  of the expression ‘liquor’.\t Merely trusting  to
\nthe smelling sense of the Prohibition Officers, and basing a
\nconviction, on an opinion expressed by those officers, under
\nthe  circumstances,  cannot justify the\t conviction  of\t the
\nrespondents.   In our opinion, better proof, by a  technical
\nperson,\t who  has considered the matter\t from  a  scientific
\npoint of view, is not only desirable, but even necessary, to
\nestablish  that the article seized is one coming within\t the
\ndefinition of ‘liquor’.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Ram  Reddy,  learned counsel for the  State,  no  doubt
\npointed out that the accused have not challenged effectively
\nthe  answers  given by the prosecution\twitnesses  that\t the
\ncommodity  is  arrack.\tIn our\topinion,  the  circumstance,
\npointed,  out by the learned counsel, will not\tabsolve\t the
\nprosecution   from  establishing  the  ingredients  of\t the
\noffence,  for justifying the conviction of the\trespondents.
\nEven  otherwise, it will have to be noted that all  of\tthem
\nhave, categorically, denied the offence and have also stated
\nin general terms, that no arrack was seized from them.
\nBefore we close the discussion, it is necessary to refer  to
\na recent decision of this Court in Baidyanath Mishra v.\t The
\nState  of Orissa(l).  In that case, the question was  as  to
\nwhether\t the  appellants,  therein, were  in  possession  of
\nopium, so as to make them liable for an offence.  The  Opium
\nAct of 1878, defines the expression ‘opium’.  The appellants
\ncontended that the article
\n(1)  Crl.  Ap.\tNo. 270\/1964 decided on 17-4-1967.\n<\/p>\n
875<\/span><\/p>\n
seized from them was not opium, as defined in that Act,\t and
\npointed\t out  that  the\t only evidence,\t relied\t on  by\t the
\nprosecution,  to establish that the article  recovered\tfrom
\nthem  was opium, was the evidence of the Prohibition  staff,
\nand that the article has not been subjected to any  chemical
\nanalysis.   This  Court\t rejected that\tcontention,  in\t the
\nparticular circumstances of the case, and stated :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is true that opium is a  substance  which
\n\t      once  seen  and smelt can never  be  forgotten
\n\t      because\topium  possesses  a   characteristic
\n\t      appearance and avery strong and characteristic
\n\t      scent.  It is possible for people to  identify
\n\t      opium without having to subject the product to
\n\t      a chemical analysis.  It is only when opium is
\n\t      in  a  mixture so diluted that  its  essential
\n\t      characteristics  are  not\t easily\t visible  or
\n\t      capable  of  being apprehended by\t the  senses
\n\t      that    a\t   chemical    analysis\t   may\t  be
\n\t      necessary.  …. Two other witnesses who\twere
\n\t      cultivators  and\twho  knew  what\t they\twere
\n\t      talking about said that it was opium.  If\t the
\n\t      appellants,   who\t themselves  were   licensed
\n\t      vendors  of  opium’ had  the  slightest  doubt
\n\t      about the correctness of these statements they
\n\t      could  have challenged them either  by  cross-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t    examination or by suggesting to the co
\nurt  that
\n\t      the substance be analysed to determine whether
\n\t      it was opium or not.”\n<\/p>\n
These observations will clearly show as to why this Court in
\nthat cases has expressed the view that there is no infirmity
\nin  the\t prosecution  case,  simply  because  there  has  no
\nchemical  analysis made, of the commodity, which,  according
\nto  the\t prosecution, was opium.  The facts in\tthe  instant
\ncase   before\tus,   are  entirely   different,   and\t the
\nobservations, extracted above, do not apply.
\nIn the result, the order of the High Court is confirmed, and
\nthis appeal, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n876<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1550, 1967 SCR (3) 871 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: MADIGA BOOSENA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/05\/1967 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. HIDAYATULLAH, M. […]<\/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-139562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967 - 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-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-31T00:12:49+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=\"10 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-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-31T00:12:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967\"},\"wordCount\":1838,\"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\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967\",\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-31T00:12:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967 - 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-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-31T00:12:49+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967","datePublished":"1967-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-31T00:12:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967"},"wordCount":1838,"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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967","name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-31T00:12:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-madiga-boosena-ors-on-2-may-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madiga Boosena & Ors on 2 May, 1967"}]},{"@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\/139562","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=139562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139562\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}