{"id":61807,"date":"1969-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969"},"modified":"2015-06-19T01:09:26","modified_gmt":"2015-06-18T19:39:26","slug":"khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969","title":{"rendered":"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 272, \t\t 1970 SCR (1) 880<\/div>\n
Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n
Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKHETRABASI SAMAL ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/08\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  272\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 880\n 1969 SCC  (2) 571\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1973 SC1274\t (17)\n R\t    1975 SC 580\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\n      Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898), s. 417(1)\t and\n(3)--Case  of assault--Case against some accused started  on\npolice\t report\t  and  against\tothers\t on   complaint\t  to\nMagistrate--Two\t cases\tclubbed and  tried  together-Accused\nacquitted--Appeal against acquittal against accused  against\nwhom  case initiated on police\treport--Whether\t complainant\ncould file or only State competent to life.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n      A\t first information report to the police\t was  lodged\nagainst the appellants and some others--ten persons in\tall,\nfor having taken part in an assault and causing hurt to\t the\nvictim of the assault.\tOn the police report, the Magistrate\ntook cognizance\t of the case.  More than six were after\t the\nincident, the victim filed a complaint before the Magistrate\nnaming thirty-one persons (including the ten persons against\nwhom  the first in formation was given) as: his\t assailants,\nand  the Magistrate took cognizance of the case against\t the\nother  twenty-one  accused  as\ta  separate  case.   On\t the\napplication of the complainant (victim), the two. cases, one\non the police report and the other on the private complaint,\nwere  clubbed  and tried together.  The\t Magistrate,  on  an\nexamination  of the evidence, held that there was  no  proof\nbeyond reasonable  doubt  that the accused persons committed\nthe assault and\t acquitted  all\t of  them.  The\t complainant\nthen  filed  an appeal under s. 417(3),\t Criminal  Procedure\nCode,  to  the\tHigh Court.  The  appellants,  against\twhom\ncognizance  of\tthe  case was taken on\tthe  police  report,\nchallenged  the maintainability of the appeal on the  ground\nthat  the  appeal against their acquittal  was\tmaintainable\nonly  if preferred by the State Government under s.  417(1).\nThe  High  Court overruled the\tobjection,  reappraised\t the\nevidence  of  the  witnesses,  upset  the  finding  of\t the\nMagistrate and convicted the appellants.\n       In appeal to this Court, on the questions: (1 ) As to\nthe  maintainability of the appeal by the  complainant;\t and\n(2) Whether the matter should be sent back to the High Court\nfor disposal under s. 439 of the Code,\n       HELD:  (1  ) Though the two. cases could\t be  clubbed\ntogether  for convenience of trial under s. 239 of the\tCode\nthe  nature and identity of the cases in relation  to  their\nappealability  under s. 417 were not altered.  In  the\tcase\nstarted\t against  the appellants on the\t police\t report\t the\nappeal\tagainst acquittal could have been filed only by\t the\nState  Government,  and if no. such appeal  was\t filed,\t the\ncomplainant  could only invoke the revisional powers of\t the\nHigh Court under s. 439 if proper grounds were present. [883\nA-C]\n       (2) The High Court can exercise its revisional powers\nunder  s. 439 when invoked by a private complainant  against\nan  order  of  acquittal against which the State has a right\nof  appeal  under 's. 417, only in  exceptional\t cases\twhen\nthere is some glaring defect in the procedure and there is a\nmanifest error on a point of law and consequently there\t has\nbeen  a flagrant miscarriage of justice.  The  present\tcase\nhowever is one of mere appraisal of evidence. In such a case\nthe  High  Court  under s. 439,\t could\tnot  re-examine\t the\nevidence or order a retrial.  Therefore, the case was no.t a\nfit one for sending back to the High Court. [883 E-F; 884 E-\nG; 885 A. F-H]\nD.  Stephens v. Nosibolla,<\/a> [1951] S.C.R. 284,\tLogendranath\njha  v. Polailal Biswas [1951] S.C.R. 676 and K. Chinnaswamy\nReddy v. State A..p. [1963] 3 S.C.R. 412, 418, followed.\n881\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Criminal\tAppeals Nos.\n<\/p>\n
160) and 171 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals  by special leave from the judgment  and  order
\ndated  May  12, 1967 of the Orissa High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No. ‘194 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
S.N. Anand, for the appellants (in Cr.A. No. 160 of 67).
\n   R.K.\t Garg, S.C.Agarwal, D.P. Singh, Sumitra\t Chakravarty
\nand  Uma  Dutt,\t for the appellants (in Cr.A.  No.’  171  of
\n1967).\n<\/p>\n
    V.C.  Mahajan and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent\t (in
\nCr.A. No. 160 of 1967).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    Mitter, J.\tThese two appeals by special leave are\tfrom
\none  judgment of the High Court of Orissa hearing an  appeal
\nfrom an order of acquittal of 31 persons accused on  charges
\nunder  as.  147, 323 and 325 of the Indian  Penal  Code\t for
\nbeing members of an unlawful assembly and having voluntarily
\ncaused\thurt and inter alia a grievous one by dislocating  a
\ntooth  by  means  of a knife-like thing\t of  one  Jagabandhu
\nBehera, the appellant before the High Court.
\n    The\t incident is alleged to have happened on October  4,
\n1963  at  about 11 a.m. in village Anantapur  in  course  of
\nwhich  the  accused  persons are  said\tto.  have  assaulted
\nJagabandhu  Behera with lathis and sharp  instruments.\t The
\nmotive\tfor the crime was said to be enmity arising  out  of
\nGram  panchayat\t election and  previous\t litigation  between
\nJagabandhu  Behera and Khetrabasi Samal, one of the said  31
\npersons.  The first information report was lodged at 5\tp.m.
\nby one Maguni Charan Biswal who however was not examined  at
\nthe  trial.  In this report ten persons were stated to\thave
\ntaken part in assaulting and hurting Jagabandhu.  More\tthan
\nsix  weeks thereafter Jagabandhu filed a complaint before  a
\nMagistrate  in\twhich he named 31  persons  including  those
\nagainst whom the first information report had been lodged as
\nhis assailants.\t The complainant stated therein that he\t had
\nbeen  assaulted so mercilessly as to render him\t unconscious
\nand he recovered consciousness in Anantapur Dispensary where
\nhe  was treated by a doctor.  From there he was taken  to  a
\nhospital  in Cuttack and was lodged there till November\t 18,
\n1962.\n<\/p>\n
    The Magistrate ‘examined the complainant on the same day
\nand  directed  another\tMagistrate of  the  First  Class  to
\ninquire\t and report.  On January 23, 1963 after getting\t the
\nreport\tof such inquiry and hearing the person against\twhom
\nthe  complaint\twas  made on  their  protest  petition,\t the
\nMagistrate  held “that there was a prima facie case  against
\nthe  accused  persons under ss. 147\/ 323 I.P.C.\t except\t the
\nfirst  ten  accused persons  as per the\t complaint  petition
\nsince they had already been  sent for trial in
\n882<\/span>
\nG.R. No. 1943 of 1962″.\t He took cognizance against  accused
\npersons\t from  serial  Nos. 11 to 31 as\t per  the  complaint
\npetition under ss. 147\/323 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tG.R. case had  already been started on the basis  of
\nthe  first  information\t report.   On  July  12,  1963\t the
\ncomplainant  Jagabandhu Behera filed a petition to club\t the
\ncomplaint case along with the analogous G.R. case and  after
\ngiving\ta hearing to both parties the Magistrate  passed  an
\norder  on  15th July 1963 to the effect that the  two  cases
\nwere to be clubbed together and provisions of s. 252 Cr.P.C.
\nwere  to  be  followed.\t  The proceedings  went\t on  for  an
\ninordinately long time and ultimately on August 23, 1965 the
\ntrying\tMagistrate delivered a judgment acquitting  all\t the
\naccused.   Jagabandhu  Behera filed an appeal  to  the\tHigh
\nCourt under s. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure\t and
\nthe   grounds\turged  in  support  of\tsuch   appeal\twere
\nsubstantially\tbased  on  the.\t alleged  failure   of\t the
\nMagistrate to take a proper view of the evidence.
\n    Before  the High Court, a point was taken on  behalf  of
\nthe  respondents  challenging  the  maintainability  of\t the
\nappeal\tas against accused 1 to 10 against  whom  cognizance
\nwas  taken  on\tthe police report.  Among these ten  persons
\nare the appellants in the two appeals to this Court.  It was
\nurged  that as these ten persons had figured as\t accused  in
\nG.R. Case No. 1943 of 1962 an appeal against their acquittal
\nwould  not lie at the instance of the complainant  under  s.
\n417(3) but would only be maintainable if preferred under  s.
\n417(1) by the State Government.\t It was also contended\tthat
\nmere  clubbing together of the two cases, the G.R. case\t and
\nthe complainant’s case, for joint trial would not change the
\ncharacter  thereof  so as to convert the G.R.  case  into  a
\ncomplaint case.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High Court  over-ruled this  objection\t mainly\t  on
\nthe ground that s. 239 Cr.P.C. allowed the trial of a number
\nof  persons  whether  accused  of the  same  offence  or  of
\ndifferent offences if these were committed in the course  of
\nthe   same  transaction. The High Court then considered\t the
\nmerits\t of  the  appeal,  examined  the  evidence  of\t the
\nprosecution witnesses and  took the view that the  testimony
\nof  prosecution\t witnesses 1,  2 and 5 who claimed  to\thave
\nwitnessed the incident themselves had been discarded by\t the
\nMagistrate   on\t extraneous  considerations.   Sifting\t the
\nevidence  for itself the High Court held that seven  of\t the
\naccused\t i.e.  the appellants to this Court were  guilty  of
\nsome of the charges framed against them and passed sentences
\nranging\t from three months to six months in different  cases
\nafter setting aside the acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas contended before us on behalf of the  appellants
\nthat the appeal to the High Court was incompetent and in our
\nview  this  contention\tmust be accepted.   There  were\t two
\nseparate cases
\n883<\/span>
\nof which cognizance’ was taken\tseparately.  One was started
\non  the basis of a police report while the other was on\t the
\ncomplaint of Jagabandhu Behera.\t As the accused in both\t the
\ncases  were  said to have committed the\t offences.  in\tthe.
\ncourse.\t of  the same transaction, the\tcases  were  clubbed
\ntogether  for  the purpose of trial and such  a\t course\t was
\nclearly\t permissible  under  s. 239 Cr.P.C.   That  did\t not
\nhowever alter the nature of the cases so as to affect  their
\nappealability  under s. 417.  The two cases  retained  their
\nindividuality  except for the convenience of the trial.\t  If
\nthe cases had ended in conviction they would have had to  be
\nseparately  recorded.\tThe  first ten\taccused\t would\thave
\nhad to appeal from their conviction and sentence in the G.R.
\ncase and similarly the remaining accused from the  complaint
\ncase.  If the State. did not think it proper to\t direct\t the
\nPublic\tProsecutor  to present an appeal to the\t High  Court
\nfrom  the order of acquittal in the G.R. case it might\thave
\nbeen  open to the complainant to. invoke the powers  of\t the
\nHigh Court  under s. 439 of the’ Code if proper grounds; for
\nrevision were present.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t for  the respondents. argued that this was  a\tcase
\nwhere we should not allow the appeal on the ground that\t the
\nHigh Court had gone wrong in exercising its powers under  s.
\n417(3)\tof the Code  but should send the matter back to\t the
\nHigh  Court  for  disposal according to\t law  including\t the
\npowers\tunder  s.  439\tof  the\t Code.\t It  was  said\tthat
\nJagabandhu Behera had been beaten up. by a number of persons
\nin  a  public place in broad day light\tand  although  there
\nmight  be infirmities in the evidence adduced on  behalf  of
\nthe prosecution and contradictory statements made by some of
\nthe  prosecution witnesses, we should not put an end to\t the
\nproceedings here but send the matter back to the High  Court
\nfor proper disposal.\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t view, the law does not permit such a course  to  be
\nadopted\t on the facts of this case.  The powers of the\tHigh
\nCourt  under  s. 439 Cr.P.C. although wide  are\t subject  to
\ncertain\t limitations.\tSection 439 (4)\t expressly  provides
\nthat  the section shall not be deemed to authorise the\tHigh
\nCourt  to  convert  a  finding\tof  acquittal  into  one  of
\nconviction.\n<\/p>\n
This Court has had to. examine the jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt  under  this  section on\tseveral\t occasions.   In  D.
\nStephens v. Nosibulla (1) it was pointed out (see at p. 291)
\nthat :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “The  revisional jurisdiction  conferred
\n\t      on the High     Court under section 439 of the
\n\t      Code  of\tCriminal  Procedure  is\t not  to  be
\n\t      lightly exercised, when it is invoked\tby a
\n\t      private\tcomplainant  against  an  order\t  of
\n\t      acquittal\t    against which the Government has
\n\t      a\t right of appeal     under section 417.\t  It
\n\t      could  be exercised only in exceptional  cases
\n\t      where the interests of  public  justice
\n\t\t  [1951] S.C.R. 284.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      881<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      require interference. for the correction of  a
\n\t      manifest\tillegality, or the prevention  of  a
\n\t      gross    miscarriage   of\t   justice.\tThis
\n\t      jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used
\n\t      merely  because the lower court has  take.n  a
\n\t      wrong  view of the law or misapprehension\t the
\n\t      evidence, on record”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tAgain  in  Logendranath\t Jha  &\t Others\t  v.
\n\t      Polailal\tBiswas<\/a>(1) where the High  Court\t had
\n\t      set  aside  an  order  of\t acquittal  of\t the
\n\t      appellants by the Sessions Judge and  directed
\n\t      their retrial, this Court (see at p. 681) said
\n\t      :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    “Though  sub-section (1) of section\t 439
\n\t      authorises the High Court to exercise, in its,
\n\t      discretion,  any of the powers conferred on  a
\n\t      court  of appeal by section  423,\t sub-section
\n\t      (4)   specifically  excludes  the\t  power\t  to
\n\t      ‘convert\ta finding of acquittal into one.  of
\n\t      conviction’.   This  does\t not  mean  that  in
\n\t      dealing with a revision petition by a  private
\n\t      party against an order of acquittal, the\tHigh
\n\t      Court  could in the absence of any error on  a
\n\t      point  of\t law  reappraise  the  evidence\t and
\n\t      reverse  the findings of facts on\t  which\t the
\n\t      acquittal was  based, provided only it stopped
\n\t      short  of\t finding  the  accused\tguilty\t and
\n\t      passing\tsentence   on\thim.\tBy    merely
\n\t      characterising the judgment of the trial court
\n\t      as  ‘perverse’ and ‘lacking  in  perspective’,
\n\t      the High Court cannot reverse pure findings of
\n\t      fact  based on the trial court’s\tappreciation
\n\t      of   the\t evidence  in  the  case”.   In\t  K.
\n\t      Chinnaswamy   Reddy   v.\t State\t of   Andhra
\n\t      Pradesh(2). The court proceeded to define\t the
\n\t      limits  of the jurisdiction of the High  Court
\n\t      under  s. 439 of the Criminal  Procedure\tCode
\n\t      while setting aside an order of acquittal.  It
\n\t      was said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    “:\t …..\tthis jurisdiction should  in
\n\t      our  opinion be exercised by ‘the\t High  Court
\n\t      only  m exceptional cases, when there is\tsome
\n\t      glaring defect in the procedure and there is a
\n\t      manifest\t error\ton  a  point  of   law\t and
\n\t      consequently   there  has\t been\ta   flagrant
\n\t      miscarriage of justice. It is not possible to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      lay  down\t the criteria for  determining\tsuch
\n\t      exceptional   cases  which  would\t cover\t all
\n\t      contingencies.  We may however  indicate\tsome
\n\t      cases of this kind, which would in our opinion
\n\t      justify the. High Court in interfering with  a
\n\t      finding of acquittal in revision.\t These cases
\n\t      may   be:\t where\tthe  trial  court   has\t  no
\n\t      jurisdiction  to\ttry the case but  has  still
\n\t      acquitted\t the  accused, or  where  the  trial
\n\t      court has wrongly shut out evidence which\t the
\n\t\t\t    prosecution\t wished to produce, or\twh
\nere  the
\n\t      appeal  court has wrongly held evidence  which
\n\t      was   admitted  by  the  trial  court  to\t  be
\n\t      inadmissible,  or where material evidence\t has
\n\t      been overlooked
\n\t      (1)  [1561] S.C.R. 676.  (2) [1963]  3  S.C.R.
\n\t      412, 418.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     885<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\teither\tby the trial court or by the  appeal
\n\t      court, or where\tthe acquittal is based on  a
\n\t      compounding of the offence,   which is invalid
\n\t      under the law”.\n<\/p>\n
  It  may  be  that  a\tcase  not  covered  by\tany  of\t the
\ncontingencies mentioned above may still arise.\tBut,  where,
\nas here, the appeal court (the High Court in tiffs case) has
\nset  aside  the order of acquittal almost  entirely  on\t the
\nground\tthat the Magistrate should not have disbelieved\t the
\nthree  eye   witnesses,\t viz., P.Ws. 1, 2 and  5,  the\tcase
\nclearly\t falls\twithin the contingencies  mentioned  in\t the
\nabove decision of this Court.  The High Court judgment\tdoes
\nnot  show that the trial court shut out any  evidence  which
\nthe  prosecution  wanted  to produce  or  admitted  any\t  in
\nadmissible  evidence  or overlooked any\t material  evidence.
\nThe  Magistrate\t examined  the\tevidence  produced  by\t the
\nprosecution.  According\t to  him, there\t was  strong  enmity
\nbetween the two parties of Jagabandhu Behera and  Khetrabasi
\nSamall and although the incident was supposed to have: taken
\nplace in front of a large number of shops and before a large
\ngathering, only one person from those shops, P.W. 5 who\t was
\na  chance  witness occasionally going to the place  for\t the
\npurpose of carrying on his business in fish, was examined by
\nthe  prosecution  and  there  was  no  explanation  for\t not
\nexamining  the\tother  witnesses  named\t in  the   complaint
\npetition.   P.W.  1, one of the witnesses mentioned  in\t the
\njudgment  of  the High Court and relied on by  it  was\t the
\ncomplainant’s father-in-law and as such a person  interested
\nin the success of the prosecution.  Relying on the testimony
\nof  the\t doctor\t who had  examined  Jagabandhu\tBehera,\t the
\nMagistrate  found himself unable tO accept the\tevidence  of
\nthe  prosecution witnesses to the effect that the injury  to
\nthe tooth was caused by a sharp-cutting instrument in  which
\ncase  other external injuries could not have  been  avoided.
\nThe  Magistrate\t was  doubtful as  to  whether\tthe  accused
\npersons\t had  any hand in the commission of  the  crime\t and
\nalthough  the assault on Jagabandhu was a brutal  one  there
\nwas,   according  to  the  Magistrate,\tno   proof    beyond
\nreasonable  doubt  that it was the accused persons  who\t had
\ncommitted  it.\tThe High Court proceeded to  reappraise\t the
\nevidence  of  the  witnesses and upset the  finding  of\t the
\nMagistrate thereon on the ground that he “had not taken\t the
\ntrouble of sifting the grain from the chaff”.  Clearly\tsuch
\na  course  is not permissible under s. 439 of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure   Code.   Nor\t in  our  opinion  the\tfacts,\t and
\ncircumstances  of  this case warrant the ordering of  a\t re-
\ntrial  by  the High Court if it felt  disposed\tto  exercise
\npowers\tunder  s 423 Cr.P.C. expressly included in  s.\t439.
\nSending the ease back to the High Court can serve no  useful
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
  As the appeal to the High CoUrt was incompetent, we  allow
\nthe appeals and direct the cancellation of their bail bonds.
\nV.P.S.\t Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
886<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 272, 1970 SCR (1) 880 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: KHETRABASI SAMAL ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/1969 BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. SIKRI, S.M. REDDY, P. […]<\/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-61807","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKhetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969 - 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\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-18T19:39:26+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\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T19:39:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2345,\"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\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969\",\"name\":\"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T19:39:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969 - 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\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-18T19:39:26+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\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969","datePublished":"1969-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T19:39:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969"},"wordCount":2345,"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\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969","name":"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T19:39:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khetrabasi-samal-etc-vs-state-of-orissa-etc-on-14-august-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969"}]},{"@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\/61807","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=61807"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61807\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}