{"id":250133,"date":"1964-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964"},"modified":"2015-03-27T03:46:43","modified_gmt":"2015-03-26T22:16:43","slug":"pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964","title":{"rendered":"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1185, 1965 SCR (1) 269<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPRAVIN CHANDRA MODY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/09\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1185\t\t  1965 SCR  (1) 269\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1969 SC 355\t (10)\n R\t    1979 SC 339\t (9)\n R\t    1980 SC 506\t (7)\n F\t    1987 SC1167\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nEssential Commodities Act<\/a> (10 of 1955), s. 7-<\/a>-Offence under-\nReport\tunder  s.  11<\/a>.-Whether\tamounts\t to  Police   Report\nrequisite  under  s.  251-A<\/a> and s. 190(l)<\/a>  (b)\tof  Code  of\nCriminal Procedure (5 of 1898)-Whether triable under s. 251-\nA or s. 252 of the Code.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n   The\tappellant  was being tried before a  Magistrate\t for\noffences  under s. 420<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code and s. 7<\/a>  of\nthe Essential Commodities Act, 1955.  The offences arose out\nof  the\t same set of parts and\twere  investigated  together\nunder Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  At the\nend of the investigation the police officer filed in respect\nof  the\t offence  of cheating  a  charge-sheet\tagainst\t the\nappellant  under  s. 173<\/a> of the Code which was\tintended  to\nserve  also  as a report in writing of a public\t servant  as\nrequired by s. 11<\/a> of the Essential Commodities Act.  At\t the\ntrial the appellant objected that as the police had filed  a\nreport\tunder  s. 11<\/a> of the Essential Commodities  Act,\t the\ntrial of the offence under s. 7<\/a> could not be under s.  251-A<\/a>\nbut  should  be\t under\ts.  252\t of  the  Code<\/a>\tof  Criminal\nProcedure.   The Magistrate overruled his objection, and  in\nrevision  the Sessions Judge and the High Court\t upheld\t the\nMagistrate's  order.  Thereupon, the appellant came  to\t the\nSupreme Court.\nThe  appellant's contention in the appeal was that under  s.\n251-A<\/a> as well as under el. (b) of s. 190(1)<\/a> the report\tmust\nbe  a  report  of  a  police  officer  under  s.  173<\/a>  after\ninvestigation  under  Chapter XIV of the  Code\tof  Criminal\nProcedure,  that  the report in the appellant's\t case  being\nunder  s.  11<\/a> of the Essential Commodities Act,\t and  not  a\nreport under s. 173<\/a> it could only be treated as a  complaint\nunder  s. 190(1)(a)<\/a>, and that the procedure  applicable\t was\nthat under s. 252<\/a>.\nHELD : (i) Cases falling under cls. (a) and (c) of s. 190(l)<\/a>\nare triable according to the procedure in s. 252<\/a> while those\nfalling\t under el. (b) of that section are triable under  s.\n251-A<\/a>  of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  As the report  in\nthe  present case was made by a police officer it could\t not\nbe  taken  cognizance  of  under  cls.\t(a)  and  (c)  which\nexpressly  exclude report or information given by  a  police\nofficer.   The\toffences mentioned in such  a  report  could\ntherefore not be tried under\ns.   252. [272H; 273C-D]\n(ii) A\treport\tunder s. I 1 is not a  charge-sheet,  but  a\nreport made under s. 173<\/a> satisfies the provisions of s. I  I\nas the police officer who makes it is also a public servant.\nThe  report  regarding the offence under s.  7<\/a>\twas  rightly\nincluded  in the charge-sheet under s. 173<\/a> because both\t the\noffences  were\tinvestigated under Chapter  XIV.   The\tcase\ntherefore was one instituted on a police report under s. 173<\/a>\nand s. 251-A<\/a> was applicable. [273G; 274D-E; 275C-E]\nBhagwati  Saran V. State of U.P<\/a>. [1961] 3 S.C.R.  563,\tRain\nKrishna Dalmia V. State<\/a> A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 172 and  Premchand\nKhetry v. State<\/a> A.I.R. 1958 Cal. 213, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 49
\nof 1964.\n<\/p>\n
270<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nSeptember  3,  1963  of the Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in
\nCriminal Revision Case No, 132 of 1963 and Cr.\tR.  Petition
\nNo. 118 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
   J.L.\t Jain,\tK.  Jayaram,  for  J.  R.  Gagrat,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
   K.\t  R.  Chaudhry\tand  B.\t R. G.\tK.  Achar,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
   The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n  Hidayatullah J. The appellant is being prosecuted under s.
\n420<\/a>, Indian Penal Code<\/a> and under S. 7 of the Essential\tCom-
\nmodities Act, 1955 for contravention of cls. (4) and (5)  of
\nthe  Iron  an-,I Steel Control Order.  The  prosecution\t was
\ncommenced by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch,  C.I.D.,
\nHyderabad by filing against him a charge-sheet tinder S. 173<\/a>
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the  offence
\nof cheating which was intended to serve also as a report  in
\nwriting\t of  a public servant as required by S.\t 11<\/a>  of\t the
\nEssential Commodities Act, 1955.  Learned City Magistrate of
\nSecunderabad framed a charge against him under s. 251A(3)<\/a> of
\nthe  Code  of  Criminal Procedure in  respect  of  both\t the
\noffences.    The  appellant  then  raised  two\t preliminary
\nobjections  :  the  first  was that  as\t the  commodity\t was
\nobtained   and\t disposed  of  at  Bombay,  the\t  Court\t  at
\nSecunderabad   had  no\tjurisdiction  to  try\thim.\tThis
\nobjection,  which  would have necessitated  the\t recital  of
\nfacts, has not been raised before us and it is not necessary
\nto  mention it again.  The second objection was that as\t the
\npolice\thad  filed a report under s. I 1  of  the  Essential
\nCommodities Act<\/a>, a trial of the offence under s. 7<\/a> could not
\nbe  under s. 251A<\/a> but under s. 252<\/a> of the Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure.   He,  therefore, asked that\t the  charge  framed
\nagainst him should be quashed.\tThis objection was rejected.
\nThe appellant thereupon moved the Sessions Judge in revision
\nwho  declined to interfere.  He filed a second\trevision  in
\nthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh but it was dismissed by the
\norder which is now underappeal.\n<\/p>\n
  In  so  far as the trial of the alleged offence  under  s.
\n420<\/a>, Indian Penal Code<\/a> is concerned there is no objection to
\nits  trial under S. 251A<\/a>, Code of Criminal Procedure.\tThat
\nprovision  is made for the procedure to be adopted in  cases
\n“instituted  on a police report”.  Under that procedure\t the
\nMagistrate  has to satisfy himself, at the  commencement  of
\nthe  trial,  that the documents referred to in s.  173<\/a>\thave
\nbeen  furnished\t to the accused and if they  have  not\tbeen
\nfurnished to cause them to be so furnished.\n<\/p>\n
271<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Magistrate\t must then consider all\t the  documents\t and
\nafter  making such examination, if any, of the\taccused,  as
\nthe  Magistrate\t thinks\t necessary  and\t after\tgiving\t the
\nprosecution and the accused’ in opportunity of being  heard,
\nthe  Magistrate\t must consider whether a  charge  should  be
\nframed\tagainst\t the  accused or not.  If he  comes  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the charge is groundless he must  discharge
\nhim.  On the other hand, if he is of the opinion that  there
\nis  ground for presuming that the accused has  committed  an
\noffence triable under this Chapter, which he is competent to
\ntry and which, in his opinion, could be adequately  punished
\nby  him,  he  must frame a charge  in  writing\tagainst\t the
\naccused\t and after explaining it to him record his plea\t and
\nproceed\t according to it.  Under s. 252<\/a>, Criminal  Procedure
\nCode<\/a>, it is provided as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “252(1) In any case instituted otherwise\tthan
\n\t      on a police report,, when the accused  appears
\n\t      or  is  brought  before  a,  Magistrate,\tsuch
\n\t      Magistrate   shall   proceed   to\t  hear\t the
\n\t      complainant   (if\t any)  and  take  all\tsuch
\n\t      evidence as may be produced in support of\t the
\n\t      prosecution
\n\t      Provided\tthat  the Magistrate  shall  not  be
\n\t      bound  to, hear any person as  complainant  in
\n\t      any case in which the complaint. has been made
\n\t      by a Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   The Magistrate shall ascertain, from the
\n\t      complaint\t or  otherwise,\t the  names  of\t any
\n\t      persons likely to be acquainted with the facts
\n\t      of  the case and to be able to give  evidence,
\n\t      for the .prosecution, and shall summon to give
\n\t      evidence\tbefore\thimself such of them  as  he
\n\t      think necessary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under  s. 253<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>, if, upon taking\t all
\nthe  evidence  referred to in the section  just\t quoted\t and
\nmaking\tsuch  examination,  if any, of the  accused  as\t the
\nMagistrate  thinks necessary, he finds that no case  against
\nthe  accused has been made out which, if  unrebutted,  would
\nwarrant\t his conviction, the Magistrate can  discharge\thim.
\nOn  the\t other hand, if it appears to  the  Magistrate\tthat
\nthere  are  grounds  for  presuming  that  the\taccused\t has
\ncommitted  an offence which the Magistrate is  competent  to
\ntry and which, in his opinion, could be adequately  punished
\nby  him, he frames a charge against him and records a  plea.
\nIf  the accused does not plead guilty the  Magistrate  gives
\nhim  time  to state which of the  prosecution  witnesses  be
\nwishes to cross-examine, if any, and if he says that he does
\nso, the witnesses are recalled and are allowed to be  cross-
\nexamined.\n<\/p>\n
272<\/span><\/p>\n
Contention  of the appellant. is that by the  words  ‘police
\nreport’\t in s. 25<\/a> 1A<\/a> of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,  is
\nmeant  the  report  mentioned in S.  173<\/a>  which\t the  police
\nofficer\t makes\tto  a  Magistrate  in  respect\tof  offences
\ninvestigated by him under Chapter XIV.\tThe investigation is
\nin  respect  of cognizable  offences  because  noncognizable
\noffences  may only be investigated by police officers  after
\nbeing  authorised in that behalf by a competent\t Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
-It  is\t pointed  out that under S. 190<\/a>,  cognizance  of  an
\noffence\t is taken in different ways : (a) upon\treceiving  a
\ncomplaint  of facts which constitute an offence; (b) upon  a
\nreport in writing of such facts made by any police  officer;
\nand (c) upon information received from any person other than
\na police officer, or upon the Magistrate’s own knowledge  or
\nsuspicion  that\t such  offence has been\t committed.   It  is
\nargued\ton the basis of this threefold distinction  that  by
\nthe ‘police report’ in s. 190<\/a> (1 ) (b) is meant the  charge-
\nsheet  of the police officer under S. 173<\/a> of the  Code,\t and
\nsince  the report in writing which the police officer  makes
\nunder s. I I of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not a
\nchargesheet under S. 173<\/a> of the Code it must be equated to a
\ncomplaint  of  facts under s. 190(l)<\/a> (a).  In view  of\tthis
\ndistinction it is contended that while the offence under  S.
\n420<\/a>,  Indian Penal Code<\/a> is triable under the procedure\tlaid
\ndown in S. 251A<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>, the offence  under
\nS.  7 of the Essential Commodities Act<\/a> is triable under\t the
\nprocedure laid down under S. 252<\/a>, ‘Criminal Procedure  Code<\/a>.
\nThe appellant submits that either the two charges should  be
\nsplit  up  or  the two offences should be  tried  under\t the
\nprocedure  laid\t down  by S. 252<\/a> of  the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure as the procedure under S. 251A<\/a>, Criminal Procedure
\n‘Code,\tdoes not afford the accused the chance of  a  second
\ncrossexamination  which S. 252<\/a> of the Code gives, and  there
\nis prejudice ‘to him in the trial of the offence under S.  7<\/a>
\nof the Essential Commodities Act.\n<\/p>\n
    In our judgment the meaning which is sought to be  given
\nto  a  police  report’\tis  not\t correct.   In\tS.  190,   a
\ndistinction  is made between the classes of persons who\t can
\nstart a criminal prosecution.  Under the three clauses of S.
\n190(l)<\/a>,\t  to  which  we\t have  already\treferred,   criminal
\nprosecution  can be initiated (i) by a police officer  by  a
\nreport\tin writing, (ii) upon information received from\t any
\nperson other than a police officer or upon the\tMagistrate’s
\nown  knowledge\tor  suspicion, and (iii)  upon\treceiving  a
\ncomplaint of facts.  If the report in this case falls within\n<\/p>\n
(i)  above,  then  the procedure  under\t S.  251A<\/a>,  Criminal
\nProcedure  ‘Code, must be followed.  If it falls in (ii)  or\n<\/p>\n
(iii) then the pro-\n<\/p>\n
273<\/span><\/p>\n
     cedure  under s. 252<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>,  must-be
\nfollowed.   We\tare thus concerned to find out\twhether\t the
\nreport of the police officer in writing in this case can  be
\ndescribed  as  a  “complaint of facts”\tor  as\t“information
\nreceived from any person other than a police officer”.\tThat
\nit  cannot  be\tthe latter is  obvious\tenough\tbecause\t the
\ninformation is from a police officer.  The term\t “complaint”
\nin this connection has been defined by the Code<\/a> of  Criminal
\nProcedure  and\tit “means the allegation made orally  or  in
\nwriting\t to a Magistrate, with a view to his  taking  action
\nunder this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown,
\nhas committed an offence, but it does not include the report
\nof a police officer”. [See s. 4<\/a> (1) (h) ].\n<\/p>\n
    It,\t therefore, follows that s. 252<\/a>, Criminal  Procedure
\nCode<\/a>,  can  only apply to those cases which  are  instituted
\notherwise  than\t on a police report, that is  to  say,\tupon
\ncomplaints which are not reports of a police officer or upon
\ninformation  received  from  persons  other  than  a  police
\nofficer.   The initiation of the prosecution in\t this\tcase
\nwas upon a report in writing by the police officer.  Section
\n1<\/a> 1<\/a> of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 reads as follows
\n\t      ” 11.  Cognizance of offences.–No Court shall
\n\t      take  cognizance\tof  any\t offence  punishable
\n\t      under  this Act except on a report in  writing
\n\t      of the facts constituting such offence made by
\n\t      a person who is a public servant as defined in
\n\t      section 21<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code.”\n<\/p>\n
  In Bhagwati Saran v. State of U.P<\/a>.(1) this Court explained
\nthe nature of a report under S. 11 of the Essential Supplies
\n(Temporary  Powers) Act, 1946 which was a provision  in\t the
\nsame  words.  This Court has held that the function  of\t the
\nreport\tunder  s.  1<\/a> 1<\/a> is not to  serve\t as  a\tcharge-sbeet
\nagainst\t the  accused, and that the purpose of s. 11<\/a>  is  to
\neliminate  private  individuals\t such as  rival\t traders  or
\ngeneral public from initiating the prosecution and to insist
\nthat  before cognizance is taken the complaint must  emanate
\nfrom  a\t public\t servant.  The police officer  is  a  public
\nservant and this was not denied before us.  The requirements
\nof  s. 11<\/a> are, therefore, satisfied, though s. I 1 does\t not
\nmake  the  report,  if filed by a  police  officer,  into  a
\ncharge-sheet.  It is then contended that the report under s.
\nII cannot be treated as a report under s. 173<\/a> but only as  a
\ncomplaint  under  s.  190(l)<\/a> (a).  The\tpolice\tofficer\t was
\ninvestigating under S. 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Proce-
\ndure  an offence under s. 420<\/a>, Indian Penal Code<\/a>  which\t was
\nbased  on  the same facts as the offence under s. 7<\/a>  of\t the
\nEssential  Commodities\tAct.   He  investigated\t the  latter
\noffence along with the
\n(1)  [1961] 3 S.C.R. 563.\n<\/p>\n
274<\/span><\/p>\n
former\tand  joined it with the former in  the\tcharge-sheet
\nwhich presented.\n<\/p>\n
Section 156(2)<\/a> provides that where a police officer  enquire
\ninto an offence under S. 156(1)<\/a> his action cannot be  called
\ninto  question\ton the ground that he was not  empowered  to
\ninvestigate the offence.  The enquiry was an integrated one,
\nbeing  based on the same set of facts.\tEven if the  offence
\nunder  the Essential Commodities Act<\/a> may not be\t cognizablo-
\nthough\tit is not alleged by the appellant that it  is\tnon-
\ncognizable-the police officer would be competent to  include
\nit  in\tthe  charge-sheet under S. 173<\/a>\twith  respect  to  a
\ncognizable  offence.   In Ram Krishna  Dalmia  v.  State<\/a>(1),
\nFalshaw J. (as he then was) observed that the provisions  of
\ns.  155(1),  Criminal Procedure Code<\/a>, must  be\tregarded  as
\napplicable to those cases where the information given to the
\npolice is solely about a non-cognizable offence.  Where\t the
\ninformation  discloses\ta  cognizable  as  well\t as  a\tnon-
\ncognizable  offence the police officer is not debarred\tfrom
\ninvestigating  any non-cogniz,able offence which  may  arise
\nout  of the same facts.\t He can include that  non-cognizable
\noffence\t in  the  charge-sheet\twhich  he  presents  for   a
\ncognizable  offence.  We entirely agree.  Both the  offences
\nif  cognizable could be investigated together under  Chapter
\nXIV  of\t the  Code  and\t also if one  of  them\twas  a\tnon,
\ncognizable offence.\n<\/p>\n
   It was contended before us on the authority of  Premchand
\nKhetry v. The State<\/a> (2) that a prosecution under S. 25 1  A,
\nCriminal Procedure Code<\/a> can only commence on a report  under
\nS.  173 of the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure.  It is  submitted
\nthat the report of the police officer cannot be regarded  as
\na  charge-sheet for purposes of S. 173<\/a>,\t Criminal  Procedure
\nCode<\/a>.  In that case the learned Judges of the Calcutta\tHigh
\nCourt  went elaborately into the meaning of  the  expression
\n‘police\t report’ in S. 190(1)(b)<\/a> and held that\tthose  words
\nwere  confined to a charge-sheet under S. 173<\/a> of  the  Code.
\nWe have pointed out above that in all those cases where\t the
\nlaw  requires  a report in writing by a public\tservant\t the
\nrequirements of the law are satisfied when a report is filed
\nby  a public servant who is also a police officer.  We\thave
\nalso pointed out that even in cases where the police  office
\ncannot\tinvestigate  a non-cognizable  offence\twithout\t the
\npermission  of a Magistrate he is not prevented by  anything
\nin  the\t Code<\/a> from investigating  a  non-cognizable  offence
\nalong with a cognizable offence when the two arise from\t the
\nsame facts.  In the Calcutta
\n(1) A.T.R. 1958 Punj. 172.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.I.R. 1958 Cal. 213.\n<\/p>\n
275<\/span><\/p>\n
case  to which we have last referred, there was a  provision
\n(s.  20G)  in  the Opium Act<\/a>, as amended  in  Bengal,  which
\nprovided  that\ta  report in writing by an  officer  of\t the
\nExcise,\t Police or the Customs Department shall be  enquired
\ninto  and  tried as if such report was a report\t in  writing
\nmade  by police officer under cl. (b) of s. 190<\/a> (1)  of\t the
\nCode<\/a>  of Criminal Procedure, 1898.  The Divisional Bench  in
\nthe  Calcutta  High Court held that the\t section  created  a
\nfiction by which the report of an Excise or Customs  officer
\nwas  to\t be regarded as the report of a police\tofficer\t but
\nonly for the purpose of s. 190(l)<\/a> (b), that it did not\tmake
\nthe report a charge-sheet under s. 173<\/a> of the Code, and that
\ns.  251,A,  Criminal  Procedure\t Code<\/a>,\twas  not  applicable
\nbecause\t it contemplated a report under s. 173<\/a> of the  Code.
\nWe  invited  counsel to tell us that if the  effect  of\t the
\nfiction did not make it a report under s. 173<\/a>, Criminal Pro-
\ncedure\tCode, what other purpose could the Legislature\thave
\nhad in mind in saying that it was a police officer’s  report
\n?  He could suggest none, and we cannot also see what  other
\npurpose was intended.  In our opinion, the position is clear
\nthat  such  reports, if they are regarded as made  under  s.
\n190(1)<\/a>\t(b), must attract the provisions of s. 251A<\/a>  of\t the
\nCode,  because\tif  the fiction is given  full\teffect\tthey
\ncannot\tbe regarded as falling within ‘complaints’ under  s.
\n190(1)<\/a>\t(a)  or\t within\t s. 190(1)(c)<\/a>.\t In  any  case,\t the
\nDivisional Bench also said that s. 251A<\/a> is applicable to the
\ntrial of a case which is initiated on a police report  under
\ns. 173 if the investigation is one to which s. 173<\/a>, Criminal
\nProcedure  Code<\/a> may be applied, and both the conditions\t are
\nfulfilled in this case
\n The  High  Court was right in not interfering\tin  revision
\nwith  the  trial of the case.  We dismiss the  appeal.\t The
\nappellant  has\tsucceeded  in  delaying\t this  trial  for  a
\nconsiderable  time.   We direct that the  trial\t shall\ttake
\nplace from day to day till the case is disposed of according
\nto law.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
276<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1185, 1965 SCR (1) 269 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: PRAVIN CHANDRA MODY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1964 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. SUBBARAO, K. MUDHOLKAR, J.R. CITATION: […]<\/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-250133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964 - 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\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-26T22:16:43+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T22:16:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2591,\"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\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964\",\"name\":\"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T22:16:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964 - 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\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-26T22:16:43+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964","datePublished":"1964-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T22:16:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964"},"wordCount":2591,"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\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964","name":"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T22:16:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravin-chandra-mody-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-15-september-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pravin Chandra Mody vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 1964"}]},{"@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\/250133","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=250133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}