{"id":31739,"date":"1971-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971"},"modified":"2019-03-27T20:18:07","modified_gmt":"2019-03-27T14:48:07","slug":"harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971","title":{"rendered":"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1130, \t\t 1971 SCR 113<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHARIVANSH LAL MEHRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/03\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nMITTER, G.K.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1130\t\t  1971 SCR  113\n 1971 SCC  (2)\t54\n\n\nACT:\nPrevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947, s. 5(2) read with s.\n5(1)  (d)--Official sending goods from Goa to  Bombay  after\nGoa  had become Part of Indian territory without payment  of\ncustoms\t duty--No  offence is committed because\t no  customs\nduty was leviable--Duty can be levied only by law and not by\nadministrative instructions.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant was convicted of a charge under a. 5(2)\tread\nwith a. 5(1)   (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.\t The\nallegation against him was    that by utilizing his position\nas  a  government servant he sent various articles  such  as\nRadios,\t Transistors,  Clothes\tetc.,  from  Goa  to  Bombay\nwithout\t paying customs duty thereon.  Against the order  of\nthe  High Court maintaining his conviction appeal was  filed\nin  this Court.\t The question for consideration was  whether\nany customs duty was leviable on goods alleged to have\tbeen\nsent  by  the appellant to Bombay from Goa  which  when\t the\ngoods were sent, had become a part of India.\nHELD:\t  Goa  was  liberated  on December  20,\t 1961.\t The\ntwelfth\t amendment  to the Constitution which  received\t the\nassent\tof the President on 27th March 1962 made Goa a\tpart\nof India.  All territories that this country may acquire  in\nwhatever manner become a part of India in view of Art.\t1(3)\n(c). [115G-116C]\nAccording  to the prosecution the goods complained  of\twere\nall sent from Goa to Bombay after March 27, 1962.  There was\nno  statute or statutory rule to show that any customs\tduty\nhad been imposed on the goods transferred from Goa to  other\nparts of India after December 20, 1961.\t The trial court and\nthe High Court wrongly held that certain customs duties were\nleviable  because of some administrative  instructions.\t  No\ntax  or duty can be levied or collected except by  authority\nof  law.   Moreover  no\t administrative\t instructions\twere\nproduced before the court, privilege being strangely claimed\nfor   them  on\tthe  ground  that  they\t were\tconfidential\ndocuments. [116C-F]\nThe  notification  issued  in 1950 declaring  Goa  to  be  a\nforeign\t territory and thus bringing the exports  from\tthat\ncountry to India within the purview of the Land Customs Act,\ncould  not continue to have legal effect after Goa became  a\npart of India, for it then ceased to be a foreign territory.\n[116G]\nSection 5 of the Indian Tariff Act 1934 as it stood in\t1950\nempowered  the Government to declare any  territory  outside\nIndia  as  a  foreign  territory for  the  purpose  of\tthat\nprovision.  That provision did not empower the government to\ndeclare any part of India as a foreign territory.  Once\t Goa\nbecame\ta  part of India the Government was  incompetent  to\ndeclare\t that territory as a foreign territory.\t Nor did  it\nappear that any such declaration was made after December 20,\n1961. [117C-D]\nThere was thus no legal basis for holding that the appellant\nhad  utilised his official position to evade  customs  duty.\nHis appeal must accordingly be allowed. [117E-G]\n8--1 S.C. India\/71\n114\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Criminal Appeal No. 80  of
\n1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated April 17, 1967  of
\nthe Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1210 of 1965.
\nA.S.R. Chari, M. J. Mirchandani, K. K. Jain, H. K. Puri and
\nR.   Nagratnam, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
P.   K.\t Chatterjee, B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde,\tJ.-The\tappellant and one R. B.\t Mathur\t were  tried
\nbefore\tthe learned Special Judge for Greater  Bombay  under
\nvarious\t charges including a charge of\tconspiracy.   Mathur
\nwas  acquitted\tand  the appeal against\t his  acquittal\t was
\nunsuccessful.\tThe  appellant\twas also  acquitted  of\t all
\ncharges\t excepting  a charge under Section  5(2)  read\twith
\nSection\t 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.\t For
\nthat   offence\t he  was  sentenced   to   suffer   rigorous
\nimprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in.,
\ndefault\t to  suffer further rigorous imprisonment  for\tfour
\nmonths.\t  The  substance of the charge under  which  he\t was
\nconvicted  is  that  he\t by  utilizing\this  position  as  a
\nGovernment  servant  sent various articles such\t as  Radios,
\nTransistors, Clothes etc., from Goa to Bombay without paying
\ncustoms\t duty.\t He  was also held  guilty  of\tsending\t his
\npersonal  articles  in the vehicles engaged  by\t the  postal
\ndepartment  without  paying  any charge.   The\ttrial  court
\nsupported its conclusion on a further ground namely that the
\nassets\tof the appellant were more than that he\t could\thave
\nacquired by his known sources of income.\n<\/p>\n
The  charges framed against the appellant made no  reference
\nto  the\t fact that his assets were more than that  he  could
\nhave acquired by his known sources of income.  In appeal the
\nlearned.  judges  of  the High Court did not  go  into\tthat
\naspect of the case.  Nor was that aspect of the case pressed
\nbefore us at the hearing.  Therefore it is not necessary  to
\ngo into that aspect.  Even otherwise that accusation appears
\nto  be without any solid basis.\t The learned Judges  of\t the
\nHigh  Court  also did not go into the  allegation  that\t the
\nappellant  utilised  his official position  in\tsending\t his
\npersonal  goods\t in  the  vehicles  engaged  by\t the  postal
\ndepartment.  The accusation is that the appellant sent\tsome
\nof  his\t goods\tin  the\t vehicles  engaged,  by\t the  postal
\ndepartment  from Panjim in Goa to Margoa or  Sawanthwadi  or
\nBelgaum.   These places are not very far from  Panjim.\t The
\nHigh Court held that the offence committed by the  appellant
\nin  that  regard  if  true, is of  a  technical\t nature\t and
\ntherefore it thought it unnecessary to examine the  evidence
\nrelating to the same.  Evidently in its view the accusation
\n\t\t\t    115<\/span>
\nregarding  the\tsending\t of some articles  in  the  vehicles
\nengaged\t by the postal department was of a  trifling  nature
\nand  therefore\triot worth examining.  But  the\t High  Court
\nagreed\twith the trial (court that the appellant was  guilty
\nof  evading  payment  of  customs duty\tand  he\t did  so  by
\nutilizing  his official position.  In order to ,examine\t the
\ncorrectness of this finding, it is necessary to set out\t the
\nmaterial facts.\n<\/p>\n
In  1961, the appellant was working as a Senior\t Superinten-
\n,dent  of Post Offices at Jaipur.  On December 20, 1961\t Goa
\nwas liberated by the Indian Army.  Thereafter the  appellant
\nwas  ,deputed  as a Special Duty Officer to  Goa.   He\ttook
\ncharge\tin Goa on December 25, 1961.  He assumed  additional
\ncharge\tas Director of Posts and Telegraphs on May 11,\t1962
\nand he held that office till August 11, 1962.  Thereafter he
\nwent back to Jaipur.\t It  is\t alleged  that\tduring\t the
\nperiod of appellant’s stay in Goa, he  made large  purchases
\nof certain luxury articles.  Utilising his official position
\nin  the\t Posts and Telegraphs department  at  profits.\t The
\nprosecution  relied  in\t support  of  that  charge  on\tfour
\ndifferent instances.  Voluminous evidence was led in support
\nof the prosecution case.  But it is not necessary to go into
\nthat  evidence as in our opinion the charge under which\t the
\nappellant  was\tconvicted is without any legal\tbasis.\t The
\nlearned\t Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. S. R.  Chari\t has
\nassailed the judgments of the High Court and the trial court
\non various grounds.  He contended that the evidence  adduced
\nin,  support  of  the prosecution  case\t is  unreliable\t and
\ninsufficient  to suport the conviction of the appellant.  He
\nalso raised various legal pleas in support of the appeal. He
\ncontended  that as the Prevention of Corruption Act was\t not
\nin  force in Goa at the relevant time, the  appellant  could
\nnot  have  been held guilty of an offence  under  that\tAct.
\nAccording to him, the investigation of this case was illegal
\nas  the\t required sanction had not been obtained.   But\t the
\nmost important plea taken by him is that no custom duty\t was
\nleviable  on  the  articles said to have been  sent  by\t the
\nappellant  from Goa to Bombay and as such the entire  fabric
\nof  the prosecution case must fall to the ground.  There  is
\nforce  in  this contention.  Hence it is  not  necessary  to
\nexamine the other contentions.\n<\/p>\n
As mentioned earlier Goa was liberated on December 20, 1961.
\nTwelfth\t amendment  to our Constitution which  received\t the
\nassent\t  of  the  President on 27th March 1962 made  Goa  a
\npart of India. It became a Union Territory. The amendment in
\nquestion  is deemed to have come into force on December 20,
\n1961.  Hence Goa must be considered as a part of India from
\nDecember  20, 1961 and indisputably at any rate\t from  March
\n27, 1962.  Article 1 of our Constitution says :\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t 1. India, that is Bharat, shall be a  Union
\n\t      of States.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      116<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      2.    The\t states and the territories  thereof
\n\t      shall be as specified in the First Schedule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    The territory of India shall comprise-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the territories of the States ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t union territories specified in\t the
\n\t      First Schedule, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   such   other  territories  as   may\t  be
\n\t      acquired.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
All  the  territories  that  this  country  may\t acquire  in
\nwhatever  manner become part of India in view of  Article  1
\n(3)  (c).   Further  in the case of Goa\t by  means  of\t12th
\namendment  to the Constitution, the same is included in\t the
\n1st Schedule.  Therefore there is no room for the contention
\nthat  Goa was not a part of India during the relevant  time.
\nIt may be noted that according to the prosecution the  goods
\ncomplained  of were all sent from Goa to Bombay after  March
\n27, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
This takes us to the question whether there is any liability
\nto  pay\t customs duty when someone sent goods  from  Goa  to
\nBombay\tin  1962.  No statute or statutory rule\t was  placed
\nbefore,\t the  Court to show that any customs duty  had\tbeen
\nimposed on the goods transmitted from Goa to other parts  of
\nIndia  after December 20, 1961.\t The only witness who  spoke
\nabout  the liability to pay customs duties on the  goods  in
\nquestion  is  P. W. 56 Shaikh, the  Dy.\t  Superintendent  of
\nCentral\t Excise.   According to him customs  duty  on  those
\narticles  was  leviable because\t of  certain  administrative
\ninstructions.  But be refused to place those  administrative
\ninstructions before the court.\tHe claimed privilege on\t the
\nground that they are confidential documents a strange claim.
\nStranger  still\t is  that the trial court  appears  to\thave
\naccepted  that\tplea.\tNo  tax or duty\t can  be  levied  or
\ncollected except by authority of law.  Hence no customs duty
\nwas leviable on the basis of any administrative instruction.
\nEvery  levy  of\t customs  duty or  any\tother  tax  must  be
\nsanctioned,  by law.  It is surprising that both  the  trial
\ncourt  as  well as the High Court were of the  opinion\tthat
\ncertain\t customs  duties  were\tleviable  because  of\tsome
\nadministrative\tinstructions.  It appears that there  was  a
\nnotification  issued in the year 1950 declaring Goa to be  a
\nforeign\t territory and thus bringing the exports  from\tthat
\ncountry\t to  India within the purview of Land  Customs\tAct.
\nBut that notification cannot continue to have a legal effect
\nafter  Goa  became a part of India.  On becoming a  part  of
\nIndia\tGoa   ceased  to  be  a\t foreign   territory.\t The
\nnotification in question must have been issued under Section
\n5  of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 as it stood in 1950  (that
\nsection has been repealed now).\t That section read:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  a customs duty at any rate  prescribed
\n\t      by or under this Act or any other law for\t the
\n\t      time being in force is
\n\t      117<\/span>
\n\t      leviable\ton any articles when imported  into,
\n\t      or  any article when exported from, a port  in
\n\t      India   the   Central   Government   may,\t  by
\n\t      notification  in the official gazette,  direct
\n\t      that a duty of customs at the like rate
\n\t      shall  be\t leviable on any such  article\twhen
\n\t      imported\tor exported, as the case may be,  by
\n\t      land  from or to any territory  outside  India
\n\t      which it may, by, a like notification, declare
\n\t      to  be foreign territory for the\tpurposes  of
\n\t      this section.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  notification under this section could have been  issued
\nonly  in respect of any territory outside India and  not  in
\nrespect of any part of India.  That provision empowered\t the
\nGovernment  to\tdeclare\t any territory outside\tIndia  as  a
\nforeign territory for the purposes of that provision.\tThat
\nprovision did not empower the Government to declare any part
\nof India as a foreign territory.   But it gave power to\t the
\nCentral Government not to treat\t   any\t territory   outside
\nIndia  as  a  foreign territory for  the  purposes  of\tthat
\nprovision.    To  illustrate  the  position,   the   Central
\nGovernment could not have declared either Delhi or Bombay as
\na  foreign  territory  but it could have  treated  Nepal  or
\nBhutan\tas not a foreign territory for the purposes of\tthat
\nprovision.   Once Goa became part of India,  the  Government
\nwas  incompetent  to  declare that territory  as  a  foreign
\nterritory.  Nor does it appear that any such declaration was
\nmade after December 20, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Unfortunately the High Court allowed itself to be influenced
\nby what it says the practical considerations.  It is  likely
\nthat there were considerable foreign goods in Goa which\t had
\nbeen  imported into that territory before it was  liberated,
\nmay be even without paying customs duty and those goods were
\navailable  for\tbeing transmitted to other parts  of  India.
\nBut  this circumstance does not change the position in\tlaw.
\nIt  is\tnot  necessary\tfor us\tto  consider  whether  after
\nintegration  of Goa, the Government could have\timposed\t any
\nduty on the goods that were sent from Goa to other parts  of
\nIndia.\tSuffice it to say that our attention was not invited
\nto  any\t law  imposing\tsuch duties.   That  being  so,\t the
\nconclusion  that  the appellant had  utilised  his  official
\nposition to evade customs duty must fail.\n<\/p>\n
In the result this appeal is allowed and the conviction\t and
\nsentence  imposed on the appellant are set aside.  He is  on
\nbail.\tHis bail bond do stand cancelled, and fine  if\tpaid
\nrefunded.\n<\/p>\n
G, C.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
118<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1130, 1971 SCR 113 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: HARIVANSH LAL MEHRA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/03\/1971 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. MITTER, G.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN CITATION: 1971 AIR […]<\/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-31739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHarivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971 - 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\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-27T14:48:07+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-27T14:48:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1808,\"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\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971\",\"name\":\"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-27T14:48:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971 - 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\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-27T14:48:07+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971","datePublished":"1971-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-27T14:48:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971"},"wordCount":1808,"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\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971","name":"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-27T14:48:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harivansh-lal-mehra-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-19-march-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harivansh Lal Mehra vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 1971"}]},{"@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\/31739","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=31739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}