{"id":72557,"date":"1974-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974"},"modified":"2016-07-02T00:58:07","modified_gmt":"2016-07-01T19:28:07","slug":"daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974","title":{"rendered":"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2086, \t\t  1975 SCR  (2)\t 61<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDAKTAR MUDI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/09\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nBENCH:\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 2086\t\t  1975 SCR  (2)\t 61\n 1975 SCC  (3) 301\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1975 SC 550\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\nPreventive  detention-Grounds of detention  communicated  to\ndetenu-Right of Court to examine record to see if any  other\nmaterial influenced the subjective satisfaction of detaining\nauthority.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner\t was  detained\tunder  the  Maintenance\t  of\nInternal Security Act, 1971.  He was served with the grounds\nfor his detention.  In a petition challenging the  detention\nthe District Magistrate filed his counter affidavit  stating\nthat lie had passed the order of detention after being\tbona\nfide  satisfied from the. materials on record, that  it\t was\nnecessary  to detain him and that the grounds  furnished  to\nthe  detenu  were  the only grounds on which  he  based\t his\nsatisfaction  for making the order, though  other  materials\nwere also placed before him.' This Court wanted to look into\nthe  record  in\t order\tto  be\tsatisfied  that\t the.  other\nmaterials  were\t not  such  as\twould  have  in\t any  manner\ninfluenced   the  District  Magistrate\tin  arriving  at   a\nsubjective satisfaction.\nOn  the contention of the respondent that this\tCourt  ought\nnot to do so when the District Magistrate had stated that he\nhad  arrived  at  the  satisfaction,  only  on\tthe  grounds\nmentioned in the detention order,\nHELD  : There is a possibility that the materials on  record\nwould\tdisclose.  activities  of  the\tdetenu\twhich\twere\nproximate  and\tof a serious nature having. nexus  with\t the\nobject\tof the Act.  If such elements exist then this  Court\nwould,\tbe justified in taking the view that they must\thave\ninfluenced  the\t subjective, satisfaction of  the  detaining\nauthority.   This  Court  has held  that  where'  there\t are\nseveral\t grounds  and  if one ground is\t vague\tthen  it  is\ndifficult  to say whether the ground which is vague  and  in\nrespect\t of  which the detenu could not\t make  an  effective\nrepresentation\tdid not influence the mind of the  detaining\nauthority  in arriving- at the subjective satisfaction,\t and\nthat the detention order would therefore be invalid.  If so,\nit would be equally invalid in a case where there are  other\nmaterials  on which the detaining authority could have\tbeen\ninfluenced  in arriving at the subjective  satisfaction\t but\nwhich  had not been mentioned in. the grounds  of  detention\nnor communicated to the detenu.\t Hence, whether the..  other\nmaterials  on  record  had any effect on  the  mind  of\t the\ndetaining  authority  cannot  be  accepted  solely  on\t his\nstatement.  because, that would be accepting the  mere\tipsi\ndixit of the detaining authority. [62E-64B]\nIt  may\t be that the record and bio data of the\t detenu\t may\ndisclose  materials which have no nexus or proximity or\t are\nvague  or, having regard to their nature or  magnitude,\t are\nnot  such  as would have been considered  by  the  detaining\nauthority as essential.\t In such a case the validity of\t the\ndetention order would not be affected. [64B-C]\nIn the present case, the other materials are remote in\ttime\nand have no, nexus with the object of detention, and if they\nhad  been  stated  in the grounds  or  communicated  to\t the\ndetenu, the detention would have been held invalid.  The Di-\nstrict Magistrate, therefore, quite rightly. did not rely on\nthose  other' materials and was justified in  his  assertion\nthat he did not do so. [64H-65B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 116 of 1974.<br \/>\n(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, of India)<br \/>\nRavinder Banga, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sukumar Basu &amp; Co. for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">62<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nJAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The petitioner challenges his detention<br \/>\nunder  the Maintenance of Internal Security-.Act,  1971,  as<br \/>\nbeing  illegal.\t He was arrested on July 20, 1972, and\tsent<br \/>\nto  Midnapore Central Jail.  On the same day he\t was  served<br \/>\nwith  the order of detention along with the grounds  of\t his<br \/>\ndetention, which, inter alia, stated thus :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;2. On 26-4-1972 between 14.35 hrs. and  14.45<br \/>\n\t      hrs., you along with your associates  attacked<br \/>\n\t      the  box\twagon of train No.  D\/N.  140-78  at<br \/>\n\t      through  yard,  Nimpura near east\t cabin\tHome<br \/>\n\t      Signal and looted away rice bags from the said<br \/>\n\t      wagon.   Due  to the act of  yours  the  train<br \/>\n\t      suffered detention for about half an hour.<br \/>\n\t      Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to\t the<br \/>\n\t      maintenance of supplies and services essential<br \/>\n\t      to the community.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      3.On  28-5-72  at about  18.35  hrs.,  you<br \/>\n\t      alone with your associates stopped goods train<br \/>\n\t      No.  501\tUp  at KM 119\/15  near\tAyma  P.  S.<br \/>\n\t      Kharagpur\t Town,\tMidnapore  by  disconnecting<br \/>\n\t      hose pipes and looted away huge quantities  of<br \/>\n\t      brake  blocks  and  pull\trods  used  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      maintenance,  construction  and  operation  of<br \/>\n\t      railways.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Due  to this act of yours, the train  suffered<br \/>\n\t      detention for about half an hour.<br \/>\n\t      Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to\t the<br \/>\n\t      maintenance of supplies and services essential<br \/>\n\t      to the community.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  petitioner\t was asked to make a representation  to\t the<br \/>\nState Government against his detention order if he so  chose<br \/>\nand  also  to  intimate\t if he wanted to  be  heard  by\t the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board in person.  He was further informed that\t his<br \/>\ncase will be placed before the Advisory Board within  thirty<br \/>\ndays from the date of his detention under the order.<br \/>\nOn October 10, 1972, the State Government placed before\t the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board the grounds on which the detention order\t was<br \/>\nmade  as  also the report made by  the\tDistrict  Magistrate<br \/>\nunder\tsub-s.\t (3)  of  s.  3\t of  the  said\t Act.\t The<br \/>\nrepresentation\tof the petitioner was received by the  State<br \/>\nGovernment on October 11, 1972, and after due  consideration<br \/>\nit  was rejected by it on October 13, 1912.  It was sent  to<br \/>\nthe  Advisory  Board on October 24, 1972.   On\tOctober\t 30,<br \/>\n1972, the Advisory Board, after giving a personal hearing to<br \/>\nthe petitioner, submitted its report to the State Government<br \/>\nstating\t that in its opinion there was sufficient cause\t for<br \/>\nthe  detention of the petitioner.  The detention  order\t was<br \/>\nconfirmed by the State Government on November 3, 1972.<br \/>\nIt  will be seen that the requirements of law regarding\t the<br \/>\ntime schedule have been fully complied with and there is  no<br \/>\ndefect\tin  the detention proceedings on  that\tscore.\t The<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate&#8217;s<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 63<\/span><br \/>\naffidavit  stated  that he hall passed the  detention  order<br \/>\nafter being bona fide satisfied from the materials on record<br \/>\nas  stated in the grounds of detention that with a  view  to<br \/>\npreventing the detenu from acting in any manner\t prejudicial<br \/>\nto the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the<br \/>\ncommunity,  it\twas  necessary\tto  detain  him\t under\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tthe Maintenance of  Internal  Security\tAct,<br \/>\n1971.\tHe further stated that the grounds furnished to\t the<br \/>\ndetenu\twere  the  only\t grounds  on  which  he\t based\t his<br \/>\nsatisfaction  for  making the said  detention  order  though<br \/>\nother  materials  were also placed before him.\tIn  view  of<br \/>\nthis statement that &#8220;other materials were also placed before<br \/>\nhim&#8221;,  but his satisfaction was based merely on the  grounds<br \/>\nstated\tin  the detention order, we wanted to  be  satisfied<br \/>\nthat  those  materials were not such as would  have  in\t any<br \/>\nmanner\tinfluenced the District Magistrate in arriving at  a<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  was\t contended by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment that this Court ought riot look into. the  record<br \/>\nfor satisfying itself as to whether the District  Magistrate<br \/>\ncould  have  arrived at the conclusion when he says  he\t has<br \/>\narrived\t at that satisfaction only on the grounds  mentioned<br \/>\nin the detention order.\t We do not think that this would  be<br \/>\na  correct  approach.\tWhere the liberty of  a\t subject  is<br \/>\ninvolved and he has been detained without trial, under a law<br \/>\nmade pursuant to Art. 22 which provides certain\t safeguards,<br \/>\nit  is the duty of this Court as the custodian and  sentinel<br \/>\non  the ever vigilant guard of the freedom of an  individual<br \/>\nto  scrutinise with due care and anxiety that this  precious<br \/>\nright which he has under the Constitution is not in any\t way<br \/>\ntaken  away capriciously, arbitrarily or without  any  legal<br \/>\njustification.\n<\/p>\n<p>This Court has held that where grounds are furnished to\t the<br \/>\ndetenu\tthose grounds must not be vague and must be such  as<br \/>\nto enable him to make a proper and effective  representation<br \/>\nagainst\t his  detention.  This Court has further  held\tthat<br \/>\nwhere  there  are  several grounds, even if  one  ground  is<br \/>\nvague, then it is difficult to say whetherthe\t   ground<br \/>\nwhich is vague and_ in respect of which the detenu could not<br \/>\nmake an effective representation did not influence the\tmind<br \/>\nof  the\t detaining authority in arriving at  his  subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction  that the detenu would in future be  likely  to<br \/>\nact  in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of  supplies<br \/>\nand  services essential to the community. If  the  detention<br \/>\norder is held invalid on this count, it would be equally  so<br \/>\nin  a  case  where there are other materials  on  which\t the<br \/>\ndetaining  authority could have been influenced in  arriving<br \/>\nat  his\t subjective  satisfaction  but\twhich  he  has\t not<br \/>\nmentioned in the grounds of detention, nor communicated them<br \/>\nto  the\t detenu.  In such circumstances\t whether  the  other<br \/>\nmaterials  on  record  had any effect on  the  mind  of\t the<br \/>\ndetaining  authority  cannot  be  accepted  solely  on\t his<br \/>\nstatement,  because to admit that he alone has such a  right<br \/>\nwould be to accept that the mere ipsi dixit of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority  would  be sufficient and cannot be  looked  into.<br \/>\nThere  is  a possibility that certain  materials  on  record<br \/>\nwould  disclose that the activities of the detenu are  of  a<br \/>\nserious\t nature having a nexus with the object of  the\tAct,<br \/>\nnamely, the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">64<\/span><br \/>\nprevention of prejudicial acts affecting the maintenance  of<br \/>\nsupplies and services essential to the community, and having<br \/>\nproximity  with\t the time when the  subjective\tsatisfaction<br \/>\nforming\t the basis of the detention order had  been  arrived<br \/>\nat.  if\t these\telements  exist, then  the  Court  would  be<br \/>\njustified  in  taking  the view that these  must,  have\t in-<br \/>\nfluenced  the  subjective  satisfaction\t of  the   detaining<br \/>\nauthority  and the omission to indicate those  materials  to<br \/>\nthe  detenu  would  prejudice him  in  making  an  effective<br \/>\nrepresentation.\t If so, the detention order on that  account<br \/>\nwould be illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  may\t be that the record and bio-data of the\t detenu\t may<br \/>\ndisclose materials which have no nexus, or proximity or\t are<br \/>\nvague or having regard to their nature or magnitude, are not<br \/>\nsuch  as  would\t have  been  considered\t by  the   detaining<br \/>\nauthority  as essential for his subjective satisfaction,  in<br \/>\nwhich case, it will have no effect upon the validity of\t the<br \/>\ndetention order.  From this point of view, we have  examined<br \/>\nthe  bio-data  of  the\tdetenu but find\t that  none  of\t the<br \/>\nmaterials  contained in it have any proximity or nexus\twith<br \/>\nthe object of his detention, nor having regard to the nature<br \/>\nof  the activities can we say that they have or\t could\thave<br \/>\ninfluenced  the\t subjective satisfaction  of  the  detaining<br \/>\nauthority.  We find from the history-sheet furnished to\t the<br \/>\nDistrict   Magistrate  by  the\tSuperintendent\tof   Police,<br \/>\nMidnapore  that\t apart from the facts which  constitute\t the<br \/>\nthree grounds of detention specified in the detention order,<br \/>\nthere  are two sets of facts disclosed therein.\t One set  is<br \/>\nin respect of police case No. 8 dated January 8, 1966, under<br \/>\nS.  379 I.P.C. from which it will be found that\t the  detenu<br \/>\nwas concerned in four other cases, three of 1970 and one  of<br \/>\n1966,  but he could not be charge-sheeted in those cases  as<br \/>\nthe eye witnesses were afraid of deposing to facts  publicly<br \/>\nagainst\t the  detenu and his equally  dangerous\t associates.<br \/>\nThe  second set is in respect of his being bound down  under<br \/>\nss.  110\/118  Code of Criminal Procedure for six  months  on<br \/>\nJanuary\t 9,  1971.   Even  thereafter  he  was\tagain  found<br \/>\nconcerned  in  four  cases in 1971 each one,  under  s.\t 379<br \/>\nI.P.C.\tThe Superintendent of Police states that in  respect<br \/>\nof the above four cases thus :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;He  has now become a veteran  wagon  breaker.<br \/>\n\t      His  activities are highly prejudicial to\t the<br \/>\n\t      maintenance of supplies and services essential<br \/>\n\t      to  the  community.  People of  the  area\t are<br \/>\n\t      afraid of deposing facts publicly against\t him<br \/>\n\t      and his equally dangerous associates.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Thereafter  the Superintendent of Police gives some  of\t the<br \/>\nrecent\tinstances  of  his  activities\tprejudicial  to\t the<br \/>\nmaintenance   of   supplies  and   services   essential\t  to<br \/>\nthe.community,\twhich  alone have been given  in  the  three<br \/>\ngrounds\t mentioned  in the detention order  and\t which\twere<br \/>\ncommunicated to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is apparent that the instances to which we have  referred<br \/>\nto  are\t remote\t in  their  proximity  with  the  object  of<br \/>\ndetention and would, if they had been stated in the  grounds<br \/>\nor communicated&#8217; to the detenu,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 65<\/span><br \/>\nhave  been  considered as remote in their proximity  and  on<br \/>\nthat ground the detention would have been held invalid.\t The<br \/>\nDistrict  Magistrate, quite rightly, did not therefore\trely<br \/>\non  those other materials, and we think he was justified  in<br \/>\nhis assertion in the affidavit that he did not do so.<br \/>\nIn  the\t view  we have taken, the  detention  is  valid\t and<br \/>\naccordingly we dismiss the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petition dismissed-\n<\/p>\n<p>L25ISupC,1\/75<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">66<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2086, 1975 SCR (2) 61 Author: P J Reddy Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan PETITIONER: DAKTAR MUDI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/09\/1974 BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BHAGWATI, P.N. GOSWAMI, [&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-72557","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>Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974 - 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\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-01T19:28:07+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T19:28:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974\"},\"wordCount\":1621,\"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\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974\",\"name\":\"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T19:28:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974 - 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\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-01T19:28:07+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974","datePublished":"1974-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T19:28:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974"},"wordCount":1621,"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\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974","name":"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T19:28:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daktar-mudi-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-16-september-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Daktar Mudi vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1974"}]},{"@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\/72557","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=72557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}