{"id":36658,"date":"1954-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954"},"modified":"2016-06-09T22:53:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-09T17:23:48","slug":"raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954","title":{"rendered":"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 202, \t\t 1954 SCR 913<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJ KRUSHNA BOSE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBINOD KANUNGO AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/02\/1954\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nHASAN, GHULAM\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  202\t\t  1954 SCR  913\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1954 SC 587\t (12)\n F\t    1955 SC 425\t (12)\n R\t    1976 SC1207\t (565)\n\n\nACT:\n Constitution  of India, arts. 136 and 226-Representation  of\n the  People  Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of 1951), ss.  33(2),  99,\n 105, 123 (8)-Order of the tribunal under s. 105 declared  as\n final and conclusive-Whether affects discretionary powers of\n Supreme  Court\t and  High Courts under arts.  136  and\t 226-\n Elected  candidate  nominated\tor  seconded  by   Government\n servant-Legal\teffect thereof Orders of  tribunal,  contents\n of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n(1)  The  unfettered discretionary powers conferred  on\t the\nSupreme\t Court and the High Courts by arts. 136 and  226  of\nthe  Constitution  respectively\t cannot\t be  taken  away  or\nwhittled down by the legislature and therefore s. 105 of the\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1951, which provides\tthat\nevery order of the tribunal under the Act shall be final and\nconclusive did not affect such powers.\n(2)  In\t  view\t of  the  provisions  of  s.   16   of\t the\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1950, and the  provisions\nof  ss.\t 33  (2) and 123 (8) of the  Representation  of\t the\nPeople\tAct,  1951,  an\t election  to  a  State\t Legislative\nAssembly  is  not  invalidated when the\t elected  member  is\neither nominated or seconded or both by a Government servant\nor servants.\n(3)  The  Supreme Court recorded its disapproval of the\t way\nin which the Election Tribunal shirked its duty and tried to\ntake  a short cut in deciding only two of the twelve  issues\nframed and thus acted against the provisions of s. 99 of the\nAct.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLANTE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1953.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the Order and  Judgment  dated
\nthe 5th September, 1953, of the Election Tribunal,  Cuttack,
\nin Election Case No. 5 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
S.   B. Jathar for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.   P. Sinha (R.  Patnaik, with him) for the respondent.
\n1954.\tFebruary 4. The Judgment of Mahajan C.J.  Mukherjea,
\nDas  and  Ghulam Hasan JJ. was delivered’ by Das  J.  Vivian
\nBose J. delivered a separate judgment.\n<\/p>\n
DAS J.-The question here is whether an election to
\na State Legislative Assembly is invalidated when the
\n118<\/span>
\n914<\/span>
\nmember’s  nomination  was either proposed  or  seconded,  or
\nboth, by a Government servant or servants.
\nThe appellant was a minister in the State of Orissa.  He was
\nnominated as a candidate for the Orissa Legislative Assembly
\nand  was  later declared to have been elected.\tOne  of\t his
\nrivals was the 1st respondent who filed an election petition
\nchallenging the election on a number of grounds, among them,
\nthe following.\n<\/p>\n
 The appellant had filed about two dozen nomination  papers.
\nIn five of them the proposer was a Government servant and in
\nfour the seconder.  The 1st respondent stated that this\t was
\nthe  first  step  in  a scheme\tto  get\t the  assistance  of
\nGovernment  officers  in  furtherance  of  the\t appellant’s
\nelection  and to “use and utilse” them “for the purposes  of
\nthe  election.” There were also other allegations  Which  we
\nneed not consider here.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\tmade  counter allegations  against  the\t 1st
\nrespondent, whom he had defeated, but they do not concern us
\neither.\n<\/p>\n
The Election Tribunal framed twelve issues and examined\t 101
\nwitnesses,  but when it came to make its order it  proceeded
\nto  decide  only two issues instead of\tdeciding  the  whole
\ncase.  It held that as the proposers and seconders  referred
\nto   above   were  admittedly\tGovernment   servants\tthat
\nconstituted a major corrupt practice and so invalidated\t the
\nelection under section 123 (8) of the Representation of\t the
\nPeople Act, 1951 (No.  XLIII of 1951).\tThe other of the two
\ndecided issues does not concern this appeal.
\nThe appellant thereupon petitioned the High Court for a writ
\nof  certiorari Under article 226 of the\t Constitution.\t The
\nHigh  Court refused to interfere.  The learned\tJudges\theld
\nthat  there was no want of jurisdiction in the tribunal\t and
\nthat  the  tribunal’s  view of the law was  a  possible\t and
\nreasonable  one , accordingly, as the High Court was  not  a
\ncourt of appeal from the tribunal, they were not called upon
\nto decide the question as a court of appeal.
\nThe  appellant was granted special leave to appeal  by\tthis
\ncourt against the order Of the Election Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
915<\/span><\/p>\n
A question of ‘great public importance affecting  Government
\nservants  is  involved and we deem it right to\texamine\t the
\nquestion under our special jurisdiction under article 136.
\nThe  only  sections  we\t are called  upon  to  consider\t are
\nsections 33 (2) and 123 (8).  The former provides that-
\n“Any  person whose name is registered in the electoral\troll
\nof   the  constituency\tand  who  is  not  subject  to\t any
\ndisqualification   mentioned   in   section   16   of\t the
\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950)\t may
\nsubscribe as proposer or seconder as man nomination  papers.
\nas there are vacancies to be filled…\n<\/p>\n
According to the latter-\n<\/p>\n
“The obtaining or procuring or abetting…… by a candidate
\nor his agent or, by any other person with the ‘connivance of
\na candidate or his agent, any assistance for the furtherance
\nof the prospects of the candidate’s election from any person
\nserving\t under the Government of India or the Government  of
\nany  State  other than the giving of vote  by  such  person”
\nshall  be  deemed  to be a major corrupt  practice  for\t the
\npurposes  of  the  Act.\t A corrupt  practice  of  this\tkind
\nentails disqualification for membership (section 140).
\nSection\t 33  (2)  is general and confers  the  privilege  of
\nproposing  or  seconding a candidate for election  on  every
\nperson\twho is registered in the electoral roll provided  be
\nis  not\t disqualified under section 16 of the Act  of  1950.
\nThat  section  excludes\t three classes of  persons  but\t not
\nGovernment  servants, unless of course they happen  to\tfall
\nwithin\tthose classes.\tTherefore, so far as section 33\t (2)
\nis  concerned, a Government servant is entitled to  nominate
\nor second a candidate for election unless he happens to fall
\nin  one of the three excluded categories.  The\tquestion  is
\nwhether section 123 (8) takes away from Government  servants
\nthat which section 33 (2) gives to them.  We do not think it
\ndoes.\n<\/p>\n
Viewing\t the question as a plain matter of construetion,  we
\nfind that when section 33(2) was framed those
\n916<\/span>
\nwho  passed  it had in mind the\t desirability  of  excluding
\ncertain classes of persons from its scope and they chose  to
\nlimit those classes to three.  Therefore, in the absence  of
\nexpress\t provision to the contrary elsewhere, or  unless  it
\nfollows\t by  necessary\timplication,  the  section  must  be
\nconstrued  to  mean that those not. expressly  excluded\t are
\nintended to be included.  As Government servants are not  in
\nthe  excluded  categories  it follows that so  far  as\tthis
\nsection\t  is  concerned\t they  are  not\t disqualified\tfrom
\nproposing and seconding a candidate’s nomination.
\nNow,  does section 123 (8) contain express provision to\t the
\ncontrary  or  can such provision be  inferred  by  necessary
\nimplication?  It is usual, when one section of an Act  takes
\naway what another confers, to use a non obstante clause\t and
\nsay  that “notwithstanding anything contained in section  so
\nand  so,  this\tor that will  happen”,\totherwise,  if\tboth
\nsections  are  clear, there is a head-on clash.\t It  is\t the
\nduty of courts to avoid that and, whenever it is possible to
\ndo  so, to construe provisions which appear to\tconflict  so
\nthat they harmonise.\n<\/p>\n
What  exactly  does  section  123 (8)  forbid?\t It  is\t the
\nobtaining  or  procuring etc., of  “any\t assistance………
\nother than the giving of vote by such person.” Therefore, it
\nis  permissible\t for  a\t candidate  to\tcanvass\t  Government
\nservants for their votes and if a Government servant chooses
\nto reveal his hand it would be permissible for the candidate
\nto  disclose  the  fact and use it  in\tfurtherance  of\t his
\nelection,  for the law imposes no secrecy on the  intentions
\nof those who, of their own free will, choose to say how they
\nintend\tto vote.  They cannot be compelled to  disclose\t the
\nfact  and  any improper attempt to obtain  such\t information
\nwould  be  a  corrupt practice, but equally,  they  are\t not
\ncompleted to keep the fact secret if they do not wish to  do
\nso;  nor  is the candidate.  If therefore  the\tlaw  permits
\nthis, we find it difficult to see how in the same breath  it
\ncan be said to have taken away the right expressly conferred
\nby  section  33(2).   The  policy of  the  law\tis  to\tkeep
\nGovernment servants aloof from politics and also to  protect
\nthem from being imposed on, by those with
\n917<\/span>
\ninfluence  or  in positions of authority and power,  and  to
\nprevent\t the  machinery\t of Government from  being  used  in
\nfurtherance  of a candidate’s return.  But at the same\ttime
\nit is not the policy of the law to disenfranchise them or to
\ndenude them altogether of their rights as ordinary  citizens
\nof  the\t land.\t The balance between the  two  has,  in\t our
\nopinion, been struck in the manner indicated above.
\nBut though it is permissible for a candidate to go that far,
\nhe  cannot go further and if the procurement  of  Government
\nservants  to  propose and second a nomination is part  of  a
\nplan to procure their assistance for the furtherance of\t the
\ncandidate’s  prospects\tin  other ways than  by\t vote,\tthen
\nsection 123(8) is attracted, for in that case, the plan, and
\nits fulfillment, must be viewed as a connected whole and the
\nacts  of  proposing  or\t seconding  which  are\tinnocent  in
\nthemselves cannot be separated from the rest.
\nOur  conclusion\t on  the  preliminary  issue  may  also\t  be
\nsupported  on  another ground.\tThe major  corrupt  practice
\nreferred  to  in  clause  (8) of  section  123\tconsists  in
\nobtaining  or procuring or abetting or attempt to obtain  or
\nprocure by a candidate or his agent etc., any assistance for
\nthe furtherance of the prospects of the candidate’s election
\nfrom any person serving under the Government of India or the
\nGovernment  of\tany State other than the giving of  vote  by
\nsuch  person.  In order, therefore, to bring a\tcase  within
\nthe  mischief of that clause the assistance must be for\t the
\nfurtherance  of the prospects of the  candidate’s  election.
\nSection 79(b) defines a candidate as meaning
\n” a person who has been or claims to have been nominated  as
\na  candidate at any election, and any such person  shall  be
\ndeemed to have been a candidate as from the time when,\twith
\nthe election in prospect, he began to hold himself out as  a
\nprospective candidate.”\n<\/p>\n
Unless,\t therefore, a case falls within the latter  half  of
\nthe definition a person becomes a candidate under the  first
\npart of the definition only  when he has been duly nominated
\nas a candidate and the furtherance of
\n918<\/span>
\nthe prospects of a candidate’s election must, therefore,  in
\nsuch  a\t case  commence from  after  that  stage.   Although
\nevidence  was  adduced\ton both sides,\tthere  has  been  no
\nfinding\t so  far on questions of fact which may or  may\t not
\nbring the case within the second part of the definition.  In
\nthe absence of such a finding the case must be regarded, for
\nthe  purpose  of the preliminary issue, as governed  by\t the
\nfirst  part of the definition and as such the proposing\t and
\nseconding  by  a Government servant cannot  be\tregarded  as
\n“assistance  for  the furtherance of the  prospects  of\t the
\ncandidate’s election.” In this view of the matter also,\t the
\njudgment of the Election Tribunal cannot be sustained.
\nWe set aside the order of the tribunal and remit the case to
\nthe   Election\t Commission  with  directions\tto   it\t  to
\nreconstitute  the  tribunal  which tried this  case  and  to
\ndirect\tthe tribunal to give its findings on all the  issues
\nraised and to make a fresh order.\n<\/p>\n
Our  power to make such an order was not questioned  but  it
\nwas said that when the legislature states that the orders of
\na  tribunal  under  an\tAct  like  the\tone  here  shall  be
\nconclusive  and\t final\t(section 105), then  we\t should\t not
\ninterfere.   It\t is  sufficient\t to  say  that\tthe   powers
\nconferred  on us by article 136 of the Constitution  and  on
\nthe  High Courts under article 226 cannot be taken  away  or
\nwhittled  down by the legislature.  So long as these  powers
\nremain,\t our  discretion  and that of  the  High  Courts  is
\nunfettered.\n<\/p>\n
We  wish to record our disapproval of the way in which\tthis
\ntribunal shirked its work and tried to take a short cut.  It
\nis  essential that these tribunals should do their  work  in
\nfull.  They are ad hoc bodies to which remands cannot easily
\nbe  made  as in ordinary courts of law.\t  Their\t duty  under
\nsection 99 is,
\n” where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt or
\nillegal practice having been committed at the election”
\nto record
\n”  a finding whether any corrupt or illegal practice has  or
\nhas not been proved to have been committed…and  the,nature
\nof that corrupt or illegal practice.”\n<\/p>\n
919<\/span><\/p>\n
Also,
\n”  to give the names of all persons, if any, who  have\tbeen
\nproved\tat the trial to have been guilty of any\t corrupt  or
\nillegal practice and the nature of that practice.”
\nTheir duty does not end by declaring an election to be\tvoid
\nor not because section 99 provides that in addition to that
\n”   at\tthe  time of making an\torder  under  section  98the
\ntribunal shall also make an order etc……..”
\nA  number  of allegations were made in\tthe  petition  about
\ncorruption  and\t illegal  practices,  undue  influence\t and
\nbribery.   It  was  the duty of the  tribunal  not  only  to
\nenquire\t into  those  allegations, as it did,  but  also  to
\ncomplete  the  enquiry\tby recording  findings\tabout  those
\nallegations and either condemn or clear the candidate of the
\ncharges made.\n<\/p>\n
We make no order about costs.\n<\/p>\n
Bose  J.-I  agree on all but one point.\t I have\t some  doubt
\nabout the reason given by my learned brother which is  based
\non the definition’ of “candidate” in the Act.  I prefer\t not
\nto express any opinion that one point.\n<\/p>\n
Case remanded.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: Ratnaparkhi Anant Govind.
\nAgent for respondent No. 1  A. D. Mathur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 202, 1954 SCR 913 Author: S R Das Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam PETITIONER: RAJ KRUSHNA BOSE Vs. RESPONDENT: BINOD KANUNGO AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-36658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954 - 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\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-09T17:23:48+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\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T17:23:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954\"},\"wordCount\":2094,\"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\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954\",\"name\":\"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T17:23:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954 - 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\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-09T17:23:48+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\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954","datePublished":"1954-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T17:23:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954"},"wordCount":2094,"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\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954","name":"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T17:23:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-krushna-bose-vs-binod-kanungo-and-others-on-4-february-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj Krushna Bose vs Binod Kanungo And Others on 4 February, 1954"}]},{"@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\/36658","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=36658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}