{"id":44722,"date":"1951-05-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1951-05-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951"},"modified":"2018-04-02T23:30:12","modified_gmt":"2018-04-02T18:00:12","slug":"logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951","title":{"rendered":"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR  316, \t\t  1951 SCR  676<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M P Sastri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nLOGENDRANATH JHA &amp; OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI POLAILAL BISWAS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/05\/1951\n\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBOSE, VIVIAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR  316\t\t  1951 SCR  676\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1955 SC 584\t (3)\n R\t    1962 SC1788\t (5,6,8)\n RF\t    1968 SC 707\t (8)\n R\t    1970 SC 272\t (10)\n RF\t    1973 SC2145\t (4,8)\n R\t    1975 SC 580\t (4)\n R\t    1978 SC   1\t (15)\n R\t    1986 SC1721\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\n    Criminal  Procedure Code (V of 1898), s. 439  (4)--Revi-\nsion  against  acquittal--High Court's\tpowers--Reversal  of\nfindings of facts--Impropriety of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThough sub-s. (1) of s. 439 of the. Criminal  Procedure\nCode authorises the High Court to exercise in Its discretion\nany of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by s.\t423,\nyet sub-s. (4) specifically excludes the power to \"convert a\nfinding\t of acquittal into one of conviction.\"\t This.\tdoes\nnot  mean  that\t in dealing with a revision  petition  by  a\nprivate party against an order of acquittal, the High  Court\ncan  in\t the absence of any error on a point of\t law  re-ap-\npraise\tthe  evidence and reverse the findings of  facts  on\nwhich the acquittal was based, provided only it stops  short\nof  finding the accused guilty and passing sentence on\thim,\nby ordering a re-trial.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Criminal Appeal No. 17<br \/>\nof 1951.\n<\/p>\n<p>   Appeal against a Judgment and. Order dated 22nd January,<br \/>\n1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Imam J.)  in<br \/>\nCriminal Revision No. 1533 of 1950<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">  677<\/span><br \/>\n    S.P. Sinha (P.S. Safeer and K.N. Aggarwal, with him) for<br \/>\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n<p>    1951. May 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    PATANJALI SASTRI J.&#8211;This is an appeal by special  leave<br \/>\nfrom  an  order\t of the High Court of  Judicature  at  Patna<br \/>\nsetting aside an order of acquittal of the appellants by the<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Purnea, and directing their retrial.<br \/>\n    The\t appellants  were prosecuted  for  alleged  offences<br \/>\nunder  sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 302 and 302\/149  of<br \/>\nthe  Indian  Penal  Code at the instance of  one  Polai\t Lal<br \/>\nBiswas\twho lodged a complaint against them before  the\t po-<br \/>\nlice.  The prosecution case was that, while the\t complainant<br \/>\nwas harvesting the paddy crop on his field at about 10\ta.m.<br \/>\non 29th November, 1949, a mob of about fifty persons came on<br \/>\nto  the field armed with ballams, lathis and  other  weapons<br \/>\nand  that  the\tfirst appellant Logendranath  Jha,  who\t was<br \/>\nleading\t the mob, demanded a settlement of  all\t outstanding<br \/>\ndisputes  with the complainant and ,said he would not  allow<br \/>\nthe  paddy to be removed unless the disputes  were  settled.<br \/>\nAn  altercation followed as a result of which  Logendra\t or-<br \/>\ndered an  assault by his men.  Then Logendra and one of\t his<br \/>\nmen,  Harihar,\tgave ballam blows to one of  the  labourers,<br \/>\nKangali, who fell down and died on the spot. Information was<br \/>\ngiven to the police who investigated the case and  submitted<br \/>\nthe  charge-sheet.  The committing Magistrate found  that  a<br \/>\nprima  facie case was made out and committed the  appellants<br \/>\nto the Court of Sessions for trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appellants pleaded not guilty alleging inter  alia,<br \/>\nthat Mohender and Debender, the brothers of Logendra (appel-<br \/>\nlants 2 and 3) were not present in the village of  Dandkhora<br \/>\nwith  which  they had no concern, as all the lands  in\tthat<br \/>\nvillage\t had been allotted to Logendra at a previous  parti-<br \/>\ntion,  that Logendra himself was not in the village  at\t the<br \/>\ntime of the occurrence but arrived<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">678<\/span><br \/>\nsoon  after and was dragged to the place at the instance  of<br \/>\nhis  enemies in the village and was placed under  arrest  by<br \/>\nthe Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who had arrived  there<br \/>\npreviously. It was also alleged that there were two factions<br \/>\nin  the\t village, one of which was led by one  Harimohan,  a<br \/>\nrelation  of the complainant, and the other by Logendra\t and<br \/>\nthere had been numerous revenue and criminal proceedings and<br \/>\nlong-standing  enmity between the families of these  leaders<br \/>\nas  a result of which this false case was foisted  upon\t the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t learned  Sessions Judge examined  the\tevidence  in<br \/>\ngreat  detail and found that the existence  of\tfactions  as<br \/>\nalleged by the appellants was true. He found, however,\tthat<br \/>\nthe  appellants&#8217; plea of alibi was not\tsatisfactorily\tmade<br \/>\nout,  &#8220;but  the truth of the prosecution&#8221;, he  proceeded  to<br \/>\nobserve,  &#8220;cannot be judged by the falsehood of the  defence<br \/>\nnor  can the prosecution derive its strength from the  weak-<br \/>\nness of the defence. Prosecution must stand on its own\tlegs<br \/>\nand must prove the story told by it at the very first stage.<br \/>\nThe manner of occurrence alleged by the prosecution must  be<br \/>\nestablished  beyond doubt before the accused persons can  be<br \/>\nconvicted&#8221;.  Approaching the  case in this manner and seeing<br \/>\nthat  the basis of the prosecution case was that  Polai\t had<br \/>\nbatai  settlement  of the disputed land and had\t raised\t the<br \/>\npaddy crop which he was harvesting when the occurrence\ttook<br \/>\nplace,\tthe learned Sessions Judge examined the evidence  of<br \/>\nthe  prosecution  witnesses  who belonged  to  the  opposite<br \/>\nfaction critically and found that the story of the  prosecu-<br \/>\ntion  was  not acceptable. Polai, who was  alleged  to\thave<br \/>\ntaken  the  land on batai settlement from his  own  maternal<br \/>\ngrandmother Parasmani who brought him up from his childhood,<br \/>\nwas  only  19 years old and unmarried and was  still  living<br \/>\nwith  his grandmother. He did not claim to be a bataidar  of<br \/>\nany other person. &#8220;In these circumstances&#8221;, said the learned<br \/>\nJudge,\t&#8220;it does not appear to me to be probable that  Polai<br \/>\nwould have been allowed to maintain himself by running\tadhi<br \/>\ncultivation of his mamu&#8217;s land in the lifetime of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">   679<\/span><br \/>\nhis  nani who has brought him up from his infancy  like\t her<br \/>\nown child.  Nor does it appeal to me that the unmarried\t boy<br \/>\nPolai  would have  undertaken upon himself the task of\trun-<br \/>\nning batai cultivation of the lands of his mamu where he has<br \/>\nbeen  living since his childhood without any  trouble,\tmore<br \/>\nparticularly  in view of the heavy expenses  of\t cultivation<br \/>\nbrought\t out by the evidence of Tirthanand (P.W.  14)&#8221;.\t He,<br \/>\ntherefore, disbelieved the whole story that Polai had  taken<br \/>\nthe  lands of his grandmother or his uncles as bataidar\t for<br \/>\ncultivation and that he was engaged in harvesting the  paddy<br \/>\ncrop on the lands at the time of the occurrence. This  false<br \/>\nstory,\tin  his opinion, &#8220;vitally affected  the\t prosecution<br \/>\ncase  regarding the alleged manner of the  occurrence&#8221;.\t  He<br \/>\nalso  found a number of discrepancies and contradictions  in<br \/>\nthe  evidence  of the prosecution witnesses, which,  in\t his<br \/>\nview,  tended  to show that the prosecution  was  guilty  of<br \/>\nconcealment  of the real facts. &#8216; &#8216;In view of such  conceal-<br \/>\nment  of real facts,&#8221; the learned Judge concluded, &#8220;it\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  appear to me to be possible to apportion liability\t and<br \/>\nto  decide which of the two parties commenced the fight\t and<br \/>\nwhich acted in self-defence.  Such being the position, it is<br \/>\nnot  possible  at all to hold either party  responsible\t for<br \/>\nwhat took place.  In such a view of the matter coupled\twith<br \/>\nthe fact that the manner of occurrence alleged by the prose-<br \/>\ncution\thas not been established to be true beyond doubt,  I<br \/>\nthink that the accused persons cannot be safely convicted of<br \/>\nany of the offences for which they have been charged.&#8221;\t The<br \/>\nlearned\t Judge accordingly acquitted the appellants  of\t all<br \/>\nthe charges framed against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Against  that  order the complainant Polai\tpreferred  a<br \/>\nrevision petition to the High Court under section 439 of the<br \/>\nCriminal  Procedure Code.,  The learned Judge who heard\t the<br \/>\npetition  reviewed the evidence at some length and  came  to<br \/>\nthe  conclusion\t that the judgment of the  learned  Sessions<br \/>\nJudge could not be allowed to stand as the acquittal of\t the<br \/>\nappellants  was\t &#8220;perverse&#8217; &#8216;. In his opinion,\t&#8220;the  entire<br \/>\njudgment displays a lack<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">680<\/span><br \/>\nof  true  perspective in a case of this kind.  The  Sessions<br \/>\nJudge  had completely misdirected himself in looking to\t the<br \/>\nminor  discrepancies in the case and ignoring the  essential<br \/>\nmatters\t so far as the case is concerned,&#8221; and there was  no<br \/>\njustifiable  ground for rejecting the  prosecution  evidence<br \/>\nregarding  the cultivation and harvesting by Polai.  And  he<br \/>\nconcluded  with the warning &#8220;I would, however, make it\tper-<br \/>\nfectly clear that when the case is re-tried, which I am\t now<br \/>\ngoing to order, the Judge proceeding with the trial will not<br \/>\nbe  in\tthe least influenced by any  expression\t of  opinion<br \/>\nwhich I may have given in this judgment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    On behalf of the appellants Mr. Sinha raised two conten-<br \/>\ntions.\tIn the first place, he submitted that having  regard<br \/>\nto section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides<br \/>\nfor  an appeal to the High Court from an order of  acquittal<br \/>\nonly at the instance of the Government, a revision  petition<br \/>\nunder  section\t439 at the instance of a private  party\t was<br \/>\nincompetent, and, secondly, that sub-section (4) of  section<br \/>\n439  clearly showed that the High Court exceeded its  powers<br \/>\nof revision in the present case in upsetting the findings of<br \/>\nfact  of  the trial Judge. &#8216; We think it is  unnecessary  to<br \/>\nexpress\t any  opinion on the first contention of  Mr.  Sinha<br \/>\nespecially as the respondent is unrepresented, as we are  of<br \/>\nopinion\t that  his second and  alternative  contention\tmust<br \/>\nprevail.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It will be seen from the judgment summarised above\tthat<br \/>\nthe  learned Judge in the High Court re-appraised  the\tevi-<br \/>\ndence  in the case and disagreed with the  Sessions  Judge&#8217;s<br \/>\nfindings  of fact on the ground that they were perverse\t and<br \/>\ndisplayed  a lack of true perspective. He went further\tand,<br \/>\nby way of &#8220;expressing in very clear terms as to how perverse<br \/>\nthe  judgment of the court below is&#8221;, he indicated that\t the<br \/>\ndiscrepancies  in the prosecution evidence and\tthe  circum-<br \/>\nstances of the case which led the Sessions Judge to discred-<br \/>\nit the prosecution story afforded no justifiable ground\t for<br \/>\nthe  conclusion\t that the prosecution  failed  to  establish<br \/>\ntheir case.  We are of opinion that the learned Judge in the<br \/>\nHigh Court did not properly appreciate the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">681<\/span><br \/>\nscope of inquiry in revision against an order of  acquittal.<br \/>\nThough\tsub-section(1)\tof section 439 authorises  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  to  exercise, in its discretion, any  of\t the  powers<br \/>\nconferred  on a court of appeal by section 423,\t sub-section<br \/>\n(4) specifically excludes the power to &#8220;convert a finding of<br \/>\nacquittal into one. of conviction&#8221;.  This does not mean that<br \/>\nin  dealing  with  a revision petition by  a  private  party<br \/>\nagainst\t an order of acquittal, the High Court could in\t the<br \/>\nabsence\t of  any  error on a point of  law  re-appraise\t the<br \/>\nevidence  and  reverse the findings of facts  on  which\t the<br \/>\nacquittal  was\tbased,\tprovided only it  stopped  short  of<br \/>\nfinding the accused guilty and passing sentence on him.\t  By<br \/>\nmerely\tcharacterising\tthe judgment of the trial  Court  as<br \/>\n&#8220;perverse&#8221;  and&#8217;  lacking in perspective&#8221;,  the\t High  Court<br \/>\ncannot\treverse\t pure findings of fact based  on  the  trial<br \/>\nCourt&#8217;s\t appreciation of the evidence in the case.  That  is<br \/>\nwhat  the  learned Judge in the court below  has  done,\t but<br \/>\ncould not, in our opinion, properly do on an application  in<br \/>\nrevision  filed by a private party against  acquittal.\t  No<br \/>\ndoubt, the learned Judge formally complied with\t sub-section<br \/>\n(4)  by directing only a retrial of the\t appellants  without<br \/>\nconvicting them, and warned that the court retrying the case<br \/>\nshould\tnot be influenced by any expression of opinion\tcon-<br \/>\ntained in his judgment.\t But there can be little doubt\tthat<br \/>\nhe  loaded  the dice against the appellants,  and  it  might<br \/>\nprove difficult for any subordinate judicial officer dealing<br \/>\nwith  the  case\t to put aside altogether  the  strong  views<br \/>\nexpressed  in  the  judgment as to the\tcredibility  of\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  witnesses and the circumstances of the case  in<br \/>\ngeneral.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tare  of opinion that the learned Judge in  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  exceeded his powers of revision in dealing  with\t the<br \/>\ncase  in the manner he did, and we set aside his  order\t for<br \/>\nretrial of the appellants and restore the order of acquittal<br \/>\npassed by the Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Agent for the appellant: Kundan Lal Mehta.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">682<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 316, 1951 SCR 676 Author: M P Sastri Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali PETITIONER: LOGENDRANATH JHA &amp; OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI POLAILAL BISWAS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/05\/1951 BENCH: SASTRI, M. PATANJALI BENCH: SASTRI, M. PATANJALI KANIA, [&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-44722","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>Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951 - 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\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951\" \/>\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=\"1951-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-02T18:00:12+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951\",\"datePublished\":\"1951-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T18:00:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951\"},\"wordCount\":1820,\"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\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951\",\"name\":\"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1951-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T18:00:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951\"}]},{\"@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":"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951 - 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\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1951-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-02T18:00:12+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951","datePublished":"1951-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T18:00:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951"},"wordCount":1820,"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\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951","name":"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1951-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T18:00:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/logendranath-jha-others-vs-shri-polailal-biswas-on-24-may-1951#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Logendranath Jha &amp; Others vs Shri Polailal Biswas on 24 May, 1951"}]},{"@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\/44722","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=44722"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44722\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}