{"id":147721,"date":"1989-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989"},"modified":"2018-12-04T02:28:38","modified_gmt":"2018-12-03T20:58:38","slug":"dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989","title":{"rendered":"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1282, \t\t  1989 SCR  (2)\t 43<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Pandian<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDHARAMDAS SHAMLAL AGARWAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPOLICE COMMISSIONER &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/03\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nBENCH:\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1282\t\t  1989 SCR  (2)\t 43\n 1989 SCC  (2) 370\t  JT 1989 (1)\t580\n 1989 SCALE  (1)658\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1989 SC1881\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act,  198\n5:\n\tSS.  3(2) &amp; 6---Detention Order--Validity  of--Material\t a\nnd\n\tvital  fact having a bearing on the issue not placed  befo\nre\n\tdetaining authority--Held, requisite subjective satisfacti\non\n\tvitiated by non_application of mind.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The\t petitioner was detained under an order\t dated\t17\nth\n\tSeptember, 1988 made by the detaining authority under  sub\ns.\n\t(2) of s. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activ\ni-\n\tties Act, 1985 with a view to prevent him from acting in a\nny\n\tmanner\tprejudicial to the maintenance of public order.\t T\nhe\n\tgrounds\t of  detention mentioned  five\toffences  register\ned\n\tagainst him with police records, out of which the first\t o\nne\n\tunder  s. 324 IPC was stated to have been  compromised,\t t\nhe\n\tsecond under s. 332 IPC and the third under ss. 148 and\t 3\n07\n\tIPC respectively were stated to be pending trial, the four\nth\n\tunder  s.  302 IPC was stated not proved,  while  the  fif\nth\n\tunder s. 302 IPC was stated to be in the court.\n\t    The\t Government approved the said order on 21st  Septe\nm-\n\tber,  1988.  The detenu submitted his  representation  dat\ned\n\t22nd  September,  1988 to the first respondent\twho  by\t h\nis\n\torder  dated  30th  September, 1988 rejected  the  same.\nHe\n\tthereupon,  filed  this\t petition under Article\t 32  of\t t\nhe\n\tConstitution.\n\t    It\twas  contended for the petitioner that he  has\tbe\nen\n\tacquitted  even\t on 26th August, 1988 in the case  shown\nat\n\tserial No. 2 in the Table appended to the grounds of  dete\nn-\n\ttion, and on 6th June, 1988 in the case shown at Serial\t N\no.\n\t3, that this material and vital fact of his acquittal in t\nhe\n\tsaid cases had not been placed before the detaining author\ni-\n\tty and this non-placing and the consequent non-considerati\non\n\tof  the\t said material likely to influence the mind  of\t t\nhe\n\tdetaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfaction a\nnd\n\tinvalidates  the detention order, that the names of his\t s\no-\n\tcalled\tassociates were nowhere disclosed which\t fact  wou\nld\n\tshow  either  the  authority did not know as  to  who  the\nse\n\tassociates  were or knowing their names has  refrained\tfr\nom\n\tfurnishing  it to the detenu thereby disabling him  to\tma\nke\n\this effective representation, and\n\t44\n\tthat the grounds of detention otherwise were vague or  def\ni-\n\tcient. For the respondent it was contended that each activ\ni-\n\tty of the petitioner was a separate ground of detention\t a\nnd\n\tthat the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the\tsa\nid\n\tcases was of no consequence.\n\tAllowing the writ petition,\n\t    HELD: The requisite subjective satisfaction, the  form\na-\n\ttion  of  which\t is a condition precedent to  passing  of\n a\n\tdetention  order,  will get vitiated if\t material  or  vit\nal\n\tfacts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed\t t\nhe\n\tsatisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the oth\ner\n\tand influenced his mind are either withheld or suppressed\nby\n\tthe  sponsoring authority or ignored and not  considered\nby\n\tthe detaining authority before issuing the detention  orde\nr.\n\t[51D-E]\n\t    In\tthe  instant case, at the time\twhen  the  detaini\nng\n\tauthority  passed  the\tdetention order the  vital  fact\nof\n\tacquittal of the detenu in cases mentioned at serial Nos.\n 2\n\tand  3 had not been brought to his notice and on  the  oth\ner\n\thand  it was withheld and the detaining authority was  giv\nen\n\tto  understand\tthat the trial of those cases  was  pendin\ng.\n\tThis  non-placing  of the material fact\t resulting  in\tno\nn-\n\tapplication  of the mind of the detaining authority  to\t t\nhe\n\tsaid  fact has vitiated the requisite  subjective  satisfa\nc-\n\ttion,  rendering the impugned detention order  invalid.\t T\nhe\n\tsame is, therefore, set-aside. The detenu be set at  liber\nty\n\tforthwith. [51E, F, G, H]\n\t    <a href=\"\/doc\/1302010\/\">S.K.  Nizamuddin  v. State of West Bengal, AIR<\/a>  1974\nSC\n\t2353;  <a href=\"\/doc\/190296\/\">Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate,  Burdwan\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tOrs., AIR 1975 SC 728; Asha Devi v. Additional Secretary<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n\tthe Government of Gujarat &amp; Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 215 and\tSi<br \/>\nta<br \/>\n\tRam  Somani  v. State of Rajasthan &amp; Ors., [1986] 2  SCC<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">86<\/span><br \/>\n\treferred to.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    <a href=\"\/doc\/1645802\/\">Shiv Rattan Makim v. Union of India &amp; Ors.,<\/a> [1985] Sup<br \/>\np.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3) SCR 843 and Subharta v. State of West Bengal [1973]\t S<br \/>\nCC<br \/>\n\t250, distinguished.\n<\/p>\n<p>&amp;<br \/>\n\t    ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.\t 5<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">37<\/span><br \/>\n\tof 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)<br \/>\n\t    Dr. Y.S. Chitale, M.K. Pandit, P.H. Parekh, J.H.  Pare<br \/>\nkh<br \/>\n\tand M.N. Sompal for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t45<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\tP.S. Poti, Mrs. H. Wahi and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent<br \/>\ns.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n\t    S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This is a petition under Artic<br \/>\nle<br \/>\n\t32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality a<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tvalidity of the order of detention dated 17.9.1988 passed<br \/>\nby<br \/>\n\tthe detaining authority (the Commissioner of Police, Ahmed<br \/>\na-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tbad  City) clamping upon the petitioner (the detenu  herei\n<\/p>\n<p>n)<br \/>\n\tthe  impugned  order of detention under Sub-section  (2)<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tSection\t 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social  Activ<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tties Act, 1985 on the ground that he on the materials plac<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tbefore him was satisfied that it was necessary to make\tth<br \/>\nis<br \/>\n\torder of detention with a view to preventing the detenu fr<br \/>\nom<br \/>\n\tacting\tin  any\t manner prejudicial to\tthe  maintenance<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tpublic order in the area of Ahmedabad City and directed\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tdetenu to be detained in Sabarmati Central Prison. In purs<br \/>\nu-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tance of the said order, the detenu has been detained in\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\taforesaid prison.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    The\t Government  approved  the  order  of  detention<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\t21.9.1988.  The\t detenu submitted his  representation  dat<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\t22.9.1988  to  the  Ist respondent who by  his\torder  dat<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\t30.9.1988 rejected the same. Hence this Writ Petition.<br \/>\n\t    Before  adverting to the arguments advanced by Dr.\tCh<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttale, on behalf of the detenu; we would like to produce\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\trelevant  portion  of the grounds of detention\twhich  rea<br \/>\nds<br \/>\n\tthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8221;  &#8230;&#8230;  As such you are a dangerous person as defined<br \/>\nin<br \/>\n\tsection 2(c) of the said Act, and known as dangerous perso<br \/>\nn.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs  you\t with the aid of your  Associates  create  dangero<br \/>\nus<br \/>\n\tatmosphere  in the said vicinity you disturb  public  peac<br \/>\ne,<br \/>\n\tmaintenance  and as such following offences were  register<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tagainst\t you  with  Police Records, and in  which  you\twe<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\tarrested.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\t      Sr. Plice\t      Offence\t  Section      Decision\n\t     No. Station       Regd. No.\n\t      1.  Sabarmati  140\/81    324, 114\t       Compro-\n\t\t\t\t\tIPC\t       mised\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       16.2.82\n\t      2.  Sherkotda  411\/82\t 332,323,      P.T.\n\t\t\t\t\t 114 IPC\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t46<\/span>\n\t     3.\t Sherkotda  412\/82    PIC 147, 148     P.T.\n\t\t\t\t    149,307 BP Act\n\t\t\t\t      135(1)\n\t     4.\t Sherkotda   452\/85    IPC 302,\t       Not\n\t\t\t\t\t 109,3\t       proved\n\t     5.\t Sabarmati    346\/87  IPC 302,\t       In the\n\t\t\t\t       109,34\t       Court\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tWhile considering complaints, in the above cases,  Identif<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tcation\t (Chehra Nissan)  Register,  and charge-sheets\tco<br \/>\nn-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttents carefully, it is found that you, with the aid of\tyo<br \/>\nur<br \/>\n\tassociates,  in\t the  said area, give  threats\tto  innoce<br \/>\nnt<br \/>\n\tpeople,\t and  cause injuries to them  by  showing  dangero<br \/>\nus<br \/>\n\tweapons\t that like Acid, Knife, sharp weapons. As  such\t y<br \/>\nou<br \/>\n\tcommit\toffences  punishable for causing injuries  to  hum<br \/>\nan<br \/>\n\tbody   and   which   are   punishable\tin   Indian    Pen<br \/>\nal<br \/>\n\tCode  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t       Dr.  Chitale, the learned counsel for the  petition<br \/>\ner<br \/>\n\ttook  us  through  the grounds of detention  and  the  oth<br \/>\ner<br \/>\n\trelevant records, particularly the copies of the  statemen<br \/>\nts<br \/>\n\tof  witnesses on the basis of which the detaining  authori<br \/>\nty<br \/>\n\thas  claimed to have drawn his subjective  satisfaction\t f<br \/>\nor<br \/>\n\tpassing this impugned order of detention and raised  vario<br \/>\nus<br \/>\n\tcontentions  inter-alia\t contending; (1)  The  material\t a<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tvital fact, namely, the acquittal of the detenu in the cas<br \/>\nes<br \/>\n\tregistered  in Crime Nos. 411 and 412 of 1982  of  Sherkot<br \/>\nda<br \/>\n\tPolice Station as shown at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 in the  tab<br \/>\nle<br \/>\n\tappended  to  grounds  of detention which  fact\t would\tha<br \/>\nve<br \/>\n\tinfluenced  the minds of the detaining authority one way<br \/>\nor<br \/>\n\tthe other on the question whether or not to make the  dete<br \/>\nn-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttion order, has not been placed before the detaining autho<br \/>\nr-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tity  and this non-placing and the consequent  non-consider<br \/>\na-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttion  of the said material likely to influence the minds<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tthe detaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfacti<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\tand  invalidates the detention order; (2) Leave\t apart,\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tnon-disclosure of the names of the witnesses on whose stat<br \/>\ne-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tments  the detaining authority placed reliance to  draw\t h<br \/>\nis<br \/>\n\tsubjective  satisfaction, claiming privilege  under  Secti<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\t9(2)  of  the Act, the grounds of  detention  otherwise\t a<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\tvague  or deficient and lacking details with regards to\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tnames  of the &#8216;associates&#8217;, for the disclosure of  which<br \/>\nno<br \/>\n\tprivilege could be claimed and hence it was not possible f<br \/>\nor<br \/>\n\tthe  detenu  in the absence of the names of  the  so  call<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\t&#8216;associates&#8217; to make an effective representation against t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\torder  of detention, the deprivation of which amounts to<br \/>\nan<br \/>\n\tinfringement of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t47<\/span><br \/>\n\tconstitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(5) of t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tConstitution  of  India; (3) Though the authority  has\tme<br \/>\nn-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttioned\tin more than one place the words  &#8216;your\t associate<br \/>\ns&#8217;<br \/>\n\twhich fact evidently should have influenced the mind of\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tdetaining authority in making this impugned order, the nam<br \/>\nes<br \/>\n\tof  the\t associates are nowhere disclosed which\t fact  wou<br \/>\nld<br \/>\n\tshow either the authority did not know as to who the assoc<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tates  were  or knowing the names of the associates,  he\t h<br \/>\nas<br \/>\n\trefrained from furnishing it to the detenu thereby disabli<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\tthe detenu to make his effective representation; and (4) T<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tmaterials placed before the detaining authority were  hard<br \/>\nly<br \/>\n\tsufficient  to draw any conclusion that the alleged  activ<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tties  of the detenu were detrimental to the &#8216; &#8216;\t maintenan<br \/>\nce<br \/>\n\tof public order..&#8217; &#8216;<br \/>\n\t    A  plethora of decisions were cited by Dr. Chitale.\t T<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tlearned\t counsel  for the respondent,  Mr.  Poti  vehement<br \/>\nly<br \/>\n\turged that the contentions urged by Dr. Chitale do not mer<br \/>\nit<br \/>\n\tconsideration  and  the detaining authority in\tthe  prese<br \/>\nnt<br \/>\n\tcase  is justified in passing this order of  detention.\t M<br \/>\nr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPoti  also cited number of decisions in support of his\tsu<br \/>\nb-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tmissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe shall now examine these contentions in seriatim.<br \/>\n\t    In\tthe  grounds  of  detention  five  cases  register<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tagainst the detenu in respect of which he had been  arrest<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tare  taken into consideration by the detaining authority<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n\tdraw  his subjective satisfaction that the detenu  was\tdi<br \/>\ns-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tturbing\t the  maintenance of public order. Out of  the\tfi<br \/>\nve<br \/>\n\tcases,\ttwo  cases mentioned under Serial Nos. 2 and  3\t a<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\tshown  as &#8216;P.T. &#8216;, that is pending trial. In other words<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\t17.9.88 i.e. the date of passing the order of detention, t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tdetaining  authority was of the opinion that the  trials<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tboth the cases were not over, though actually the detenu h<br \/>\nad<br \/>\n\tbeen  acquitted\t even on 26.8.1988 in the case\trelating<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n\tCrime No. 411 of 1982 and on 5.6.88 in the case relating<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n\tCrime No. 412\/82. Though the acquittal of both the cases a<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\tadmitted, the date of acquittal of Crime No. 411\/82 is giv<br \/>\nen<br \/>\n\tas  6.7.88 in the counter. In the Writ Petition\t two  grou<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tNos. 10 and 11 are with reference to these cases. They\tre<br \/>\nad<br \/>\n\tas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;10. The petitioner states that in the grounds of  detenti<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\tthe detaining authority has mentioned erroneously that\tCa<br \/>\nse<br \/>\n\tNo.  411  of  1982 is pending. In fact, the  said  Case\t w<br \/>\nas<br \/>\n\tdecided\t by  the Court on 26.8.1988 and the  petitioner\t w<br \/>\nas<br \/>\n\tacquitted  by the judgment dated 26.9.1988 delivered by\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tMetropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 7, Ahmedabad. When<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t48<\/span><br \/>\n\tgrounds\t of  detention were passed and\twhen  the  detenti<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\torder was passed in September, 1988, the detaining authori<br \/>\nty<br \/>\n\thas  taken  a non-existing fact into account that  the\tsa<br \/>\nid<br \/>\n\tcase  was  pending  trial. The detention  is  liable  to<br \/>\nbe<br \/>\n\tquashed on this ground also.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t  11.  Likewise, the grounds of detention  mention<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tthat Case No. 412 of 1982 is pending which is erroneous. T<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tsaid  case  was decided on 5.6.1988 and the  petitioner\t w<br \/>\nas<br \/>\n\tacquitted. The detention is liable to be quashed for  taki<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\tthis non-existing ground.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    These two grounds are answered by the detaining author<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tty  in paragraphs 12 and 13 of his affidavit in reply  swo<br \/>\nrn<br \/>\n\tin December 1988 which read thus:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;12. With reference to the averments made in para 10 of\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tpetition,  I  say  that the same are not  true&#8217;\t and  deni<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\thereby. I say that the petitioner was acquitted in Crime N<br \/>\no.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t411  of\t 1982 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court  no.<br \/>\n7,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad by an order dated 6.7.1988. However, it is submi<br \/>\nt-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tted  that  each\t activity of the petitioner  is\t a  separa<br \/>\nte<br \/>\n\tground\tof detention against the petitioner and,  therefor<br \/>\ne,<br \/>\n\teven  if  the petitioner is acquitted in the  said  Crimin<br \/>\nal<br \/>\n\tCase, the detention order is not vitiated on that count.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.  With reference to the averments made in para 11 of\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tpetitioner,  I\tsay that the same are not  true\t and  deni<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\thereby. I say that it is true that in the Criminal Case\t N<br \/>\no.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t412\/82\tthe petitioner was acquitted by the  Sessions  Cou<br \/>\nrt<br \/>\n\tNo. 20, Ahmedabad on 5.6.1984. However, as submitted  here<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tnabove, each activity of the petitioner is a separate grou<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tfor  detention of the petitioner, and, therefore,  the\tfa<br \/>\nct<br \/>\n\tthat  the petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Case no.\t 4<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">11<\/span><br \/>\n\t(Sec 412) of 1982 has no bearing on the detention order\t a<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tthe  detention order cannot be said to be vitiated  on\tth<br \/>\nat<br \/>\n\tcount.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    Though as per Section 6 of the Act the grounds of dete<br \/>\nn-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttion  are severable and the order of detention shall not<br \/>\nbe<br \/>\n\tdeemed to be invalid or inoperative if one ground or some<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tthe  grounds are invalid, the question that arises for\tco<br \/>\nn-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tsideration  is\twhether the detaining authority\t was  real<br \/>\nly<br \/>\n\taware of the acquittal of the detenu in those two cases<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t49<\/span><br \/>\n\tmentioned  under Serial Nos. 2 and 3 on the date of  passi<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\tthe  impugned  order. It is surprising\tthat  the  detaini<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\tauthority  who has specifically mentioned in the grounds<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tdetention  that the petitioner&#8217;s cases 2 and 3 were  pendi<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\ttrial on the date of passing the order of detention has co<br \/>\nme<br \/>\n\tforward with a sworn statement in reply, filed nearly  thr<br \/>\nee<br \/>\n\tmonths after signing the grounds of detention, that he\tkn<br \/>\new<br \/>\n\tthat  the accused had been acquitted in both the cases.\t T<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\taverments  made in paragraphs 12 and 13 in the affidavit<br \/>\nin<br \/>\n\treply  are  not clear at what point of\ttime  the  detaini<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\tauthority  came\t to know of the acquittal of the  detenu<br \/>\nin<br \/>\n\tboth  the  cases. At any rate, it is not his  specific\tca<br \/>\nse<br \/>\n\tthat the fact of acquittal was placed before him for consi<br \/>\nd-\n<\/p>\n<p>\teration at the time of passing the impugned order. But\twh<br \/>\nat<br \/>\n\tthe  authority repeatedly states is that &#8220;each\tactivity<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tthe  petitioner is a separate ground of detention&#8221; and\tad<br \/>\nds<br \/>\n\tfurther that &#8220;the fact that the petitioner was acquitted<br \/>\nin<br \/>\n\tCriminal  Case No. 411\/82 and 412\/82 is of no  consequence<br \/>\n&#8220;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe  are\t unable to comprehend the explanation given  by\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tdetaining  authority. It has been admited by Mr.  Poti\tth<br \/>\nat<br \/>\n\tthe  sponsoring\t authority  initiated  the  proceedings\t a<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tplaced\tall the materials before the detaining authority<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\t14.9.1988  by  which date the petitioner  had  already\tbe<br \/>\nen<br \/>\n\tacquitted in the above said two cases. Thus it is clear th<br \/>\nat<br \/>\n\teither the sponsoring authority was not aware of the acqui<br \/>\nt-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttals  of  those two cases or even having been aware  of\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tacquittals had not placed that material before the detaini<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\tauthority. So at the time of signing the order of detentio<br \/>\nn,<br \/>\n\tthe  authority should have been ignorant of the\t acquittal<br \/>\ns.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tEvidently  to  get over the plea of the detenu in  the\twr<br \/>\nit<br \/>\n\tpetition  in this regard for the first time in the  counte<br \/>\nr,<br \/>\n\tthe detaining authority is giving a varying statement as<br \/>\nif<br \/>\n\the knew about the acquittal of the detenu in both the case<br \/>\ns.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs ruled by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1645802\/\">Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of Ind<\/a><br \/>\nia<br \/>\n\t&amp;  Ors.,  [1985] Supp. (3) SCR 843 at page 848\t&#8220;even  if<br \/>\n a<br \/>\n\tcriminal prosecution fails and an order of detention is th<br \/>\nen<br \/>\n\tmade,  it would not invalidate the order of  detention&#8221;\t b<br \/>\ne-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tcause  as pointed out by this Court in Subharta v. State<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tWest  Bengal,  [1973] 3 SCC 250 &#8220;the purpose  of  preventi<br \/>\nve<br \/>\n\tdetention being different from conviction and punishment a<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tsubjective satisfaction being necessary in the former  whi<br \/>\nle<br \/>\n\tproof  beyond  reasonable  doubt  being\t necessary  in\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tlatter&#8221;,  the  order of detention would not  be\t bad  mere<br \/>\nly<br \/>\n\tbecause the criminal prosecution has failed. In the  prese<br \/>\nnt<br \/>\n\tcase, we would make stress, not on the question of acquitt<br \/>\nal<br \/>\n\tbut on the question of non-placing of the material and vit<br \/>\nal<br \/>\n\tfact  of  acquittal  which if had been\tplaced,\t would\tha<br \/>\nve<br \/>\n\tinfluenced  the minds of the detaining authority one way<br \/>\nor<br \/>\n\tthe  other.  Similar questions arose in\t Sk.  Nizamuddin<br \/>\nv.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tState  of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2353 in which the  dete<br \/>\nn-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttion order was passed under the provisions of Maintenance<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t50<\/span><br \/>\n\tInternal Security Act. In that case the ground of  detenti<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\twas  rounded  on a solitary incident of theft  of  alumini<br \/>\num<br \/>\n\twire  alleged to have been committed by the detenu  therei<br \/>\nn.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn respect of that incident a criminal case was filed  whi<br \/>\nch<br \/>\n\twas  ultimately\t dropped. It appeared on  &#8216;record  that\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\thistory sheet of the detenu which was before the  detainin<br \/>\ng.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tauthority  did not make any reference to the  criminal\tca<br \/>\nse<br \/>\n\tlaunched against the petitioner, much less to the fact\tth<br \/>\nat<br \/>\n\tthe prosecution had been dropped or the date when the  pet<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttioner was discharged from the case. In connection with th<br \/>\nis<br \/>\n\taspect this Court observed as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;We  should have thought that the fact that a criminal\tca<br \/>\nse<br \/>\n\tis pending against the person who is sought to be  proceed<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tagainst\t by way of preventive detention is a  very  materi<br \/>\nal<br \/>\n\tcircumstance  which ought to be placed before  the  Distri<br \/>\nct<br \/>\n\tMagistrate.  That circumstance might quite possible have<br \/>\nan<br \/>\n\timpact\ton his decision whether or not to make an  order<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tdetention.  It is not altogether unlikely that the  Distri<br \/>\nct<br \/>\n\tMagistrate  may in a given case take the view that  since<br \/>\n a<br \/>\n\tcriminal  case\tis pending against the person sought  to<br \/>\nbe<br \/>\n\tdetained,  no  order  of detention should be  made  for\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tpresent, but the criminal case should be allowed to run\t i<br \/>\nts<br \/>\n\tfull  course and only if it fails to result  in\t convictio<br \/>\nn,<br \/>\n\tthen preventive detention should be resorted to. It would<br \/>\nbe<br \/>\n\tmost  unfair  to  the person sought to be  detained  not<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n\tdisclose the pendency of a criminal case against him to\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tDistrict Magistrate.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    It is true that the detention order in that case was s<br \/>\net<br \/>\n\taside  on other grounds but the observation extracted  abo<br \/>\nve<br \/>\n\tis quite significant. The above observation was subsequent<br \/>\nly<br \/>\n\tapproved  by  this Court in Suresh Mahato  v.  The  Distri<br \/>\nct<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, Burdwan and Others, AIR 1975 SC 720 and in\tAs<br \/>\nha<br \/>\n\tDevi  v.  Additional Chief Secretary to\t the  Government<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tGujarat\t &amp; Ant., [1979] 2 SCR 215. In the latter case  (i.<br \/>\ne.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAsha Devi), it has been pointed out:<br \/>\n\t&#8221;   &#8230;&#8230;..  if material or vital facts which would  infl<br \/>\nu-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tence  the  minds of the detaining authority one way  of\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tother  on the question whether or not to make the  detenti<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\torder,\tare not placed before or are not considered  by\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tdetaining  authority it would vitiate its subjective  sati<br \/>\ns-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tfaction rendering the detention order illegal.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t51<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t    <a href=\"\/doc\/692477\/\">In\tSita  Ram Somani v. State of Rajasthan\tand  Other<\/a><br \/>\ns,<br \/>\n\t[1986] 2 SCC 86 certain documents which were claimed to ha<br \/>\nve<br \/>\n\tbeen  placed  before the Screening Committee  in  the  fir<br \/>\nst<br \/>\n\tinstance were not placed before the detaining authority\t a<br \/>\nnd<br \/>\n\tconsequently there was no occasion for the detaining autho<br \/>\nr-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tity  to\t apply\tits mind to the relevant  material.  In\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tcircumstances  of  that case, a principal point\t was  rais<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tbefore\tthis Court that there was no application of mind<br \/>\nby<br \/>\n\tthe detaining authority to those vital materials which\twe<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\twith-held.  This  Court,  while\t answering  that  contenti<br \/>\non<br \/>\n\tobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;No one can dispute the right of the detaining authority<br \/>\nto<br \/>\n\tmake  an  order of detention if on a  consideration  of\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\trelevant  material,  the  detaining authority  came  to\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tconclusion   that   it\t was   necessary   to\tdetain\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tappellant.&#8217;But\tthe question was whether the  detaining\t a<br \/>\nu-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tthority\t applied its mind to relevant considerations. If<br \/>\nit<br \/>\n\tdid not, the appellant would be entitled to be released.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    From  the above decisions it emerges that the  requisi<br \/>\nte<br \/>\n\tsubjective satisfaction. the formation of which is a  cond<br \/>\ni-\n<\/p>\n<p>\ttion  precedent\t to passing of a detention  order  will\t g<br \/>\net<br \/>\n\tvitiated if material or vital facts which would have beari<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\ton  the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the  detaini<br \/>\nng<br \/>\n\tauthority  one way or the other and influenced his mind\t a<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\teither withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority<br \/>\nor<br \/>\n\tignored and not considered by the detaining authority befo<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\tissuing the detention order. It is clear to our mind that<br \/>\nin<br \/>\n\tthe  case on hand, at the time when the detaining  authori<br \/>\nty<br \/>\n\tpassed\tthe  detention order this vital\t fact,\tnamely,\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tacquittals  of the detenu in case Nos. mentioned  at  seri<br \/>\nal<br \/>\n\tNos. 2 and 3 have not been brought to his notice and on\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tother  hand they were withheld and the\tdetaining  authori<br \/>\nty<br \/>\n\twas  given to understand that the trial of those cases\twe<br \/>\nre<br \/>\n\tpending.  The explanation given by the learned\tcounsel\t f<br \/>\nor<br \/>\n\tthe  respondents, as we have already pointed out, cannot<br \/>\nbe<br \/>\n\taccepted for a moment. The result is that the nonplacing<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n\tthe  material  fact&#8211;namely the acquittal of detenu  in\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tabove-said  two cases resulting in non-application of  min<br \/>\nds<br \/>\n\tof the detaining authority to the said fact has vitiated t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\trequisite  subjective satisfaction, rendering  the  impugn<br \/>\ned<br \/>\n\tdetention order invalid.<br \/>\n\t    Since we have now come to the conclusion that the  ord<br \/>\ner<br \/>\n\tof detention is to be set aside on the first ground  itsel<br \/>\nf,<br \/>\n\twe  are\t not inclined to traverse on other grounds.  In\t t<br \/>\nhe<br \/>\n\tpremises,  the\timpugned  order is set aside  and  the\tWr<br \/>\nit<br \/>\n\tPetition  is  allowed. We direct that the detenu be  set<br \/>\nat<br \/>\n\tliberty forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tP.S.S.\t\t\t\t   Petition allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t52<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1282, 1989 SCR (2) 43 Author: S Pandian Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) PETITIONER: DHARAMDAS SHAMLAL AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: POLICE COMMISSIONER &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/03\/1989 BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) RAY, B.C. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-03T20:58:38+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T20:58:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989\"},\"wordCount\":3053,\"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\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989\",\"name\":\"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-03T20:58:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-03T20:58:38+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989","datePublished":"1989-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T20:58:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989"},"wordCount":3053,"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\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989","name":"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-03T20:58:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamdas-shamlal-agarwal-vs-police-commissioner-anr-on-16-march-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner &amp; Anr on 16 March, 1989"}]},{"@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\/147721","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=147721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}