{"id":19555,"date":"1957-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957"},"modified":"2017-06-15T20:55:38","modified_gmt":"2017-06-15T15:25:38","slug":"macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957","title":{"rendered":"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With … on 17 September, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Macherla Hanumantha Raoand … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With … on 17 September, 1957<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 927, \t\t 1958 SCR 396<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Kapur, J.L., Sarkar, A.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMACHERLA HANUMANTHA RAOAND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH(with connected petition)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/09\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nKAPUR, J.L.\nSARKAR, A.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR  927\t\t  1958 SCR  396\n\n\nACT:\nSessions  Trial-Commitment Proceeding instituted  on  Police\nreport-Procedure, if makes for inequality before law-Code of\nCriminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) as amended by the Code of\nCriminal  Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (26 of 1955),\t ss.\n207, 207A-Constitution of India, Art.  14.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe point in controversy in this appeal was whether SS.\t 207\nand 207A inserted into the Code of Criminal Procedure by the\namending  Act 26 of 1955, violated the provision of Art.  14\nof  the\t Constitution and were, therefore, invalid  in\tlaw.\nThe  appellants\t were committed for trial to  the  Court  of\nSession by the inquiring\n397\nMagistrate  in\ta proceeding instituted against\t them  on  a\nPolice report and he followed the procedure laid down in  s.\n207A  of  the Code as required by s. 207 Of the\t Code.\t The\nappellants  moved the High Court for quashing the  order  of\ncommitment  on\tthe ground that the provisions\tof  S.\t207A\nintroduced discrimination as against accused persons against\nwhom proceedings were' instituted on Police report and\twere\nunconstitutional in character.\tThe High Court held  against\nthem.\tThe contention was reiterated in this Court  and  it\nwas sought to be made out that the provisions Of S. 207A  of\nthe Code, in comparison and contrast to other provisions  of\nCh.   XVIII  of\t the Code, prescribed  a  less\tadvantageous\nprocedure for the accused persons in a proceeding started on\nPolice report than the procedure prescribed for other  cases\nin the succeeding sections of the chapter.\nHeld,\tthat  ss.  207\tand  207A  of  the  Code  were\t not\ndiscriminatory\tand  did  not contravene  Art.\t 14  of\t the\nConstitution  and their constitutional validity\t was  beyond\nquestion.\nAlthough  there can be no doubt that the  impugned  sections\nintroduced substantial difference in the procedure  relating\nto  commitment proceedings applicable to the two classes  of\ncases,\tthey did not in any way affect the procedure at\t the\ntrial,\tand the true test of the constitutional validity  of\nthe classification they made, was whether it was  reasonable\nand  pertinent\tto the object the Legislature had  in  view,\nnamely,\t a speedy trial of offences with the least  possible\ndelay.\nSo  judged there could be no doubt that the  Legislature  in\nprescribing  the two different procedures at the  commitment\nstage,\tone for proceedings instituted on Police report\t and\nthe  other  for\t those\tthat  were  not,  had  acted  on   a\nconsideration  that  was reasonable and connected  with\t the\nobject it had in view.\nBudhan\tChoudhry v. The State of Bihar,<\/a> (1955) S.C.R.  1045,\napplied.\nMatajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari,<\/a> (1955) 2 S.C.R. 925, Chiranjit\nLal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India,<\/a> (1950) S.C.R. 869,\t The\nState  of  Bombay v. F. N. Balsara,<\/a> (1951) S.C.R.  682,\t The\nState of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,<\/a> (1952) S.C.R. 284,\nKathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra,<\/a> (1952) S.C.R.\n435,  Lachmandas  Kewalram  Ahuja v. The  State\t of  Bombay,<\/a>\n(1952)\tS.C.R. 710, Qasim Razvi v. The State  of  Hyderabad,<\/a>\n(1953)\t S.C.R.\t 581,  Habeeb  Mohamad\tv.  The\t  State\t  of\nHyderabad,<\/a>  (1953)  S.C.R. 661 and The State  of  Punjab  v.\nAjaib Singh,<\/a> (1953) S.C.R. 254, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 57  of
\n1957 and Criminal Misc.\t Petition No. 294 of 1957.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated September 28, 1956,
\nof  the\t former\t Andhra High Court  at\tGuntur\tin  Criminal
\nRevision Case No. 241 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
398<\/span><\/p>\n
T.   V. Sarma, K. Ramaseshayya Chaudhury and T.\t  S.
\nVenkataraman, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
T.   V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
\nC.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and T.    M.
\nSen, for the Intervener (Union of India).\n<\/p>\n
1957.  September 17.  The following Judgment of the
\nCourt was delivered by
\nSINHA J.-The only question that arises for determination  in
\nthis  appeal on a certificate granted by the High  Court  of
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t at Hyderabad, under Art. 134(1)(c)  of\t the
\nConstitution, is the constitutionality of the provisions  of
\nss.  207 and 207A, Code of Criminal  Procedure\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  the  Code),  which,  read  together,\twere
\nintroduced  into  the  Code by Act XXVI\t of  1955.   The  26
\nappellants  have  been committed to the\t Court\tof  Session,
\nGuntur Division, to take their trial for offences punishable
\nunder  ss. 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302, read with ss. 34\t and
\n149, Indian Penal Code.\t They impleaded the State of  Andhra
\nPradesh as the sole respondent.\t The Union of India has been
\nallowed\t to intervene on an application made in that  behalf
\nin  view of the fact that the provisions of the Central\t Act
\nhave been impugned as unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
For  the  purposes of this appeal, it is only  necessary  to
\nstate  the following relevant facts.  The local police\ttook
\ncognizance of a serious occurrence of rioting with murder on
\nDecember 22, 1955.  The local police investigated the  case,
\nand  after  recording such evidence as it could\t collect  in
\nrespect\t of the occurrence, submitted a\t charge-sheet  under
\nthe  aforesaid\tsections of the Indian Penal  Code,  to\t the
\nmagistrate  having jurisdiction to entertain the case.\t The
\nmagistrate, following the procedure laid down in s. 207 A of
\nthe  Code committed the persons shown in the chargesheet  as
\nthe accused persons, to take their trial before the Court of
\nSession.   A number of applications in revision,  under\t ss.
\n435 and 439 of the Code, were made on behalf of the  accused
\npersons, to the High Court of
\n399<\/span>
\nAndhra Pradesh, to quash the order of commitment, chiefly on
\nthe ground that the said order having been passed under\t the
\nprovisions  of\ts.  207A of the Code(  was  void,  as  those
\nprovisions  were unconstitutional for the reason  that\tthey
\nintroduced  discrimination  as against\taccused\t persons  in
\nrespect\t of whom a police charge-sheet had  been  submitted.
\nThe revisional applications were heard by Krishna Rao J. who
\ndismissed  them, holding that the provisions  impugned\twere
\nnot  unconstitutional  and  that, therefore,  the  order  of
\ncommitment was valid in law.  The appellants applied for and
\nobtained  the necessary certificate under Art. 134(1)(c)  of
\nthe  Constitution that the case was a fit one for appeal  to
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
The arguments addressed to the High Court have been repeated
\nin  this Court and are to the effect that ss. 207 and  207A,
\nas  they now stand, provide for two separate  procedures  in
\nthe  committing\t court,\t namely, (1) in respect\t of  a\tcase
\ninstituted  on\ta  police report  for  which  the  procedure
\nspecified  in s. 207 A is prescribed, and (2) in respect  of
\nany  other  proceeding,\t the procedure laid  down  in  other
\nprovisions of Chapter XV111 is prescribed.  The argument  is
\nthat  a\t comparison  and  contrast  of\tthe  two   different
\nprocedures  prescribed\tin  respect of the  two\t classes  of
\ncases,\twhen  examined\tin  their  details,  show  that\t the
\nprocedure in respect of a case instituted on a police report
\nis   less  advantageous\t to  the  accused  than\t the   other
\nprocedure.   Thus,  it is further argued,  in  the  sections
\nfollowing s. 207A in Chapter XVIII of the Code, the  accused
\nhave been granted facilities which are not available to them
\nin  the\t procedure  laid  down\tin  s.\t207A.\tBy  way\t  of
\nillustration, it was urged that under s. 208(3), it is\topen
\nto  an\taccused person to apply to the magistrate  to  issue
\nprocess\t to  compel  the attendance of any  witness  or\t the
\nproduction of any document, but sub-s. (2) of s. 207A, which
\ncorresponds  to the provisions of s. 208(3), speaks only  of
\nthe  prosecution  and  not of the  accused.   Again,  it  is
\npointed out that sub-s. (4) of s. 207A, makes reference only
\nto  the prosecution evidence, whereas the  corresponding  s.
\n208(1) makes reference to the evidence that may be  produced
\nin
\n200<\/span>
\nsupport\t of  the prosecution or on behalf  of  the  accused.
\nSimilarly,  it\thas  been  pointed out\tthat  there  are  no
\n‘provisions in s. 207A corresponding to those of s.  209(2),
\nand  s. 213(2), empowering the magistrate to  discharge\t the
\naccused; nor is there any provision in the impugned s.\t207A
\ncorresponding to s. 215 relating to quashing of commitments.
\nFurther, it was pointed out that whereas s. 209(1)  contains
\nthe  words  ”  not sufficient  grounds\tfor  committing\t the
\naccused\t person”, sub-s. (6) of s. 207A has the words  ”  no
\ngrounds\t for committing the accused”.  It has  further\tbeen
\nargued that in the new procedure adopted in the impugned  s.
\n207A,  the accused person has been deprived of the  benefits
\nunder ss. 162 and 215 of the Code, and under ss. 27, 101  to
\n106  and  114-1ll. (g) of the Evidence Act.  It\t has,  thus,
\nbeen  sought to be made out that the procedure laid down  in
\ns. 207A in the matter of commitment is less advantageous  to
\nthe   accused  persons\tthan  the  one\tprescribed  in\t the
\nsucceeding sections of Chapter XVIII.\n<\/p>\n
We   shall   assume  for  the  purpose\tof   examining\t the
\nconstitutionality of the impugned provisions of the  amended
\nCode  that  there  are\tdifferences  in\t the  two  kinds  of
\nprocedure  envisaged in Chapter XVIII of the Code,  relating
\nto commitment proceedings, but it is by no means clear\tthat
\nthe changes introduced by the amending Act XXVI of 1955\t are
\nalways\tto  the\t disadvantage or  prejudice  of\t an  accused
\nperson.\t  It  is  a well-known fact that  the  amending\t Act
\naforesaid  introduced changes into the old Code with a\tview
\nto simplifying and expediting procedure relating to trial of
\noffences  and  to inquiries preceding such trials.   It\t has
\nalso  to be remembered that the Code has  always  prescribed
\ndifferent procedures for trial of offences varying with\t the
\ngravity\t of the offences charged, or with the power  of\t the
\ncourt  before  which an accused person is placed  on  trial.
\nGenerally  speaking, minor offences have been  made  triable
\nsummarily,  or\tthe  same accused person in  respect  of  an
\noffence\t triable summarily, may be so tried by a  magistrate
\nspecially  empowered  in  that\tbehalf,\t or  may  be   tried
\naccording to the ordinary procedure by a magistrate not so
\n       401<\/span>
\n       empowered.  Less serious offences are triable by magistrates
\n       and more serious offences are triable by a Court of  Session
\n       or  by a High Court after there has been a  preliminary\tin-
\n       quiry  and investigation by a police officer, or an  inquiry
\n       by  a magistrate, commonly described as commitment  proceed-
\n       ings,  or,  after inquiry by a Civil or\tRevenue\t Court,\t in
\n       connection with certain specified offences committed in\tthe
\n       course  of  or in relation to judicial  proceedings  or\tin’
\n       respect\tof  proceedings\t affecting  the\t administration\t of
\n       justice.\t  The Code has further classified offences  triable
\n       by  magistrates\tof any class or by  magistrates\t of  higher
\n       classes.\t  There is, again, a cross-division of\tcases  into
\n       warrant\tcases  and summons cases.  With\t reference  to\tthe
\n       powers of police officers, offences have been classified\t as
\n       cognizable offences and non-cognizable offences.\t Thus,\tthe
\n       principle  of  classification of offences and  of  different
\n       categories  of cases relating to the trial of offences is  a
\n       well-establisbed\t rule  of criminal procedure.  It  is  true
\n       that  for  the first time, the impugned sections\t have  pre-
\n       scribed\ttwo different procedures in respect  of\t commitment
\n       proceedings  as already indicated, but we have  to  remember
\n       that  there is absolutely no difference in the procedure\t at
\n       the trial in contra-distinction to the procedure relating to
\n       the enquiry leading up to commitment of an accused person to
\n       a  Court of Session or a High Court in cases triable  exclu-
\n       sively  by  such a Court.  It must also be  remembered  that
\n       every  case  involving  a serious offence  comes\t under\tthe
\n       category\t of ‘cognizable case’ in respect of which a  police
\n       officer\tmay  arrest  a person named as\tan  accused  person
\n       without\twarrant and investigate the case without any  order
\n       of  a magistrate in that behalf Hence, ordinarily  speaking,
\n       as  soon\t as information of the commission of  a\t cognizable
\n       offence has been laid before a police officer in-charge of a
\n       police  station,\t it becomes his duty to\t record\t the  first
\n       information; and even in the absence of such a first  infor-
\n       mation if such an officer receives information reading to  a
\n       suspicion  that a cognizable offence has been committed,\t he
\n       has to investigate the case and take all steps necessary for
\n       the apprehension and
\n       402<\/span>
\n       arrest  of the persons alleged to have been  concerned  with
\n       the  crime.  Even in cases which are not, in the\t first\tin-
\n       stance,\tof  cognizable\tnature, it becomes the\tduty  of  a
\n       police  officer to investigate such a case if he is  so\tor-
\n       dered  by a competent magistrate, taking cognizance  of\tthe
\n       offence\tunder  s. 190 of the Code.  In all such\t cases,\t it
\n       becomes\tthe duty of a police officer in-charge of a  police
\n       station, or of a superior officer if deputed to\tinvestigate
\n       a case, to follow the procedure laid down .in Chapter XIV of
\n       the Code.  Under s. 169 of the Code, if, as a result of\tthe
\n       investigation  under Chapter XIV, the police officer  making
\n       the investigation, comes to the conclusion that there is\t no
\n       sufficient  evidence  or reasonable ground of  suspicion\t to
\n       justify\tthe forwarding of the accused to a  magistrate,\t he
\n       has to release the accused person if in custody.\t If, on the
\n       other  hand,  on such an investigation, it  appears  to\tthe
\n       investigating  officer that there is sufficient evidence\t or
\n       reasonable  ground  of  suspicion, it becomes  his  duty\t to
\n       forward\tthe  accused to a competent magistrate to  try\tthe
\n       accused or to commit him for trial.  Section 173 of the Code
\n       requires\t the  investigation  to be  concluded  without\tany
\n       unnecessary delay and the submission of a report\t containing
\n       the result of the investigation, to a competent\tmagistrate.
\n       After the submission of the police report, the police  offi-
\n       cer  in-charge of a police station, before the  commencement
\n       of  the inquiry or trial by a magistrate, has to furnish\t to
\n       the  accused, free of cost, a copy of the report\t aforesaid,
\n       of  the first information report and of all other  documents
\n       or relevant extracts thereof, on which prosecution  proposes
\n       to  rely,  including  statements and  confessions,  if  any,
\n       recorded\t under\ts. 164, and the statements  recorded  under
\n       sub-s.  3  of s. 161, of all persons  whom  the\tprosecution
\n       proposes to examine as witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
       On receipt of the police report and the documents aforesaid,
\n       under  s. 173 of the Code, the magistrate concerned  has\t to
\n       make up his mind whether the case has to be tried by him\t or
\n       by some other competent magistrate or by a Court of  Session
\n       or  a High Court.  If the magistrate finds that the case\t is
\n       triable\texclusively by a Court of Session or a High  Court,
\n       he has
\n       403<\/span>
\n       to  follow  the new procedure laid down in s.  207A  At\tthe
\n       commencement of the inquiry before the magistrate, when\tthe
\n       accused\tappears before him, the magistrate has\tto  satisfy
\n       himself\tthat the documents referred to in s. 173 have  been
\n       furnished  to the accused and to have them furnished if\tthe
\n       police  officer has not done his duty.  The magistrate  then
\n       has  to record the evidence of such witnesses as\t figure\t as
\n       eyewitnesses  to\t the occurrence.- and are  produced  before
\n       him.  ‘He has also the power, in the interest of justice, to
\n       record  such  other evidence of the prosecution\tas  he\tmay
\n       think  necessary, but he is not obliged to ‘record any  evi-
\n       dence.  Without recording any evidence but after considering
\n       all the documents referred to in s. 173 and after  examining
\n       the accused person and after hearing the parties, it is open
\n       to  the\tmagistrate to discharge the  accused  person  after
\n       recording  his  reasons that no ground  for  committing\tthe
\n       accused\tfor trial has been made out, unless he\tdecides\t to
\n       try the accused himself or to send him for trial by  another
\n       magistrate.   If, on the other hand, he finds that  the\tac-
\n       cused  should  be committed for trial,, he  is  required\t to
\n       frame a charge disclosing the offence with which the accused
\n       is  charged.  The accused is then required to submit a  list
\n       of  persons whom he wishes to be summoned, to give  evidence
\n       at his trial.  After all this, the case is placed before the
\n       Court  of Session or the High Court for trial in\t accordance
\n       with the procedure laid down by the Code.\n<\/p>\n
       But if the investigating police officer, instead of  submit-
\n       ting  a charge-sheet as required by a. 173, submits what\t is
\n       popularly called the “final report” to the effect that there
\n       was no evidence in support of the prosecution case and  that
\n       it was not a fit case for a trial either by a magistrate\t or
\n       by a Court of Session or High Court, the matter may not\tend
\n       there.\tIt  is\topen to the first informant  or\t any  other
\n       person interested in prosecuting the accused person, to make
\n       a  regular petition of complaint before a  competent  magis-
\n       trate under s. 190 of the Code.\tThe magistrate, upon taking
\n       cognizance  under that section, may start an inquiry of\this
\n       own, notwithstanding the fact that the police
\n       52<\/span>
\n       404<\/span>
\n       has  refused  to prosecute the case.  The magistrate,  in  a
\n       case triable exclusively by a Court of Session or by a  High
\n       Court,  has to follow the procedure laid down in s. 208\tand
\n       subsequent sections of Chapter XVIII.  The magistrate  natu-
\n       rally  has  to make a record of the evidence  given  by\tthe
\n       complainant  and such other witnesses as may have been  pro-
\n       duced  in  support of the prosecution or on  behalf  of\tthe
\n       accused\tif  the accused chooses to adduce any  evidence\t at
\n       that  stage.  Ordinarily, an accused person does not  choose
\n       to do so for the fear that he might disclose his defence too
\n       early.\tAfter recording the evidence adduced on\t behalf\t of
\n       the  prosecution\t as also on behalf of the accused,  if\tad-
\n       duced, and examining the accused for the purpose of enabling
\n       him  to explain any circumstances appearing in the  evidence
\n       against him, the magistrate may either discharge the accused
\n       person  if he finds that there is no sufficient\tground\tfor
\n       committing  him\tfor trial after recording his  reasons,\t or
\n       direct him to be tried by himself or some other\tmagistrate.
\n       The order of discharge may be made by the magistrate even at
\n       an  earlier stage if he records the reasons for\tconsidering
\n       the  charge to be groundless, or, he may commit the  accused
\n       for trial after framing a charge declaring the offence  with
\n       which  the accused has been charged.  It is also open to\t an
\n       accused\tperson, if the magistrate in his discretion  allows
\n       him to do so, to examine more witnesses.\t If after examining
\n       those additional witnesses, the magistrate is satisfied that
\n       there are no sufficient grounds for committing the  accused,
\n       he may cancel the charge and discharge the accused.
\n       It  will, thus, be seen that where the  magistrate  conducts
\n       commitment proceeding as on a complaint, the accused has the
\n       advantage of three stages at which he may be discharged.\t It
\n       has, therefore,. been contended on behalf of the\t appellants
\n       that the procedure under s. 207A is less advantageous to the
\n       accused\tthan the other procedure.  The answer to this  con-
\n       tention is that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has proceed-
\n       ed  on  the basis that it is primarily the function  of\tthe
\n       State through its police officers who are charged with the
\n\t\t\t\t   405<\/span>
\n       duty  of preventing the commission of crime and of  bringing
\n       offenders  to  justice, to prosecute  criminals\tor  alleged
\n       criminals’ in serious cases, that is to say, cases involving
\n       not only personal injury to the complainant but also  public
\n       peace and order.\t Such police officers have been enjoined by
\n       law  to\tsee  to it that all persons alleged  to\t have  been
\n       concerned  in a crime of that character, should be  speedily
\n       brought\tto  justice.  Chapter XIV of the  Code,\t as  stated
\n       above, lays down the procedure which police officers have to
\n       follow.\tHence, the Code has provided that all cases involv-
\n       ing public peace and order, should be investigated by public
\n       servants\t who  are expected to be vigilant in  bringing\tall
\n       offenders  to justice without any avoidable delay.   If\tthe
\n       police  have not thought it necessary or feasible to  do\t so
\n       after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XIV,\tthe
\n       private party may figure before the magistrate as  complain-
\n       ant  The magistrate has got, therefore, to be more  vigilant
\n       in  seeing  that private vendetta and  considerations  other
\n       than those of vindicating justice, are not allowed to inter-
\n       fere with the administration of public justice.\tHence,\tthe
\n       procedure laid down in section 208 and the sections  follow-
\n       ing  that  section, naturally gives  greater  facilities\t to
\n       persons accused of an offence, to vindicate their character.
\n       As indicated above, there is no doubt that there are materi-
\n       al differences in the two procedures relating to\t commitment
\n       according  as the case has been investigated by a  competent
\n       police officer who has submitted a charge-sheet and a report
\n       under  section 173 of the Code, or, a  competent\t magistrate
\n       has  taken cognizance of an offence on a complaint.  In\tthe
\n       latter case, the procedure before the committing\t magistrate
\n       is more elaborate.  But is it always to the advantage of\t an
\n       accused\tperson that there should be an elaborate  procedure
\n       before  such a magistrate and not a summary one?\t It is\tthe
\n       avowed  policy of the Legislature and there can be no  doubt
\n       that  it\t is in the general interest  of\t administration\t of
\n       justice,\t that crimes should be investigated  and  criminals
\n       brought to justice as expeditiously as circumstances of\tthe
\n       case would
\n       406<\/span>
\n       permit.\t That  must also be in the interest of\tan  accused
\n       person himself if he claims not to be guilty of any offence.
\n       Generally speaking, therefore, only a real offender would be
\n       interested  in  prolonging  the inquiry or trial\t so  as\t to
\n       postpone the day of judgment.  If a person has been  falsely
\n       or wrongly accused of an offence, it is in his interest that
\n       he should get himself declared innocent by a competent court
\n       as  early  as possible.\tIn view\t of  these  considerations,
\n       there  cannot  be the least doubt that the  Legislature\thas
\n       been well-advised to amend the procedure relating to commit-
\n       ment proceedings in cases which have been investigated by  a
\n       competent  police  officer.   The  Legislature  has  rightly
\n       retained\t the old elaborate .procedure only in  those  cases
\n       which  have not been investigated by such a public  officer,
\n       or, after investigation, have been declared not to be fit to
\n       be proceeded with in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
       Having  found that there are substantial differences  intro-
\n       duced  by the impugned provisions, we have to  consider\tthe
\n       question\t of the constitutionality of those provisions.\t At
\n       the threshold, it is pertinent to observe that these  provi-
\n       sions  have  not in any way affected the\t procedure  at\tthe
\n       trial.\tAfter a case has been committed to a Court of  Ses-
\n       sion,  the  procedure for the trial of  offences\t in  either
\n       class  of cases, remains the same.  Hence, all  those  cases
\n       which  came up to this Court in which it was laid down  that
\n       the  law introduced substantial changes in the procedure\t at
\n       the  trial, to the disadvantage of an accused  person,  have
\n       absolutely  no  relevance  to the present  case.\t  The  main
\n       attack on the constitutionality of those provisions is based
\n       on Art. 14 of the Constitution.\tThis Court had to  consider
\n       the provisions of that article in a series of cases, namely,
\n       Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India<\/a> (1), The State
\n       of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara<\/a> (2), The, State of West Bengal v.
\n       Anwar  Ali  Sarkar<\/a> (3), Kathi Raning Rawat v. The  State\t of
\n       Saurashtra<\/a>(4), Lachmandas
\n       (1) [1950] S.C.R. 869.\t     (3) [1952] S.C.R. 284.
\n       (2) [1951]S.C.R. 682.\t     (4) [1952] S.C.R. 435.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   407<\/span><\/p>\n
       Kewalram\t Ahuja v. The State of Bombay<\/a> (1), Qasim  Razvi\t v.
\n       The  State of Hyderabad<\/a>(2), Habeeb Mohamad v. The  State\t of
\n       Hyderabad<\/a>(3)  The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh<\/a>(4),
\n       which were all referred to in the case of Budhan Choudhry v.
\n       The State of Bihar<\/a>(5), which is the nearest case to the case
\n       now  before  us, with this distinction that  in\tthat  case,
\n       there  was a difference at the trial stage itself.  In  that
\n       case,  the  same accused person in respect of the  same\tof-
\n       fence,  could  be tried under section 30 of the\tCode  by  a
\n       magistrate  empowered under that section, and by a Court\t of
\n       Session,\t if the offence happened to have taken place  in  a
\n       jurisdiction  to which section 30 had not been applied.\t In
\n       that  case, this Court upheld the constitutionality of  that
\n       section\tof the Code, and repelled the Contention  that\tthe
\n       provisions  of that section infringed the fundamental  right
\n       to  equality guaranteed by art. 14 of the Constitution.\t In
\n       the course of his judgment, Das J. (as he then was) made the
\n       following observations which apply to the case in hand  with
\n       full force :\n<\/p>\n
       “……… It is now well-established that while article\t 14
\n       forbids\tclass  legislation, it does not\t forbid\t reasonable
\n       classification  for the purposes of legislation.\t In  order,
\n       however, to pass the test of permissible classification\ttwo
\n       conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classifi-
\n       cation must be founded on an intelligible differentia  which
\n       distinguishes  persons or things that are  grouped  together
\n       from others left out of the group and (II) that that differ-
\n       entia must have a rational relation to the object sought\t to
\n       be achieved by the statute in question.\tThe  classification
\n       may be founded on different basis; namely, geographical,\t or
\n       according  to objects or occupations or the like.   What\t is
\n       necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of
\n       classification  and the object of the Act  under\t considera-
\n       tion.  It is also well-established by the decisions of  this
\n       Court that article 14 condemns
\n       (1)  [1952] S.C.R..710.\n<\/p>\n
       (2)  [I953] S.C.R. 581.\n<\/p>\n
       (3)[1953] S.C.R. 661.\n<\/p>\n
       (4)  [1953] S.C.R. 254.\n<\/p>\n
       (5)  [1955] 1 S.C. R. 1045, 1049.\n<\/p>\n
       408<\/span><\/p>\n
       discrimination  not only by a substantive law but also by  a
\n       law of procedure.”\n<\/p>\n
       The later case before this Court dealing with. the  question
\n       of  discrimination in respect of provisions of the  Code\t is
\n       the one reported in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari<\/a>(1).  In that
\n       case, the constitutionality of section 197 of the Code,\twas
\n       questioned.  The contention raised in that case was that the
\n       section vested arbitrary power in the Government to grant or
\n       withhold sanction which could be withheld or granted at\tthe
\n       sweet  will  of the Executive.  This  Court  overruled  that
\n       contention and held that a discretionary power is not neces-
\n       sarily discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n
       Applying the principles laid down by this Court to the  case
\n       in hand to judge whether or not there has been objectionable
\n       discrimination, there could not be the least doubt that\tthe
\n       Legislature has provided for a clear classification  between
\n       the  two kinds of proceedings at the commitment stage  based
\n       upon  a very relevant consideration, namely, whether or\tnot
\n       there  has been a previous inquiry by a\tresponsible  public
\n       servant\twhose  duty it is to discover crime  and  to  bring
\n       criminals  to speedy justice.  This basis of  classification
\n       is clearly connected with the underlying principle of admin-
\n       istration  of  justice that an alleged  criminal\t should\t be
\n       placed  on  his trial as soon after the\tcommission  of\tthe
\n       crime  as  circumstances\t of the case  would  permit.   This
\n       classification cannot be said to be unreasonable and not\t to
\n       have any relation to the object of the legislation,  namely,
\n       a more speedy trial of offences without any avoidable delay.
\n       For  the reasons given above, it must be held that there\t is
\n       no discrimination and that the provisions of Art. 14 of\tthe
\n       Constitution  have not been contravened.\t The provisions\t of
\n       the Code, impugned in this case, must, therefore, be held to
\n       be constitutional.  The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
\n       Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       (1) 1955] 2 S.C.R. 925.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   409<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Macherla Hanumantha Raoand … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With … on 17 September, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 927, 1958 SCR 396 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Kapur, J.L., Sarkar, A.K. PETITIONER: MACHERLA HANUMANTHA RAOAND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE […]<\/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-19555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMacherla Hanumantha Raoand ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With ... on 17 September, 1957 - 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\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With ... on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957\" \/>\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=\"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-15T15:25:38+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With … on 17 September, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-15T15:25:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957\"},\"wordCount\":4038,\"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\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957\",\"name\":\"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With ... on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-15T15:25:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With … on 17 September, 1957\"}]},{\"@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":"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With ... on 17 September, 1957 - 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\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With ... on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-15T15:25:38+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With … on 17 September, 1957","datePublished":"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-15T15:25:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957"},"wordCount":4038,"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\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957","name":"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With ... on 17 September, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-15T15:25:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/macherla-hanumantha-raoand-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradeshwith-on-17-september-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Macherla Hanumantha Raoand … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With … on 17 September, 1957"}]},{"@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\/19555","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=19555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}