{"id":14586,"date":"1992-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992"},"modified":"2015-10-02T01:35:38","modified_gmt":"2015-10-01T20:05:38","slug":"k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992","title":{"rendered":"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1353, \t\t 1992 SCR (1)1075<\/div>\n
Author: S Pandian<\/div>\n
Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK.P.M. BASHEER ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/02\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nSAHAI, R.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 1353\t\t  1992 SCR  (1)1075\n 1992 SCC  (2) 295\t  JT 1992 (3)\t610\n 1992 SCALE  (1)525\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1992 SC1937\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\n     Conservation  of  Foreign Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities Act, 1974 :\n     Section  3(1)-Detention  Order-Undue  and\tunreasonable\ndelay in execution-Maintainability.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant, on 12.11.1990, was found  carrying\t two\ngold pellets with foreign markings each weighing  ten tolas,\nwithout\t any  valid permit.  The order\tof  detention  under\nS.3(1)\t of  the  conservation\tof  Foreign   Exchange\t and\nPrevention  of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was passed  on\n7.1.1991.   The\t detention  order  was\tserved\ton  him\t  on\n28.6.1991.\n     The  Writ\tPetition challenging  the  detention  order,\ninter  alia, on the ground of undue and reasonable delay  in\nits execution was dismissed by the High Court.\n     The  detenu filed the appeal by special  leave  against\nthe  High  Court's  order as also the  writ  petition  under\nArticle 32 of the Constitution before this Court.\n     Allowing the appeal and disposing of the writ petition,\nthis Court,\n     HELD:  1.1 The order of detention cannot  be  sustained\nsince  the `live and proximate link' between the  ground  of\ndetention and the purpose of detention is snapped on account\nof  the\t undue\tand  unreasonable  delay  in  securing\t the\nappellant\/detenu and detaining him.  The order of  detention\nis liable to be set aside on this ground alone. [p. 1080A-B]\n     1.2 Though the two gold pellets (the contrabands)\twere\nseized\tfrom  the  appellant on\t 12.11.1990,  the  order  of\ndetention  was passed on 7.1.1991, and the  detention  order\nwas  executed after a period of 5 months and 11\t days.\t{pp.\n1078F; 1079G-H; 1080A]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       1076\n     2.1  No  sufficient cause is shown for not\t taking\t any\naction\tunder s.7 of the COFEPOSA Act. The  explanation-that\nthough COFEPOSA section in the office of the Collectorate of\nCustoms\t requested  the\t State Government  on  19.4.1991  to\ninitiate action under s.7(1) (b) of the Act it was not\tdone\nso  because  the  seizing unit was asked to  make  one\tmore\nattempt\t to trace out the appellant-is not satisfactory\t and\nreasonable one. [pp. 1078G-H; 1079A-B]\n     2.2  No  serious and sincere effort was  taken  by\t the\narresting   officers:\t There\t was   only   exchange\t  of\ncorrespondence\tbetween\t the Department\t and  the  arresting\nofficers.   It is incomprehensible as to why no\t effort\t was\nmade  to  secure the appellant\/detenu during the  two  days,\nnamely, on 6th and 20th Feb.91, when he appeared before\t the\nAssistant Collector of Customs.\n\t\t\t\t\t       [pp. 1079F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n144 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgement and Order dated 27.9.1991  of\t the
\nKarnataka High Court in W.P. No. 113 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n     Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1394 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     C.S. Vaidyanathan and P.K. Manohar for the Appellant.
\n     K.T.S. Tulsi, Addl. Solicitor General, P.\tParmeswaran,
\nA.K.  Srivastava, M. Veerappa and Kh. Nobin Singh  (For\t the
\nState of Karnataka) for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     S. RATANAVEL PANDIAN, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant\/petitioner K.P.M. Basheer by  the  above
\nappeal\tis challenging the correctness and legality  of\t the
\norder  dated 27th September 1991 made by the High  Court  of
\nKarnataka   dismissing\tthe  Writ  Petition  filed  by\t the
\nappellant challenging the legality and validity of the order
\nof   detention\tdated  7.1.1991\t passed\t by  the  State\t  of
\nKarnataka.  The first respondent in the appeal, namely,\t the
\nState  of Karnataka in exercise of the powers  conferred  by
\nthe Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
\nPrevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       1077<\/span>
\nreferred  to  as `the Act’) passed  the\t impugned  detention
\norder on 7th January 1991 with a view to preventing him from
\nengaging in keeping and transporting smuggled goods  falling
\nwithin\tthe mischief of Section 3(1)(iii) of the  Act.\t The
\nappellant  was\tdirected  to be detained  and  kept  in\t the
\ncustody of the central prison, Banglore.\n<\/p>\n
     The brief facts of the case which led to the passing of
\nthe impugned order can be summarised as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     On\t 12.11.1990 the Superintendent of Central Excise  on
\ninformation  interrogated the appellant at the\tBalgaum\t bus
\nstand  on  his arrival from Bombay in the presence  of\tsome
\npanchas and recorved two gold pellets with foreign  markings
\neach weighing ten tolas, wrapped in a paper packet from\t his
\nfront  side right watch pocket of his pant.   The  appellant
\nwas  not  having any valid permit and also was not  able  to
\ngive  any satisfactory explanation for possessing  the\tgold
\npellets.   Therefore,  the  Superintendent  entertaining   a
\nreasonable  belief  that  they were  smuggled  gold  pellets
\nrecorded   the\tstatement  of  the  appellant.\t The   State
\nGovernment  on the information passed on by  the  sponsoring
\nauthority  passed  the impugned order on 7.1.1991  on  being
\nsubjectively  satisfied\t of  the necessity  of\tpassing\t the
\nimpugned  order\t on  the materials placed  before  it.\t The
\ndetention  order was served on the detenu only on  28.6.1991
\nfrom  which date onwards he has been detained.\t Challenging
\nthe  detention order, the petitioner filed a  Writ  Petition
\nNo.  113\/91  before the High Court of Karnataka\t and  raised
\nseveral contentions; those being (1) the order of  detention
\nis based on a solitary incident; (2) there has been an undue
\nand prolonged delay in serving the order on the detenu;\t and
\n(3) the materials placed before the detaining authority were
\nnot  sufficient for drawing the requisite  satisfaction\t for
\npassing\t the  impugned order.  The High Court  rejected\t all
\nthose  contentions and dismissed the Writ  Petition.   Hence
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  this Court the petitioner has filed a  separate
\nWrit Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of  India
\nraising certain additional grounds.  Those grounds are:\t (1)
\nThe  detenu  made a request to the  detaining  authority  to
\nforward\t a  copy  of  his  representation  to  the   Central
\nGovernment   and  that\tthe  detaining\tauthority  has\t not
\nforwarded the same to the Central Government as requested by
\nhim.  Even assuming that it has been forwarded, his  represe
\ntation has not been disposed of in time and as such there is
\nviolation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       1078<\/span><\/p>\n
(2)  The normal criminal process which would be adequate  to
\ntake  care  of\tthe  possession of the\tgold  has  not\tbeen
\nfollowed; and (3) The first respondent in the Writ  Petition
\n(Union\tof  India)  has failed in its  duty  to\t inform\t the
\npetitioner  regarding the Government instruction  issued  to
\nthe sponsoring agencies not to make an order of detention in
\ncases  where  the value of the smuggled goods is  less\tthan
\nRs.1 lakh.\n<\/p>\n
     In the Writ Petition both the State Government as\twell
\nas   the  Central  Government  have  filed   their   counter
\naffidavits refuting all the additional grounds.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  scrutinising the additional grounds  raised  in
\nthe  Writ  Petition, we shall now  examine  the\t contentions
\nraised\tin the appeal and find out whether the order of\t the
\nHigh Court warrants interference.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, the learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the appellant contends that the delay of more than
\nfive months in executing the order of detention is not\tonly
\nan  inordinate\tand  unreasonable one but  also\t stands\t un-
\nexplained  and on that ground the High Court ought  to\thave
\nset  aside  the order of detention.  According to  him,\t the
\nHigh  Court  has  not  gone  deep  into\t that  question\t but
\nsummarily  disposed  of the same  holding  “The\t explanation
\noffered by the 1st respondent, in para 9 of the statement of
\nobjection is quite acceptable.”\n<\/p>\n
     Of\t course, this contention has not  been\tspecifically
\ntaken  in the Memorandum of Appeal, but there can be no\t bar
\nto  advance  a legal argument in a case of this\t nature\t and
\nespecially when such a contention has been raised before the
\nHigh Court.  We want through the explanation given in para 9
\nof  the\t counter  affidavit filed on  behalf  of  the  first
\nrespondent  by\tthe  then  commissioner\t and  Secretary\t  to
\nGovernment,  Home  Department.\tIt is not  denied  that\t the
\ndetention order was executed after a period of 5 months\t and
\n11  days.  What the first respondent states is that  various
\nefforts were taken to trace the detenu at Tellicherry at the
\naddress given in the grounds of detention as well as in\t the
\nBombay address, but he could not be secured.  Further it has
\nbeen stated that though the arresting officers attempted  to
\nsecure\thim  at the Court of Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  at
\nBelgaum\t on 6.3.91, 28.3.91 and 14.5.91 on which  dates\t the
\ncriminal case aS against him stood posted before that court,
\nthe officers could not do so as the appellant did not appear
\nbefore the court for hearing.  Further it is mentioned\tthat
\nthough COFEPOSA Section in the office of the Collec-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       1079<\/span><\/p>\n
torate of Customs requested the State Government on  19.4.91
\nto  initiate action under Section 7(1)(b) of the Act it\t was
\nnot  done so because the seizing unit was asked to make\t one
\nmore  attempt to trace out and detain the  appellant.\tThis
\nexplanation is not a satisfactory and reasonable one for the
\nfollowing reasons :\n<\/p>\n
\t (1) No sufficient cause is shown for not taking any
\n\t action under Section 7 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t  (2) It appears from the paragraph 9 of the counter
\n\t that  the  officers  came to know  of\tthe  correct
\n\t address of the appellant at Bombay, but they  could
\n\t not  trace  him.  It may be pointed  out  that\t the
\n\t Bombay address at which place the appellant  detenu
\n\t was  attempted\t to be secured is not given  in\t the
\n\t counter.   Had it been given, the Court would\thave
\n\t been in a position to verify the averments made  in
\n\t the  grounds of detention stating that the  address
\n\t at  Bombay given by the appellant was a  fictitious
\n\t one.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t paragraph 17 of the Writ Petition filed before\t the
\nHigh  Court,  the appellant has asserted  that\the  appeared
\nbefore\tthe  Asstt.   Collector of  Customs,  Marine  Lines,
\nBombay\ton  6.2.91 and 20.2.91 but no attempt  was  made  to
\narrest\tand detain him.\t This specific averment is  not\t all
\ndenied\tin the counter.\t This indicates that  the  arresting
\nofficers did not take any real and genuine effort to  secure
\nand  detain  the  appellant.  The  explanation\tnow  offered
\nstating that the appellant was fugitive, eluding the dragnet
\nof  the detention order cannot be accepted,  because  during
\nthe  alleged  period of search he has  appeared\t before\t the
\nAssistant  Collector  of Customs, Bombay  on  two  occasions
\nduring\tFeb.  1991, that is after passing of  the  detention
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
     All  the above points show that no serious and  sincere
\neffort appears to have been taken by the arresting  officers
\nand  that there was only exchange of correspondence  between
\nthe   Department   and\tthe  arresting\tofficers.    It\t  is
\nincomprehensible as to why no effort has been made to secure
\nthe appellant\/detenu during the two days, namely, on 6th and
\n20th   February\t when  he  appeared  before  the   Assistant
\nCollector of Customs.  No supporting affidavits or documents
\nare filed to substantiate the averments made in the counter.
\nIncidentally,  it may be mentioned that though the two\tgold
\npellets (the contrabans) were seized from the appellant on
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       1080<\/span>
\n12.11.90 the authorities concerned passed these orders\tonly
\non 7.1.1991, i.e. nearly after two months.\n<\/p>\n
     Under these circumstances, we are of the view that\t the
\norder  of detention cannot be sustained since the `live\t and
\nproximate  link’ between  the grounds of detention  and\t the
\npurpose of detention is snapped on account of the undue\t and
\nunreasonable  delay  in securing  the  appellant\/detenu\t and
\ndetaining  him.\t As we have now come to the conclusion\tthat
\nthe  order  of detention is liable to be set aside  on\tthis
\nground\talone  we  are not dealing  with  other\t contentions
\nraised\tin the Memorandum of Appeal as well as in  the\tWrit
\nPetition.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence for the reasons stated above we allow the appeal,
\nset aside the order of the High Court and quash the impugned
\ndetention  order and direct the detenu to be set at  liberty
\nforthwith.  In view of the order in this present appeal,  no
\norder is necessary in the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
R.P.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    1<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1353, 1992 SCR (1)1075 Author: S Pandian Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) PETITIONER: K.P.M. BASHEER ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/02\/1992 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. […]<\/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-14586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992 - 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\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-01T20:05:38+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\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T20:05:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992\"},\"wordCount\":1571,\"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\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992\",\"name\":\"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T20:05:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992 - 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\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-01T20:05:38+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\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992","datePublished":"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T20:05:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992"},"wordCount":1571,"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\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992","name":"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T20:05:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-m-basheer-etc-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-anr-etc-on-28-february-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P.M. Basheer Etc vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. Etc on 28 February, 1992"}]},{"@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\/14586","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=14586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}