{"id":42410,"date":"1978-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978"},"modified":"2016-09-11T11:11:03","modified_gmt":"2016-09-11T05:41:03","slug":"sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978","title":{"rendered":"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR  310, \t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 341<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSAMBHU DAYAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/11\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  310\t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 341\n 1979 SCC  (1) 202\n\n\nACT:\n     Prevention of  Food Adulteration  Act, 1950  Sections 8\nand  9\t as  amended  by  the  Amending.  Act  49  of  1964-\nConstruction  of-Presumption  of  adulteration\tof  milk  in\nrespect\t of samples after  a fixed period.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  was convicted  under section 8 read with\nsection 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the\nSub-Divisional\tMagistrate,  Jalaun  and  sentenced  to\t six\nmonths rigorous imprisonment, the minimum sentence awardable\nunder  the  P.O.F.A.  1950.  In\t appeal\t the  Session  Court\nreversed it,  but in further appeal by the State against his\nacquittal and reversal of the trial court decision, the High\nCourt of  Allahabad  set  aside\t the  Session's\t orders\t and\nrestored that of the trial court.\n     Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  Sections 8  and 9  of the  Prevention of Food\nAdulteration Act,  1950 as  amended  by\t section  S  of\t the\nAmending Act  49 of 1964 cannot be read as repealing the old\nsections and  empowering the Central Government or the State\nGovernment  to\tappoint\t the  Public  Analyst  or  the\tFood\nInspector after\t the coming  into force of the amending Act,\nimplying that  any prior appointment o'. a Public Analyst or\nFood Inspector stood repealed. [345A]\n     2 Whether\tthe notifications  of the Government in 1968\nappointing the\tpublic Analyst\tand the\t Food Inspector with\nretrospective effect from March 05 are valid or not need not\nbe  looked   into  because   being  an\tamendment  Act,\t the\nappointment of\tthe Public  Analyst and\t the Food  Inspector\nmade by the State Government  continued to be valid.\n [345B-C]\n     3. The  amended sections  8 and  9 do  not in  any\t way\nrepeal sections\t 8 and 9 as they originally stood. As to the\neffect\tof  the\t amendment  the\t language  of  the  amending\nsections will  have to\tbe examined  to find out whether the\noriginal  conditions  were  intended  to  be  repealed.\t The\namending provisions  should be\theld as part of the original\nstatute. [345D-E]\n     4. Whenever  the amended  section\thas  to\t be  applied\nsubsequent to  the date\t of  the  amendment,  the  unamended\nprovisions of the Act have to be read along with the amended\nprovisions as  though they  are\t part  of  it.\tReading\t the\namended section,  it is\t clear that  there is  no provision,\nexpress or implied, repealing the existing provisions or the\nrules made thereunder. The section will have to be construed\nas being in addition to what had already existed. The effect\nwill be that the power of the State Government which already\nexisted under  the unamended  section and  the\tappointments\nmade thereunder\t preserved and\tthe action  taken under\t the\namended sections  with be  in addition\tto the powers of the\nState Government and the appointments which had already been\nmade. [345F-G]\n342\n     Nagar Mahapalika,\tLucknow v.  Ram Dhani,\tA.I.R.\t1971\nAll. 53 approved.\n     5. The  contention that  the analysis of the milk after\n44 days must yield to an adverse inference against the State\nas to adulteration cannot be accepted. [346A]\n     In the  present case  there is  evidence  of  the\tFood\nInspector that\the added  formalin as a preservative and the\nreport of  the Public Analyst that no change had taken place\nin the constituents of milk which would have interfered with\nthe  analysis.\t This  statement  of  the  analyst  was\t not\nchallenged in  any of  the  courts  below.  Apart  from\t the\nstatement of the Analyst not having been questioned, in this\ncase it\t is admitted  that formalin was added to the milk by\nthe Food  Inspector. The  Food Inspector  added 16  drops of\nformalin  in  each  of\tthe  bottles  and  had\tthem  sealed\nproperly. Rule\t20 of  the Prevention  of  Food\t Aduleration\nRules requires\tthat in\t the case  of milk, cream Dahi, Khoa\nand Gur\t a preservative known as \"formalin\", that is to say,\na liquid  containing about  40 per cent of 'formaldehyde' in\naqueous solution  in the  proportion of\t 0.1 ml. (two drops)\nfor 25\tml. Or\t25`grams shall\tbe added.  There is also the\nclear evidence\tof Public  Analyst that\t no change had taken\nplace in the constituents of milk which would interfere with\nthe analysis.[346D-G, 347A]\n     Babboo v. State, A.I.R. 1970 All 122; approved.\n     Dattappa  Mahadappa   v.  Secy.,  Municipal  Committee,\nBaldana, A.I.R. 1951 Nag.191 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.<br \/>\n137 Of 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated 27-4-72  of the  Allahabad High  Court in Govt. Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 128\/69.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Yogeshwar Prasad,\tS. K.  Bagga and Miss Meera Bali for<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     O. P. Rana for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     KAILASAM, J.  This appeal is by special leave by Sambhu<br \/>\nDayal against  the judgment  of the  High Court of Allahabad<br \/>\nallowing an  appeal by\tthe Government\tof U.P.\t and setting<br \/>\naside the  order of  acquittal and  restoring the conviction<br \/>\nunder  sections\t  8  and   16  of  the\tPrevention  of\tFood<br \/>\nAdulteration Act  and the  sentence of\tsix months  rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment  passed   by  the\t Sub-Divisional\t Magistrate,<br \/>\nJalaun.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On 1st  November, 1966,  Shri Raja\t Ram Bhatt, the Food<br \/>\nInspector, went\t to the\t village  and  found  the  appellant<br \/>\nShambhu Dayal bringing cow&#8217;s milk to Orai for sale. The Food<br \/>\nInspector served a notice OD the petitioners and took sample<br \/>\nof the\tmilk weighing 660 grams against cash payment of 0.60<br \/>\nP. He  divided it in three equal parts and kept each part in<br \/>\na different  bottle. He\t added 16  drops of formalin in each<br \/>\nbottle and  then sealed\t the same. One of the sealed bottles<br \/>\nwas<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">343<\/span><br \/>\ngiven to  the petitioner.  Another bottle  was sent  to\t the<br \/>\nPublic Analyst,\t Lucknow, for  analysis. The  Public Analyst<br \/>\nsubmitted his  report dated  14th December,  1966 giving his<br \/>\nopinion that  the sample  was deficient\t in non-fatty  solid<br \/>\ncontents by about 15 per cent. The charge-sheet was filed on<br \/>\n5th February, 1967 by the Food Inspector after obtaining the<br \/>\nsanction of  the District  Medical officer of Health, Jalaun<br \/>\nat Orai. The appellant pleaded not guilty and denied that he<br \/>\nhad sold  the milk.  According to him he was taking the milk<br \/>\nto one Pandey of village Kharra when the Food Inspector took<br \/>\nsome of\t it without  making any\t payment to  him. The  trial<br \/>\ncourt accepted\tthe case  of the  prosecution  and  on\t10th<br \/>\nNovember, 1967\tconvicted the appellant under section 8 read<br \/>\nwith section  16 of  the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act<br \/>\nand sentenced  him to  six months rigorous imprisonment. The<br \/>\nappellant preferred  a\tCriminal  Appeal  to  the  Court  of<br \/>\nSessions. By  its judgment  dated  12th\t October,  1968\t the<br \/>\nSessions  Judge\t  allowed  the\tappeal\tand  set  aside\t the<br \/>\nconviction and\tsentence imposed  upon\tthe  appellant.\t The<br \/>\nState of  U.P. preferred  an appeal  to the  High  Court  of<br \/>\nAllahabad. A  Division Bench  of the  High Court allowed the<br \/>\nappeal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed upon<br \/>\nthe appellant by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Miss Meera Bali, the learned advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant raised  three contentions.  She submitted that the<br \/>\nPrevention of  Food Adulteration Act came into force in 1954<br \/>\nand before  the amending  Act 49 of 1964 came into force the<br \/>\npower to  appoint the  Public  Analyst\tand  Food  Inspector<br \/>\nrested with  the State\tGovernment only.  After the amending<br \/>\nAct, Act  49 of\t 1964, sections\t 8 and 9 were substituted by<br \/>\nnew sections  8\t and  9\t which\tprovided  that\tthe  Central<br \/>\nGovernment or  the State  Government may  by notification in<br \/>\nthe official  Gazette appoint  a Public\t Analyst and  a Food<br \/>\nInspector. The\tamending Act  came into\t force in  1964. The<br \/>\nState Government  by notification  dated 15th  April,  1968,<br \/>\nappointed Food\tInspectors with\t effect from 1st March, 1965<br \/>\nand by\tnotification dated 23rd March, 1968 appointed Dr. R.<br \/>\nS. Srivastava  as the  Public Analyst  with effect  from 1st<br \/>\nMarch, 1965.  The submission  of the learned counsel is that<br \/>\nwhen the  offence took\tplace on  1st November, 1966 neither<br \/>\nthe Food  Inspector nor\t the Public Analyst was empowered to<br \/>\nfunction  as   Food  Inspector\tor  Public  Analyst  as\t the<br \/>\nnotification was  made very  much later\t on 15th April, 1968<br \/>\nand 23rd March, 1968 respectively. It was submitted that the<br \/>\nnotification  cannot   give  retrospective   effect  to\t the<br \/>\nappointment from 1st March, 1965.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Plea was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge but<br \/>\nthe High  court held following the decision of the Allahabad<br \/>\nHigh Court in Nagar<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">344<\/span><br \/>\nMahapalika v. Ram Dhani(1) that the notification relating to<br \/>\nthe appointment of the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst<br \/>\nissued under  the unamended  Act was  valid even  after\t the<br \/>\namendment. Sections  8 and  9 of  the Food Adulteration Act,<br \/>\n1950 before the amending Act 49 of 1964 stood thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;8. Public  Analysts. The State Government may, by<br \/>\n     notification in  the  official  Gazette,  appoint\tsuch<br \/>\n     persons  as   it  thinks\tfit,  and,  possessing\tsuch<br \/>\n     qualifications. as\t may  be  prescribed  to  be  Public<br \/>\n     Analyst and  define local\tareas over  which they shall<br \/>\n     exercise jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;9. (1)  Subject to  the provisions of Section 14,<br \/>\n     the  State\t Government,  may  by  notification  in\t the<br \/>\n     official Gazette,\tappoint persons in such number as it<br \/>\n     thinks fit,  having the prescribed qualifications to be<br \/>\n     Food Inspectors  for the  purpose of this Act, and they<br \/>\n     shall exercise  their power  within such local areas as<br \/>\n     that Government may assign to them;&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The relevant  amendment to  sections 8 and 9 is contained in<br \/>\nsection 5 of the amending Act which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;5. Substitution  of new  Sections for  Sections 8<br \/>\n     and 9.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  For sections\t8 and  9 of  the Principal  Act, the<br \/>\n     following sections shall be substituted, namely:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t  8. Public  Analysts: The Central Government or the<br \/>\n     State Government  may, by notifications in the official<br \/>\n     Gazette appoint  such persons  as it thinks fit, having<br \/>\n     the prescribed<br \/>\n qualifications to be Public Analyst for such local areas as<br \/>\nmay be\tassigned to  them by  the Central Government, as the<br \/>\nsame may be:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  *\t\t*\t    *\t\t   *\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  9. Food  Inspectors .(1) The Central Government or<br \/>\n     the  State\t Government  may,  by  notification  in\t the<br \/>\n     official Gazette,\tappoint such-persons  as  it  thinks<br \/>\n     fit, having  the &amp; prescribed qualifications to be Food<br \/>\n     Inspectors for  such local\t areas as may be assigned to<br \/>\n     them  by\tthe  Central   Government  ,  or  the  State<br \/>\n     Government as the case may be:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  *\t       *\t    *\t\t   *<br \/>\n     On the facts it is not disputed that on the date of the<br \/>\noffence neither\t a Public  Analyst nor\ta Food Inspector was<br \/>\nappointed after\t the amending  Act 49  of 1964.\t The learned<br \/>\ncounsel would like us to read<br \/>\n     (1) A.I.R. 1971 All. 53.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">345<\/span><\/p>\n<p>sections 8  and 9  of the  Act as repealing the old sections<br \/>\nand  empowering\t  the  Central\t Government  or\t  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  to\tappoint\t the  Public  Analyst  or  the\tFood<br \/>\nInspector after\t the coming  into force\t of the amending Act<br \/>\nimplying that  any prior  appointment of a Public Analyst or<br \/>\nFood Inspector\tstood repealed. We are usable to accept this<br \/>\ncontention. lt\tis not\tnecessary for  us  to  go  into\t the<br \/>\nquestion whether the notifications of the Government in 1968<br \/>\nAppointing the\tPublic Analyst\tand the\t Food Inspector with<br \/>\nretrospective effect  from March,  1968 are valid or not for<br \/>\nwe can\trest our  decision  on\tthe  ground  that  being  an<br \/>\namending Act  the appointment  of the Public Analyst and the<br \/>\nFood Inspector\tmade by\t the  State  Government\t before\t the<br \/>\namendment continued to be valid. In Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow<br \/>\nv. Ram\tDhani, (supra)\tit  was\t held  that  when  the\tFood<br \/>\nInspector  and\tthe  Public  analyst  were  appointed  under<br \/>\nnotifications  Dated   27th  July,  1959  issued  under\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the<br \/>\neffect of  the amending\t Act, Act of 49 of 1964, was only to<br \/>\nthe extent  that the Central Government was given concurrent<br \/>\npowers\twith   the  State   Government\tin   the  matter  of<br \/>\nappointment of\tPublic Analyst through notification and that<br \/>\nAct 49\tof  1964  did  not  repeal  any\t part  of  the\tFood<br \/>\nAdulteration Act  which then  existed and  amendments in the<br \/>\nspecific provisions  of the said Act which were\t affected by<br \/>\nAct 49\tof 1964\t will not  have the effect of repeal of any.<br \/>\npart of\t the said  Act. We  agree with the view taken by the<br \/>\nBench of  the Allahabad\t High Court.  The amended sections 8<br \/>\nand 9  do not  in any  way repeal  Sections 8  and 9 as they<br \/>\noriginally stood.  As to  the effect  of the  amendment\t the<br \/>\nlanguage of  the amending  sections will have to be examined<br \/>\nto field  out whether the original sections were intended to<br \/>\nbe repealed.  The amending provisions should be held as part<br \/>\nof the original statute. Whenever the amended section has to<br \/>\nbe applied  subsequent to  the date  of\t the  amendment\t the<br \/>\nunamended provisions  of the  Act have to be read along with<br \/>\nthe amended  provisions as  though  they  arc  part  of\t it.<br \/>\nReading the  amended  section  we  find\t that  there  is  no<br \/>\nprovision,  express   or  implied,  repealing  the  existing<br \/>\nprovisions or  the rules  made thereunder.  The section will<br \/>\nhave to\t be construed  as being\t in  addition  to  what\t had<br \/>\nalready existed.  The effect  will be  that the power of the<br \/>\nState Government  which already\t existed under the unamended<br \/>\nsection\t and   the  appointments  made\tthereunder  will  be<br \/>\npreserved and  the action  taken under\tthe amended sections<br \/>\nwill be\t in addition  to the  powers of the State Government<br \/>\nand the appointments which had already been made.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The second point that was raised by the learned counsel<br \/>\nwas that  the sample  was sent\tto the Public Analyst on 5th<br \/>\nNovember, 1966<br \/>\n4-978SCI\/78<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">346<\/span><br \/>\nbut was\t analysed  only\t on  14th  December,  1966.  As\t the<br \/>\nanalysis was  after 44\tdays it\t was submitted that the milk<br \/>\nwould not  have been  in a  fit condition for analysis. This<br \/>\ncontention was\tnot accepted  by the  learned Sessions Judge<br \/>\nwho found  that there  was no  evidence about  the sample of<br \/>\nmilk being  pasteurised or its despatch under refrigeration.<br \/>\nBut the\t report of the Public Analyst clearly showed that no<br \/>\nchange had  taken place\t in the\t constituents of  milk which<br \/>\nwould have  interfered with  the analysis. Though this point<br \/>\nwas not\t pressed before\t the High  Court the learned counsel<br \/>\nrelying on  a decision\tof the Nagpur High Court in Dattappa<br \/>\nMahadappa v.  Secretary, Municipal  Committee, Baldana,\t (1)<br \/>\nsubmitted that where milk is analysed by the Analysts a week<br \/>\nafter the  samples were taken no presumption of adulteration<br \/>\ncan be\tdrawn in the absence of proof of the manner in which<br \/>\nthe samples  were sent\tand the\t condition in which the milk<br \/>\nwas when the samples were received by him. The learned Judge<br \/>\nafter referring\t to the\t various passages  in the  text book<br \/>\n&#8220;Milk: Production  and Control&#8221;\t by Harvey and Hill observed<br \/>\nthat taking  into account  that the milk was analysed by the<br \/>\nAnalyst almost\ta week\tafter the  samples were\t taken,\t the<br \/>\nabsence of  proof of  the manner  in which  the samples were<br \/>\nsent and  the condition\t in which  the\tmilk  was  when\t the<br \/>\nsamples. were  received by  him detracts  from the  value of<br \/>\nanlyst&#8217;s certificate.  In the present case there is evidence<br \/>\nof  the\t  Food\tInspector   that  he  added  formalin  as  a<br \/>\npreservative and  the report  of the  Public Analyst that no<br \/>\nchange had  taken place\t in the\t constituents of  milk which<br \/>\nwold have  interfered with  the analysis.  This statement of<br \/>\nthe analyst  was not  challenged in any of the courts below.<br \/>\nApart from  the statement  of the  Analyst not\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\nquestioned, in\tthis case  it is  admitted that formalin was<br \/>\nadded to  the milk by the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector<br \/>\nadded 16  drops of  formalin in\t each of the bottles and had<br \/>\nthem sealed  properly. Rule  20 of  the Prevention  of\tFood<br \/>\nAdulteration Rules requires that in the case of milk, Cream,<br \/>\nDahi, Khoa  and Gur  a preservative known as &#8216;formalin, that<br \/>\nis to  say,  a\tliquid\tcontaining  about  40  per  cent  of<br \/>\nformaldehyde in aqueous solution in the proportion of 0.1 ml<br \/>\n(two drops)  for 25  ml or  25 grams shall be added The High<br \/>\nCourt of  Allahabad in\tBabboo v.  State(2) held that in the<br \/>\ncase. of  cow&#8217;s milk to which necessary quantity of formalin<br \/>\nhas been added according to Rules and which has been kept in<br \/>\nnormal\tcircumstances,\tit  retains  its  character  and  is<br \/>\ncapable of being usefully analysed for a period of about ten<br \/>\nmonths. It  is unnecessary  for us to specify the period for<br \/>\nwhich the  sample will\tremain unaffected but so far as this<br \/>\ncase is\t concerned there  is the  clear evidence  of  Public<br \/>\nAnalyst that no<br \/>\n     (1) A.I.R. 1951 Nag. 191.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2) A.I.R. 1970 All. 122.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">347<\/span><\/p>\n<p>change had  taken place\t in the\t constituents of  milk which<br \/>\nwould interfere with the analysis. As this statement has not<br \/>\nbeen  challenged   we  see   no\t reason\t for  accepting\t the<br \/>\ncontention of  the learned  counsel that the analysis of the<br \/>\nmilk after  44 days  cannot be accepted. This contention has<br \/>\nalso to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Lastly,  the   learned  counsel   submitted  that\t the<br \/>\nprosecution has\t not  established  that\t the  appellant\t was<br \/>\ntaking the  milk for  the purpose  of calc.  This  plea\t was<br \/>\nrejected by the High Court, accepting the evidence of P.W. 2<br \/>\nthat he know the appellant personally and that the appellant<br \/>\ncarried\t on  the  business  of\tselling\t milk  in  Orai\t and<br \/>\npossessed a  licence in\t selling milk in the preceding years<br \/>\nand also  in the  current year. According to the witness the<br \/>\nappellant brought  milk from  the rural areas and sold it in<br \/>\nOrai in\t the current  year and\tthe milk  was sold by him to<br \/>\nhotel keepers. True evidence of this witness was accepted by<br \/>\nthe High Court and we see no reason the reject the testimony<br \/>\nof P.W. 2. T he plea of the appellant that he was taking the<br \/>\nmilk for  supplying it\tto one\tTriyugi\t Narain\t Pandey\t was<br \/>\nrightly rejected by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  result we\tare unable  to\taccept\tany  of\t the<br \/>\nsubmissions made  by the  learned counsel for the appellant.<br \/>\nWe confirm  the conviction  under  Section  8(1)  read\twith<br \/>\nsection 16  of the  Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The<br \/>\nsentence being\tthe minimum  prescribed\t under\tthe  Act  it<br \/>\ncannot be  interfered with.  In the  result  the  appeal  is<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">348<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 310, 1979 SCR (2) 341 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: SAMBHU DAYAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/11\/1978 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. KOSHAL, A.D. CITATION: 1979 AIR 310 1979 SCR (2) [&hellip;]<\/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-42410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-11T05:41:03+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\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-11T05:41:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978\"},\"wordCount\":2235,\"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\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978\",\"name\":\"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-11T05:41:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978\"}]},{\"@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":"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-11T05:41:03+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\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978","datePublished":"1978-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-11T05:41:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978"},"wordCount":2235,"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\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978","name":"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-11T05:41:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sambhu-dayal-vs-state-of-u-p-on-21-november-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sambhu Dayal vs State Of U.P on 21 November, 1978"}]},{"@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\/42410","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=42410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}