{"id":234446,"date":"2011-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-10T18:32:13","modified_gmt":"2017-10-10T13:02:13","slug":"ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Deepak Verma<\/div>\n
                                                                        REPORTABLE\n\n                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2307 OF 2009\n\n\n\n  RANGKU DUTTA @ RANJAN KUMAR DUTTA               Appellant (s)\n\n                 VERSUS\n\n  STATE OF ASSAM                                   Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n                                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Ganguly, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
          This is a statutory appeal under Section 19 of Terrorist <\/p>\n
and   Disruptive   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1987   (hereinafter <\/p>\n
referred   to   as   “the   said   Act”)   impugning   an   order   dated <\/p>\n
10.9.2009   passed   by   the   Designated   Court   TADA.     The   learned <\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   the   sole   appellant   has   impugned   the <\/p>\n
judgment of the designated court (TADA) on various grounds but <\/p>\n
at   the   time   of   arguments,   he   made   emphasis   on   a   particular <\/p>\n
ground,   namely,   that   in   the   instant   case,   the   FIR   has   been <\/p>\n
recorded   in   clear   violation   of   the   provisions   contained   under <\/p>\n
Section   20(A)(1)   of   the   said   Act,   as   a   result   whereof,   the <\/p>\n
entire proceeding subsequent thereto has been vitiated and this <\/p>\n
has   also   vitiated   the   judgment   and   order   of   the   designated <\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        The material facts of the facts are these.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
        That FIR was lodged on 6.11.1993 by one Ajit Kumar Sarma, <\/p>\n
Office-in-Charge   of   Bihpuria   Police   Station   against   several <\/p>\n
persons including the appellant.   Of the four accused persons, <\/p>\n
no charges were framed against Moni Pathak.  In so far as Bhaben <\/p>\n
Gogoi @ Bikram was concerned, he was acquitted by the designated <\/p>\n
court   and   Indreswar   Hazarika   @   Babul   Handique   died   during   the <\/p>\n
pendency of the proceedings before the designated court.   Only <\/p>\n
Rangku   Dutta   @   Ranjan   Kumar   Dutta   was   convicted   and   is   the <\/p>\n
appellant before us.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        The   FIR   which   has   been   lodged   on   6.11.1993   runs   as <\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “I beg to report that on 5.11.93 at 2150 hrs.
\n     while SI AQM Zahingir I\/C Dholpur O.P. along with the
\n     PSO   Hav.   Loknath   Konwar   and   other   police   personnel
\n     were   informed   law   and   order   duty   in   connection   with
\n     Debraj Theatre show at Dhalpur circle in open place by
\n     the side of Hill, some ULFA extremist fired at SI AQM
\n     Zahingir   and   PSO   Hav.   Loknath   under   simultaneously
\n     from a close range behind them and as a result both of
\n     them succumbed to injuries.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Earlier   of   this   incident   on   5.10.93   an
\n     encounter   took   place   between   the   ULFA   with   Dhalpur
\n     O.P. Place and under the leadership of SI AQM Zahangir
\n     I\/C Dhalpur O.P. where Lakhimpur Dist. ULFA commander
\n     Jogen   Gogoi   killed   and   since   them   the   banned   ULFA
\n     activists associates of Jogen Gogoi were planning with
\n     criminals conspiracy to liquidate SI AQM Zahingir.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 On 5.11.93 evening the said ULFA activists with
\n     the   help   of   Sri   ranku   Dutta   got   identified   SI   AQM
\n     Zahingir   and   then   ULFA   extremist   namely   (1)   Sri
\n     Indreswar   Hazarika   @   Babul   Handique   (2)   Sri   Nobel
\n     Gogoi @ Bikram under the leadership of Sri Moni Pathak
\n     @   Debo   Pathak   taking   advantage   of   darkness   attacks
\n     simultaneously   with   fire   arms   and   killed   SI   AQM
\n     Zahingir and PSO Hav. Loknath Knowar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                 So   I   request   to   register   a   case   under   Section
\n     120(B)\/302 IPC R\/W 3\/4\/5 TADA(P) Act, 1987 against the
\n     (illegible)   ULFA   activist   and   four   others   associates,
\n     I have already taken up the investigation of the case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On   the   basis   of   the   FIR,   a   case   being   Bihpuria   Police <\/p>\n
Station   Case   No.   497   of   1993,   was   initiated   under   Section <\/p>\n
120B\/302 IPC read with Section 3 \/ 4 and 5 TADA (P) Act and the <\/p>\n
designated   court   vide   order   dated   31st  October,   2002   framed <\/p>\n
charges   against   the   appellant,   inter   alia,   under   Section <\/p>\n
120(B)\/302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(1) of the <\/p>\n
said Act.  Thereafter, the designated court by impugned judgment <\/p>\n
dated 10th  September, 2009 passed in TADA Sessions Case No. 116 <\/p>\n
of 2000 found the appellant guilty of offences punishable under <\/p>\n
Section 120B\/302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(1) of the said Act <\/p>\n
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a <\/p>\n
fine   of   Rs.   2000\/-,   in   default   further   imprisonment   for   two <\/p>\n
months.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in <\/p>\n
accordance with the provisions contained under Section 20(A)(1) <\/p>\n
of   the   said   Act,   no   information   about   the   commission   of   any <\/p>\n
offence   under   the   said   Act   shall   be   recorded   by   the   Police <\/p>\n
without prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. <\/p>\n
          Learned   Counsel   submitted   that   the   said   provision   under <\/p>\n
Section   20(A)(1)   was   incorporated   by   way   of   an   amendment   vide <\/p>\n
Section   9   of   Act   43   of   1993.     The   said   amendment   came   into <\/p>\n
effect on 23.5.1993 and the FIR was recorded on 6.11.1993. <\/p>\n
                                      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Therefore, at the time when the FIR was recorded, the provision <\/p>\n
of Section 20(A)(1) was clearly attracted.<\/p>\n
          It   will   be   in   the   fitness   of   things   that   to   appreciate <\/p>\n
the   points   urged   by   the   appellant,   Section   20(A)   is   set   out <\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          20-A     Cognizance of offence – (1) Notwithstanding
\n          anything contained in the Code, no information about
\n          the commission of an offence under this Act shall be
\n          recorded by the police without the prior approval of
\n          the District Superintendent of Police.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   (2)No   court   shall   take   cognizance   of   any   offence   under
\n      this   Act   without   the   previous   sanction   of   the
\n      Inspector-General   of   Police,   or   as   the   case   may   be,
\n      Commissioner of Police.\n<\/p>\n
          Relying on the said section, the learned Counsel for the <\/p>\n
appellant submitted that from the evidence of PW 15 Ajit Kumar <\/p>\n
Sarma who recorded the FIR, it is clear that he did not take the <\/p>\n
approval   of   the   Superintendent   of   Police   before   recording   the <\/p>\n
FIR.  In his cross-examination, PW 15 clearly stated “I did not <\/p>\n
obtain   the   approval   from   the   concerned   SP   for   registering   the <\/p>\n
case.”     From   the   evidence   of   PW   11,   who   is   one   Sanjit   Sekhar <\/p>\n
Roy, learned counsel stated that the said PW 11 was working on <\/p>\n
22.6.2000 as DSP Headquarter at North Lakhimpur.   In his cross-<\/p>\n
examination,   he   stated   that   the   occurrence   took   place   on <\/p>\n
6.11.1993   and   prior   to   the   filing   of   the   Ejahar   which   is   the <\/p>\n
FIR, the written approval of the SP concerned was not obtained <\/p>\n
and   in   the   Ejahar   itself,   There   is   no   approval   of   SP,   North <\/p>\n
Lakhimpur.\n<\/p>\n
                                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
         We   have   looked   into   the   original   FIR   Exhibit   P-12.     In <\/p>\n
the original FIR, the following endorsement which has been made <\/p>\n
by Ajit Kumar Sarma is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “Received   and   registered   Bihpuria   PS   Case
\n      no.   0497\/93   u\/s   120(B)\/302   I.P.C.   R\/W   3\/4\/5   TADA   (P)
\n      Act, 1987 with the approval of SP(I) NL.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         It is an admitted position in this case that even though <\/p>\n
the aforesaid endorsement has been made in the FIR, the SP(I), <\/p>\n
North Lakhimpur, whose approval is alleged to have been taken by <\/p>\n
PW 15 Ajit Kumar Sarma has not been examined by the prosecution. <\/p>\n
Apart from that, in the substantive evidence before the Court, <\/p>\n
PW 15, Ajit Kumar Sarma has categorically stated that he has not <\/p>\n
obtained approval of SP before registering the case.   He rather <\/p>\n
said   that   he   registered   the   case   and   himself   took   up   the <\/p>\n
investigation   of   the   case,   prepared   the   seizure   list   and <\/p>\n
recorded the statement of witnesses and at that point of time, <\/p>\n
the rank of Ajit Kumar Sarma was that of SI of police.<\/p>\n
         We have already referred to the evidence of PW 11 who has <\/p>\n
also deposed that written approval of SP was not obtained.<\/p>\n
         In the background of these facts, the question is whether <\/p>\n
in this case the mandatory requirement of Section 20(A)(1) was <\/p>\n
complied   with.     Attention   of   this   Court   has   been   drawn   to <\/p>\n
certain decisions of the Court where from it appears that there <\/p>\n
was a controversy and divergence of judicial view as to whether<\/p>\n
                                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
  written   approval   or   oral   approval   is   required.     The   said <\/p>\n
divergence of judicial view has been set at rest by the judgment <\/p>\n
of   a   three-Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in  State   of   A.P.  Vs.  A. <\/p>\n
Satyanarayana and Others 2001(10) SCC 597.<\/p>\n
         A   Three-Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   setting   out   the <\/p>\n
controversy in this matter ultimately came to hold as follows in <\/p>\n
paragraph 8:-\n<\/p>\n
               “Having   applied   our   mind   to   the   aforesaid   two
\n      judgments   of   this   Court,   we   are   in   approval   of   the
\n      latter   judgment   and   we   hold   that   it   is   not   the
\n      requirement   under   Section   20-A(1)   to   have   the   prior <\/p>\n
      approval   only   in   writing.     Prior   approval   is   a
\n      condition precedent for registering a case, but it may
\n      be   either   in   writing   or   oral   also,   as   has   been
\n      observed   by   this   Court   in  Kalpanath   Rai   case  1997(8)
\n      SCC   732   and,   therefore,   in   the   case   in   hand,   the
\n      learned   Designated   Judge   was   wholly   in   error   in
\n      refusing   to   register   the   case   under   Sections   4   and   5
\n      of TADA.   We, therefore, set aside the impugned order
\n      of   the   learned   Designated   Judge   and   direct   that   the
\n      matter   should   be   proceeded   with   in   accordance   with
\n      law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         It   is,   therefore,   clear   that   approval   has   to   be   taken, <\/p>\n
even   if   it   is   an   oral   approval.     Attention   of   this   Court   has <\/p>\n
also been drawn to a decision rendered in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur  <\/p>\n
and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1994(4)SCC 602 as <\/p>\n
to   the   requirement   of   the   provision   of   Section   20(A)(1).     The <\/p>\n
learned   Judges   of   this   Court   after   considering   various <\/p>\n
provisions of the said Act held that the requirement of Section <\/p>\n
20(A)(1)   of   TADA   was   introduced   by   way   of   an   amendment   with   a <\/p>\n
view to prevent abuse of the provisions of TADA.  We, therefore, <\/p>\n
reiterate the principles laid down by this Court in paragraph 12 <\/p>\n
by   Justice   Dr.   A.S.   Anand(as   His   Lordship   then   was),   which   is <\/p>\n
set out below:-\n<\/p>\n
                                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
               “Of late, we have come across some cases where
\n      the   Designated   Courts   have   charge-sheeted   and\/or
\n      convicted   an   accused   person   under   TADA   even   though
\n      there   is   not   even   an   iota   of   evidence   from   which   it
\n      could   be   inferred,   even   prima   facie,   let   alone
\n      conclusively,   that   the   crime   was   committed   with   the
\n      intention   as   contemplated   by   the   provisions   of   TADA,
\n      merely on the statement of the investigating agency to
\n      the   effect   that   the   consequence   of   the   criminal   act
\n      resulted in causing panic or terror in the society or
\n      in   a   section   thereof.     Such   orders   result   in   the
\n      misuse   of   TADA   Parliament,   through   Section   20-A   of <\/p>\n
      TADA has clearly manifested its intention to treat the
\n      offences   under   TADA   seriously   inasmuch   as   under
\n      Section 20-A(1), notwithstanding anything contained in
\n      the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   no   information   about
\n      the commission of an offence under TADA shall even be
\n      recorded   without   the   prior   approval   of   the   District
\n      Superintendent of Police and under Section 20-A(2), no
\n      court shall take congisance of any offence under TADA
\n      without   the   previous   sanction   of   the   authorities
\n      prescribed therein.   Section 20-A was thus introduced
\n      in   the   Act   with   a   view   to   prevent   the   abuse   of   the
\n      provisions of TADA.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State wanted <\/p>\n
to   urge   that   in   the   instant   case,   the   requirement   of   Section <\/p>\n
20(A)(1)   has   been   complied   with   and   in   support   of   her <\/p>\n
submissions, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this <\/p>\n
Court to the evidence of PW 4 and PW 6.   In his evidence, PW 4 <\/p>\n
Nitul Gogoi has said that on 21.10.94 he was working as D.S.P. <\/p>\n
H.Q. at Lakhimpur.  On that day, the S.P. Lakhimpur handed over <\/p>\n
the   CD   of   this   case   to   him   to   hold   “remaining   part   of <\/p>\n
investigation of the case.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         PW 6 Nirmal Dr. Das also deposed that on 25.9.99, he was <\/p>\n
working   as   Head   Quarter   DSP   at   North   Lakhimpur.     On   that   day, <\/p>\n
S.P.   Lakhimpur   entrusted   the   investigation   of   the   case   in   his <\/p>\n
name and accordingly, he got the CD from R.S.I.<\/p>\n
                                     -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
         Relying on the aforesaid deposition of PW 4 and PW 6, the <\/p>\n
learned   counsel   urged   that   in   the   instant   case,   the <\/p>\n
investigation   was   conducted   by   the   DSP,   therefore,   the <\/p>\n
requirement of section 20(A)(1) has been complied with.   We are <\/p>\n
unable to appreciate the aforesaid submission.<\/p>\n
        It   is   obvious   that   Section   20(A)(1)   is   a   mandatory <\/p>\n
requirement of law.   First, it starts with an overriding clause <\/p>\n
and, thereafter, to emphasise its mandatory nature, it uses the <\/p>\n
expression   “No”   after   the   overriding   clause.     Whenever   the <\/p>\n
intent of a statute is mandatory, it is clothed with a negative <\/p>\n
command.     Reference   in   this   connection   can   be   made   to   G.P. <\/p>\n
Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 12th Edition.  At <\/p>\n
page 404, the learned author has stated:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “As   stated   by   CRAWFORD:   “Prohibitive   or
\n     negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory.  And
\n     this is so even though the statute provides no penalty
\n     for   disobedience.     As   observed   by   SUBBARAO,   J.:
\n     “Negative   words   are   clearly   prohibitory   and   are
\n     ordinarily   used   as   a   legislative   device   to   make   a
\n     statute   imperative”.     Section   80   and   Section   87-B   of
\n     the  Code of  Civil Procedure,  1908, section  77 of  the
\n     Railways Act, 1890; section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act,
\n     1947; section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925; section
\n     5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; section
\n     7 of the Stamp Act, 1899; section 108 of the Companies
\n     Act,   1956;   section   20(1)   of   the   Prevention   of   Food
\n     Adulteration   Act,   1954;   section   55   of   the   Wild   Life
\n     Protection Act, 1972, the proviso to section 33(2)(b)
\n     of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947   (as   amended   in
\n     1956);   section   10A   of   Medical   Council   Act,   1956   (as
\n     amended   in   1993),   and   similar   other   provisions   have
\n     therefore,   been   construed   as   mandatory.     A   provision
\n     requiring   ‘not   les   than   three   months’   notice   is   also
\n     for the same reason mandatory.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
        We   are   in   respectful   agreement   with   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
statement of law by the learned author.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         So   there   can   be   no   doubt   about   the   mandatory   nature   of <\/p>\n
the   requirement   of   this   Section.     Apart   from   that,   since   the <\/p>\n
said section has been amended in order to prevent the abuse of <\/p>\n
the provisions of TADA,  this Court while examining the question <\/p>\n
of complying with the said provision must examine it strictly.<\/p>\n
         Going by the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that <\/p>\n
no information about the commission of an offence under the said <\/p>\n
Act can be recorded by the Police without the prior approval of <\/p>\n
the   District   Superintendent   of   Police.     Therefore,   the <\/p>\n
requirement of prior approval must be satisfied at the time of <\/p>\n
recording   the   information.     If   a   subsequent   investigation   is <\/p>\n
carried on without a proper recording of the information by the <\/p>\n
DSP   in   terms   of   Section   20(A)(1),   that   does   not   cure   the <\/p>\n
inherent   defect   of   recording   the   information   without   the   prior <\/p>\n
approval of the District Superintendent of Police.   Whether the <\/p>\n
Deputy Superintendent of Police is a District Superintendent of <\/p>\n
Police or not is a different question which we need not decide <\/p>\n
in  this case.   But  one thing  is clear  that the  requirement of <\/p>\n
approval   must   be   made   at   the   initial   stage   of   recording   the <\/p>\n
information.     If   there   is   absence   of   approval   at   the   stage   of <\/p>\n
recording   the   information,   the   same   cannot   be   cured   by <\/p>\n
subsequent   carrying   on   of   the   investigation   by   the   DSP. <\/p>\n
Reference in this connection is made to the principles laid down<\/p>\n
                                     -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
  by   Lord   Denning   speaking   for   the   Judicial   Committee   of   Privy <\/p>\n
Council in Benjamin Leonard MacFoy Versus United Africa Co. Ltd. <\/p>\n
[1961(3) Weekly Law Reports 1405].   Lord Denning, speaking for <\/p>\n
the unanimous Bench, pointed out the effect of an act which is <\/p>\n
void so succintly that I better quote him:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “If   an   act   is   void,   then   it   is   in   law   a
\n      nullity.     It   is   not   only   bad,   but   incurably   bad.
\n      There is no need for an order of the court to set it
\n      aside.  It is automatically null and void without more
\n      ado,   though   it   is   sometimes   convenient   to   have   the
\n      court declare it to be so.  And every proceeding which
\n      is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad.   You
\n      cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay
\n      there.  It will collapse.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Therefore, the evidence of PW 4 and PW 6 do not come to <\/p>\n
any aid of the State Counsel in the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
           We are, however, surprised to find that the Designated <\/p>\n
Court in the impugned judgment has come to a finding that there <\/p>\n
has been verbal approval from the Superintendent of Police even <\/p>\n
after noting that the I.O. In this case (PW 15) admitted that he <\/p>\n
did   not   obtain   approval.     It   is   nobody’s   case   that   PW   15   was <\/p>\n
confronted   with   the   FIR   while   he   was   giving   his   evidence. <\/p>\n
Therefore, the prosecution in this case has failed to bring on <\/p>\n
record that verbal approval was obtained.   It may be noted that <\/p>\n
PW 15 has not been declared hostile.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                    -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
         Therefore, having regard to the clear evidence of PW 15, <\/p>\n
this Court is constrained to hold that even verbal approval of <\/p>\n
the   concerned   authority   was   not   obtained   in   the   case   before <\/p>\n
recording the information.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         Therefore,   the   entire   proceeding   right   from   the <\/p>\n
reigstering   of   the   FIR,   filing   of   the   charge-sheet   and   the <\/p>\n
subsequent trial is vitiated by a legal infirmity and there is a <\/p>\n
total miscarriage of justice in holding the trial, ignoring the <\/p>\n
vital requirement of law.   We have, therefore, no hesitation in <\/p>\n
setting aside the impugned judgment of the Designated Court.<\/p>\n
         The appeal is, therefore, allowed.   The appellant who is <\/p>\n
in   jail   must   be   set   at   liberty   forthwith,   if   not   required   in <\/p>\n
connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                              (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
                                              …………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                              (DEEPAK VERMA)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI
\nMAY 20, 2011<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011 Author: Ganguly Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Deepak Verma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2307 OF 2009 RANGKU DUTTA @ RANJAN KUMAR DUTTA Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM Respondent(s) J U […]<\/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-234446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011 - 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\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-10T13:02:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T13:02:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2751,\"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\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T13:02:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011 - 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\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-10T13:02:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T13:02:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011"},"wordCount":2751,"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\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011","name":"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T13:02:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranhku-dutta-r-k-dutta-vs-state-of-assam-on-20-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranhku Dutta @ R.K.Dutta vs State Of Assam on 20 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/234446","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=234446"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234446\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}