{"id":242690,"date":"1959-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959"},"modified":"2019-02-02T06:49:37","modified_gmt":"2019-02-02T01:19:37","slug":"hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959","title":{"rendered":"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.R. Das (Cj), S.K. Das, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, M.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (civil)  61 of 1956\n\nPETITIONER:\nHAMID RAZA \n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF M.P. \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/02\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nS.R. DAS (CJ) &amp; S.K. DAS &amp; P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR &amp; K.N. WANCHOO &amp; M.\nHIDAYATULLAH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>AIR 1960 SC 994<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment was delivered by : HIDAYATULLAH<\/p>\n<p>HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The petitioner Hamid Raza has moved this Court under<br \/>\nArt. 32 of the Constitution. Previous to this the petitioner had obtained a<br \/>\ncertificate of fitness from the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh on<br \/>\n4-1-1956 to appeal against the order dated 7-5-1955 passed on writ<br \/>\napplication No. 25 of 1955. Though the petitioner deposited the amount of<br \/>\nsecurity, as well as the printing charges; he took recourse to Art. 32, as<br \/>\na more expeditious and adequate remedy.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The petitioner carries on business as a manufacturer of bidis under the<br \/>\nname and style of Hamid Raza Manufacturing Company Rewa. In the year 1953,<br \/>\nthe Vindhya Pradesh Tendu Leaves Act, 1953, was enacted and it came into<br \/>\nforce on May 19, 1954. In pursuance of a provision therefor the petitioner<br \/>\napplied to the appropriate authority on January 19, 1955, for a licence.<br \/>\nHis application is Annexure &#8216;A&#8217;. On February 4, 1955, the Divisional Forest<br \/>\nOfficer, Rewa, declined to grant him a licence stating as the reason<br \/>\ntherefor as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;With reference to your above application I have to inform you that no<br \/>\nlicence for Tendu Patti, will be issued as the Tendu Patti of this division<br \/>\nwere auctioned.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A week later the petitioner made a second application for licence. He also<br \/>\ninterviewed the Divisional Forest Officer and the Chief Conservator of<br \/>\nForest Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa. Though he heard nothing in reply to his<br \/>\napplication, it appears that he was informed orally that no licence would<br \/>\nbe granted to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The petitioner thereupon applied to the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya<br \/>\nPradesh Art. 226 of the Constitution requesting for writ or writs to compel<br \/>\nthe grant of licence to him. Before the Judicial Commissioner the<br \/>\nauthorities made an offer, and undertook, to grant to the petitioner a<br \/>\nlicence to purchase Tendu leaves from the contractors to whom the forest<br \/>\nareas in Vindhya Pradesh had previously been auctioned. Though the<br \/>\npetitioner did not accept this offer, the Judicial Commissioner considered<br \/>\nit fair enough and in view of it he declined to issue a writ and dismissed<br \/>\nthe petition. As previously stated the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya<br \/>\nPradesh, granted a certificate of fitness on which action was also taken,<br \/>\nbut the petitioner moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution<br \/>\nseparately.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. In this petition the petitioner challenged Section 3 of the Vindhya<br \/>\nPradesh Tendu Leaves Act 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) as being<br \/>\ncontrary to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution and thus void.<br \/>\nHe relied in this connection mainly upon Arts. 14 and 19 of the<br \/>\nConstitution. At the hearing this mode of attack was abandoned and the case<br \/>\nwas confined to the restrictions proposed to be imposed by the licence<br \/>\nwhich were described as unwarranted and void.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Before dealing with these contentions it is necessary to examine briefly<br \/>\nwhat the Act and the rules under it provide. The Act declared in the<br \/>\npreamble that it was to provide for<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;reasonable restrictions on the trade and commerce of (sic) Tendu leaves in<br \/>\nVindhya Pradesh&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>, which it was further declared, were necessary in the public interest. By<br \/>\nSs. 3 to 6 a system of licensing was introduced. Section 3 of the Act<br \/>\nprovided as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>1. No person shall, unless he obtains a licence from the licensing<br \/>\nAuthority, or is exempted by the State Government under sub-section (3),<br \/>\npurchase and transport for trade Tendu leaves in any part of Vindhya<br \/>\nPradesh.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. A licence under this Act shall be granted &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) on payment of such fees as may be prescribed,<\/p>\n<p>(b) for such period as the Licensing Authority may direct;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) in such form and contain such particulars as the Licensing Authority<br \/>\nmay direct either generally or in any particular instance, in this behalf;<br \/>\nand<\/p>\n<p>(d) subject to such restrictions and on such conditions as may be<br \/>\nprescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under Section 2 (f) the word &#8220;Prescribed&#8221; was defined as &#8220;prescribed by the<br \/>\nrules framed under the Act&#8221;. It may be pointed out here that exemption was<br \/>\ngranted only to tenants in respect of Tendu trees standing on their<br \/>\nholdings, by Notification No. 22\/XV\/F\/54, dated 8-6-1954. It would thus<br \/>\nappear that no person other than a tenant, who did not obtain a licence,<br \/>\nwas able to purchase or transport Tendu leaves in Vindhya Pradesh after the<br \/>\nAct came into force. In another part of the Act there was a provision to<br \/>\ngrant contracts, for collection and sale of Tendu leaves in the whole or<br \/>\nany part of Vindhya Pradesh from trees belonging to the Government, to<br \/>\ncontractor accepted by Government. These contracts under S. 7 were upon to<br \/>\nlicencees and were so granted in auctions which were held. For the purpose<br \/>\nof granting such contracts the whole of Vindhya Pradesh was divided into<br \/>\n&#8216;areas&#8217;. So long as a contract lasted, the contractor had the sole right<br \/>\nthroughout the area or areas included in his contract to collect Tendu<br \/>\nleaves from forest areas, Government owned waste lands and all other lands<br \/>\n&#8216;but not including Jagir lands still held by Jagirdars and land held by<br \/>\ntenants&#8217;. The other provisions of the Act deal with ancillary matters<br \/>\nconnected with the grant of licences and contracts and include penalties<br \/>\nfor breach of the provisions. Section 17 of the Act conferred powers on the<br \/>\nState Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act by Notification issued in the official Gazette.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. On January, 25 1955, the Vindhya Pradesh Tendu leaves Rules, 1954<br \/>\n(hereinafter called the Rules) came into force. They were published in the<br \/>\nVindhya Pradesh Gazette No. 157, dated 11-2-1955. Rule 3 provided for the<br \/>\ndivision of forest ranges in Vindhya Pradesh into convenient units and for<br \/>\nthe auction of the right to collect Tendu leaves from one or more such<br \/>\nunits including areas belonging to Government to contractors. It was also<br \/>\nprovided that in units and other areas for which no contract was given the<br \/>\npurchase, collection and sale of Tendu leaves would be allowed to<br \/>\nlicensees. Rule 4 provided that in the units and other areas for which a<br \/>\ncontract had already been given under R. 3 a licence to purchase, collect,<br \/>\ntransport or sale of Tendu leaves would, during the subsistence of the<br \/>\ncontract, be granted to contractors only. In other areas including<br \/>\nGovernment land for which no contract was given the licences were to be<br \/>\nallowed to collect Tendu leaves provided they paid a royalty at a rate to<br \/>\nbe specified in their licence. The rest of the rules are not pertinent to<br \/>\nthis matter and need not be referred to here.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. As a result of the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, Vindhya<br \/>\nPradesh, the Government issued a licence to the petitioner in Form No. I<br \/>\nprescribed under the rules. It is Annexure &#8216;E&#8217; However, in view of the<br \/>\ncontracts already given to contractors in the entire Vindhya Pradesh, the<br \/>\nform was amended by the licensing authority to show that it was a licence<br \/>\nfor purchase from contractors in Vindhya Pradesh. It is this condition<br \/>\nwhich the petitioner impugns (a) as being in excess of the powers conferred<br \/>\nby the Act and the rules on the licensing authority, and (b) as being in<br \/>\nviolation of his fundamental rights to carry on any occupation, trade or<br \/>\nbusiness and to acquire hold and dispose of property. According to the<br \/>\npetitioner the impugned condition did not flow from the rules and was<br \/>\ndiscriminatory and created an unwarranted restriction upon his rights<br \/>\nguaranteed by Arts. 14 and 19.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. It was contended before us that the Act did not contemplate imposition<br \/>\nof conditions except by rules. The word &#8216;prescribed&#8217; was defined to mean<br \/>\n&#8216;prescribed by the rules framed under the Act&#8217;. Section 17 gave the power<br \/>\nto frame rules to the State Government and not to any other authority. The<br \/>\nrules prescribed the Form in which the licences were top be granted and the<br \/>\nFrom itself showed the conditions under which the licences operated. It<br \/>\nwould, therefore be plain that any condition not so included in the rules<br \/>\nor the Form could not be imposed by any authority in Vindhya Pradesh. The<br \/>\nfist of the amendment of the Form of the licence is to restrict the<br \/>\noperation of the licence in a manner not contemplated either by the rules<br \/>\nor the unamended Form.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The State of Madhya Pradesh (which stands substituted for the State of<br \/>\nVindhya Pradesh after the reorganization of States) in answer to the<br \/>\npetition stated that the contractors were sold not only the right in leaves<br \/>\nin forest trees but also the right in leaves on trees standing on Jagir<br \/>\nlands or on the holdings of the tenants. The State Government produced the<br \/>\nForm of contract and further pointed out that the contractors were assured<br \/>\nthat they would have the sole right to collect, transport or sell Tendu<br \/>\nleaves from all lands including lands in Jagirs and belonging to tenants.<br \/>\nThe State Government in view of this justified the imposition of the<br \/>\nrestrictive condition in the licence and averred that the contractors would<br \/>\nbe aggrieved if the petitioner were able to purchase leaves fro tenants and<br \/>\nJagirdars in breach of the assurance given to the contractors.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The scheme of the Act as well as the rules which we have analysed above<br \/>\nclearly indicate that it was not contemplated that the Government or the<br \/>\nlicensing authorities would dispose of the leaves from trees standing on<br \/>\nJagir land or tenants&#8217; holdings. If the State Government thought fit to do<br \/>\nso, it manifestly enough went outside the Act and the rules. No doubt,<br \/>\nhaving done so the Sate Government, finds itself in an unhappy position<br \/>\nbecause a licencee, who is not a contractor, is free even under the Act and<br \/>\nthe rules to deal with Jagirdars and tenants in respect of leaves from<br \/>\ntrees belonging to them. The State Government&#8217;s justification of the<br \/>\nimposition of the condition in the licence does not rest upon anything that<br \/>\nmay be gathered from the Act and the Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. The Form of the licence is prescribed and the conditions are also<br \/>\nindicated by the rules. The authority to add a condition to the licence<br \/>\nmust be found either in the Act or the rules. The State Government was<br \/>\nunable to point out any provision in the Act and the rules which enabled<br \/>\nthe licensing authorities to restrict the operation of the licence to<br \/>\npurchases from contractors only. The addition therefore of this condition<br \/>\neven though done with bona fide motives is not justifiable under the Act or<br \/>\nthe rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. The effect of the addition of this condition is clear. The Act and the<br \/>\nrules desired that there should be liberty to the licencees to purchase<br \/>\ntendu leaves from Jagirdars and tenants. Their lands were not meant to be<br \/>\nincluded in the contracts given to contractors. The contractors, it is<br \/>\nadmitted, are themselves Bidi manufacturers and by selling the right to<br \/>\ncollect tendu leaves from every tree in Vindhya Pradesh to them creates a<br \/>\nmonopoly in their favour to the exclusion of other licencees who must<br \/>\npurchase leaves for their business at prices to be demanded by the<br \/>\ncontractors. Naturally enough the contractors would see to it that other<br \/>\nrival traders do not obtain the leaves at prices which would enable them to<br \/>\ncompete in the manufacture of Bidis. In our opinion, therefore, the<br \/>\ninclusion of an additional term in the licence would seriously affect and<br \/>\neven destroy the business of manufacturers like the petitioner. The<br \/>\naddition of such a condition is not justified by S. 3 (2) (c) as was<br \/>\nclaimed by the State, nor does R. 4 save it. That rule applies only to such<br \/>\ntrees as belong to Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. In view of the fact that there is a clear disregard of the Act and the<br \/>\nrules by the addition of an unwarranted clause to the licence and of the<br \/>\nfact that the clause itself amounts to an unreasonable restriction upon the<br \/>\nrights of the petitioner guaranteed under Part III, the inclusion of the<br \/>\nwords &#8220;from contractors in Vindhya Pradesh&#8221; in the licence must be declared<br \/>\nto be both ultra vires and void. This case is governed by the principle<br \/>\nlaid down in <a href=\"\/doc\/1386061\/\">Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana,<\/a> 1950 SCR 566 : 1950<br \/>\nAIR(SC) 163), because the restriction imposed by the licence cannot be said<br \/>\nto be reasonable within the meaning of Art. 19(6) of the Constitution. We<br \/>\ndirect that the words &#8220;from contractors in Vindhya Pradesh&#8221; shall be<br \/>\nomitted from the licence granted to the petitioner. As a result the<br \/>\npetitioner will be able to get leaves only from the contractors in respect<br \/>\nof Government owned trees as is contemplated by the Act and the rules, and<br \/>\nin respect of trees in Jagirs or on tenants&#8217; holdings the licence will<br \/>\nenable him to obtain leaves in the open market.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. The petition is thus allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. The costs of this petition shall be borne by the respondent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959 Bench: S.R. Das (Cj), S.K. Das, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, M. CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 61 of 1956 PETITIONER: HAMID RAZA RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/02\/1959 BENCH: S.R. DAS (CJ) &amp; S.K. DAS &amp; P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR &amp; [&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-242690","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>Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959 - 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\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959\" \/>\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=\"1959-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-02T01:19:37+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T01:19:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959\"},\"wordCount\":2159,\"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\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959\",\"name\":\"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T01:19:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959\"}]},{\"@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":"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959 - 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\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-02T01:19:37+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959","datePublished":"1959-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T01:19:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959"},"wordCount":2159,"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\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959","name":"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T01:19:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hamid-raza-vs-state-of-m-p-on-9-february-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hamid Raza vs State Of M.P on 9 February, 1959"}]},{"@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\/242690","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=242690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}