{"id":29244,"date":"1956-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1956-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956"},"modified":"2016-07-16T01:22:37","modified_gmt":"2016-07-15T19:52:37","slug":"mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956","title":{"rendered":"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 246, \t\t 1957 SCR 414<\/div>\n
Author: T V Aiyyar<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAMMAD GHOUSE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/11\/1956\n\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nDAS, S.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR  246\t\t  1957 SCR  414\n\n\nACT:\nGovernment  Servant-judicial  Officer-Disciplinary  Proceed-\nings-Enquiry  into charges-jurisdiction of the\tHigh  Court-\norder of suspension Pending final orders by the\t Government-\nPower  of  the High Court-Constitution of India,  Art.\t3II-\nMadras\tCivil Services (Classification, Control and  Appeal)\nRules,\tYr.  13, I7(e)-Madras Civil  Services  (Disciplinary\nProceedings  Tribunal)\tRules, 1948  Andhra  Civil  Services\n(Disciplinary  Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, r.  4\t (I)\n(a).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellant\t was  at  the  relevant\t dates\t posted\t  as\nSubordinate  Judge at Masulipatam and  Amalapuram.   Charges\nwere made against him of bribery and serious  irregularities\nin the discharge of official duties, and they were  enquired\ninto by one of the judges of the Madras High Court who\tsent\nhis  reports on August 2o, ,953, and November Io,  953.\t  On\nthe  basis of the reports the High Court decided on  January\n25,  1954,  that  the appellant\t should\t be  dismissed\tfrom\nservice on the charge of bribery and removed from service on\nthe  charge  of\t irregularities, and on\t January  28,  1954,\nplaced\t him  on  suspension  until  further  orders.\t The\nappellant  moved the High Court under Art. 226 of  the\tCon-\nstitution  of India for quashing the order of suspension  on\nthe  ground  (1) that under r. 4(I)(a) of the  Andhra  Civil\nServices (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, an\nenquiry into the\n415\nconduct of a Government servant drawing a monthly salary  of\nRs.  15o  and above could be made only by a Tribunal  to  be\nappointed by the Government, and that as the rule came into,\neffect\tfrom October 1, 1953, the order of the\tMadras\tHigh\nCourt dated January 28, 1954, was without jurisdiction,\t and\n(2)  that  the\torder  was repugnant  to  Art.\t31I  of\t the\nConstitution  of  India.   The\tHigh  Court  dismissed\t the\napplication and on appeal against the judgment.\nHeld:(1) that in view of the amendment of r. 4 Of the Andhra\nCivil  Services (Disciplinary Proceedings  Tribunal)  Rules,\n1953,  on  April  II,  955,  excluding,\t with  retrospective\neffect,\t the  jurisdiction  of the Tribunal  in\t respect  of\nenquiries  into\t the conduct of the judicial  officers,\t the\norder  of the Madras High Court dated January 28, 1954,\t was\nnot open to attack.\n(2)that\t an  order  of suspension pending  final  orders  is\nneither\t one of dismissal nor of removal of  service  within\nArt. 311 of the Constitution.\n(3)that\t  under\t  r.  13  of  the  Madras   Civil   Services\n(Classification,  Control and Appeal) Rules, the High  Court\nhad  the  power to impose suspension  pending  enquiry\tinto\ngrave charges under\nr.   17(e)  against  the  Members  of  the  State   judicial\nService.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
\nNo. 133 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nNovember 19,1954, of the Andhra High Court in Writ  Petition
\nNo. 342 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n
 N.  C. Chatterji, M. S. K. Sastri and Sardar  Bahadur,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Porus  A. Mehta, T. V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
1956.  November 29.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nVENKATARAMA  AYYAR  J.-The appellant was  recruited  to\t the
\nMadras\tProvincial  Judicial Service as District  Munsif  in
\n1935.  In 1949 he was promoted to the office of\t Subordinate
\nJudge,\tand on June 19, 1950, he was posted  as\t Subordinate
\nJudge  of Masulipatnam, Krishna District.  Among  the  suits
\nwhich  he tried were O.S. No. 95 of 1946 and O.S. No. 24  of
\n1949, which were connected, and on July 27, 1950,  arguments
\nwere  heard therein, and judgment reserved.  On\t August\t 22,
\n1950, while judgment was still pending, Lingam
\n54<\/span>
\n416<\/span>
\nSitarama Rao, who was the fifth defendant in both the suits,
\nfiled  an  application\tin the High  Court  of\tMadras\t for
\ntransferring them to some other court on the ground that the
\nappellant was attempting through his brother to obtain bribe
\nfrom  the parties, and on this application, the\t High  Court
\npassed\tan order on the same date, staying the\tdelivery  of
\njudgment.  The suits themselves were eventually\t transferred
\nto  the court of the Subordinate Judge of Gudivada, and\t the
\nappellant was also transferred on September 16, 1950, to the
\nSubordinate  Court of Amalapuram in East Godavari  District.
\nThereafter,  the High Court started investigation  into\t the
\nallegations made in the affidavit in the stay petition,\t and
\nas  a  result  of the enquiries and  reports  received,\t the
\nfollowing  charge was framed against the appellant on  April
\n2, 1953:\n<\/p>\n
”  That\t you  in or about August 1950  being  at  that\ttime
\nAdditional   Sub-Judge,\t  Masulipatnam,\t  entered   into   a
\nconspiracy with your brother Md.  Riazuddin alias Basha\t for
\nthe  purpose of obtaining a bribe from the parties  to\tO.S.
\nNos. 24\/49 and 95\/46 on the file of your Court, and that, in
\npursuance  of  the conspiracy, the said\t Md.   Riazuddin  at
\nVijayawada  attempted  between 11 -8-1950 and  13-8-1950  to
\nobtain\ta bribe from Lingam Satya Narayana Rao and  his\t son
\nLingam\tSeetarama Rao (the 5th defendant in both  the  above
\nsuits).\n<\/p>\n
You are hereby required within 15 days of the receipt by you
\nof this proceeding (i) to submit a written statement of your
\ndefence and to show cause why disciplinary action should not
\nbe taken against you in respect of the above charge,
\nand  (ii) to state whether you desire an oral enquiry to  be
\nheld or only to be heard in person.”\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant filed his written statement in answer to\t the
\ncharge on June 22, 1953.\n<\/p>\n
Meantime,  complaints  had also been received  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt\t that\tthe   appellant\t  had\tcommitted    serious
\nirregularities\tin the discharge of his official  duties  in
\nthe  Sub-Court,\t Amalapuram,  such as that  he\thad  delayed
\ndelivering  judgments  in  the\tsuits  and  appeals  for  an
\nunreasonable  time,  that he had made false returns  to\t the
\nDistrict Court, and that to cover his
\n417<\/span>
\ndefaults,  he had altered the records of the court so as  to
\nbe consistent with those returns.  Charges were framed\twith
\nreference  to these irregularities on January  15,1953,\t and
\nfurther\t charges relating to the same matter were framed  on
\nMay  6,\t 1953, to all of which he filed his  explanation  on
\nJune 22, 1953.\n<\/p>\n
One  of the Judges of the High Court of Madras,\t Balakrishna
\nAyyar,\tJ., was deputed to enquire into these  charges,\t and
\nafter making an elaborate enquiry in which several witnesses
\nincluding  the appellant were examined, he sent a report  on
\nOctober\t 20,  1953, that the charge of corruption  was\tmade
\nout, and he concluded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”  Therefore,  I find the charge  proved.   What  punishment
\nshould be imposed on Mr. Ghouse can be decided only after he
\nhas  been  heard in that regard, but, at this  stage,  I  am
\ninclined  to take the view that he should be dismissed\tfrom
\nservice.”\n<\/p>\n
With  reference\t to  the charges  of  irregularities,  etc.,
\nBalakrishna  Ayyar J. submitted his report on  November\t 10,
\n1953,  in  which  also he found that the  charges  were\t all
\nsubstantially established, and he concluded as follows:
\n“In  the  result, I find Mr. Ghouse guilty  of\tthe  charges
\nframed to the extent already indicated.\n<\/p>\n
In  respect  of another charge against Mr.  Ghouse,  that  I
\nenquired  into\tI  expressed  the view\tthat  he  should  be
\ndismissed  from\t service.   In\tview  of  that\tno   further
\nrecommendation for punishment in respect of these charges is
\nnecessary.  Certain observations, however, may not be out of
\norder.\t A  judicial officer who delays\t judgments,  in\t the
\nabsence\t of special or extenuating circumstances,  furnishes
\nevidence  of his own incompetence.  But a  judicial  officer
\nwho  systematically sends false returns is guilty  of  moral
\nturpitude.   If\t in addition ‘he instructs  members  of\t his
\noffice to make false entries-in the records of the court  he
\nwould be guilty of even more blameworthy conduct.  One would
\nhardly desire to keep such persons in service.”
\nThese reports were considered at a meeting of the Judges  of
\nthe  Madras High Court on January 25,1954, and they  decided
\nthat “the proper punishment to be
\n418<\/span>
\nawarded\t to  the officer as regards the two counts  are\t (1)
\nregarding  the\tfirst  charge  of  bribery,  dismissal\tfrom
\nservice\t and  (2)  regarding the second\t charge\t of  various
\ndelinquencies,\tsuch  as delaying judgments,  etc.,  removal
\nfrom  service.”\t Then they passed an order  on\tJanuary\t 28,
\n1954,  placing\tthe appellant on  suspension  until  further
\norders, and the same was communicated to him on January\t 30,
\n1954.\n<\/p>\n
On April 28, 1954, the appellant filed in the High Court  of
\nMadras a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for  a
\nwrit  quashing\tthe order of suspension\t dated\tJanuary\t 28,
\n1954,  on the grounds, firstly, that under the Andhra  Civil
\nServices  (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)  Rules,  1953,
\nwhich had been published by the Andhra Government on October
\n22, 1953, with effect from October 1, 1953, enquiry into the
\nconduct\t of Government servants on a monthly salary  of\t Rs.
\n150 and above could be held only by a Tribunal to which\t the
\nGovernment  might refer the same, and that,  therefore,\t the
\nproceedings  of\t the High Court of Madras after\t October  1,
\n1953,  culminating in the order of suspension dated  January
\n28, 1954, were without jurisdiction, and secondly, that\t the
\norder  in question was void, as it was in  contravention  of
\nArt. 311 of the Constitution.  It must be mentioned that the
\nState of Andhra had come into existence on October 1,  1953,
\nbut  that  the\tHigh  Court  of\t Madras\t continued  to\thave
\njurisdiction over the Andhra State until July, 1954, when  a
\nseparate  High\tCourt was established  therefor.   The\twrit
\npetition  which was pending in the High Court of Madras\t was
\nthen transferred to the Andhra High Court.
\nAt  the\t hearing, the only contention that would  appear  to
\nhave been pressed by the appellant was that by reason of the
\nAndhra\tCivil Services (Disciplinary  Proceedings  Tribunal)
\nRules,\t1953, coming into force on October 1, 1953,  it\t was
\nonly a Tribunal as provided in Rule 4 (1) (a) of those Rules
\nthat   could  enquire  into  the  charges,  and\t  that\t the
\nproceedings  in the High Court of Madras subsequent  thereto
\nwere  without jurisdiction.  In rejecting  this\t contention,
\nthe  learned  Judge.%  observed that though Rule  4  of\t the
\nAndhra Civil Services Rules differed in some respects
\n419<\/span>
\nfrom  the  corresponding Rule of the Madras  Civil  Services
\nRules,\t1948,  the  differences\t were  of  an  unsubstantial
\ncharacter,  and were due more to inexpert” drafting than  to
\nany  deliberate intention to effect a change in\t the  Madras
\nRules.\t They further held that if the Rule in question\t was
\nintended  to  affect the jurisdiction of the High  Court  to
\nhold  an enquiry into the conduct of a Subordinate  judicial
\nofficer,  it would be in contravention of Arts. 227 and\t 235
\nof  the\t Constitution, which vested in the  High  Court\t the
\ncontrol and: superintendence of all the Courts in the State.
\nIn  the result, they dismissed the application.\t The  matter
\nnow comes before this Court in appeal under Art. 136 of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Before us, the appellant pressed both the grounds which were
\nraised\tby  him in his application under Art. 226.   On\t the
\nquestion  whether  by reason of the  Andhra  Civil  Services
\nRules  coming  into operation with effect  from\t October  1,
\n1953,  the  High Court had ceased to  have  jurisdiction  to
\nproceed\t with the matter, it is necessary first to refer  to
\nthe  relevant  Rules.  Rule 4 of the Madras  Civil  Services
\n(Disciplinary  Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1948, which\t was
\nthe Rule in force when the enquiry against the appellant was
\nstarted, runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
4.” The Government may, subject to the provisions of rule 5,
\nrefer to the Tribunal:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)Cases  relating  to\tGovernment  servants  on  a  monthly
\nsalary.\t of  Rs.  150  and  above,  in\trespect\t of  matters
\ninvolving corruption on the part of such Government servants
\nin the discharge of their official duties.\n<\/p>\n
(b)All\tappeals to the Government from\tGovernment  servants
\nagainst\t disciplinary orders passed by heads of\t departments
\nand  other competent authorities on charges  of\t corruption,
\nand\n<\/p>\n
(c)any\tother  case or class of cases which  the  Government
\nconsider, should be dealt with by the Tribunal.
\nProvided  that cases arising in the Judicial Department\t and
\nagainst\t Government  servants in the  subordinate  ranks  of
\npolice forces of the rank of
\n420<\/span>
\nSub-Inspector  and  below  shall  not  be  referred  to\t the
\nTribunal.  ”\n<\/p>\n
  The  corresponding  Rule  in\tthe  Andhra  Civil  Services
\n(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1953, which\tcame
\ninto operation from October 1, 1953, is as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
4  (1) ” The Government shall, subject to the provisions  of
\nrule 5, refer the following cases to the Tribu-
\nnal, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  Cases  relating  to Government servants  on  a  monthly
\nsalary of Rs. 150 and above in respect of matters  involving
\ncorruption  on the part of such Government servants  in\t the
\ndischarge of their official
\nduties\tand\n<\/p>\n
(b)  All  appeals  or petitions to  the\t Government  against
\norders passed on charges of corruption and all\tdisciplinary
\ncases in which the Government propose to revise the original
\norders passed on such charges:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that it shall not be necessary to consult
\nthe Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  in any case in which the Tribunal has, at any  previous
\nstage, given advice in regard to the order to be passed\t and
\nno fresh question has there-after arisen for  determination,
\nor,\n<\/p>\n
(ii) where  the Government propose to pass orders  rejecting
\nsuch appeal or petition.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The  Government may, subject to the provisions of\trule
\n5,  also  refer to the Tribunal any other case or  class  of
\ncases  which,  they  consider should be dealt  with  by\t the
\nTribunal:\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that the following cases shall not be referred  to
\nthe Tribunal namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  Cases arising in the Judicial Department;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Cases  arising against the Government servants  in\t the
\nsubordinate ranks of the ‘police forces of the rank of\tSub-
\nInspector  and\tbelow,\tunless the cases  are  against\tthem
\ntogether with officers of higher ranks.\t ”
\nThe  argument  of the appellant is that\t whereas  under\t the
\nproviso\t to  Rule  4 of the  Madras  Civil  Services  Rules,
\nenquiries against subordinate judicial officers could not be
\nreferred to a Tribunal, under Rule 4 (1) (a)
\n421<\/span>
\nof the Andhra Civil Services Rules it was obligatory on\t the
\npart   of  the\tGovernment  to\trefer  the  cases  of\tall.
\nGovernment servants drawing a monthly salary of’ Rs. 150 and
\nabove to a Tribunal.  According to the appellant, the result
\nof  this  change  was that such enquiry as  was\t held  after
\nOctober 1, 1953, by the High Court and all orders passed  by
\nit thereafter were bad, and that he had a right to have\t his
\ncase   referred\t to  and  determined  by  the  Tribunal\t  in
\naccordance  with  Rule\t4  (1) (a).   There  has  been\tsome
\nargument  before us as to whether the concluding proviso  in
\nRule  4\t of the Andhra Civil Services Rules  qualifies\tboth
\nsubrules  (1) and (2) or only sub-rule (2).  While,  on\t the
\none hand, there is force in the contention of the  appellant
\nthat  having regard to its setting, the proviso should\tmore
\nproperly be read as qualifying subrule (2), we are  inclined
\nto  agree  with the learned Judges of the High\tCourt  that,
\nread  as  a whole, the Rule does not show  an  intention  to
\ndepart\tfrom  the procedure laid down in  the  Madras  Civil
\nServices  Rules.   The point, however, is  one\tof  academic
\ninterest,  as  the Rule in question  has  subsequently\tbeen
\namended\t by  G.\t 0. No. 938 dated April\t 11,  1955,  and  it
\nexpressly  provides  that the amendment shall be  deemed  to
\nhave come into force on October 1, 1953.  That amendment  is
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
”  In rule 4 of the said rules, the proviso occurring  after
\nsub-rule  (2)  shall be omitted, and in\t lieu  thereof,\t the
\nfollowing    sub-rule\tshall\tbe   inserted,\t  namely:
\n(3)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in subrule  (1)  or
\nsub-rule  (2), the following cases shall not be referred  to
\nthe Tribunal, namely:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  cases arising in the Judicial Department; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) ‘cases  arising  against  Government  servants  in\t the
\nsubordinate  ranks of the Police forces of the rank of\tSub-
\nInspector  and\tbelow,\tunless the cases  are  against\tthem
\ntogether with officers of higher ranks.\t ”
\nBy   reason   of   this\t amendment,   which   is   expressly
\nretrospective in character, the main ground of objection  on
\nwhich  the application of the appellant was founded,  is  no
\nlonger\ttenable.   In view of this  conclusion,\t it  becomes
\nunnecessary.to consider the contention
\n422<\/span>
\nof  the respondent that Rule 4 of the Andhra Civil  Services
\nRules could not, in any event, apply to enquiries which\t had
\nbeen validly initiated previously thereto.
\nIt was next contended on behalf of the appellant that as the
\nauthority  which  appointed  him was  the  Governor  of\t the
\nProvince,  it was only that authority that could dismiss  or
\nremove\thim from service, and that the order  of  suspension
\nmade  by  the  High  Court  on\tJanuary\t 28,  1954,  was  in
\ncontravention  of Art. 311 of the Constitution, and was,  in
\nconsequence,  bad.  This contention does not appear to\thave
\nbeen  pressed in the High Court, and is,  moreover,  without
\nsubstance.  The facts are that Balakrishna Ayyar J. sent his
\nreport\t on  the  enquiry  into\t the  charges  against\t the
\nappellant,  and\t expressed  his opinion that  he  should  be
\ndismissed or removed from service.  The High Court  approved
\nof  it, and passed an order on January 28, 1954,  suspending
\nhim  until further orders.  The report was then sent to\t the
\nGovernment  for action, and, in fact, the Andhra  Government
\nhas issued a notice to the appellant on August 12, 1954,  to
\nshow  cause why he should not be dismissed or  removed\tfrom
\nservice.   Thus, it is the appropriate authority under\tArt.
\n311 that proposes to take action against the appellant,\t and
\nit  is for that authority to pass the ultimate order in\t the
\nmatter.\t  The order passed by the High Court on January\t 28,
\n1954,  is merely one of suspension pending final  orders  by
\nthe  Government,  and  such  an\t order\tis  neither  one  of
\ndismissal nor of removal from service within Art. 311 of the
\nConstitution.  It was also argued that the High Court had no
\nauthority  under  the rules to suspend\ta  judicial  officer
\npending\t final orders of the Government.  But under Rule  13
\nof  the Madras Civil Services (Classification,\tControl\t and
\nAppeal) Rules, it is the High Court of Judicature at  Madras
\nthat  is  constituted  as the  authority  which\t may  impose
\nsuspension  pending  enquiry into grave charges\t under\trule
\n17(e)  against\tthe Members of the State  Judicial  Service.
\nThe  order in question, therefore, falls  within-this  rule,
\nand is perfectly intra vires.\n<\/p>\n
423<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was lastly contended for the appellant that even if\t the
\nHigh Court could hold a preliminary enquiry into the conduct
\nof a judicial officer, it had no jurisdiction to decide\t the
\nmatter finally, that the findings given by Balakrishna Ayyar
\nJ.  should not be held to conclude the question against\t the
\nappellant, and that the Government was bound to hold a fresh
\nenquiry and decide for itself whether the charges were well-
\nfounded.  No such question was raised in the petition or  in
\nthe High Court, and we must, therefore, decline to entertain
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 246, 1957 SCR 414 Author: T V Aiyyar Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Das, S.K. PETITIONER: MOHAMMAD GHOUSE Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/11\/1956 BENCH: […]<\/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-29244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956 - 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\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956\" \/>\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=\"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-15T19:52:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956\",\"datePublished\":\"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T19:52:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956\"},\"wordCount\":2644,\"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\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956\",\"name\":\"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T19:52:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956 - 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\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-15T19:52:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956","datePublished":"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T19:52:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956"},"wordCount":2644,"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\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956","name":"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T19:52:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-ghouse-vs-state-of-andhra-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammad Ghouse vs State Of Andhra on 29 November, 1956"}]},{"@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\/29244","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=29244"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29244\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}