{"id":266428,"date":"2011-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011"},"modified":"2019-04-08T11:20:39","modified_gmt":"2019-04-08T05:50:39","slug":"d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: P.Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan<\/div>\n
                                                                       REPORTABLE \n\n                                                                  \n\n               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1814   OF 2011\n\n(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3913 of 2011)\n\n\n\n\nD.M. Nagaraja                                            .... Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n             Versus\n\n\n\nThe Government of Karnataka & Ors.                      .... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n                                    \n\n\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
P.Sathasivam,J.\n<\/p>\n
1)    Leave granted.\n\n\n\n2)    The   appellant   has   filed   this   appeal   against   the   final \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
judgment   and   order   dated   28.03.2011   passed   by   the   High <\/p>\n
Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bangalore   in   a   writ   of  Habeas   Corpus <\/p>\n
being   Writ   Petition   No.   220   of   2010   whereby   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of detention <\/p>\n
dated   22.09.2010   passed   by   the   Commissioner   of   Police, <\/p>\n
Bangalore City, vide CRM(4)\/DTN\/10\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
3)     Brief facts:\n\n\n(a)    According   to   the   Detaining   Authority,   the   appellant-\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
detenue,   when   he   was   30   years   old,   started   his   career   in <\/p>\n
criminal   field   by   committing   offences   like   murder,   attempt   to <\/p>\n
murder,   dacoity,   rioting,   assault,   damaging   the   public <\/p>\n
property, provoking the public, attempt to grab the property of <\/p>\n
the   public,   extortion   while   settling   land   disputes   and <\/p>\n
possessing of illegal weapons etc. <\/p>\n
(b)    By   the   date   of   the   detention   order,   i.e.   on   22.09.2010, <\/p>\n
eleven   cases   had   been   filed   against   the   detenue   and   out   of <\/p>\n
them,   four   cases   were   pending   trial   before   the   respective <\/p>\n
Courts and records have been destroyed as time barred in four <\/p>\n
cases.  In two cases, he has been acquitted.  In pending cases, <\/p>\n
he   was   granted   bail   from   the   courts   and   in   one   case   he   has <\/p>\n
been   convicted   and   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous <\/p>\n
imprisonment for a term of nine years by the Sessions Court, <\/p>\n
Bangalore.  The detention order further shows that because of <\/p>\n
his habituality in committing crimes, violating public order by <\/p>\n
threatening the public, causing injuries to them and damaging <\/p>\n
their properties and he was not amenable and controllable by <\/p>\n
                                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
the normal procedure, detained him as `goonda’ under Section <\/p>\n
2(g)   of   the   Karnataka   Prevention   of   Dangerous   Activities   of <\/p>\n
Bootleggers,   Drug-Offenders,   Gamblers,   Goondas,   Immoral <\/p>\n
Traffic   Offenders   and   Slum-Grabbers   Act,   1985   (hereinafter <\/p>\n
referred to as “the Karnataka  Act”) (Act No. 12  of  1985)  for  a <\/p>\n
period of 12 months.\n<\/p>\n
(c)    The   appellant   himself   challenged   the   detention   order <\/p>\n
before the High Court of Karanataka by filing a writ of Habeas  <\/p>\n
Corpus.   Before the High Court, the only contention put-forth <\/p>\n
by   the   appellant   was   that   there   was   enormous   delay   in <\/p>\n
considering   his   representation   made   on   06.10.2010   to   the <\/p>\n
Advisory   Board   for   withdrawal   of   the   detention   order.     While <\/p>\n
negating   the   said   contention,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High <\/p>\n
Court has gone into the validity or otherwise of the detention <\/p>\n
order and after finding that the Detaining Authority was fully <\/p>\n
justified   in   clamping   the   detention   order,   dismissed   the   writ <\/p>\n
petition   filed   by   the   appellant-detenue   vide   order   dated <\/p>\n
28.03.2011.     The   said   order   is   under   challenge   before   us   by <\/p>\n
way of special leave petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
4)    Heard   Mr.   C.B.   Gururaj,   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
appellant-detenue and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for <\/p>\n
the State of Karanataka.\n<\/p>\n
5)    The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the <\/p>\n
Detaining Authority is justified in passing the detention order <\/p>\n
dated   22.09.2010   and   the   High   Court   is   right   in   confirming <\/p>\n
the   same   and   dismissing   the   writ   petition   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
appellant?\n<\/p>\n
6)    The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Karnataka <\/p>\n
Act   No.   12   of   1985   shows   that   the   activities   of   certain   anti-\n<\/p>\n
social   elements   like   bootleggers,   drug-offenders,   gamblers, <\/p>\n
goondas,   immoral   traffic   offenders   and   slum   grabbers   have <\/p>\n
from   time   to   time   caused   a   feeling   of   insecurity   and   alarm <\/p>\n
among  the  public  and  tempo  of  life   especially  in urban  areas <\/p>\n
has   frequently   been   disrupted   because   of   such   persons.   In <\/p>\n
order   to   ensure   that   the   maintenance   of   public   order   in   the <\/p>\n
State of Karnataka is not adversely affected by the activities of <\/p>\n
these known anti-social elements, it is considered necessary to <\/p>\n
enact   a   special   legislation.     The   following   provisions   of <\/p>\n
Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 are relevant :\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
      “2. Definitions  : – In this Act, unless the context otherwise <\/p>\n
      requires, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (a)      “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of <\/p>\n
               public order” means, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i)        …………………………………………………….<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)       ……………………………………………………<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)      ……………………………………………………<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iv)       In   the   case   of   a   goonda   when   he   is   engaged,   or   is <\/p>\n
                 making   preparations   for   engaging,   in   any   of   his <\/p>\n
                 activities   as   a   goonda   which   affect   adversely   or   are <\/p>\n
                 likely   to   affect   adversely   the   maintenance   of   public <\/p>\n
                 order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (v)        ……………………………………………………<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (vi)       ……………………………………………………<\/p>\n
      Explanation   –  For   the   purpose   of   this   clause,   public   order <\/p>\n
      shall  be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be <\/p>\n
      deemed likely to be affected adversely  inter alia  if any of the <\/p>\n
      activities   of   any   of   the   persons   referred   to   in   this   clause <\/p>\n
      directly or indirectly, is causing or is calculated to cause any <\/p>\n
      harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the <\/p>\n
      general   public   or   any   section   thereof   or   a   grave   or <\/p>\n
      widespread danger to life or public health.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b)      …………………………………………………………………….<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (c)      “detention order” means an order made under Section 3;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (d)      “detenue”   means   a   person   detained   under   a   detention <\/p>\n
               order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (e)      ……………………………………………………………………<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (f)      ……………………………………………………………………<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (g)      “goonda” means a person who either by himself or as a <\/p>\n
               member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits or <\/p>\n
               attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences <\/p>\n
               punishable under Chapter VIII, Chapter XV, Chapter <\/p>\n
               XVI, Chapter XVII or chapter XXII of the Indian Penal <\/p>\n
               Code<\/a> (Central Act<\/a> XLV of 1860)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section   3<\/a>   empowers   the   State   Government   to   detain   certain <\/p>\n
persons   with   a   view   to   prevent   them   from   acting   in   any <\/p>\n
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.   If the <\/p>\n
                                                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
Government\/Detaining   Authority   is   able   to   satisfy   that   a <\/p>\n
person either by himself or in association with other members <\/p>\n
habitually   commits   or   attempts   or   abets   such   commission   of <\/p>\n
offence   punishable   under   the   Indian   Penal   Code<\/a>,   1860   (in <\/p>\n
short   `IPC<\/a>‘)   and   subject   to   satisfying   Section   3   of   the <\/p>\n
Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985, he can be detained in terms of <\/p>\n
the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
7)    The essential concept of preventive  detention  is that the <\/p>\n
detention   of   a   person   is   not   to   punish   him   for   something   he <\/p>\n
has done but to prevent him from doing it.   Even, as early as <\/p>\n
in 1975, the Constitution Bench of this Court  considered the <\/p>\n
procedures to be followed in view of Articles 19 and 21 of the <\/p>\n
Constitution.   In  Haradhan Saha  vs.  State of West Bengal  <\/p>\n
&   Ors<\/a>.   (1975)   3   SCC   198,   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this <\/p>\n
Court,   on   going   through   the   order   of   preventive   detention <\/p>\n
under   Maintenance   of   Internal   Security   Act,   1971   laid   down <\/p>\n
various principles which are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “…..First; merely because a detenue is liable to be tried in a <\/p>\n
      criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to <\/p>\n
      be   proceeded   against   for   preventing   him   from   committing <\/p>\n
      offences   dealt   with   in   Chapter   VIII   of   the   Code   of   Criminal <\/p>\n
      Procedure   would   not   by   itself   debar   the   Government   from <\/p>\n
      taking action for his detention under the Act.<\/p>\n
                                                                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
       Second; the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on <\/p>\n
       enlarges   him   on   bail   and   initiates   steps   to   prosecute   him <\/p>\n
       under the Code<\/a> of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first <\/p>\n
       information   report   may   be   no   bar   against   the   District <\/p>\n
       Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive detention.<\/p>\n
       Third; where the concerned person is actually in jail custody <\/p>\n
       at the time when an order of detention is passed against him <\/p>\n
       and   is   not   likely   to   be   released   for   a   fair   length   of   time,   it <\/p>\n
       may   be   possible   to   contend   that   there   could   be   no <\/p>\n
       satisfaction  on the  part  of  the detaining  authority  as to the <\/p>\n
       likelihood   of   such   a   person   indulging   in   activities   which <\/p>\n
       would   jeopardize   the   security   of   the   State   or   the   public <\/p>\n
       order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       Fourth;   the   mere   circumstance   that   a   detention   order   is <\/p>\n
       passed   during   the   pendency   of   the   prosecution   will   not <\/p>\n
       violate (sic) the order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       Fifth; the order of detention  is a precautionary measure.   It <\/p>\n
       is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of <\/p>\n
       a   person   based   on   his   past   conduct   in   the   light   of   the <\/p>\n
       surrounding circumstances.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In   the   light   of   the   above   principles,   let   us   test   the   validity   of <\/p>\n
the   detention   order   issued   under   Act   No.   12   of   1985   and   as <\/p>\n
affirmed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
8)     Mr.   C.B.   Gururaj,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant <\/p>\n
raised   the   only   contention   that   inasmuch   as   action   can   be <\/p>\n
taken against the detenue under the ordinary laws, there is no <\/p>\n
need   to   detain   him  under   Act   No.   12   of  1985.     In  support   of <\/p>\n
his  contention,   he  very much  relied  on  the  recent  decision  of <\/p>\n
                                                                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
this Court  in  Rekha  vs.  State  of  Tamil Nadu  (2011)  5 SCC <\/p>\n
244.   On the other hand, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel <\/p>\n
for   the   State,   after   taking   us   through   the   entire   materials, <\/p>\n
various   continuous   activities   of   the   detenue   and   several <\/p>\n
orders, submitted that the Detaining Authority is fully justified <\/p>\n
in   clamping   the   order   of   detention   and   she   also   pointed   out <\/p>\n
that   the   decision   of   the   High   Court   is   perfectly   in   order   and <\/p>\n
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
9)     We   have   carefully   considered   the   rival   contentions   and <\/p>\n
perused   the   grounds   of   detention   order   and   all   the   materials <\/p>\n
relied on by the Detaining Authority.\n<\/p>\n
10)    The detention order refers the activities and involvement <\/p>\n
of the appellant-detenue in as many as 11 cases.   The details <\/p>\n
of which are mentioned hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
       “1.    Sriramapura   PS   Cr.   No.   55\/81   under   Sections   143<\/a>, <\/p>\n
       147<\/a>,   148<\/a>,   149<\/a>,   348<\/a>,  307<\/a>  IPC    :     The  file   in  this   case  has <\/p>\n
       been destroyed as time barred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
       2.    Rajajinagar  PS  Cr.  No.  81\/81  under  Section  324<\/a>  r\/w <\/p>\n
       Section   34<\/a>   IPC  :     The   file   of   this   case   too   has   been <\/p>\n
       destroyed as time barred.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3.    Sriramapura   PS   Cr.   No.   484\/83   under   Section   302<\/a> <\/p>\n
       read   with   Section   149<\/a>   IPC  :     In   this   case,   the   detenue   is <\/p>\n
       the prime accused.  He along with his brother Kitti and other <\/p>\n
       associates   committed   the   offence   punishable   under   Section <\/p>\n
       302<\/a>   IPC.     After   trial   the  detenue   was   found   guilty  and   was <\/p>\n
                                                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
convicted   to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   9   years.\n<\/p>\n
However,   the   records   of   this   case   have   been   destroyed   as <\/p>\n
time barred and are not produced.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Srirampuram   PS   Cr.   No.   624\/83   under   Section   307<\/a> <\/p>\n
IPC – This record also has been destroyed as time barred.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Victoria   Hospital   PS   Cr.   No.   75\/87   under   Sections <\/p>\n
350<\/a>, 352<\/a> and 506(B)<\/a> IPC     :   After the detenue’s conviction <\/p>\n
in   Cr.   No.   484\/83,   he   was   admitted   in   Prisoner’s   ward, <\/p>\n
Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, for treatment.    On 19.12.1987 <\/p>\n
at   about   11.30   a.m.,   the   detenue   tried   to   escape   from   the <\/p>\n
prisoner’s ward but, he was restricted by the official deputed <\/p>\n
for   his   escort.     The   detenue   got   violent   and   threatened   the <\/p>\n
escort  saying  that he would  kill him  in 3 days.    Thereafter, <\/p>\n
after investigation, charge sheet was filed in CC No. 869\/88.\n<\/p>\n
As   the   detenue   was   absconding,   he   was   taken   in   judicial <\/p>\n
custody in UTP No. 2896.  The case is under trial.\n<\/p>\n
6 & 7.  Srirampura PS Cr. Nos. 215\/87 under Section 302<\/a> <\/p>\n
read   with   Sections   149<\/a>   IPC,     under   Sections   220<\/a>\/89<\/a>, <\/p>\n
143<\/a>, 144<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 324<\/a>, 302<\/a> read with 109 IPC<\/a>  :   Both these <\/p>\n
case files are destroyed as time barred.   However, according <\/p>\n
to rowdy sheet a charge sheet has been filed in the 3rd ACMM <\/p>\n
Court,   Bangalore   City   on   10.06.1987   and   the   same   was <\/p>\n
taken on file in CC No. 3738\/87 for trial in Cr. No. 215\/87.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Sriramapura   PS   Cr.   No.   198\/03   under   Section   384<\/a> <\/p>\n
IPC:  On 05.08.2003, at about 6.00 a.m. the detenue and his <\/p>\n
associate   Ravi   extorted   Rs.200\/-   from   one   Venkatesh <\/p>\n
threatening   him   with   dire   consequences   and   boasting   that <\/p>\n
they   were   rowdies   of   Rajajinagar   and   Srirampuram.     They <\/p>\n
were   arrested   on   06.08.2003   and   remanded   to   judicial <\/p>\n
custody.     However,   this   case   ended   in   acquittal   as   the <\/p>\n
witnesses   out   of   fear   did   not   depose   properly   in   Court <\/p>\n
against them.\n<\/p>\n
9.    High   Grounds   PS   Cr.   No.   341\/04   under   Section   302<\/a> <\/p>\n
IPC :  In this case due to prior rivalry with rowdy Rajendra @ <\/p>\n
Bekkina   Kannu   Rajendra,   and   also   thinking   that   Rajendra <\/p>\n
was responsible for the death of his younger brother Krishna <\/p>\n
@   Kitti,   chased   him   in   public   view   and   assaulted   him   with <\/p>\n
longs,   dagger   and   other   weapons   and   murdered   him.     He <\/p>\n
was   arrested   on   09.11.2004   and   remanded   to   judicial <\/p>\n
                                                                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
       custody.     This   case   ended   in   acquittal   since   the   witnesses <\/p>\n
       did not depose properly against him out of fear.\n<\/p>\n
       10.    Yelahanka   New   Town   PS   Cr.   No.   186\/09   under <\/p>\n
       Sections   143<\/a>,   147<\/a>,   148<\/a>,   120(B)<\/a>,   307<\/a>,   302<\/a>   read   with <\/p>\n
       Section 149<\/a> IPC  :  In this case also, enmity between Ravi @ <\/p>\n
       Bullet   Ravi,   Seena,   Vasu   and   the   detenue   is   the   cause.\n<\/p>\n
       Nursing a grudge over past incidents, the detenue has done <\/p>\n
       away with the life of Ravi Raj @ Bullet Raj, Seena and Vasu <\/p>\n
       by   assaulting   them   with   sickles.     Seena   died   at   the   spot, <\/p>\n
       whereas   Ravi   and   Vasu   died   in   the   hospital.     The   detenue <\/p>\n
       was   arrested   on   28.08.2009   and   remanded   to   judicial <\/p>\n
       custody.   He was released on bail on 18.11.2009.   A case in <\/p>\n
       S.C. No. 120\/10 in this regard is pending trial.\n<\/p>\n
       11.    Subramanyanagar   PS   Cr.   No.   32\/10   under   Sections <\/p>\n
       307<\/a>, 353<\/a>, 399<\/a>, 402<\/a> IPC & 3 & 25 of the Arms Act<\/a>  :   On <\/p>\n
       06.02.1020   at   6.15   p.m.,   the   detenue   and   his   associates <\/p>\n
       conspired to murder their rival rowdy Break Jagga and were <\/p>\n
       waiting   in   a   case   armed   with   weapons.     On   receipt   of   this <\/p>\n
       information  Shri  M.R. Mudvi, PI, CCB Bangalore  City along <\/p>\n
       with police Inspectors and staff conducted raid and tried to <\/p>\n
       arrest   them.     However,   some   of   them   were   able   to   escape.\n<\/p>\n
       The detenue remained absconding and evaded arrest.   Later <\/p>\n
       he   obtained   bail   on   24.03.2010   in   the   Court   of   14th  FTC, <\/p>\n
       Bangalore.     A   charge   sheet   was   filed   against   him   on <\/p>\n
       17.04.2010   which   was   taken   on   file   in   CC   No.   17160\/10.\n<\/p>\n
       The case is pending trial.”\n<\/p>\n
11)    As   rightly   pointed   out   by   Ms.   Anitha   Shenoy,   learned <\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   State,   the   perusal   of   the   records   and   all   the <\/p>\n
above   details   furnished   in   the   detention   order   clearly   show <\/p>\n
that the appellant-detenue started his career in criminal field <\/p>\n
when he was 30 years old and is now about 60 years.   In the <\/p>\n
beginning, he was the follower of notorious rowdies Jairaj and <\/p>\n
Korangu Krishna.  Later, he formed his own gang consisting of <\/p>\n
                                                                                          1<\/span><\/p>\n
his   own   younger   brother   Krishna   @   Kitti   along   with   others.\n<\/p>\n
Krishna @ Kitti met his end in police encounter during 1996 in <\/p>\n
Rajajinagar   P.S.   Crime   No.   125   of   1996   for   the   offences <\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 141<\/a>, 143<\/a>, 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 302<\/a> read with <\/p>\n
Section   149<\/a>   IPC.     The   records   also   indicate   that   the   detenue <\/p>\n
has about 28 associates assisting him in his criminal activities <\/p>\n
and   a   number   of   cases   are   pending   against   them.     The <\/p>\n
detenue   has   no   regard   for   human   life.     The   cases   registered <\/p>\n
against   him   pertain   to   murder,   attempt   to   murder,   dacoity, <\/p>\n
rioting,   assault,   damage   to   public   property,   provoking   the <\/p>\n
public,   extortion   while   settling   land   disputes,   possessing <\/p>\n
illegal   weapons   etc.     Though   he   was   sentenced   to   undergo <\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for 9 years, that has not deterred him <\/p>\n
to put a stop to his criminal activities.   In fact, from the year <\/p>\n
1981   up   to   2010,   he   has   systematically   committed   these <\/p>\n
criminal activities.\n<\/p>\n
12)    All the abovementioned details which have been correctly <\/p>\n
stated in the detention order clearly show that the appellant is <\/p>\n
not   amenable   to   ordinary   course   of   law.     It   also   shows   that <\/p>\n
even   after   his   release   on   bail   from   the   prison   on   various <\/p>\n
                                                                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
occasions, he again started indulging in same type of offences, <\/p>\n
particularly,   threatening   the   public   life,   damaging   pubic <\/p>\n
property   etc.     All   these   aspects   have   been   meticulously <\/p>\n
considered by the Detaining Authority and after finding that in <\/p>\n
order   to   maintain   public   order,   since   his   activities   are <\/p>\n
prejudicial   to   the   public,   causing   harm   and   danger,   the <\/p>\n
Detaining   Authority   detained   him   as   `goonda’   under   the <\/p>\n
Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985 for a period of 12 months and <\/p>\n
the same was rightly approved by the Advisory Board and the <\/p>\n
State Government.   Inasmuch as the Detaining Authority has <\/p>\n
taken note of all the relevant materials and strictly followed all <\/p>\n
the   safeguards   as   provided   in   the   Act   ensuring   the   liberty   of <\/p>\n
the   detenue,   we   are   in   entire   agreement   with   the   decision   of <\/p>\n
the Detaining  Authority as well  as the  impugned  order  of the <\/p>\n
High Court affirming the same.\n<\/p>\n
13)    Learned counsel for the appellant very much relied on a <\/p>\n
recent decision of this Court in  Rekha (supra).   In the above <\/p>\n
case,   against   the   detention   order   dated   08.04.2010   imposed <\/p>\n
on   Ramakrishnan   under   the   Tamil   Nadu   Prevention   of <\/p>\n
Dangerous   Activities   of   Bootleggers,   Drug   Offenders,   Forest <\/p>\n
                                                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
Offenders,   Goondas,   Immoral   Traffic   Offenders,   Sand <\/p>\n
Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 on the <\/p>\n
allegation   that   he   was   selling   expired   drugs   after   tampering <\/p>\n
with   labels   and   printing   fresh   labels   showing   them   as   non-\n<\/p>\n
expired   drugs,   his   wife   filed   a  habeas   corpus  petition   before <\/p>\n
the   Madras   High   Court.     The   said   writ   petition   came   to   be <\/p>\n
dismissed on 23.12.2010.  Hence, wife of the detenue therein, <\/p>\n
approached   this   Court   by   way   of   special   leave   to   appeal.     In <\/p>\n
the   same   judgment,   this   Court   has   extracted   the   detention <\/p>\n
order and the grounds for detaining him under the Tamil Nadu <\/p>\n
Act<\/a>,   1982.     The   grounds   show   that   there   is   reference   to   one <\/p>\n
incident   relating   to   selling   expired   drugs   and   the   Detaining <\/p>\n
Authority by pointing out that necessary steps are being taken <\/p>\n
by   his   relatives   to   take   him   out   on   bail   and   since   in   similar <\/p>\n
cases,   bails   were   granted   by   the   courts   after   lapse   of   some <\/p>\n
time   and   if   he   comes   out   on   bail,   he   will   indulge   in   further <\/p>\n
activities   which   will   be   prejudicial   to   the   maintenance   of <\/p>\n
public   health  and  order   and  recourse   to   normal  criminal   law <\/p>\n
would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him <\/p>\n
from indulging in such activities, on the materials placed and <\/p>\n
                                                                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
after   fully   satisfying   the   Detaining   Authority   has   passed   an <\/p>\n
order under the Tamil Nadu Act<\/a>, 1982.   In para 7, the Bench <\/p>\n
has   pointed   out   that   in   the   grounds   of   detention,   no   details <\/p>\n
have been given about the alleged similar cases in which bail <\/p>\n
was   allegedly   granted   by   the   court   concerned.     The   grounds <\/p>\n
extracted   therein   also   are   bereft   of   any   further   details.     In <\/p>\n
those circumstances, this Court taking note of various earlier <\/p>\n
decisions   came   to   the   conclusion   that   normal   recourse   to <\/p>\n
ordinary   law   would   be   sufficient   and   there   is   no   need   for <\/p>\n
invocation of the special Act.\n<\/p>\n
14)    In   the   case   on   hand,   we   have   already   extracted <\/p>\n
criminality, criminal activities starting from the age of 30 and <\/p>\n
details   relating   to   eleven   cases   mentioned   in   the   grounds   of <\/p>\n
detention.     It  is   not   in   dispute   that   in   one   case   he   has   been <\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for <\/p>\n
a term of nine years.  He had been acquitted in two cases and <\/p>\n
four   cases   are   pending   against   him   wherein   he   was   granted <\/p>\n
bail   by   the   courts.     It   is   the   subjective   satisfaction   of   the <\/p>\n
Detaining   Authority   that   in   spite   of   his   continuous   activities <\/p>\n
causing threat to maintenance of public order, he was getting <\/p>\n
                                                                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
bail one after another and indulging in the same activities.  In <\/p>\n
such   circumstances,   based   on   the   relevant   materials   and <\/p>\n
satisfying   itself,   namely,   that   it   would   not   be   possible   to <\/p>\n
control his habituality in continuing the criminal activities by <\/p>\n
resorting to normal procedure, the Detaining Authority passed <\/p>\n
an order detaining him under the Act No. 12 of 1985.  In view <\/p>\n
of   enormous   materials   which   are   available   in   the   grounds   of <\/p>\n
detention,   such   habituality   has   not   been   cited   in   the   above <\/p>\n
referred Rekha (supra), we are satisfied that the said decision <\/p>\n
is distinguishable on facts with reference to the case on hand <\/p>\n
and contention based on the same is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
15)    Though learned counsel for the appellant has not raised <\/p>\n
the objection i.e. delay in disposal of his representation since <\/p>\n
that was the only contention before the High Court, we intend <\/p>\n
to   deal   with   the   same.     We   have   already   stated   that   the <\/p>\n
detention   order   was   passed   on   22.09.2010   by   the <\/p>\n
Commissioner   of   Police,   Bangalore   City.     The   said   order   was <\/p>\n
approved by the Government on 30.09.2010 and the case was <\/p>\n
sent   to   Advisory   Board   on   08.10.2010   and   the   Board   sat   on <\/p>\n
04.11.2010.     The   Government   received   the   report   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                           1<\/span><\/p>\n
Advisory   Board   on   10.11.2010.     Confirmation   detaining   the <\/p>\n
detenu  for   a  period  of  12  months   was  issued  on  16.11.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Representation of the detenu through Central Prison was sent <\/p>\n
on 06.10.2010 i.e. before passing of the confirmation order by <\/p>\n
the Government.   This Court in  K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L.\n<\/p>\n
Abdul   Khader  vs.  Union   of   India   &   Ors.   and   State   of  <\/p>\n
Karnataka   &   Ors<\/a>.  (1991)   1   SCC   476   (CB)   has   clearly   held <\/p>\n
that   the   authority   has   no  constitutional   duty   to   consider   the <\/p>\n
representation   made   by   the   detenu   before   the   order   of <\/p>\n
confirmation of the detention order.  There is no constitutional <\/p>\n
mandate   under   Clause   (5)   of   Article   22<\/a>,   much   less   any <\/p>\n
statutory   requirement   to   consider   the   representation   before <\/p>\n
confirming   the   order   of   detention.     In   other   words,   the <\/p>\n
competent authority can consider the representation only after <\/p>\n
the  order  of  confirmation   and  as  such  the  contentions  raised <\/p>\n
by   the   appellant   as   if   there   was   delay   in   consideration   is <\/p>\n
baseless  and  liable  to  be rejected.     As  pointed  out  above,   the <\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   appellant   did   not   raise   any   objection   as <\/p>\n
regards to the same.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            1<\/span><\/p>\n
16)    On going through the factual details, various materials in <\/p>\n
the grounds of detention in view of continuous activities of the <\/p>\n
detenu   attracting   the   provisions   of   IPC<\/a>,   continuous   and <\/p>\n
habituality in pursuing the same type of offences indulging in <\/p>\n
committing   offences   like   attempt   to   murder,   dacoity,   rioting, <\/p>\n
assault,   damaging   public   property,   provoking   the   public, <\/p>\n
attempt   to   grab   the   property   of   members   of   the   public, <\/p>\n
extortion   while   settling   land   dispute,   possessing   illegal <\/p>\n
weapons   and   also   of   the   fact   that   all   the   procedures   and <\/p>\n
statutory   safeguards   have   been   fully   complied   with   by   the <\/p>\n
Detaining   Authority,   we   agree   with   the   reasoning   of   the <\/p>\n
Detaining   Authority   as   approved   by   the   Government   and <\/p>\n
upheld by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
17)    Under   these   circumstances,   we   find   no   merit   in   the <\/p>\n
appeal.  Consequently, the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                      …………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (P. SATHASIVAM)   <\/p>\n
                                       …………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)    <\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                   1<\/span><\/p>\n
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                        1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011 Author: P.Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1814 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3913 of 2011) D.M. Nagaraja …. Appellant(s) Versus The Government […]<\/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-266428","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nD.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-08T05:50:39+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\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T05:50:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3409,\"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\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011\",\"name\":\"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T05:50:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-08T05:50:39+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\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T05:50:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011"},"wordCount":3409,"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\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011","name":"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T05:50:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-m-nagaraja-vs-govt-of-karnataka-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.M.Nagaraja vs Govt.Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266428","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=266428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}