{"id":235006,"date":"1983-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983"},"modified":"2015-02-02T05:20:46","modified_gmt":"2015-02-01T23:50:46","slug":"raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983","title":{"rendered":"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR   46, \t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 340<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V B Eradi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAISUDDIN @ BABU TAMCHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/10\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR   46\t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 340\n 1983 SCC  (4) 537\t  1983 SCALE  (2)603\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1984 SC1334\t (21)\n F\t    1985 SC1082\t (11)\n F\t    1989 SC1403\t (8)\n R\t    1989 SC1861\t (18)\n R\t    1990 SC1455\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\n     National Security Act, 1980-Sec. 3 (3)-Detention order-\nDelay  in  dealing  with  detenu's  representation  vitiates\ndetention order-Whether\t there is  delay depends  upon facts\nand circumstance  of each case-There is no rigid rule or set\nformula.\n     National Security\tAct, 1980-Sec. 10-Interpretation of-\nThe words \"place before the Advisory Board\" means forward to\nor submit before the Advisory Board and nothing more.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The petitioner  who was  detained by  an  order  passed\nunder  sec.  3\t(3)  of\t the  National\tSecurity  Act,\t1980\nchallenged the\tvalidity of his detention on the ground that\nthere had been inordinate delay on the part of the detaining\nauthority in  forwarding the  petitioner's representation to\nthe State  Government and  that there  had been violation of\nthe mandatory provisions of sec. 10 of the Act which enjoins\nthe State  Government to  take steps to see that the case of\nthe detenu  is considered by the Advisory Board within three\nweeks from the date of detention.\n     Dismissing the writ petition,\n     HELD: The question whether the representation submitted\nby a  detenu has  been dealt  with all reasonable promptness\nand diligence is to be decided not by the application of any\nrigid or  inflexible rule  or set  formula  nor\t by  a\tmere\narithmetical counting of dates, but by a careful scrutiny of\nthe facts  and\tcircumstances  of  each\t case;\tif  on\tsuch\nexamination, it\t is found  that there  was  any\t remissness,\nindifference or avoidable delay on the part of the detaining\nauthority\/State\t  Government\tin    dealing\t with\t the\nrepresentation, the  Court will\t undoubtedly treat  it as  a\nfactor vitiating  the continued\t detention of the detenu; on\nthe other hand, if the Court is satisfied that the delay was\noccasioned not\tby any\tlack of\t diligence or  promptness of\nattention on the part of the authority concerned, but due to\nunavoidable circumstance  or  reasons  entirely\t beyond\t his\ncontrol, such  delay will  not be  treated as  furnishing  a\nground for  the grant  of relief  to the  detenu against his\ncontinued detention. [344 C-F]\n     The  instant  case\t falls\tunder  the  latter  category\ninasmuch as  the court\tis satisfied  on its  perusal of the\noriginal file  pertaining to  this case\t maintained  in\t the\noffice\tof   the  District   Magistrate\t and  the  averments\ncontained in  the counter  affidavit filed  on behalf of the\nrespondents that  the petitioner's  representation has\tbeen\ndealt with all the promptness that was reasonably possible\n341\nunder the circumstances then obtaining and that there was no\navoidable delay\t on the\t part of  the District Magistrate in\nforwarding the petitioner's  representation. [344 B; G]\n     Under sec.\t 10 of\tthe  Act  a  duty  is  cast  on\t the\nappropriate Government to \"place before'; the Advisory Board\nconstituted under sec. 9 within three weeks from the date of\ndetention the  grounds on  which the  order of detention has\nbeen made and the representation, if any, made by the person\naffected by  the order.\t It is wholly wrong to interpret the\nwords \"place  before\" as meaning anything more than 'forward\nto' cr submit before' the Advisory Board the relevant papers\nrelating to  the detention of the detenu. It is entirely for\nthe Advisory  Board to\tregulate  its  schedule\t of  holding\nmeetings and  conducting its business in accordance with the\nprocedure laid\tdown under  sec. 11  of the  Act  which\t has\nspecified a  time limit\t of seven  weeks from  the  date  of\ndetention for  the submission  of the  Board's report to the\nappropriate Government. [345 G-H; 346 A-B]\n     In the  present case the Advisory Board had disposed of\nthe petitioner's  case well within the period of seven weeks\nspecified in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 11, of the Act. [346 C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Write Petition (Criminal) No. 37<br \/>\nof 1983.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t   (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)<br \/>\n     Mrs.  M.  Qamaruddin  and\tRizwan\tA.  Hafiez  for\t the<br \/>\nPetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     O.P. Malhotra, and D. Bhandari for the Respondents.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     BALAKRISHNA ERADI,\t J. Taking  into  consideration\t the<br \/>\nfact that  this is  a petition\tfor a  writ of Habeas Corpus<br \/>\nfiled under Article 32 the Constitution of India challenging<br \/>\nthe legality  of the  preventive detention of the petitioner<br \/>\nunder the  provisions of  the National Security Act 1980 and<br \/>\nthe consequent urgency of the matter, as soon as the hearing<br \/>\nof arguments  in the  case were\t completed, we announced the<br \/>\nconclusion reached by us by passing the following order:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;After hearing  counsel, appearing\t on both  sides,  we<br \/>\n     have come to the conclusion that the order of detention<br \/>\n     impugned in  this Writ  Petition does  not call for any<br \/>\n     interference.  The\t  Writ\t Petition   is\t accordingly<br \/>\n     dismissed. Detailed reason will follow.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We now\tproceed to state the reasons that weighed with us in<br \/>\nreaching the aforesaid conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">342<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     By an  order dated\t November 6,  1982,  passed  by\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate,  Moradabad, in  exercise of  the powers<br \/>\nconferred under\t section 3,  sub-section 3  of the  National<br \/>\nSecurity   Act,\t   1980-hereinafter   called   the   Act-the<br \/>\npetitioner, Shri  Raisuddin @  Babu Tamchi was ordered to be<br \/>\narrested by  the Senior\t Superintendent of  Police and to be<br \/>\ndetained in the District Jail, Moradabad, with a view to his<br \/>\nbeing prevented\t from indulging\t in any\t activity which\t may<br \/>\naffect the  maintenance of  public order. Pursuant there to,<br \/>\nthe petitioner\twas arrested  on  8th  November,  1982,\t and<br \/>\nplaced under  detention. On  the same  day (8.11.1982),\t the<br \/>\npetitioner was\tserved with  the order\tof detention  and  a<br \/>\nmemorandum setting out the grounds of his detention. On 12th<br \/>\nNovember, 1982,\t the State Government approved the detention<br \/>\nof the\tpetitioner and on the 18th of November, the case was<br \/>\nreferred by  the State\tGovernment  to\tthe  Advisory  Board<br \/>\nconstituted under  section 9  of the  Act. Subsequently,  on<br \/>\n24th   November\t  1982,\t  the\tpetitioner   submitted\t his<br \/>\nrepresentation against\tthe order  of  detention.  The\tsaid<br \/>\nrepresentation\twas  addressed\tby  the\t petitioner  to\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Magistrate,  Moradabad.  The\tDistrict  Magistrate<br \/>\nforwarded the  representation on  the same day to the Senior<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police, Moradabad, for his comments on the<br \/>\nsubmissions  contained\t in  the  letter.  On  the  27th  of<br \/>\nNovember,  1982,   the\tSenior\t Superintendent\t of   Police<br \/>\nsubmitted  his\t comments  to\tthe   District\t Magistrate.<br \/>\nThereafter, on\t3rd December,  1982, the District Magistrate<br \/>\nsent  a\t  report  to  the  State  Government  enclosing\t the<br \/>\nrepresentation as  well as  the comments  submitted  by\t the<br \/>\nSenior\tSuperintendent\t of  Police.  The  aforesaid  papers<br \/>\ndespatched  from   Moradabad  were  received  by  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment on the 6th December, 1982. On 9th December, 1982,<br \/>\nthe   State    Government   considered\t  the\tpetitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrepresentation and rejected the same. Simultaneously, on the<br \/>\nsame day,  the State Government forwarded the representation<br \/>\nof the\tpetitioner to the Advisory Board. On 10.12.1982, the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board\tmet to\tconsider the case of the petitioner,<br \/>\ngave a\tpersonal hearing  to the  petitioner and drew up its<br \/>\nreport holding\tthat there  was\t sufficient  cause  for\t the<br \/>\ndetention of  the petitioner.  The report  of  the  Advisory<br \/>\nBoard was received by the State Government on 12th December,<br \/>\n1982, and  on 21st  December,  1982,  the  State  Government<br \/>\nconfirmed the  detention order\tunder section 12 of the Act.<br \/>\nThe petitioner\twas informed about the order of confirmation<br \/>\non 24.22.1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Though a  faint attempt  was  made\t before\t us  by\t the<br \/>\ncounsel for  the petitioner  to contend\t that the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention. served  on the  petitioner did  not disclose\t any<br \/>\nmaterial relevant under section 3 of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">343<\/span><br \/>\nthe Act,  there is  no\tscope  at  all\tfor  urging  such  a<br \/>\ncontention in  the present  case. The imputation against the<br \/>\npetitioner is  that he\twas inciting  and fomenting communal<br \/>\nhatred and  violence and  creating an atmosphere of fear and<br \/>\ntension in  the town  of Moradabad  as a result of which the<br \/>\nschools, colleges  and shops  were remaining  closed in\t the<br \/>\ntown and  terror reigned  in the  whole town.  Two  criminal<br \/>\ncases  had   been  registered\tagainst\t him  under  section<br \/>\n147\/353\/153A I.P.C.\/7  Criminal Law  Amendment Act. As there<br \/>\nwas  a\tpossibility  of\t his  being  released  on  bail\t and<br \/>\ncontinuing to  indulge in such activities which were greatly<br \/>\nprejudicial to\tthe maintenance\t of  public  order,  it\t was<br \/>\nconsidered necessary by the detaining authority to place the<br \/>\npetitioner under  detention. Having  regard to the situation<br \/>\nthen  prevailing   in  the   town  of  Moradabad  which\t was<br \/>\nunfortunately the  scene of  grave communal disturbances, it<br \/>\nis impossible  to countenance  the  contention\tadvanced  on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioner that the grounds set out in support<br \/>\nof the\torder of  detention are irrelevant for sustaining an<br \/>\norder of detention being made under section 3 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The next  argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\nwas that  there had been inordinate delay on the part of the<br \/>\ndetaining   authority\tin   forwarding\t  the\tpetitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrepresentation to  the State  Government. The petitioner had<br \/>\naddressed his  representation not to the State Government as<br \/>\ncontemplated by\t section 8  of the  Act, but to the District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Moradabad.\tIt  was\t received  by  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate on the 24th of November and promptly, on the same<br \/>\nday,  the   District  Magistrate   forwarded  it  to  Senior<br \/>\nSuperintendent of  Police for  the  latter&#8217;s  comments.\t The<br \/>\ncomments  of   the  Senior  Superintendent  of\tPolice\twere<br \/>\nreceived in  the office\t of the\t District Magistrate  on the<br \/>\n27th November  but it  was only on the 3rd December that the<br \/>\nDistrict  Magistrate  forwarded\t his  report  to  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment enclosing the petitioner&#8217;s representation and the<br \/>\ncomments of  the Senior\t Superintendent of  Police.  It\t was<br \/>\nvehemently argued  by the  counsel for the petitioner&#8217;s that<br \/>\nthere had  been undue  and unexplained\tdelay on the part of<br \/>\nthe  detaining\tauthority  in  forwarding  the\tpetitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrepresentation to  the State Government inasmuch as a period<br \/>\nof nearly  six days  had elapsed  between the receipt of the<br \/>\ncomments of  the Senior\t Superintendent\t of  Police  in\t the<br \/>\noffice of  the District Magistrate and the submission of his<br \/>\nreport to the State Government. The original file pertaining<br \/>\nto this\t case maintained  in  the  office  of  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate was\tproduced before\t us for our perusal by\tShri<br \/>\nO. P.  Malhotra, the  learned Senior  Advocate appearing  on<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondents. It is seen therefrom that during<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">344<\/span><br \/>\nthe period  from 28th  November to  the evening\t of the\t 1st<br \/>\nDecember, 1982,\t the District  Magistrate had  to emergently<br \/>\nleave his  headquarters because of the disturbances that had<br \/>\noccurred in  other localities  within his Jurisdiction where<br \/>\nhis presence  was urgently needed for tackling the explosive<br \/>\nsituation. After  he returned  to the  headquarters  on\t the<br \/>\nevening of  1st December,  the District\t Magistrate  without<br \/>\nlosing\tany   further  time   forwarded\t  the\tpetitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrepresentation to  the State  Government on the 3rd December<br \/>\ntogether with  his report and the comments received from the<br \/>\nSenior Superintendent  of Police.  We are fully satisfied on<br \/>\nour perusal  of the  file and the averments contained in the<br \/>\ncounter affidavit  filed on  behalf of\tthe respondents that<br \/>\nthe petitioner&#8217;s  representation has  been dealt with by the<br \/>\nDistrict  Magistrate   with  all  the  promptness  that\t was<br \/>\nreasonably possible  under the\tcircumstances then obtaining<br \/>\nin Moradabad  city and\tthe surrounding\t areas and  that the<br \/>\ncharge of  inordinate delay  levelled by  the petitioner  is<br \/>\nbaseless. In  this  context  we\t consider  it  necessary  to<br \/>\nemphasise  that\t the  question\twhether\t the  representation<br \/>\nsubmitted by  a detenu\thas been  dealt with  all reasonable<br \/>\npromptness and\tdeligence  is  to  be  decided\tnot  by\t the<br \/>\napplication of\tany rigid  or inflexible rule or set formula<br \/>\nnor by\ta mere\tarithmetical counting  of dates,  but  by  a<br \/>\ncareful scrutiny  of the  facts and  circumstances  of\teach<br \/>\ncase; if on such examination, it is found that there was any<br \/>\nremissness, indifference,  or avoidable delay on the part of<br \/>\nthe detaining authority\/State Government in dealing with the<br \/>\nrepresentation, the  Court will\t undoubtedly treat  it as  a<br \/>\nfactor vitiating  the continued\t detention of the detenu; on<br \/>\nthe other hand, if the Court is satisfied that the delay was<br \/>\noccasioned not\tby any\tlack of\t deligence or  promptness of<br \/>\nattention on the part of the authority concerned, but due to<br \/>\nunavoidable circumstances  or reasons  entirely\t beyond\t his<br \/>\ncontrol, such  delay will  not be  treated as  furnishing  a<br \/>\nground for  the grant  of relief  to the  detenu against his<br \/>\ncontinued detention.  As already  indicated, the case before<br \/>\nus falls  under the  latter  category  inasmuch\t as  we\t are<br \/>\nsatisfied that\tthere was  no avoidable delay on the part of<br \/>\nthe  District\tMagistrate  in\tforwarding  the\t petitioners<br \/>\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The last  point urged  on behalf  of the  petitioner is<br \/>\nthat there  has been  a violation  of the  provisions of the<br \/>\nsection 10  of the  Act because\t the Advisory  Board had not<br \/>\nconsidered the\tcase of\t the petitioner\t within three  weeks<br \/>\nfrom  the   date  of  detention.  As  already  noticed,\t the<br \/>\npetitioner submitted  his  representation  to  the  District<br \/>\nMagistrate against  the detention  only on  24.11.1982\teven<br \/>\nthough he  had been  arrested and  placed under detention on<br \/>\n8th November. The<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">345<\/span><br \/>\nsaid representation  reached the  State\t Government  on\t 6th<br \/>\nDecember, 1982.\t In the\t meantime, the petitioner&#8217;s case had<br \/>\nbeen referred  by the State Government to the Advisory Board<br \/>\non the\t18th November  itself. The  representation  received<br \/>\nfrom the petitioner was forwarded by the State Government to<br \/>\nthe State Advisory Board on 9th December, 1982. The Advisory<br \/>\nBoard held  its meeting\t on 10th  December, 1982  and, after<br \/>\naffording a  personal hearing  to the  petitioner, made\t its<br \/>\nreport finding\tsufficient cause  for the  detention of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner. The\t argument  put\tforward\t on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner is  that section 10 mandatorily enjoins the State<br \/>\nGovernment to  take steps to see that the case of the detenu<br \/>\nis considered  by the Advisory Board within three weeks from<br \/>\nthe date  of detention.\t We are\t unable to  see any merit in<br \/>\nthis contention. Section 10 reads.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Save as  otherwise expressly  provided in this Act, in<br \/>\n     every case\t where a detention order has been made under<br \/>\n     this Act,\tthe  appropriate  Government  shall,  within<br \/>\n     three weeks  from the  date of  detention of  a  person<br \/>\n     under  the\t order,\t place\tbefore\tthe  Advisory  Board<br \/>\n     constituted by it under section 9, the grounds on which<br \/>\n     the order has been made and the representation, if any,<br \/>\n     made by  the person  affected by the order, and in case<br \/>\n     where the\torder has  been made by an officer mentioned<br \/>\n     in sub-section  (3) of  section 3,\t also the  report by<br \/>\n     such officer under subsection (4) of that section.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Under the\tsection, a  duty is  cast on the appropriate<br \/>\nGovernment to &#8220;place before&#8221; the Advisory&#8221; Board constituted<br \/>\nunder  section\t9  within  three  weeks\t from  the  date  of<br \/>\ndetention, the\tgrounds on  which the order of detention has<br \/>\nbeen made and the representation, if any, made by the person<br \/>\naffected by the order. The petitioner&#8217;s counsel wanted us to<br \/>\ninterpret the  words &#8220;place  before the\t Advisory Board&#8221;  as<br \/>\nmeaning &#8220;get  considered by  the  Advisory  Board&#8221;.  We\t are<br \/>\nwholly unable to accede to this argument. Under the terms of<br \/>\nthe section,  the duty cast on the appropriate Government is<br \/>\nto forward to the Advisory Board constituted under section 9<br \/>\nwithin three  weeks from  the date  of detention, the papers<br \/>\npertaining to  the detention of the detenu consisting of the<br \/>\ngrounds\t on   which   the   order   has\t  been\t made,\t the<br \/>\nrepresentation, if  any, made  by the person affected by the<br \/>\norder, etc.  It is  to be remembered that the Advisory Board<br \/>\nis not\tan entity  subordinate to  the Government.  It is  a<br \/>\nwholly independent  body consisting  of persons\t who are  or<br \/>\nhave been or are qualified to be<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">346<\/span><br \/>\nappointed as  Judges of a High Court. It is entirely for the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board\tto regulate its schedule of holding meetings<br \/>\nand conducting its business in accordance with the procedure<br \/>\nlaid down  under section 11 of the Act which has specified a<br \/>\ntime limit or seven weeks from the date of detention for the<br \/>\nsubmission  of\t the  Board&#8217;s\treport\tto  the\t appropriate<br \/>\nGovernment. It\tis, therefore, wholly wrong to interpret the<br \/>\nwords &#8220;place  before&#8221; as  meaning anything more than forward<br \/>\nto or  submit before  the Advisory Board the relevant papers<br \/>\nrelating to  the detention  of the  detenu. In\tthe  present<br \/>\ncase, the  Advisory Board  has disposed\t of the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase well within the period of seven weeks specified in sub-<br \/>\nsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act. This contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner is also, therefore, devoid of substance.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  conclusion   that  emerges   from  the   foregoing<br \/>\ndiscussion is  that there  is no  ground whatever justifying<br \/>\nany interference  with the order of detention passed against<br \/>\nthe petitioner\tand the writ petition is, therefore, only to<br \/>\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>H.S.K.\t  Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">347<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 46, 1984 SCR (1) 340 Author: V B Eradi Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J) PETITIONER: RAISUDDIN @ BABU TAMCHI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/10\/1983 BENCH: ERADI, [&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-235006","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>Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983 - 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\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-01T23:50:46+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\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-01T23:50:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983\"},\"wordCount\":2117,\"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\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983\",\"name\":\"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-01T23:50:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983 - 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\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-01T23:50:46+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\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983","datePublished":"1983-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-01T23:50:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983"},"wordCount":2117,"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\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983","name":"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-01T23:50:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raisuddin-babu-tamchi-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr-on-7-october-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raisuddin @ Babu Tamchi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr on 7 October, 1983"}]},{"@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\/235006","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=235006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}