{"id":226208,"date":"1974-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974"},"modified":"2015-11-05T22:37:39","modified_gmt":"2015-11-05T17:07:39","slug":"dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974","title":{"rendered":"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2361, \t\t  1975 SCR  (2) 589<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDULAL CHANDRA MAJUMDAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/11\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 2361\t\t  1975 SCR  (2) 589\n 1975 SCC  (3) 404\n\n\nACT:\nMaintenance  of\t Internal Security Act.\t 1971-S.  3(2)(1)-No\nnexus between the grounds of detention communicated and\t the\nsubjective satisfaction effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  order  of\tdetention passed under s. 3(2)\t(1)  of\t the\nMaintenance  of\t Internal  Security Act,  1971\tagainst\t the\npetitioner  stated that with a view to preventing  him\tfrom\nacting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of  public\norder,\tit  was\t necessary to detain him.   The\t grounds  of\ndetention  set out one incident of dacoity in a third  class\ncompartment  of a running train where cash money was  stolen\nby him. in his affidavit the District Magistrate stated that\nhe was also satisfied that the petitioner was likely to\t act\nin  a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies\t and\nservices  essential to the community.  In a  petition  under\nart. 32 of the Constitution it was contended that there\t was\nno  nexus between the grounds of detention  communicated  to\nhim  and  the  subjective  satisfaction\t of  the   detaining\nauthority.\nAllowing the petition.\nHELD  :\t The order of detention must be held to\t be  invalid\nsince  the incident of dacoity in a third class\t compartment\nof  a  running\ttrain for committing theft  of\tmoney  which\nconstituted  the  solitary ground of  detention\t was  wholly\nirrelevant  and the subjective satisfaction of the  District\nMagistrate  that the petitioner would be likely to act in  a\nmanner\tprejudicial to maintenance of supplies and  services\nessential to the community could not be founded upon it\t and\nwas therefore colourable and no satisfaction at all.  [592B-\nC]\n(2)  The  contention that the averment in the  affidavit  in\nreply  had crept in through a mistake cannot be accepted  as\ncorrect.   The\taffidavit  in reply had\t been  made  by\t the\nDistrict Magistrate himself and it must be presumed that  he\nmade  the statements with the sense of responsibility  which\nhis  high  office  necessarily\tcarried.   If  the  District\nMagistrate was also not subjectively satisfied in regard  to\nthe  likelihood\t of  the  petitioner  to  act  in  a  manner\nprejudicial  to\t the maintenance of  supplies  and  services\nessential  to the community, he would not have made such  an\naverment in the affidavit in reply. [591E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 2371  of<br \/>\n1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.)<br \/>\nR.   K. Jain, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>G.   S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nBHAGWATI,  J. This petition is directed against an order  of<br \/>\ndetention  dated  30th\tMarch, 1973  made  by  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate,  Nadia under section 3(2)(1) of the\t Maintenance<br \/>\nof  Internal  Security Act, 1971.  The\torder  of  detention<br \/>\nrecited\t the  satisfaction of the District  Magistrate\tthat<br \/>\nwith a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in\t any<br \/>\nmanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was<br \/>\nnecessary to detain him and directed that the petitioner  be<br \/>\naccordingly  detained.\tPursuant to the order of  detention,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner was arrested on 3rd April, 1973 and  at\t the<br \/>\ntime of his arrest the grounds of detention dated 30th<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">590<\/span><br \/>\nMarch,\t1973  were  served  upon  him  together\t with  their<br \/>\ntranslation in Bengalee language.  The grounds of  detention<br \/>\nstarted\t with  a  recital  that\t the  petitioner  was  being<br \/>\ndetained  on the ground that he had been acting in a  manner<br \/>\nprejudicial  to the maintenance of public order and set\t out<br \/>\none  incident  of dacoity committed by him on the  basis  of<br \/>\nwhich  the  District Magistrate had reached  his  subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction  in  regard to the necessity of  detaining\t the<br \/>\npetitioner.   The  usual ritual prescribed by  the  Act\t was<br \/>\nthereafter followed and the order of detention was approved,<br \/>\nby   the  State\t Government,  the  representation   of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  was\t considered and rejected, the  case  of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  was\t placed\t before the Advisory  Board  and  on<br \/>\nreceipt\t of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the order  of<br \/>\ndetention  was\tconfirmed  by  the  State  Government.\t The<br \/>\npresent\t petition  was\tfiled by the  petitioner  from\tjail<br \/>\nchallenging the validity of this detention.<br \/>\nThere were several grounds urged before us on behalf of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  in\tsupport\t of  the petition,  but\t it  is\t not<br \/>\nnecessary to refer to all of them since there is one  ground<br \/>\nwhich is, in our opinion, sufficient to invalidate the order<br \/>\nof detention.  That ground rests on an averment made by\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by<br \/>\nhim  in\t reply\tto the petition.   The\tDistrict  Magistrate<br \/>\nstated as follows in paragraph 4 of his affidavit-in-reply :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;I  say  that  I\tpassed\tthe  said  order  of<br \/>\n\t      detention after being bonafide satisfied\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      the  materials  on  record as  stated  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      grounds\tof  detention  and  so\t surrounding<br \/>\n\t      circumstances  that with a view to  preventing<br \/>\n\t      the   detenu   from  acting  in\tany   manner<br \/>\n\t      prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order<br \/>\n\t      it  was  necessary  to detain  him  under\t the<br \/>\n\t      provisions  of  the  Maintenance\tof  Internal<br \/>\n\t      Security Act, 1971-I further state that having<br \/>\n\t      regard to the nature of the act and the manner<br \/>\n\t      in  which it was committed by the\t detenu\t (as<br \/>\n\t      disclosed\t in  the  rounds  furnished  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      detenu) and effect thereof on the public order<br \/>\n\t      I was bonafide satisfied that the said act was<br \/>\n\t      sufficient  for  making  the  said   detention<br \/>\n\t      order.   I was also further satisfied that  if<br \/>\n\t      the  detenu petitioner is not  detained  under<br \/>\n\t      the  said Act he is likely to act in a  manner<br \/>\n\t      prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and<br \/>\n\t      services essential to the community.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  will  be seen from this statement made by  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate that from the material on record he was not\tonly<br \/>\nsatisfied that-was necessary to detain the petitioner with a<br \/>\nview to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial<br \/>\nto  the maintenance of public order, but was also  satisfied<br \/>\nthat if the petitioner was not detained, he would be  likely<br \/>\nto  act\t in  a\tmanner prejudicial  to\tthe  maintenance  of<br \/>\nsupplies  and  services\t essential to  the  community.\t The<br \/>\nargument  of the petitioner was that there was no  nexus  at<br \/>\nall  between  the grounds of detention communicated  to\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  and the subjective satisfaction of the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate  that it was necessary to detain  the  petitioner<br \/>\nwith  a\t view to preventing him from acting  in\t any  manner<br \/>\nprejudicial  to\t the maintenance of  supplies  and  services<br \/>\nessential to the community and the order of detention  based<br \/>\ninter  alia  on such subjective\t satisfaction  was  invalid.<br \/>\nNow,  there can be no doubt that if the order  of  detention<br \/>\nwas based on<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">591<\/span><br \/>\nthe  subjective\t satisfaction that the petitioner  would  be<br \/>\nlikely. to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of<br \/>\nsupplies  and services essential to the community, it  would<br \/>\nbe  bad\t because the incident of dacoity in  a\tthird  class<br \/>\ncompartment  of\t a running train set out in the\t grounds  of<br \/>\ndetention  would  be  wholly  irrelevant  to  support\tsuch<br \/>\nsubjective  satisfaction.   It would be impossible  for\t any<br \/>\nrational human being to say that an incident of dacoity in a<br \/>\nthird class compartment of a running train where cash  money<br \/>\nwas  stolen is such an act that from it an inference can  be<br \/>\nraised\tthat  the  person committing the  dacoity  would  be<br \/>\nlikely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance  of<br \/>\nsupplies  and  services ,essential to  the  community.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent  realising the seriousness of this difficulty  in<br \/>\nits  way, contended that the averment in paragraph 4 of\t the<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply   that   the\t District   Magistrate\t was<br \/>\nsatisfied that if the petitioner was not detained, he  would<br \/>\nbe likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the\t maintenance<br \/>\nof  supplies  and services essential to\t the  community\t had<br \/>\ncrept  in  through mistake and it should-not be\t taken\tinto<br \/>\naccount by the Court in adjudging the validity of the  order<br \/>\nof  detention.\tThe argument of the respondent was that\t the<br \/>\nonly subjective satisfaction on which the order of detention<br \/>\nwas  founded  was  that\t it  was,necessary  to\tdetain\t the<br \/>\npetitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in\t any<br \/>\nmanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as re-<br \/>\ncited&#8217;\tin  the\t order\tof  detention  and  the\t grounds  of<br \/>\ndetention and it was not correct to state that the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate   was  also\tsubjectively  satisfied\t  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioner would be likely to act in a manner prejudicial to<br \/>\nthe  maintenance of supplies and services essential  to\t the<br \/>\ncommunity  and\thad  on\t that  account\tmade  the  order  of<br \/>\ndetention.  We do not think we can accept this contention of<br \/>\nthe   respondent.    It\t  must\tbe   remembered\t  that\t the<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply has been made by the District  Magistrate<br \/>\nhimself\t and  we must presume that the\tDistrict  Magistrate<br \/>\nmust have made the statements contained in the affidavit-in-<br \/>\nreply with the sense of responsibility which his high office<br \/>\nnecessarily  carries.  If the District Magistrate  was\talso<br \/>\nnot  subjectively satisfied in regard to the  likelihood  of<br \/>\nthe  petitioner\t to  act  in a\tmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the<br \/>\nmaintenance  of\t supplies  and\tservices  essential  to\t the<br \/>\ncommunity,  he\twould  not have made  such  an\taverment  in<br \/>\nparagraph  of  his affidavit-in-reply.\tOrdinarily  when  an<br \/>\naverment  is  made by a high officer like the  District\t Ma-<br \/>\ngistrate in an affidavit which is made on oath, the Court is<br \/>\ninclined  to accept the averment as correct and\t the  burden<br \/>\nlies  heavy  on the party who alleges to the  contrary.\t  We<br \/>\ncannot,\t therefore,  lightly accept the\t submission  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent   that  the\tDistrict  Magistrate  has  made\t  an<br \/>\nincorrect  statement  in paragraph 4  of  his  affidavit-in-<br \/>\nreply.\t The  position\tmight have  been  different  if\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate himself had made a subsequent  affidavit<br \/>\nstating\t on oath that he had made a mistake in\tthe  earlier<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply  and\t explained the\tcircumstances  under<br \/>\nwhich  he came to make such mistake.  The Court\t would\tthen<br \/>\nhave   examined\t the  explanation  given  by  the   District<br \/>\nMagistrate  and if satisfied, as regards the genuineness  of<br \/>\nthe  mistake, the Court would have accepted  the  subsequent<br \/>\nstatement of the District Magistrate and ignored the earlier<br \/>\naverment made in the affidavit-reply.  But here there is  no<br \/>\naffidavit  made\t by the District Magistrate  confessing\t his<br \/>\nmistake in making the earlier averment in paragraph 4 of the<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply.  We must, therefore, accept the averment<br \/>\nmade by the District Magis-\n<\/p>\n<p>7 L 319 Sup CIJ75<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">592<\/span><br \/>\ntrate  in paragraph 4 of his affidavit-in-ireply as  correct<br \/>\nand  proceed  on the basis that the order of  detention\t was<br \/>\nbased  not  only  on his subjective  satisfaction  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioner would be likely to act in a manner prejudicial to<br \/>\nthe  maintenance  of public order but also  on\this  further<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain\t the<br \/>\npetitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in\t any<br \/>\nmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the  maintenance  of  supplies\t and<br \/>\nservices essential to the community.  And if that be so, the<br \/>\norder  of  detention must be held to be\t invalid  since\t the<br \/>\nincident  of  dacoity  in a third  class  compartment  of  a<br \/>\nrunning\t  train\t  for  committing  theft  of   money   which<br \/>\nconstituted  the  solitary ground of  detention\t was  wholly<br \/>\nirrelevant  and the subjective satisfaction of the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate  that the petitioner would be likely to act in  a<br \/>\nmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the  maintenance  of  supplies\t and<br \/>\nservices  essential  to the community could not\t be  founded<br \/>\nupon it and was hence-colourable and no satisfaction at all.<br \/>\nWe, therefore, allow the petition and make the rule absolute<br \/>\nand direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.<br \/>\nP.B.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petition allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">593<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2361, 1975 SCR (2) 589 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: DULAL CHANDRA MAJUMDAR Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/11\/1974 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. CITATION: [&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-226208","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>Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974 - 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\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-05T17:07:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T17:07:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974\"},\"wordCount\":1536,\"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\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974\",\"name\":\"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T17:07:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974 - 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\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-05T17:07:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974","datePublished":"1974-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T17:07:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974"},"wordCount":1536,"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\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974","name":"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T17:07:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dulal-chandra-majumdar-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-5-november-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dulal Chandra Majumdar vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 November, 1974"}]},{"@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\/226208","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=226208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226208\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}