{"id":175193,"date":"1979-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979"},"modified":"2016-08-27T15:21:43","modified_gmt":"2016-08-27T09:51:43","slug":"municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala &#8230; on 23 March, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala &#8230; on 23 March, 1979<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1544, \t\t  1979 SCR  (3) 625<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nR. SAHARI, GENL. MANAGER, DAURALA SUGAR MILLS, DAURALA &amp; ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR 1544\t\t  1979 SCR  (3) 625\n 1979 SCC  (2) 387\n\n\nACT:\n     Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-Sections 20 &amp; 20-A-\nScope of\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Toffees sold  by a\t vender to  a Food  Inspector having\nbeen found  to\tbe  adulterated,  prosecution  was  launched\nagainst him.  The vendor  produced a  warranty in  the Trial\nCourt  as  a  result  of  which\t he  was  acquitted  by\t the\nMagistrate. The\t Magistrate however  directed notice  to the\nrespondents under  section  20-A  for  being  impleaded\t and\nprosecuted on the grounds that the articles manufactured and\ndistributed the\t them were  adulterated.  On  revision,\t the\nSession Judge  dismissed the same but on further revision to\nthe High  Court, it  allowed the  revision and set aside the\norder of the Magistrate,\n     In the  other two\tCriminal Appeals  Nos. 166  &amp; 167 of\n1972, the appellants were impleaded under section 20A before\nthe acquittal  of the  last seller and that order was upheld\nby the\tHigh Court.  On the  question whether the magistrate\nwas entitled  to implead  the distributors  or manufacturers\nunder s.  20A even after acquitting the seller on the ground\nthat he was protected by a warranty.\n     Dismissing the appeals\n^\n     HELD  :The\t  opening  lines   of  section\t20A  clearly\ncontemplate   a\t   contingency\t where\t the   discretionary\njurisdiction under this Act can be exercised only during the\ntrial of any offence, i.e. the stage at which the magistrate\ncan exercise  his jurisdiction\tunder this  section must  be\nbefore the  trial has  concluded and  ended in\tacquittal or\nconviction. A combined reading of section 20A and 20 is that\nwhere a\t distributor or\t manufacturer or any other person is\nimpleaded in  the course of a trial, the obligation to get a\nfresh sanction\tfor such  a person is dispensed with and the\nsanction obtained  for the  last seller\t in the\t trial, will\nensure for  the benefit\t of the\t prosecution  of  the  other\nperson impleaded.  Therefore protection of section 20 is not\navailable if  the parties  concerned are impleaded after the\ntrial was over. The special statutory concession is given to\nthe prosecution\t only if  the conditions mentioned in s. 20A\nare fulfilled and not otherwise. [627B-C, F-H]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/1149388\/\">V. N.  Kamdar v. Municipal Corpration of Delhi<\/a> [1974] 1\nS.C.R. 157 followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal Nos.<br \/>\n152-153 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From the  Judgment and  Order dated 28-10-1970 of Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 426\/68 and 5\/70.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t    AND<br \/>\n\t       CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 166-167 OF 1972<br \/>\n     From the  Judgment and  Order dated 28-10-1970 of Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 72-73\/68.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">626<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Soli J.  Sorabji, Addl.  Sol. Genl.  of  India,  B.  P.<br \/>\nMaheshwari and\tSuresh Sethi  for the  Appellant in  Crl. A.<br \/>\nNos. 152-153\/72.\n<\/p>\n<p>     V. M. Tarkunde, S. C. Malik and B. R. Agarwala for RR 4<br \/>\nin Crl. A. 152\/72.\n<\/p>\n<p>     H. K. Puri for RR. 3 in Crl. A.153\/72<br \/>\n     Mrs. Urmila Sirur for RR. 3 in Crl. A. No. 152\/72.<br \/>\n     B. K.  Jaggi for  the Appellant  in Crl.  A.  No.\t166-<br \/>\n167\/72.\n<\/p>\n<p>     H. S.  Marwah and\tM. N. Shroff for RR. in Crl. A. Nos.<br \/>\n166-167\/72.\n<\/p>\n<p>     B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for the Intervener.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     FAZAL ALI, J. These appeals by certificate arise out of<br \/>\na common  Judgment delivered  by the High Court of Delhi and<br \/>\nwill be\t disposed of  by us by one judgment. In Appeals Nos.<br \/>\n152-153\/72,  one   Gian\t Singh\tsold  toffees  to  the\tFood<br \/>\nInspector and as the toffees were found to be adulterated, a<br \/>\nprosecution was\t launched against  him under  S. 7\/16 of the<br \/>\nPrevention of  Food Adulteration  Act. Gian  Singh, however,<br \/>\nproduced in  course of\tthe trial  a warranty  given by\t the<br \/>\ndistributors and  manufacturers as  a result  of  which\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate  acquitted\taccused\t Gian  Singh.  After  having<br \/>\nacquitted Gian\tSingh, the Magistrate issued notice under S.<br \/>\n20A  against   the  Respondents\t  for  being  impleaded\t and<br \/>\nprosecution on\tthe ground that the articles manufactured by<br \/>\nthe distributors  were adulterated.  The respondents went up<br \/>\nin revision  to the  Sessions Judge which was dismissed. But<br \/>\non further revision to the High Court the High Court allowed<br \/>\nthe petition  and set  aside the  order\t of  the  Magistrate<br \/>\nimpleading the\trespondents. In\t the other  two appeals i.e.<br \/>\nCrl. Appeals  Nos. 166\tand 167\/1972, the manufacturers were<br \/>\nimpleaded under\t S. 20A\t before the  acquittal of  the\tlast<br \/>\nseller and  that order\twas upheld  by the  High Court\tand,<br \/>\nhence these appeals before us by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  common   question   of   law\t that\tarises\t for<br \/>\nconsideration in  all these  appeals is:  whether or not the<br \/>\nMagistrate  is\tentitled  to  implead  the  distributors  or<br \/>\nmanufacturers under  S. 20A  even after\t acquitting the last<br \/>\nseller on  the ground that he is protected by a warranty. In<br \/>\nother words,  the question  for decision  in  these  appeals<br \/>\nturns upon  the interpretation\tof S.  20A and\tS. 20 of the<br \/>\nPrevention of Food Adulteration Act. S. 20A runs thus:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Where at any time during the trial of any offence<br \/>\n     under this\t Act, alleged  to have been committed by any<br \/>\n     person, not<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">627<\/span><br \/>\n     being the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any of<br \/>\n     food, the\tCourt is  satisfied, on the evidence adduced<br \/>\n     before  it,  that\tsuch  manufacturer,  distributor  or<br \/>\n     dealer is\talso concerned\twith the  offence, then\t the<br \/>\n     Court may,\t notwithstanding anything  contained in sub-<br \/>\n     section(1) of S. 351 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,<br \/>\n     1898, or  in Section 20 proceed against him as though a<br \/>\n     prosecution had  been instituted  against him  under S.<br \/>\n     20&#8243;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  opening   lines  of   S.  20A   clearly  contemplate  a<br \/>\ncontingency where  the discretionary jurisdiction under this<br \/>\nAct can\t be exercised  only during the trial of any offence,<br \/>\nthat is\t to say,  the stage  at\t which\tthe  Magistrate\t can<br \/>\nexercise his  discretion under\tthis Section  must be before<br \/>\nthe  trial   has  concluded   and  ended   in  acquittal  or<br \/>\nconviction. S. 20 which precedes S. 20-A runs thus:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;S. 20  (1) No  prosecution for  an offence  under<br \/>\n     this Act,\tnot being  an offence under S. 14 or section<br \/>\n     14A, shall\t be instituted\texcept by  or  with  written<br \/>\n     consent  of   the\tCentral\t  Government  or  the  State<br \/>\n     Government or  a person  authorised in  this behalf, by<br \/>\n     general or\t special order, by the Central Government or<br \/>\n     the State Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  Provided that\t a prosecution\tfor an offence under<br \/>\n     this Act  may be  instituted by a purchaser referred to<br \/>\n     in section\t 12, if\t he produces  in court a copy of the<br \/>\n     report of the public analyst alongwith the complaint.<br \/>\n\t  (2) No  court inferior  to that  of a Metropolitan<br \/>\n     Magistrate or  a Judicial Magistrate of the first class<br \/>\n     shall try any offence under this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code<br \/>\n     of Criminal  Procedure,  1973,  an\t offence  punishable<br \/>\n     under  subsection\t (IAA)\tof   Section  16   shall  be<br \/>\n     cognizable and non-bailable&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A combined  reading of\tS. 20A\tand S.\t20 is  that where  a<br \/>\ndistributor or manufacturer or any other person is impleaded<br \/>\nin the\tcourse of  a trial,  the obligation  to get  a fresh<br \/>\nsanction for  such person is dispensed with and the sanction<br \/>\nobtained for  the last\tseller in  the trial will ensure for<br \/>\nthe benefit of the prosecution of the other person impleaded<br \/>\nalso and  no further  sanction is  necessary. It is manifest<br \/>\nthat this  special statutory  concession  is  given  to\t the<br \/>\nprosecution only  if the  conditions mentioned in S. 20A are<br \/>\nfulfilled and  not otherwise. In other words, the protection<br \/>\nof S.  20 is not available to the prosecution if the parties<br \/>\nconcerned are  impleaded after\tthe trial is over. In such a<br \/>\ncase, a\t fresh trial  will have\t to be\tstarted by obtaining<br \/>\nsanction under<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">628<\/span><br \/>\nS. 20.\tThis matter  is no longer res integra as it has been<br \/>\nfully considered  by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1149388\/\">V. N. Kamdar v. Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation, Delhi<\/a>(1) where this Court observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;&#8230;.In order\t that the  manufacturer, distributor<br \/>\n     or\t dealer\t may  be  impleaded  under  S.\t20A,  it  is<br \/>\n     necessary that  there should  be a trial for an offence<br \/>\n     committed under  the Act  by  a  person  and  that\t the<br \/>\n     manufacturer, distributor\tor dealer  must be concerned<br \/>\n     in the offence. When once the manufacturer, distributor<br \/>\n     or dealer\tis impleaded, the trial proceeds as if he is<br \/>\n     also an  accused in the case. That is made clear by the<br \/>\n     closing words  of the section. As already indicated, no<br \/>\n     prosecution  for  an  offence  under  the\tAct  can  be<br \/>\n     instituted by  a Food  Inspector without  the  sanction<br \/>\n     specified in  S. 20&#8230;. The real purpose of enacting S.<br \/>\n     20A is  to\t avoid.\t as  far  as  possible,\t conflicting<br \/>\n     findings. If, in the prosecution instituted against the<br \/>\n     vendor, it\t is found  that\t the  vendor  has  sold\t the<br \/>\n     article of\t food in  the same  state as he purchased it<br \/>\n     and that while it was in his possession it was properly<br \/>\n     stored, and  the vendor  is acquitted,  it\t would\tlook<br \/>\n     rather ridiculous\tif in  the prosecution\tagainst\t the<br \/>\n     manufacturer, distributor or dealer, it is found on the<br \/>\n     evidence that  he did  not give  a false  warranty, but<br \/>\n     that the  article was  not stored properly while it was<br \/>\n     in the possession of the vendor or that he did not sell<br \/>\n     the article  in the same stage as he purchased it. This<br \/>\n     being so, the object of the legislature in enacting the<br \/>\n     section will  be frustrated  if a\tMagistrate  were  to<br \/>\n     exercise  his   discretion\t improperly  by\t failing  to<br \/>\n     implead the  manufacturer, distributor  or dealer under<br \/>\n     S. 20A in a case where he should be impleaded. But that<br \/>\n     is no  reason  to\thold  that  a  separate\t prosecution<br \/>\n     against the  manufacturer, distributor  or dealer would<br \/>\n     be barred,\t if he\tis not\timpleaded under\t s. 20A, and<br \/>\n     tried along  with the  person who\tis alleged  to\thave<br \/>\n     committed an  offence under  the Act. In order to avoid<br \/>\n     multiplicity of  proceedings and  conflict of findings,<br \/>\n     it is  imperative that   the  Magistrate should implead<br \/>\n     these persons under S. 20A whenever the conditions laid<br \/>\n     down in  the section  are satisfied. As I said, it is a<br \/>\n     far cry  from this to say that if this is not done, the<br \/>\n     manufacturer,  distributor\t  or  dealer  would  get  an<br \/>\n     immunity from a separate prosecution.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>For  these   reasons,  therefore,   and\t in  the  facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances of  the case  so far  as Cr.  Appeals No. 152-<br \/>\n153\/1972 are concerned, the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">629<\/span><br \/>\nMagistrate had\tno jurisdiction\t to implead  the respondents<br \/>\nafter having   concluded  the trial  by the acquittal of the<br \/>\nlast seller.  Similarly, the  Magistrate was fully justified<br \/>\nin Crl.\t Appeals  No.  166  and\t 167\/72\t in  impleading\t the<br \/>\nappellants during  the course  of the trial as the trial was<br \/>\nstill continuing  and the  case would,\ttherefore,  squarely<br \/>\nfall under  S. 20A  of the Act and no further sanction would<br \/>\nbe necessary.  For these reasons, therefore, all the appeals<br \/>\nare dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.K.A.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">630<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala &#8230; on 23 March, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 1544, 1979 SCR (3) 625 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. RESPONDENT: R. SAHARI, GENL. MANAGER, DAURALA SUGAR MILLS, DAURALA &amp; ORS DATE OF [&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-175193","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>Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala ... on 23 March, 1979 - 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\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala ... on 23 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-27T09:51:43+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala &#8230; on 23 March, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T09:51:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"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\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979\",\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala ... on 23 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-27T09:51:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala &#8230; on 23 March, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala ... on 23 March, 1979 - 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\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala ... on 23 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-27T09:51:43+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala &#8230; on 23 March, 1979","datePublished":"1979-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T09:51:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979"},"wordCount":1409,"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\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979","name":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala ... on 23 March, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-27T09:51:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-corporation-of-delhi-vs-r-sahari-genl-manager-daurala-on-23-march-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs R. Sahari, Genl. Manager, Daurala &#8230; on 23 March, 1979"}]},{"@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\/175193","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=175193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}