{"id":164042,"date":"1969-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969"},"modified":"2018-02-14T07:39:13","modified_gmt":"2018-02-14T02:09:13","slug":"v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969","title":{"rendered":"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra … on 7 March, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra … on 7 March, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 66, \t\t 1969 SCR (3) 875<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nV.   P. GOPALA RAO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/03\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR   66\t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 875\n 1969 SCC  (1) 704\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1974 SC  37\t (19)\n\n\nACT:\nFactories Act (63 of 1948), ss. 2(k)(i), 2(1)-'manufacturing\nprocess and 'workers'--Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellant\t who  was  the\tmanager-cum-occupier  of   a\ncompany's   establishment  at  Eluru  was   prosecuted\t for\noperating a factory without obtaining a licence as  required\nby  the Factories Act, 1948 and the Andhra  Pradesh  Factory\nRules,\t1950.  The company had its main factory\t at  Bombay.\nIn  the company's Eluru premises, sun-cured  tobacco  leaves\npurchased  from\t local\tproducers  were\t subjected  to\t the\nprocesses of moistening, stripping and packing.\t The tobacco\nleaves were moistened so that they could be handled  without\nbreakage.   The\t moistening was done for 10 to\t14  days  by\nsprinkling  water on stacks of tobacco and shifting the\t top\nand  bottom  layers.   The stalks  were\t stripped  from\t the\nleaves.\t The Thukku (wholly spoilt) and Pagu (partly spoilt)\nleaves\twere separated.\t The leaves were tied up in  bundles\nand  stored  in the premises.  From time to time  they\twere\npacked\tin gunny bags and exported to the company's  factory\nat Bombay where they were used for manufacturing cigarettes.\nThe  appellant's  defence was that it was not  necessary  to\nobtain\t the   licence,\t or  permission\t  because   (i)\t  no\nmanufacturing  process was carried on in, the premises;\t and\n(ii) the persons who worked in the premises were not workers\nas  they  were\temployed by  independent  contractors.\t The\nMagistrate  accepted the defence contentions, and  acquitted\nthe appellant.\tBut the High Court convicted the  appellant.\nDismissing the appeal, this, Court :-\nHELD : The company's premises at Eluru were a factory.\n(i)Manufacturing processes as defined in s. 2 (k) (i) of the\nFactories  Act\twere carried on in the premises.   Under  s.\n2(k)  (i)  manufacturing  process  means  any  process\t for\n'making,   altering,   repairing   ornamenting,\t  finishing,\npacking, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing\nor  otherwise treating or adapting any article or  substance\nwith  a\t view  to  its use,  sale,  transport,\tdelivery  or\ndisposal.\" The definition is widely worded.  The  moistening\nwas  an adaptation of the tobacco leaves.  The 'stalks\twere\nstripped  by  breaking them up.\t The leaves were  packed  by\nbundling  them\tup and putting them into  gunny\t bags.\t The\nbreaking up, the adaptation, and the packing of the  tobacco\nleaves\twere  done with a view to their use  and  transport.\nAll  these,  processes are manufacturing process  within  s.\n2(k)(i). [878 B]\nState  of Kerr v. V. M. Patel, [1961] 1 L.L.J. 549, Sara  C.\nS.  Andre v. The State, I.L.R. [1965] 15 Rae. 117,  referred\nto.\n(ii)The persons employed were workers as defined in s. 2 (1)\nof the.\t Factories Act.\t More than 20 persons worked in\t the\npremises regularly every day.  The was the positive evidence\nof P.W.s that the work of stripping stalks from the  tobacco\nleaves was done under the supervision,\"\n876\nof  the management.  There was no evidence to show that\t the\nother  work  in\t the  premises\twas  not  done\tunder\tlike\nsupervision.   The prosecution adduced prima facie  evidence\nshowing that the relationship of master and servant  existed\nbetween\t the workmen and the management.  The appellant\t did\nnot   produce  any  rebutting  evidence.   In\tthe   cross-\nexamination  of\t P.W. 1, it was suggested that\tthe  workmen\nwere  employed by independent contracts, but the  suggestion\nwas not borne out by the materials on the record. [881 BEE]\nSri Chintaman Rao & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,  [1958]\nS.C.R.\t1340,  1349, Short v. J. W. Henderson  Ltd.,  [1946]\nS.C. (H.L.) 24, 33-34, Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. State\nof  Saurashtra,<\/a> [1957] S.C.R. 152, State of Kerala v. V.  M.\nPatel  L1961] 1 L.L.J. 549, Shankar Balaji Wage\t v.State  of\nMaharashtra, [1962] 1 Lab.  L.J. 119, Bridhichand Sharma  v.\nFirst Civil Judge, Nagpur,<\/a> [1961] 2 Lab.  L.J. 86, and D. C.\nDewan  Mohinder Saheb & Sons v. United Bidi Workers'  Union,\n[1964] 2 L.L.J. 638, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 271 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJuly  3, 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No. 883 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t Setalvad, J. M. Mukhi and G. S. Rama Rao,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat,  J.  M\/s.  Golden Tobacco Co., Private  Ltd.\thave
\ntheir  head  office and main factory at\t Bombay\t where\tthey
\nmanufacture cigarettes.\t The appellant is the  occupier-cum-
\nmanager of the company’s premises at Eluru in Andhra Pradesh
\nwhere  sun-cured  country tobacco purchased from  the  local
\nproducers  is  collected,  processed  and  stored  and\tthen
\ntransported  to\t the  company’s\t factory  at  Bombay.\t The
\nprosecution  case  is  that the\t aforesaid  premises  are  a
\nfactory.   The\tappellant  was\tprosecuted  and\t tried\t for
\ncontravention of 16(1) of the Factories Act 1948 and rules 3
\nand  5(3)  of  the Andhra Pradesh  Factory  Rules  1950\t for
\noperating the factory without obtaining a licence from\tthe
\nChief  Inspector  of Factories and his\tprevious  permission
\napproving  the\tplans  of  the\tbuilding.   The\t appellant’s
\ndefence was that the premises did not constitute a  factory
\nand  it was not necessary for him to obtain the\t licence  or
\npermission.   The  2nd\tAddl.\tMunsif\tMagistrate,   Eluru,
\naccepted the defence contention and acquitted the appellant.
\nAccording  to  the  Magistrate\tthe  prosecution  failed  to
\nestablish  that\t the premises were a factory  ,or  that\t any
\nmanufacturing process was carried on or that any worker was
\nworking therein.  The Public Prosecutor filed an
\n87 7
\nappeal\tagainst\t the order.  The Andhra Pradesh\t High  Court
\nallowed the appeal, convicted the appellant under s. 92\t for
\ncontravention of s. 6(1) and rules 3 and 5(3) and  sentenced
\nhim  to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under each count.\tThe  present
\nappeal\thas  been  filed by the\t appellant  after  obtaining
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  in  this\t appeal\t is  whether  the  company’s
\npremises  at  Eluru  constitute\t a  factory.   Section\t2(m)
\ndefines\t factory. Under s. 2(m) factory means  any  premises
\nincluding  the\tprecincts thereof “Whereon  twenty  or\tmore
\nworkers\t are  working, or I were working on any day  of\t the
\npreceding  twelve  months,  and\t in  any  part\tof  which  a
\nmanufacturing  process is being carried on with the  aid  of
\npower,\tor is ordinarily so carried on.” It is not  disputed
\nthat more than 20 persons were working on the premises.\t The
\npoints\tin  issue  are\t: (1)  whether\tthose  persons\twere
\n“workers”;  and\t (2) whether any manufacturing\tprocess\t was
\nbeing carried on therein.\n<\/p>\n
For the purpose of proving the prosecution case the  respon-
\ndent relied upon the following materials : (1) the testimony
\nof  PW 1 A. Subbarao, the Assistant Inspector of  Factories;
\n(2) his report of inspection of the premises on December 20,
\n1965; (Ex.  P1); (3) the show cause notice Ex.\tP3, and\t the
\nappellant’s reply dated January 15, 1966; (Ex.\tP5); (4) the
\ntestimony  of  PW 2 B. P. Chandrareddi, the  Provident\tFund
\nInspector; and (5) Six returns (Exs.  P7 to P12),  submitted
\nby  the Eluru establishment, to the Regional Provident\tFund
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
The materials on the record show that in the company’s Eluru
\npremises,  sun-cured tobacco leaves bought from the  growers
\nwere subjected to the processes of moistening, stripping and
\npacking.  The tobacco leaves were moistened so that they may
\nbe handled without breakage.  The moistening was done for 10
\nto  14\tdays by sprinkling water on stacks  of\ttobacco\t and
\nshifting  the  top  and\t bottom\t layers.   The\tstalks\twere
\nstripped  from the leaves.  The Thukku (wholly\tspoilt)\t and
\nPagu (partly spoilt) leaves were separated.  The leaves were
\ntied up in bundles and stored in the premises.\tFrom time to
\ntime  they  were packed in gunny bags and  exported  to\t the
\ncompany’s  factory  ;it\t Bombay where  they  were  used\t for
\nmanufacturing  cigarettes.  All these processes are  carried
\non  in the tobacco industry.  In  Encyclopaedia\t Britannica,
\n1965  edition, Vol. 22, page 265 under the  heading”‘tobacco
\nindustry”  it is stated : “After curing, only  during  humid perio
\nds  or in special moistening cellars can the  leaf  be
\nhandled without breakage.  It is removed from the stalks. or
\nsticks\tand graded according to colour, size, soundness\t and
\nother  recognizable  elements of quality.  It is  tied\tinto
\nhands, or bundles, of 15 to 30
\n878<\/span>
\nleaves\tby means of a tobacco leaf Wrapped  securely  around
\nthe stem end of the leaves.  After grading the leaf is ready
\nfor the market.”\n<\/p>\n
In  our opinion, manufacturing processes as defined in s.  2\n<\/p>\n
(k) (i) were carried on in the premises.  Under s. 2 (k) (i)
\nmanufacturing\tprocess\t means\tany  process  for   “making,
\naltering,   ,repairing,\t ornamenting,  finishing,   packing,
\noiling,\t washing,  cleaning,  breaking\tup,  demolishing  or
\notherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with
\na  view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or  disposal.”
\nThe  definition\t is widely worded.  The\t moistening  was  an
\nadaptation of the tobacco leaves.  The stalks were  stripped
\nby  breaking  them up.\tThe leaves were packed\tby  bundling
\nthem up and putting them into gunny bags.  The breaking\t up,
\nthe  adaptation and the packing of the tobacco\tleaves\twere
\ndone  with  a view to their use and  transport.\t  All  these
\nprocesses are manufacturing processes within s. 2 (k) (i).
\nThe reported cases are of little help in deciding whether  a
\nparticular process is a manufacturing process as defined  in
\ns. 2 (k)  (i).\t In  State of Kerala v. V. M.  Patel(1)\t the
\nCourt held that the work  of garbling pepper  by  winnowing,
\ncleaning, washing and\t drying\t it on concrete floor and  a
\nsimilar process of curing ginger dipped in lime and laid out
\nto  dry in a warehouse were manufacturing  processes.\tWith
\nregard\tto  the decision in Col. Sardar C. S. Angre  v.\t The
\nState (2 ) it is sufficient to say that the work of  sorting
\nand  drying  potatoes and packing and re-packing  them\tinto
\nbags was held not to be a manufacturing process as the\twork
\nwas  done. for the purpose of cold storage only and not\t for
\nany of the purposes mentioned in s. 2 (k) (i).
\nThe  next question is whether 20 or. more persons worked  on
\nthe  premises.\t On behalf of the appellant it\tis  admitted
\nthat more than 20 persons work there, but his contention  is
\nthat  they are employed by independent contractors  and\t are
\nnot  workers as defined in s. 2(1).  Section 2(1)  reads  :-
\n“worker”  means a person employed, directly or\tthrough\t any
\nagency,\t whether  for  wages or not,  in  any  manufacturing
\nprocess,  or  in  cleaning  any part  of  the  machinery  or
\npremises  used for a manufacturing process, or in any  other
\nkind   of  work\t incidental  to,  or  connected\t with,\t the
\nmanufacturing  process, or the subject of the  manufacturing
\nprocess;”\n<\/p>\n
In  Sri Chintaman Rao & anr. v. State of  Madhya  Pradesh($)
\nthe  Court gave a restricted meaning to the words  “directly
\nor
\n(1) [1961] 1 L.L.J. 549.  (2) I.L.R. [1965] 15 Rai. 117.
\n(3) [1958] S.C.R. 1340, 1349,
\n879<\/span>
\nthrough\t an agency” in s. 2(1) and held that a worker was  a
\nperson\temployed by the management and that there must be  a
\ncontract of service and a relationship of master and servant
\nbetween them.  On the facts of that case the Court held that
\ncertain Sattedars were independent contractors and that they
\nand  the coolies engaged by them for rolling bidis were\t not
\n“workers”.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ta  question  of\t fact  in  each\t case  whether\t the
\nrelationship  of  master  and  servant\texists\tbetween\t the
\nmanagement   and   the\t workmen.    The   relationship\t  is
\ncharacterized by contract of service between them.  In Short
\nv. J. W. Henderson Limited(1) Lord Thankerton  recapitulated
\nfour  indicia  of  a  contract of  service.   As  stated  in
\nHalsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed. vol. 25, p.\t  448,\tArt.\n<\/p>\n
872<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “The  following  have been stated\t to  be\t the
\n\t      indicia of a contract of service, namely,\t (1)
\n\t      the   master’s  power  of\t selection  of\t his
\n\t      servant;\t(2)  the payment of wages  or  other
\n\t      remuneration;   (3)  the\tmaster’s  right\t  to
\n\t      control the method of doing the work; and\t (4)
\n\t      the master’s right of suspension or  dismissal
\n\t      (Short v. J. and W. Henderson Ltd. (1946 S. C.
\n\t      (H.  L.) 24, at pp. 33, 34, Could v.  Minister
\n\t      of National Insurance, [1951] 1.\t  K. B.\t 731
\n\t      at  P.  734; [1951] All E. R. 368 at  p.371;
\n\t      Pauley  V. Kenaldo Ltd. [1953] 1 All.   E.  R.
\n\t      226,  C. A., at p. 228); but modem  industrial
\n\t      conditions have so affected the freedom of the
\n\t      master that it may be necessary at some future
\n\t      time to restate the indicia; e.g., heads\t(1),
\n\t      (2)  and (4) and probably also head  (3),\t are
\n\t      affected by statutory provisions (Short v.  J.
\n\t      W. Henderson Ltd., supra at p. 34.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. State  of  Saurashtra<\/a>(2)
\nthe Court held that the critical test of the relationship of
\nmaster and servant is the master’s right of  superintendence
\nand control of the method of doing the work. , Applying this
\ntest  workmen  rolling bidis were found to be  employees  of
\nindependent  contractors and not workers within s. 2(1),  in
\nState of Kerala v. Patel V. M.(3) and Shankar Balaji Waje v.
\nState of Maharashtra<\/a>(4) while they were found to be  workers
\nwithin\tS. 2(1) in Bridhichand Sharma v. First Civil  Judge,
\nNagpur<\/a>(5)  and workmen within the meaning of s. 2(s) of\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act in D. C. Dewan Mohinder Saheb & Sons
\nv. United Bidi Workers’ Union(6).\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1946] S.C. (H.L.) 24, 33-34.(2) [1957] S.C.R. 152.
\n(3) [1961] 1 L.L.J. 549. (4) [1962] 1 Lab. L.J. 119.
\n(5) [1961] 2 Lab. L.J 86.     (6) [1964] 2 Lab. L. J. 638.\n<\/p>\n
880<\/span><\/p>\n
There  is  no  abstract a priori test of  the  work  control
\nrequired  for establishing a contract of service.  In  Short
\nv.  J.\tN. Henderson Ltd.(1) Lord  Thankerton  quoting\tLord
\nJustice\t Clerics  dicta\t in an earlier case  said  that\t the
\nprincipal requirement of a contract of service was the right
\nof  the\t master “in some reasonable sense”  to\tcontrol\t the
\nmethod\tof doing the work.  As pointed out in  Bridhichand’s
\ncase(2)\t the  fact  that the workmen have  to  work  in\t the
\nfactory\t imply\ta  certain  amount  of\tsupervision  by\t the
\nmanagement.   The Court held that the nature and  extent  of
\ncontrol\t varied\t in different industries and that  when\t the
\noperation  was\tof  a simple nature  the  control  could  be
\nexercised  at the end of the day by the method of  rejecting
\nthe bidis which did not come up to the proper standard.
\nIn  the present case, the prosecution relied on (1) Ex.\t  P7
\nto P12, (2) the testimony of PWI and (3) Exs.  P1 and P5  to
\nprove  that the persons working at the company’s  premises’
\nat  Eluru were employed by the management.  Exhibits  P7  to
\nP12 are monthly returns for July to December 1966  submitted
\nby  the\t company’s  Eluru  establishment  to  the   Regional
\nProvident  Fund\t Commissioner under paragraph 38(2)  of\t the
\nEmployees   Provident  Fund  Scheme,  1952.    The   returns
\ndisclosed the number and names of about 200 persons employed
\nevery  month  and  the recoveries from\tthe  wages  and\t the
\ncompany’s contributions on account of the provident fund  of
\neach employee.\tAt the top of each return it was stated that
\nthe employees were contract employees.\tSection 2(f) of\t the
\nEmployees  Provident  Fund Act 1952  defines  “employee”  as
\nincluding  any person employed by or through  a\t contractor.
\nParagraphs 20 and 30 of the Employees Provident Fund  Scheme
\n1952   shows   that  the  employer  is\t required   to\t pay
\ncontributions  in respect of all such employees.   Paragraph
\n26  of\tthe Scheme shows that employees\t who  have  actually
\nworked for not less than 12 months or less in the factory or
\nestablishment is entitled and required to become a member of
\nthe  Fund.   In\t view of the fact that the  returns  are  in
\nrespect of all persons employed in the establishment either,
\nby the management or by or through a contractor they are not
\nof  much  help in determining whether  the  employees-\twere
\nemployed   by  the  management\tor  were  employed  by\t the
\ncontractors.   They only show that in the months of July  to
\nDecember   1966,  200  workers\thad  been  working  in\t the
\nestablishment for not less than 240 days.\n<\/p>\n
The  testimony of PWI, A. Subbarao, the Assistant  Inspector
\nof  Factories shows that on December 20, 1965 he  found\t 120
\nworkmen working in the premises.  He is corroborated by\t his
\ninspection  report  Ex.\t  PI.  In his  reply  Ex.   P-5\t the
\nappellant  did\tnot dispute the fact that 120  persons\twere
\nworking there.\tPW1
\n(1) (1946] S.C. (H.L.) 24.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (19611 2 L.L.J. 86.\n<\/p>\n
881<\/span><\/p>\n
found  workmen doing the work of stripping stalks  from\t the
\ntobacco leaves.\t The work of stripping was being done  under
\nthe  supervision  of the management’s clerk  J.\t Satyanarain
\nRao.  At the end of the day the clerk collected the stripped
\ntobacco\t and  noted the quantity of work done  in  the\twork
\nsheet allotted to the worker.  PW1 found some workmen  doing
\nother work.\n<\/p>\n
The  onus of proving that the workmen were employed  by\t the
\nmanagement  was\t on  the prosecution.\tWe  think  that\t the
\nprosecution  has discharged this onus.\tIt is  not  disputed
\nthat  more than 20 persons worked in the premises  regularly
\nevery  day.  There is the positive evidence of PW1 that\t the
\nwork  of stripping stalks from the tobacco leaves  was\tdone
\nunder  the  supervision\t of the\t management.   There  is  no
\nevidence to show that the other work in the premises was not
\ndone  under the like supervision.  The\tprosecution  adduced
\nprima facie evidence showing that the relationship of master
\nand servant existed between the work-men and the management.
\nThe  appellant, did not produce any rebutting evidence.\t  In
\nthe  cross-examination\tof PW1, it was\tsuggested  that\t the
\nworkmen\t were employed by independent contractors,  but\t the
\nsuggestion is not borne out by the materials on the  record.
\nWe hold that the persons employed are workers as defined  in
\ns.  2(1).   The High Court rightly held that  the  company’s
\npremises at Eluru were a factory.\n<\/p>\n
In  the Courts below the appellant produced (1) am order  of
\nthe Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras and (2) a letter of
\nSuperintendent\tof  Central Excise  I.D.O.  Vijayavada.\t Mr.
\nSetalvad  conceded,  and in our opinion rightly\t that  these
\ndocuments  throw  no light on the question whether  in\t1966
\npremises were a factory within the meaningof  s.  2  (m).
\nWe,therefore say nothing more with regard tothese documents
\n     In the result, the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P. Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
882<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra … on 7 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 66, 1969 SCR (3) 875 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: V. P. GOPALA RAO Vs. RESPONDENT: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/03\/1969 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SIKRI, S.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-164042","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nV. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra ... on 7 March, 1969 - 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\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra ... on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-14T02:09:13+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra … on 7 March, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-14T02:09:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2326,\"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\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969\",\"name\":\"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra ... on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-14T02:09:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra … on 7 March, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra ... on 7 March, 1969 - 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\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra ... on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-14T02:09:13+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra … on 7 March, 1969","datePublished":"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-14T02:09:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969"},"wordCount":2326,"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\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969","name":"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra ... on 7 March, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-14T02:09:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-p-gopala-rao-vs-public-prosecutor-andhra-on-7-march-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor, Andhra … on 7 March, 1969"}]},{"@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\/164042","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=164042"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164042\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}