{"id":255270,"date":"1974-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974"},"modified":"2017-08-11T23:21:08","modified_gmt":"2017-08-11T17:51:08","slug":"dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974","title":{"rendered":"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 134, 1975 SCR (2) 702<\/div>\n
Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDWARIKA PRASAD SAHU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/11\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  134\t\t  1975 SCR  (2) 702\n 1975 SCC  (3) 722\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1975 SC 367\t (1)\n\n\nACT:\nMaintenance  of\t Internal Security Act, 1971-S.\t 3(2)  (iii)\nMixing\tof relevant and irrelevant grounds in the  order  of\ndetention-Effect of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel  Oil  Dealers'\nLicensing Order, 1966 required that the names and  addresses\nof  the purchasers must be mentioned in the cash memos;\t but\nby  a subsequent order issued by the State  Government\tthis\nrequirement  was dispensed with.  On receipt  of  complaints\nthat  the petitioner was indulging in certain  malpractices,\nincluding charging a price higher than the controlled price,\na surprise physical verification of the stock of high  speed\ndiesel\toil was made and it was found that he had  stock  of\noil  in\t excess of that shown in the  stock  register.\t The\npetitioner  was\t detained under s. 3(2) (iii) of  the  Main-\ntenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground,  among\nothers,\t that  he sold 762 litres of the  said\toil  without\ngiving the names and addresses of the purchasers in the cash\nreceipts  in contravention of cl. 7 of the licence  and\t the\nsupply under\nIn  a petition under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution  it\t was\ncontended that the District Magistrate had totally failed to\napply  his mind and his subjective satisfaction based  inter\nalia  on ground number 5 was therefore vitiated and it\tren-\ndered the order of detention invalid the said cash memos was\nto fictitious persons.\nAllowing the petition,\nHELD : The conclusion is inescapable that since ground no. 5\nwas  wholly  misconceived, non-existent\t and  not  available\nunder  the  law the order of detention must be\theld  to  be\ninvalid.  If there is one principle more firmly\t established\nthan  any other in this field of jurisprudence, it  is\tthat\neven  if  one  of the grounds or reasons which\tled  to\t the\nsubjective  satisfaction of the detaining authority is\tnon-\nexistent, misconceived or irrelevant the order of  detention\nwould  be  invalid  and it would  not  avail  the  detaining\nauthority  to contend that the other grounds or reasons\t are\ngood  and do not suffer from any such infirmity\t because  it\ncan  never be predicated to what extent the bad\t grounds  or\nreasons\t operated on the mind of the detaining authority  or\nwhether\t the detention order would have been made at all  if\nthe  bad  grounds  or reasons were  excluded  and  the\tgood\ngrounds\t  or  reasons  alone  were  before   the   detaining\nauthority. [707F; C-D]\nShibban\t Lal  Saxena v. The State of Uttar  Pradesh,  [1954]\nS.C.R. 418, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar &  Ors<\/a>.,\n[1966]\t1 S.C.R. 709, Pushkar Mukharjee & Ors. v. The  State\nof West Bengal<\/a>, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635 and Biram Chand v. State\nof Uttar Pradesh<\/a>, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1161, followed.\nIn  the\t instant case if only the  District  Magistrate\t had\napplied\t his  mind property and carefully and acted  with  a\ngreater sense of responsibility, the infirmity vitiating the\norder  of  detention could have been  easily  avoided.\t Not\nmentioning  the names and addresses of the customers in\t the\ncash  memos was no longer a breach of cl. 7 of\tthe  licence\nand it could not support an inference that the sales covered\nby the cash memos were to fictitious persons.  The  District\nMagistrate   mechanically  subscribed  to  the\tgrounds\t  of\ndetention without even caring to examine whether ground\t no.\n5  was\tcorrect or not and proceeded to make  the  order  of\ndetention. [706H]\nGround\t1 disclosed yet another instance of  non-application\nof  mind  on  the part of  the\tDistrict  Magistrate.\tThis\ncircumstance also is indicative of the rather casual  manner\nin which the District Magistrate proceeded to make the order\nof detention without proper application of mind and it could\nhave an invalidating consequence on the order of  detention.\n[707H; 708A]\n703\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 346 of 1974.
\nUnder Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India.
\nG.   K.\t Daphtary,  K.\tK. Sinha and S. K.  Sinha,  for\t the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
U.   P. Singh, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBHAGWATI,  J.-It  is with utmost reluctance,  and  we  might
\nalmost say regretfully, that we allow this petition directed
\nagainst\t the validity of an order of detention made  by\t the
\nDistrict Magistrate, Ranchi under section 3 (2) (iii) of the
\nMaintenance  of\t Internal Security Act, 1971.  If  only\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate  had  applied  his\t mind  properly\t and
\ncarefully and acted with a greater sense, of responsibility,
\nthe  infirmity vitiating the order of detention\t could\thave
\nbeen easily avoided.  We are painfully conscious of the fact
\nthat economic offenders are a menace to the community and it
\nis  necessary in the interest of the economic well being  of
\nthe society to mercilessly stamp out such pernicious,  anti-
\nsocial\tand  highly reprehensible  activities  as  hoarding,
\nblack-marketing and profiteering which are causing havoc  to
\nthe  economy of the country and inflicting untold  hardships
\non  the common man and to carry on a relentless war  against
\nsuch  economic offenders with a view to putting them out  of
\naction.\t  But in the present case the attempt to  curb\tthis
\nsocial menace has been frustrated and set at naught by\twant
\nof  due\t care and application on the part  of  the  District
\nMagistrate.   We hope and trust that, in future, in view  of
\nthe social objectives intended to be achieved by the use  of
\nthe Act against economic offenders, the District Magistrates
\nwill show greater care and attention in exercising the vast.
\npowers\tconferred  upon\t them under the\t Act,  both  in\t the
\ninterest  of personal liberty which is one of our  cherished
\nfreedoms  as  also  in the interest of\tfirm  and  effective
\naction against those who are undermining the foundations  of
\nour social and economic structure.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner is a dealer in high speed diesel oil  holding
\na licence under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel
\nOil Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1966.  It appears that certain
\ncomplaints  were received against the petitioner from  local
\ntruck owners that he was not supplying high speed diesel oil
\nto  them  according to their requirements and even  when  he
\nsupplied  a little, he made it a condition that they  should
\nalso  buy from him other commodities, such as grease,  brake
\noil,  filter oil etc., but so far as outside  truck  owner,%
\nare  concerned,\t he supplied them as much quantity  of\thigh
\nspeed  diesel  oil as they liked at prices higher  than\t the
\ncontrolled  price.   The third respondent, who is  the\tsub-
\nDivisional Officer, thereupon sent respondents Nos. 4 and  5
\nto the petrol pump of the petitioner with a view to checking
\nthe  accounts and verifying the stock of high  speed  diesel
\noil with the, petitioner.  Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 found on
\nphysical  verification that there was a total stock of\t1957
\nlitres\tin  the\t two tanks of the petitioner  as  against  a
\nbalance\t of 1597 litres appearing in the books\tof  account,
\nwith the result that there was an excess stock of
\n13-L319 Sup.CI\/75
\n704<\/span>
\n350  litres.   The District Magistrate\tthereafter,  on\t the
\nmaterials  placed  before him, made the order  of  detention
\nimpugned in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
The   order  of\t detention  was\t based\ton  the\t  subjective
\nsatisfaction of the District Magistrate that with a view  to
\npreventing   the  petitioner  from  acting  in\tany   manner
\nprejudicial  to\t the maintenance of  supplies  and  services
\nessential  to the community it was necessary to\t detain\t the
\npetitioner.    Pursuant\t to  the  order\t of  detention\t the
\npetitioner was arrested and at the time of his arrest he was
\nserved with the grounds on which the order of detention\t was
\nmade.  The grounds of detention served on the petitioner set
\nout six grounds which were in the following terms :
\n.lm15
\n“1. That he being the proprietor of M\/s Sahu Brothers Caltex
\npetrol dealers at Gumla, his cash Memo No. 70996 dated 14-2-
\n74 shows a sale of 1200, litres of High Speed Diesel oil  to
\none  Mr.  Griffiths  of Tung Tola P. S.\t Raidib.   The\tsaid
\nquantity  is  much  beyond the\tcapacity  of  any  transport
\nvehicle\t and  thereby by the said alleged sale he  not\tonly
\naggravated the scarcity of an essential commodity i.e.\thigh
\nspeed diesel oil but he also supplied the said Mr.  Griffths
\nthe  said  oil in tins or barreals exceeding  37  litres  (8
\nimperial  gallons)  otherwise than in the tank\tof  a  Motor
\nvehicle,  without  obtaining a written permission  from\t the
\nDistrict Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, autho-
\nrising\tthe said Mr. Griffths to do so in  contravention  of
\nsection\t 7 of Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed\t Diesel\t Oil
\nLicensing Order 1966.\n<\/p>\n
2.   That the said Mr. Griffths in his show cause  submitted
\nto the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Gumla and in his  statement
\nrecorded  by  Executive\t Magistrate,  has  denied  to\thave
\npurchase  1200 litres of high speed diesel oil at a time  at
\nany time.\n<\/p>\n
3.   That  thus it is quite apparent that by the  said\tcash
\nMemo No. 70996 no sale of the said oil was made and the said
\ncash  Memo  was\t fabricated  entirely  with  the  object  of
\ndisposing  of 1200 litres of the said oil in  a\t clandestine
\nway in black market.\n<\/p>\n
4.   That he being the proprietor of M\/s Sahu Brothers Gumla
\nsupplied 300 litres of said oil in Truck No. BR- 662 on\t 26-
\n74 and 300 litres to Truck No. MPL 5521 on 1-3-1974 and\t 400
\nlitres in truck No. MPL ION on 1-3-1974 350 litres to  truck
\nNo.  MPL  2135\ton  1-3-74 and\tthereby\t he  was.  not\tonly
\naggravating  the scarcity of essential commodity,  i.e.\t the
\nHigh Speed Diesel oil but also supplied more than 37  litres
\n(eight Imperial gallons) of the said oil in tin or barrel to
\nbe  kept  or stored otherwise than in the tank\tof  a  motor
\nvehicle\t without  obtaining  a\twritten\t permission  of\t the
\nDistrict Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional
\n705<\/span>
\nMagistrate authorising storage in contravention of section 7
\nof the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil  Dealers
\nLicensing Order, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
5.   That he supplied 762 litres of the said oil as per Cash
\nMemos fully described in Schedule, I annexed hereto  without
\ngiving the name and addresses of the purchasers not only  in
\ncontravention  of clause 7 of the license but the supply  by
\nthe said cash memos-were shown to fictitious persons.\n<\/p>\n
6.   That  on physical verification of his stock by Shri  R.
\nD.  Singh  A.D.S.O. and L. Sawaya, Sub-Deputy  Collector  on
\n7-3-1974 his stock of the said oil was found to be in excess
\nby  357 litres from the book balance which  is\tundisputedly
\nindicative  of the fact that he has been showing  fictitious
\nsales.”\n<\/p>\n
The usual procedure prescribed by the provisions of the\t Act
\nwas  thereafter\t followed  and the order  of  detention\t was
\napproved by the State Government, the representation of\t the
\npetitioner  was\t considered and rejected, the  case  of\t the
\npetitioner   was  placed  before  the  Advisory\t Board\t and
\nultimately on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory  Board,
\nthe   order  of\t detention  was\t confirmed  by\t the   State
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
The  main  ground  on which the validity  of  the  order  of
\ndetention  was\tchallenged on behalf of the  petitioner\t was
\nthat  ground 5 was misconceived and betrayed total  lack  of
\napplication  of mind on the part of the District  Magistrate
\nand  that vitiated the order of detention.   The  petitioner
\npointed out that though clause (7) of the Licence issued  to
\nhim  under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel\t Oil
\nDealers’ )Licensing Order, 1966 provided that the names\t and
\naddresses  of the purchasers must be mentioned in  the\tcash
\nmemos,\tan order No. 12706\/S.C., dated 11th July,  1966\t was
\nissued\tby  the State Government which dispensed  with\tthis
\nrequirement  until further orders and it was, therefore,  no
\nlonger\tnecessary to set out the names and addresses of\t the
\npurchasers  in the cash memos issued to them and the  ground
\nthat the petitioner supplied 762 litres of high speed diesel
\noil  under various cash memos without giving the  names\t and
\naddresses  of the purchasers in contravention of clause\t (7)
\nof  the\t Licence was, therefore, wholly unfounded.   It\t was
\nalso urged on behalf of the petitioner that if there was  no
\nrequirement  of setting out the names and addresses  of\t the
\npurchasers in the cash memos, no inference could  rationally
\nbe drawn by the District Magistrate from the absence of\t the
\nnames  and  addresses of the purchasers in  the\t cash  memos
\nissued by the petitioner that the purchasers were fictitious
\npersons.  The petitioner urged that in the circumstances  it
\nwas  clear  that  this\tground\twas  based  on\ta   complete
\nmisapprehension of the correct situation and showed that the
\nDistrict Magistrate had totally failed to apply his mind and
\nthe subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate based
\ninter  alia on this ground was, therefore, vitiated  and  it
\ntendered the order of detention invalid.  We think there  is
\ngreat
\n706<\/span>
\nforce  in this contention urged on behalf of the  petitioner
\nand  the  order\t of  detention must on\tthe  basis  of\tthis
\ncontention alone be held to be bad.\n<\/p>\n
The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner in  ground
\nNo. 5 was that he supplied 762 litres of high speed  ‘diesel
\noil under several cash memos described in Schedule I to\t the
\ngrounds of detention without giving the names and  addresses
\nof the purchasers and this was not only in contravention  of
\nclause\t(7) of the licence, but it also indicated  that\t the
\nsupplies  under\t these cash memos were\tmade  to  fictitious
\npersons.   Now,\t it is true that clause (7) of\tthe  licence
\nissued\tto the petitioner provided that the  licensee  shall
\nissue to every customer a correct receipt or invoice, as the
\ncase  may be, giving inter alia the name and address of\t the
\ncustomer  and, therefore, if this requirement prescribed  by
\nclause\t(7) were operative at the material time,  there\t can
\nbe,  no doubt that the action of the petitioner\t in  issuing
\ncash memos to the purchasers without giving their names\t and
\naddresses  would have been in contravention of\tclause,\t (7)
\nand  it\t might\thave been a  legitimate\t inference  for\t the
\nDistrict   Magistrate  to  draw\t that  the  sales  were\t  to
\nfictitious  persons,  because.\totherwise  their  names\t and
\naddresses  would  have been mentioned in the cash  memos  as
\nrequired   by  clause  (7).   But  the\t order\t bearing-No.
\n12706\/S.C.,  dated 11th July, 1966 was issued by  the  State
\nGovernment  providing  that ” as regards high  speed  diesel
\noil,  the  enforcement\tof the following  condition  of\t the
\nlicence\t shall\tbe waived until further orders” and  one  of
\nsuch  conditions was: “In the cash memo to be issued to\t the
\ncustomers the names and addresses of the customers need\t not
\nbe  mentioned  and  it\twill  be  sufficient  if  only\t the
\nregistration  number of motor vehicles is noted in the\tcash
\nmemo”.\t The  requirement of clause (7) of  the\t licence  to
\nmention the names and addresses of the customers in die cash
\nmemos was, therefore, dispensed with by the State Government
\nwith  effect from 11th July, 1966 until further\t orders\t and
\nthis  dispensation was in force at the time when sales\twere
\nmade  by  the petitioner under the cash memos  described  in
\nSchedule    to\tthe  rounds of\tdetention.   The  absence  of
\nmention\t of  the names and addresses of\t the  purchasers  in
\nthese\tcash   memos   did   not,   therefore,\t  constitute
\ncontravention of clause (7) of the licence and no  inference
\ncould  rationally he drawn by the District Magistrate,\tfrom
\nmere absence of names and addresses of the customers in\t the
\ncash memos, without anything more, that the sales under\t the
\ncash,  memos were to fictitious persons.  Ground No. 5\twas,
\ntherefore,  wholly  unfounded.\tIt was based on\t a  complete
\nmisapprehension\t of what was required to be set out  in\t the
\ncash  memos.   It  is rather surprising\t that  the  District
\nMagistrate  should  not have known that the  requirement  of
\nclause (7) of the licence in regard to mention of names\t and
\naddresses  of  the  customers in the  cash  memos  bad\tbeen
\ndispensed  with by the State Government as far back as\t11th
\nJuly,  1966.  If only the District Magistrate  had  properly
\napplied\t his mind and made the necessary inquiries  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  satisfying himself in regard to the  charge  in
\nground\tNo. 5, he would have immediately realised  that\t not
\nmentioning  the names and addresses of the customers in\t the
\ncash memos
\n707<\/span>
\nwas  no longer a breach of clause (7) of the licence and  it
\ncould not support an inference that the sales covered by the
\ncash memos were to fictitious persons.\tBut it appears\tthat
\nthe  District  Magistrate  mechanically\t subscribed  to\t the
\ngrounds of detention without even caring to examine  whether
\nground\tNo. 5 was correct or not and proceeded to  make\t the
\norder of detention.  We have tried to see whether we  could,
\neven  by taking a liberal or indulgent view, sustain  ground
\nNo.  5,\t but we find it impossible to do so.   In  fact\t the
\nlearned\t counsel  appearing on behalf of the  State  frankly
\nconceded  that it was not possible for him to  support\tthis
\nground.\t  If there is one principle more firmly\t established
\nthan  any other in this field of jurisprudence, it  is\tthat
\neven  if  one  of the grounds or reasons which\tled  to\t the
\nsubjective  satisfaction of the detaining authority is\tnon-
\nexistent  or  misconceived  or\tirrelevant,  the  order\t  of
\ndetention  would  be  invalid and it  would  not  avail\t the
\ndetaining  authority  to contend that the other\t grounds  or
\nreasons are good and do not suffer from any such  infirmity,
\nbecause\t it can never be predicated to what extent  the\t bad
\ngrounds\t or  reasons operated on the mind of  the  detaining
\nauthority  or  whether the detention order would  have\tbeen
\nmade  at all if the bad ground or reason were  excluded\t and
\nthe good grounds or reasons alone were before the  detaining
\nauthority.   See the decisions of this Court hi Shibban\t Lal
\nSaxena\tv.  The State of Uttar Pradesh<\/a>,(1) Dr.\tRam  Manohar
\nLohia  v. State of Bihar & Ors<\/a>.(2) and Pushkar\tMukherjee  &
\nOrs.  v.  The State of West Bengal<\/a>.(3) Even as\trecently  as
\nthis  year  a Division Bench of this Court  pointed  out  in
\nBiram  Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh<\/a>(4) that “It  is\twell
\nsettled that in an order under the present Act the  decision
\nof  the\t authority  is a subjective one and if\tone  of\t the
\ngrounds\t is non-existent or irrelevant or is  not  available
\nunder the law, the entire detention order will fall since it
\nis  not\t possible to predicate as to whether  the  detaining
\nauthority would have made an order for detention even in the
\nabsence\t  of  non-existent  or\tirrelevant   ground”.\t The
\nconclusion is, therefore, inescapable that since ground\t No.
\n5  was wholly misconceived, non-existent and “not  available
\nunder  the law”, the order of detention must be held  to  be
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
Though, on this view we are taking as regards the invalidity
\nof ground No. 5, it is not necessary for us to say  anything
\nin  regard to the other grounds, we think we ought  to\tdraw
\nthe  attention\tof  the detaining  authority  to  one  other
\ninfirmity,  so\tthat  the  detaining  authority\t can,  while
\nexercising  the\t power of detention in\tfuture,\t avoid\tsuch
\ninfirmity.   That infirmity is to be found in ground  No.  1
\nand it discloses yet another instance of non-application  of
\nmind on the part of the District Magistrate.  The allegation
\nin  ground  No. 1 was that cash memo No. 70996,\t dated\t14th
\nFebruary,  1974 showed a sale of 1200 litres of\t high  speed
\ndiesel\toil  to one Mr. Griffiths, but this  allegation\t was
\npatently  incorrect  as the cash memo in  fact,\t as  frankly
\nadmitted  on behalf of the respondents, related only to\t the
\nsale of 200 litres of high speed diesel oil to Mr. Griffiths
\nand for the sale of further 1000 litres of high speed diesel
\noil to Mr. Griffiths. there was another cash
\n(1)  [1954] S. C. R. 418.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1969] 2 S.C.R 635 (4) A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1161.
\n(2) [1956] 1 S. C. R. 709.\n<\/p>\n
708<\/span><\/p>\n
memo No. 71120, dated 16th February, 1974 which did not find
\nmention\t  in  ground  No.  1.  This  circumstance  also\t  is
\nindicative of the rather casual manner in which the District
\nMagistrate proceeded to make the order of detention  without
\nproper application of mind and it could have an invalidating
\nconsequence  on\t the order of detention. We hope  and  trust
\nthat  the  District Magistrate will be more careful  in\t the
\nfuture when he has occasion to exercise the enormous  powers
\nof preventive detention entrusted to him by the Parliament.
\nWe  accordingly quash ‘and set aside the order of  detention
\nand’ direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t     Petition allowed.\n709<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 134, 1975 SCR (2) 702 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: DWARIKA PRASAD SAHU Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/11\/1974 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. CHANDRACHUD, […]<\/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-255270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974 - 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\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-11T17:51:08+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-11T17:51:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974\"},\"wordCount\":2759,\"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\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974\",\"name\":\"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-11T17:51:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974 - 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\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-11T17:51:08+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974","datePublished":"1974-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-11T17:51:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974"},"wordCount":2759,"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\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974","name":"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-11T17:51:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarika-prasad-sahu-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-12-november-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dwarika Prasad Sahu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 November, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255270","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=255270"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255270\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}