{"id":71346,"date":"1967-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967"},"modified":"2015-11-13T17:19:21","modified_gmt":"2015-11-13T11:49:21","slug":"state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967","title":{"rendered":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 825, \t\t 1968 SCR (2) 387<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. SATYANARAYANA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/11\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  825\t\t  1968 SCR  (2) 387\n\n\nACT:\nHyderabad  Gambling  Act  (2  of 1305F),  ss.\t3,   7\t and\n14--Extra  charges levied by club for  playing\tcards,\t and\nplaying\t  beyond  prescribed hour-Common gambling  house  if\nconstituted--Rummy, if a game of chance.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t police\t raided the premises of a club\t and   found\nrespondents  1--5 playing \"Rummy\" for stakes,  counters\t and\nmoney  on  the\ttable and playing-cards\t with  the  players.\nRespondent  6  the Treasurer of the Club,  was\tholding\t the\nstake  money.  Respondent 7---the Secretary of the club\t was\nnot present then.  All the respondents were convicted by the\nTrial  Court, but the conviction was set aside by  the\tHigh\nCourt.\t In  appeal  to\t this  Court,  the   appellant-State\ncontended that this club was a\tcommon gambling house as.  a\nfee  of\t 5  points per game was charged\t by  the  club,\t the\nplaying-cards.\twere supplied at an extra charge of  Rs.  3.\nthere  was a sitting fee of Re. 1 per person who joined\t the\ngame,  and  if the  game continued beyond a certain  time  a\nlate fee was levied; and further that. the presumption under\ns.  7 of the Gambling Act had not been repelled;but  on\t the\nother  hand it had been confirmed by the  making   of\tthis\ncharge by the club.  Dismissing the appeal\nHELD:\t This  club  was  not  a  common   gambling   house.\nThe  presumption under s. 7 even if it arises in this  case,\nwas  successfully  repelled by the evidence which  had\tbeen\nled. [392 D]\nJust  as  some fee is charged for the  games  of  billiards,\nping-pong,  tennis  etc. an extra charge for  playing  cards\n(unless it is extravagant) would not show that the club\t was\nmaking profit or gain so as to render the club into a common\ngambling house.\t Similarly, a late fee is generally  charged\nfrom  members  who  use\t the  club  premises   beyond\t the\nscheduled   time This is necessary because the\tservants  of\nthe  club  who attend on the members have to be\t paid  extra\nremuneration  by way of overtime, and expenditure  on  light\nand  other amenities has to be incurred beyond\tclub  house.\nThe  accounts  showed that the sitting fee of 50  raise\t was\ncharged\t per person.  This was not such a heavy charge in  a\nMembers'  Club\tas to be described as an attempt to  make  a\nprofit or gain\tfor  club.  Of course, if it had been proved\nthat  5\t points per game was charged, that might  have\tbeen\nconsidered as an illegal charge sufficient to bring the club\nwithin the definition. [392 G--393 C]\n    The protection of s. 14 was not available in this  case.\nRummy is not a game entirely of chance like the 'three-card'\ngame.  It requires certain amount of skill because the\tfall\nof the cards has to be memories and the building up of Rummy\nrequires considerable skill in holding and discarding cards.\nIt is mainly and preponderantly a game of skill.  The chance\nin Rummy is of the same character as the chance in a deal at\na  game of bridge.  In fact in all games in which cards\t are\nshuffled  and  dealt  out, there is an\telement\t of  chance,\nbecause\t the distribution of the cards is not  according  to\nany  set  pattern but is dependent upon how the\t cards\tfind\ntheir place in the shuffled pack.  From this alone it cannot\nbe  said  that Rummy is a game of chance and  there  is\t no.\nskill  involved\t in it of course, if there  is\tevidence  of\ngambling in some other way or 387\n388\nthe  owner of the house or club is making a prOfit  or\tgain\nfrom the game of Rummy or any other game played for  stakes,\nthe  offence  may  be brought home. [393 F--394 B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 40  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust 4, 1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in  Criminal
\nRevision Case No- 479 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
P. Ram Reddy and B. Parthasarathy, for the appellant.
\nA.S.R. Chari, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K.R. Chaudhuri,\t for
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah,  J.  The State  of Andhra Pradesh\t appeals  by
\nspecial\t leave\tagainst the judgment of the  High  Court  of
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t in  which, accepting  a  reference  by\t the
\nSessions Judge, the conviction of the respondents under\t ss.
\n4  and 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act (2 of 1305F)  ordered
\nby  the\t 5th City Magistrate at Secunderabad  has  been\t set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
The short question in this case is whether the premises of a
\nClub  known  as the “Crescent Recreation Club”\tsituated  in
\nSecunderabad were being used as a common gambling house\t and
\nwhether the several respondents who were present at the time
\nof  the\t raid  by the police could be said  to\tbe  gambling
\ntherein.  The facts of the case are as follows :–
\nOn  May\t 4, 1963, the police headed  by\t  Circle   Inspector
\nKrishnaswami  raided the premises of the club.\t They  found
\nrespondents  1-5  playing a card game known as\t“Rummy”\t for
\nstakes. At the time of the raid, there were some counters on
\nthe table as also money and of course the playing-cards with
\nthe  players. Respondent No. 6, the Treasurer of  the  Club,
\nwas  also present and was holding the stake money  which  is
\npopularly  known  as  “kitty”.\tThe 7th\t respondent  is\t the
\nSecretary of the Club and he has been joined as an  accused,
\nbecause he was in charge of the management of the club.\t The
\nkitty which the sixth respondent held was Rs. 74.62nP and  a
\nfurther sum of Rs. 218\/- was recovered from the table of the
\n6th respondent.\t 66 counters were on the table and some more
\nmoney  was found with the persons who were indulging in\t the
\ngame.\tThe evidence of the Circle Inspector is that he\t had
\nreceived credible information that the premises of the\tclub
\nwere being used as a common gambling house and he raided  it
\nand  found  evidence, because instruments of  gambling\twere
\nfound  and the persons present were actually gambling.\t The
\nMagistrate convicted all the seven respondents and sentenced
\nthem  to various fines, with imprisonment in  default.\t The
\nrespondents
\n389<\/span>
\nthen filed an. application for revision before the  Sessions
\nJudge, Secunderabad who made a reference to the High   Court
\nunder s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recommending
\nthe quashing of the conviction and the setting aside of\t the
\nsentences.  This recommendation was accepted by the  learned
\nsingle\tJudge  in the High Court and the present  appeal  is
\nbrought\t against  his judgment by special leave\t granted  by
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Hyderabad Act follows in outline the provisions  of
\nthe Public Gambling Act, 1867 in force in India.  Section  3
\nof   the  Act  defines\ta  “common  gambling  house”.\t The
\ntranslation  of the Urdu text placed before us was found  to
\nbe inaccurate but we have compared the Urdu definition\twith
\nthe  definition\t of  “common gaming  house”  in\t the  Public
\nGambling Act, and we are of opinion that represents a  truer
\ntranslation   than   the  one  included\t in   the   official
\npublication.  We accordingly quote. the definition from\t the
\nIndian Act, adding thereto the explanation which  is not  to
\nbe  found  in  the  Indian  Act.   “Common   gambling-house”
\naccording to the definition means:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “any\thouse,\twalled enclosure,   room  or
\n\t      place   in which cards, dice, tables or  other
\n\t      instruments of gaming are kept or used for the
\n\t      profit   or   gain  of  the   person   owning,
\n\t      occupying,   using  or  keeping  such   house,
\n\t      enclosure;  room or place, whether by  way  of
\n\t      charge  for  the\tuse of\tthe  instruments  of
\n\t      gaming,  or  of the house enclosure,  room  or
\n\t      place, or otherwise howsoever?’
\n\t\t    Explanation :”The word ‘house’  includes
\n\t      a tent and all enclosed space.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  contention\t in regard to this definition is  that\t the
\nevidence clearly disclosed that the club was being used as a
\ncommon gambling house and therefore the penal provisions  of
\nthe   Act   were  clearly  attracted.\tWe   are   concerned
\nadditionally   with  several sections from the Gambling\t Act
\nwhich need to be seen.\tSection 4, which follows in  outline
\nthe  corresponding  section  in\t the  Public  Gambling\tAct,
\nprovides for penalty for an owner, occupier or person  using
\ncommon\tgambling house and includes within the reach of\t the
\nsection persons who have the care or the management of or in
\nany  manner assist in conducting, the business of. any\tsuch
\nhouse,\tenclosure  or open space.  The members of  the\tclub
\nwhich is a (“Members’ Club”) would prima facie be liable but
\nas they are not before us, we need not consider the question
\nwhether they should also have been arraigned in the case  or
\nnot. The Secretary and the Treasurer, who were\trespectively
\naccused\t Nos. 7 and 6 were so arraigned as  it was   thought
\nthey  came within the reach of s. 4 because they were in the
\ncare and management of the club itself.\t Then there is s.  6
\nwhich again is similar
\n390<\/span>
\nbut not entirely similar to s. 5 of the Public Gambling Act.
\nThis provides for entry for search and entry by police.\t  It
\nlays down as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “If  the  District\t Magistrate  or\t the
\n\t      Magistrate of the First Class or the  District
\n\t      Superintendent  of Police or the Inspector  of
\n\t      Police   in  the\tcity  and  the\tsuburbs\t  of
\n\t      Hyderabad,  on credible information and  after
\n\t      such  enquiries as he may deem necessary,\t has
\n\t      reason  to believe that any house or  premises
\n\t      or  enclosure  or an open space is used  as  a
\n\t      common gambling house he shall be empowered to
\n\t      enter  or\t authorise any police  officer,\t not
\n\t      below  the  rank of a Sub-Inspector  to  enter
\n\t      with   such   assistance\tas  may\t  be   found
\n\t      necessary,  by night or by day, and by  force,
\n\t      if  necessary, any such house or\tpremises  or
\n\t      enclosure\t or  open  space, and  it  shall  be
\n\t      proper  to  arrest all persons whom  the\tsaid
\n\t      Magistrate or the Superintendent or  Inspector
\n\t      of Police finds therein or to allow the Police
\n\t      Officer so authorised  to arrest\tsuch persons
\n\t      whether\tor not\tthey are actually  gambling.
\n\t      and
\n\t\t    Seize  or authorise the said Officer  to
\n\t      seize  all  instruments of  gambling  and\t all
\n\t      moneys  and securities for money and  valuable
\n\t      articles,\t reasonably  suspected to have\tbeen
\n\t      used or intended to be used for the purpose of
\n\t      gambling\tand  which are\tfound  therein,\t and
\n\t      search  or authorise such Police\tOfficers  to
\n\t      search  all parts of the house or premises  or
\n\t      enclosure\t or  open space, which\the  or\tsuch
\n\t      officer shall have so entered when he or\tsuch
\n\t      officer\thas  reason  to\t believe  that\t any
\n\t      instruments  of gambling are concealed therein
\n\t      and also the  persons whom he or such  officer
\n\t      had  so  arrested and seize and  keep  in\t his
\n\t      possession all such instruments of gambling as
\n\t      are found in the search.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation: …..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Here the Circle Inspector was an officer authorised to enter
\nupon  and search the premises of the club and therefore\t his
\naction\twas  fully covered by the section. He  effected\t the
\narrest\t of  all  the persons who  were\t present(respondents
\n1-6)   and  added to the number the Secretary  who  although
\nnot  present on the premises at the time was,  according  to
\nhim,  responsible  for the  offence under s. 4 of  the\tOct.
\nSession\t 7 of the Act then provides for a presumption  which
\nthe  law allows to be drawn from the finding of cards,\tetc.
\nin a house in which a search according to the terms of s.  6
\nof the Act as taken place. That section reads as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
391<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t    “When  any\tcards or dice  or  table  or
\n\t      other  instruments or means of  gambling\thave
\n\t      been  found  in  any  house  or  premises\t  or
\n\t      enclosure\t or open space entered or  searched,
\n\t      in  accordance with the provision of s.  6  or
\n\t      have  been  found\t with any   of\tthe  persons
\n\t      therein,\tit  shall  be  evidence,  until\t the
\n\t      country  is proved, that such house,  premises
\n\t      or enclosure or open space is used as a common
\n\t      gambling\thouse and the persons found  therein
\n\t      were  present  for  the  purpose\tof  gambling
\n\t      although no play was actually witnessed by the
\n\t      Magistrate  or the police officer or  an3′  of
\n\t      his assistants.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This section gives rise to a presumption from the fact of  a
\nsearch\tunder s. 6 after credible information  that  persons
\npresent\t in the house are there for the purpose of  gambling
\neven   though\tno play may be actually\t witnessed   by\t the
\nraiding party.\tIn the present case on the appearance of the
\npolice,\t it is admitted, the players stopped their play\t and
\nthe  arrests were promptly made of all the  persons  present
\nround  the table who had cards, counters and the money\twith
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Magistrate who tried the case was of the opinion
\nthat  the  offence was proved, ‘because of  the\t presumption
\nsince  it  was not successfully repelled on  behalf  of\t the
\npresent\t respondents. In the order making the reference\t the
\nlearned Sessions Judge made two points: He first referred to
\ns. 14 of the Act which provides that nothing done under\t the
\nAct  shall apply to any game of mere skill  wherever  played
\nand he was of opinion on the authority of two cases  decided
\nby the Madras High Court  and  one of the Andhra High  Court
\nthat  the, game of Rummy was a name of skill  and  therefore
\nthe Act did not apply to the case.  He also held that  there
\nwas  no\t profit\t made by the members of the  club  from\t the
\ncharge for the use of cards and the, furniture and the\troom
\nin  the club by the players and therefore the definition  of
\ncommon\tgambling  house’  did not  apply to  the  case.\t  In
\naccepting  the\treference, the learned single Judge  in\t the
\nHigh  Court  did  not express any opinion upon the  question
\nwhether\t  the  game  of Rummy can be described as a game  of
\nskill. _ He relied upon ‘the second part of the\t proposition
\nwhich  the  Sessions Judge had suggested as the\t ground\t for
\nacquitting the accused. namely, that the club was not making
\na profit but was only charging something as a service charge
\nand to this we shall now refer.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Ram Reddy relies, firstly, upon the  definition  of
\n‘common\t gambling house’ in the Hyderabad Act  and  contends
\nthat in this case there is ample evidence to prove that\t the
\nclub  was making a profit or gain from the persons who\tplay
\nRummy  on its premises, pointing out at the same  time\tthat
\nthe  charge was But upon strangers to ‘the club as  well  as
\nmembers.  He also submits
\n392<\/span>
\nthat the presumption which arises under s. 7 of the Gambling
\nAct has not been successfully repelled and on the other hand
\nit  has been confirmed by the making of this charge  by\t the
\nclub.\n<\/p>\n
    In support of his case that the club was making a profit
\nor  gain from the game of Rummy he draws attention  to\tfour
\nmatters which in his opinion bring this club within the said
\ndefinition.  The  first was a charge of 5  points  per\tgame
\nwhich  according  to him was being levied on  each  game  of
\nRummy.\tHe next points out that playing cards were  supplied
\nto the players by the club at an extra charge of Rs. 3\/- and
\nthere was a sitting fee of Re. 1\/- per person from those who
\njoined\tthe  game.  He points out further that if  the\tgame
\ncontinued beyond a certain time in the night, a late fee was
\nalso  levied.  In addition, he says, that  non-members\twere
\nalso  required\tto pay and, therefore, this club  must\tfall
\nwithin\tthe  definition\t of a  common  gambling\t house.\t  In
\nsupport\t he relies upon a decision of the Madras High  Court
\n1n re Somasundaratn Chettiar(1)
\n    In our opinion the points made by Mr. Ram Reddy  do\t not
\nprove  this  club  to  be  a  common  gambling\thouse.\t The
\npresumption  under s. 7, even if it arises in this case,  is
\nsuccessfully  repelled by the evidence which has  been\tled,
\neven on the  side  of  the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    To begin with, there is nothing to show that a fee of  5
\npoints\tper game was being charged.  Only the  Sub-Inspector
\n(P.W. 6) deposes to it but there is nothing to show what his
\nsource\tof information was.  At the time the game was  going
\non, he was not present and when he arrived on the scene, the
\ngame had stopped.  The account-books of the club do not show
\nany  such  levy from the persons and in the absence  of\t any
\nentry,\twe cannot hold this fact to be sufficiently  proved.
\nAs  regards  the  extra.charge for playing cards we may\t say
\nthat  clubs usually make an extra charge for  anything\tthey
\nSupply\tto  their  members  because it\tis  with  the  extra
\npayments  that the management of the club is carried on\t and
\nother  amenities  are provided.\t It is commonly\t known\tthat
\naccounts  have to be kept, stocks have to be  purchased\t and
\nmaintained for the use of the members and service is  given.
\nMoney is thus collected and there is expenditure for running
\nof  each section of the establishment.\tJust as some fee  is
\ncharged for the games of billiards, ping-pong, tennis,\tetc,
\nan extra charge for playing cards (unless it is extravagant)
\nwould not show that the club was making a profit or gain  so
\nas  to\trender\tthe  club  into\t a  common  gambling  house.
\nSimilarly, a late fee is generally charged from members\t who
\nuse the club premises  beyond  the scheduled time.  This  is
\nnecessary, because the servants of the
\n(1) A I R. 1948 Mad. 264.\n<\/p>\n
393<\/span><\/p>\n
club  who  attend  on  the members have\t to  be\t paid  extra
\nremuneration by way of overtime and expenditure on light and
\nother  amenities has to be incurred beyond the\tclub  hours.
\nSuch  a charge is usual in most of the clubs and we can take
\njudicial notice of the fact.\n<\/p>\n
     This leaves over for consideration only the sitting fee
\nas  it is called.  In this connection, the account books  of
\nthe  club have been produced before us and they show that  a
\nfee  of 50 paise is charged per person playing in  the\tcard
\nroom.\tThis to our opinion is not such a heavy charge in  a
\nMembers’  Club\tas to be described as an attempt to  make  a
\nprofit\tor  gain  for the club. Of course, if  it  had\tbeen
\nproved that 5 points per game were charged, that might\thave
\nbeen  considered  as an illegal charge sufficient  to  bring
\nthe club within the definition.\t As we have already  pointed
\nout, the levy of that charge has not been proved. The  other
\ncharges which the club made do not establish that this was a
\ncommon gambling house within the definition.\n<\/p>\n
     It is submitted by Mr. Ram Reddy that non-members\talso
\nplay  and further that the club provides no other  amenities
\nbesides\t making it possible for members and non-members\t  to
\nplay  the game of Rummy on the premises.  We think that\t the
\nevidence  on this part is not quite satisfactory.  No  doubt
\none  witness has stated that chess is also played, but\tthat
\ndoes  not  prove  that amenities other than card games\t are
\ncatered for by the club. But on the other side also there is
\nno definite evidence that there is no other amenity in\tthis
\nclub but the playing of card games. In these  circumstances,
\nto  hold that the club does not provide other  amenities  is
\ntantamount  to making a conjecture which is not\t permissible
\nin a criminal case.\n<\/p>\n
     We are also not satisfied that the protection of s.  14
\nis  not available in this case. The game of Rummy is  not  a
\ngame entirely of chance like the ‘three-card’ game mentioned
\nin  the Madras case to which we were referred.\t The  ‘three
\ncard’ game which goes under different names such as ‘flush’,
\n‘brag’ etc. is a game of pure  chance.\tRummy, on the  other
\nhand,  requires\t certain amount of skill because the fall of
\nthe  cards has to be memorised and the building up of  Rummy
\nrequires  considerable\tskill  in holding   and\t  discarding
\ncards.\tWe cannot, therefore, say that the game of Rummy  is
\na game of entire chance.  It is mainly and preponderantly  a
\ngame of skill.\tThe chance in Rummy is of the same character
\nas the chance in a deal at a game of bridge. In fact in\t all
\ngames in which cards are shuffled and dealt out, there is an
\nelement\t of  chance,  because the distribution\t of   the  I
\ncards  is not according to any set pattern but is  dependent
\nupon  how the cards find their place in the  shuffled  pack.
\nFrom  this alone it cannot be said that Rummy is a  game  of
\nchance and there
\n394<\/span>
\nis,  no\t skill\tinvolved in it.\t Of  course,  if  there\t  is
\nevidence  of gambling in some other way or that the owner of
\nthe  house or the club is making a profit or gain  from\t the
\ngame  of  Rummy\t or any other game played  for\tstakes,\t the
\noffence\t may be brought home.  In this case, these  elements
\nare  missing and therefore we think that the High Court\t was
\nright in accepting the\treference it did.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n395<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 825, 1968 SCR (2) 387 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: K. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/1967 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. CITATION: […]<\/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-71346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967 - 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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-13T11:49:21+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-13T11:49:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967\"},\"wordCount\":2897,\"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\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967\",\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-13T11:49:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967 - 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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-13T11:49:21+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967","datePublished":"1967-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-13T11:49:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967"},"wordCount":2897,"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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967","name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-13T11:49:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-k-satyanarayana-ors-on-22-november-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K. Satyanarayana & Ors on 22 November, 1967"}]},{"@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\/71346","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=71346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}