{"id":83957,"date":"1974-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974"},"modified":"2017-03-13T17:50:48","modified_gmt":"2017-03-13T12:20:48","slug":"kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974","title":{"rendered":"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; &#8230; on 5 February, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; &#8230; on 5 February, 1974<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR  510, \t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 279<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nKANU SANYAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDIST.  MAGISTRATE, DARJEELING &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  510\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 279\n 1974 SCC  (4) 141\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, 1950, Art. 32--Petition for the issue\nof  writ  of  habeas corpus--Date with\treference  to  which\nlegality of detention may be tested.\nPrisoners  (Attendance\tin Courts) Act, 1955 s.\t 6  and\t its\nproviso--Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   petitioner   was\tremanded  to  the   District   Jail,\nDarjeeling,    in   connection\t with\tcertain\t   offences.\nThereafter,  two charge 'sheets were filed against  him\t and\nothers\tfor  various offences under the I.P.C.,\t which\twere\ntriable exclusively by a Sessions Court, before the  Special\nMagistrate, Visakhapatnam.  The Special Magistrate issued  a\nwarrant\t for the production of the petitioner in his  Court,\nunder  s. 3(2) of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts)\tAct,\n1955,\tand  the  officer  in  charge  of  the,\t Dt.\tJail\nDarjeeling, sent the petitioner to the Court of the  Special\nMagistrate,   Visakhapatanam.\tThe  petitioner\t  was\tthen\nremanded  to the Central Jail.\tVisakhapatnam,\tpending\t the\ndisposal of the. committal proceedings.\nIn a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus,\t the\npetitioner  contended that his initial detention in the\t Dt.\nJail,  Darjeeling,  was\t illegal,  because,  (1)(a)  it\t was\nviolative  of  Art. 22(1) (b) the  concerned  Magistrate  in\nDarjeeling  had\t no  jurisdiction to  try  the\toffences  in\nconnection  with  which he was detained\t in  Darjeeling\t and\nhence could not order detention beyond 15 days; and (2)\t the\nofficer\t in charge of the Dt.  Jail, Darjeeling should\thave\nrefused to comply with the warrant for production issued  by\nthe Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, by reason of s. 6  of\nthe Prisoners (Attendance in Courts)\tAct.\nHELD:\t  (1) As regards the earliest date with reference to\nwhich the legality of\t detention  challenged in  a  habeas\ncorpus\tproceeding  may\t be examined,  there  are  3  views,\nnamely, (a) that it is the date on which the application for\nhabeas corpus is made to the Court, (b) that it is the\tdate\nof  the\t return,  and (c) that it is the  date\tof  hearing.\nWhichever  be  the correct view, the earliest of  the  dates\nwould  be the date of filing of the application\t for  habeas\ncorpus.\t  In  the present case, the  application  was  filed\nafter  the petitioner was ordered to be detained in the\t jai\nat Visakhapatnam.  Assuming that there was some infirmity in\nthe  detention\tin  the\t jail  at  Darjeeling,\tthat  cannot\ninvalidate  the subsequent detention off the  petitioner  in\nthe jail at Visakhapatnam.  The legality of the detention at\nVisakhapatnam\thas  to\t be  judged  on\t its   own   merits.\nTherefore, it is unnecessary to examine the legality of\t the\ndetention of the petitioner in the jail at Darjeeling.\t[283\nt)-284 C]\n(2)  Under  s. 3(1) of the Prisoners (Attendance in  Courts)\nAct,  the  order  contemplated is an order  by\ta  civil  or\ncriminal court, for the production of a detained person\t for\ngiving\tevidence.  But the order contemplated by s. 3(2)  is\nan order of production of a person for answering a charge in\na  criminal court.  Under s. 5, when an order of  production\nis  made  under s. 3(1) or (2), the officer in charge  of  a\nprison\tshall cause the detained person to be taken  to\t the\ncourt  where his attendance is required.  Under s.  6,\tsuch\nofficer\t shall\tabstain\t from complying with  the  order  of\nproduction  in\tcertain circumstances.\tThe proviso  to\t the\nsection carves out an exception if the 3 conditions for\t its\napplicability, laid down in the proviso, are satisfied.\t The\nfirst condition is that the order of production should be by\na criminal court and the second is that the detained  person\nshould not be unfit to be removed, and the\n280\nthird  is that the place where the evidence of the  detained\nperson is required is not more than 5 miles from the  prison\nwhere he is confined. [285 A-G]\nIn the present case, the first two conditions are satisfied.\nThe 3rd condition can have no application where an order  is\nmade by a criminal court under s. 3(2) requiring  production\nfor  answering a charge.  The fulfillment of the  first\t two\nconditions  would, in such a case, be sufficient to  attract\nthe  applicability of the Proviso, and to take the case\t out\nof  s.\t6. Therefore, the officer in charge of the  jail  at\nDarjeeling was bound to send the petitioner to the Court  at\nVisakhapatnam and he acted according to law.  The subsequent\ndetention in the jail at Visakhapatnam pending trial must be\nheld  to  be  valid and a writ of habeas  corpus  cannot  be\ngranted\t where\ta person is committed to jail custody  by  a\ncompetent  court  by an order which, prima facie,  does\t not\nappear to be without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. [285 H-\n286 G]\nB.  R.\tRao  v.\t State of Orissa,  A.I.R.  1971\t S.C.  2197,\nfollowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 205 of 1973.<br \/>\nUnder Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a<br \/>\nwrit in the nature of habeas corpus.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.   H. Hingorani, for the petitioner..\n<\/p>\n<p>P.   K.\t Chatterjee, Sukumar Basu and G. S. Chatterjee,\t for<br \/>\nrespondents Nos. 1-5.\n<\/p>\n<p>P.   Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for respondent No. 6.<br \/>\nB.   D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 7.<br \/>\nThe Judgement of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nBHAGWATI,  J.,\tThis is a writ petition\t by  the  petitioner<br \/>\nunder  Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the  legality<br \/>\nof  his\t detention  in the Central  Jail,  Vsakhapatnam\t and<br \/>\npraying\t for  a writ of hebeas &#8216;corpus for  setting  him  at<br \/>\nliberty\t  forthwith.\tThe  petitioner\t is   one   of\t the<br \/>\nacknowledged   leaders\tof  the\t Naxalite   movement   which<br \/>\noriginated  in\tthe  area within  Naxalbari,  Kharabari\t and<br \/>\nPhansidewa  police  stations  in  Siliguri  Sub-Division  of<br \/>\nDarjeeling District of West Bengal some ten years ago.\t The<br \/>\nmovement  represents armed revolt of the  peasantry  against<br \/>\nexploitation by landholders and it seeks to achieve its\t end<br \/>\nby violent means calculated to overthrow the democratic pro-<br \/>\ncess.\tThe  petitioner, as one of the top leaders  of\tthis<br \/>\nmovement, was engaged in violent and anti-social  activities<br \/>\nand  was for quite some time underground evading  arrest  by<br \/>\nthe police.  Eventually on 19th August, 1970 the  petitioner<br \/>\nwas arrested by the police alongwith some of his  associates<br \/>\nfrom a hideout within the jurisdiction of Phansidewa  police<br \/>\nstation.  A huge quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives<br \/>\nwas found with the petitioner and his associates at the time<br \/>\nof  the\t arrest.  Phansidewa PS case No. 3  was\t accordingly<br \/>\nregistered against the petitioner on 19th August, 1970 under<br \/>\ns.5  of the Explosive Substances Act, s. 25 (1) (a)  of\t the<br \/>\nArms Act and ss. 120B, 121A, 122, 309 and 402 of the  Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code.  There was also another case, namely, Phansidewa<br \/>\nP.S.  Case No. 28 registered against the petitioner on\t29th<br \/>\nJune, 1967 under s. 412 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">281<\/span><br \/>\nCode. That case was under investigation at the time when the<br \/>\npetitioner  was arrested. Immediately after his\t arrest,  on<br \/>\nthe  same day, i.e., 19th August, 1970, the  petitioner\t was<br \/>\nproduced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Siliguri. The<br \/>\nlearned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, passed an order of remand<br \/>\ndirecting  that the petitioner be detained in  the  District<br \/>\nJail,  Darjeeling and that he should be produced before\t the<br \/>\nSub-Divisional\tMagistrate, Darjeeling. The  petitioner\t was<br \/>\naccordingly  produced before the  Sub-Divisional  Magistrate<br \/>\nDarjeeling  from  time\tto time and orders  of\tremand\twere<br \/>\npassed\tby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darjeeling at\t the<br \/>\ninterval  of every fourteen days since the investigation  in<br \/>\nP.S. Case No. 28 dated 29th June, 1967 and P.S. Case No.  3,<br \/>\ndated 19th August, 1970 was not complete. It appears that on<br \/>\n16th  January, 1970 first information report in\t respect  of<br \/>\ncertain criminal offences alleged to have been committed  by<br \/>\nthe  petitioner and a large number of other  co-conspirators<br \/>\nwas  lodged  in Parvathipuram police station and  after\t the<br \/>\ncompletion  of\tthe investigation,  two\t charge-sheets\twere<br \/>\nfiled  against the petitioner and other 139 accused  in\t the<br \/>\nCourt  of  the\tSpecial Magistrate,  Visakhapatnam  on\t12th<br \/>\nOctober, 1970 charging them with offences under s. 120B read<br \/>\nwith  ss.  302,\t 395, 397, 121, 122, 123,-and  124A  of\t the<br \/>\nIndian\tPenal  Code. The offences charged  under  these\t two<br \/>\ncharge-sheets  were  triable  exclusively by  the  Court  of<br \/>\nSessions, and therefore, inquiry proceedings under Ch. XVIII<br \/>\nof  the\t Cods of Criminal Procedure were  initiated  by\t the<br \/>\nSpecial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Since the petitioner, who<br \/>\nwas  accused\tNo. 138 in these two criminal  cases,  which<br \/>\nwere  numbered\tas P.R.C. Nos. 1 and 2 of  1971,  was  under<br \/>\nremand\t in   the   District   Jail,   Darjeeling    pending<br \/>\ninvestigation of the two Phansidewa P.S. cases, the  Special<br \/>\nMagistrate, Visakhapatnam issued on 30th May, 1972 a warrant<br \/>\nfor  production of the petitioner in his Court under  s.  3,<br \/>\nsub-s.\t(2)  of the Prisoners (Attendance  in  Courts)\tAct,<br \/>\n1955.\tThe   officer  in-charge  of  the   District   Jail,<br \/>\nDarjeeling,  in\t obedience to this warrant  for\t production,<br \/>\nsent the petitioner to the Court of the Special\t Magistrate,<br \/>\nVisakhapatnam  on 14th June,\t    1972 and immediately  on<br \/>\narrival,  the  petitioner was produced in the court  of\t the<br \/>\nSpecial\t Judge,\t Visakhapatnam\ton  17th  June,\t 1972.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner was remanded by the Special Judge,  Visakhapatnam<br \/>\nfrom  time  to time pending the disposal  of  the  committal<br \/>\nproceedings  and  pursuant  to the  orders  of\tremand,\t the<br \/>\npetitioner was detained in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam.<br \/>\n On 6th January, 1973, whilst under detention in the Central<br \/>\nJail,\tVisakhapatnam,\tthe  petitioner\t preferred  a\twrit<br \/>\npetition  under\t Art. 32 of the Constitution in\t this  Court<br \/>\nchallenging  the  legality of his detention right  from\t the<br \/>\ntime of its inception and praying that he may be set free by<br \/>\nissue of a writ of habaas corpus.  The District\t Magistrate,<br \/>\nDarjeeling,   the   Sub-Divisional   Judicial\tMagistrates,<br \/>\nSiliguri, Kuerseon and Darjeeling the State of West  Bengal,<br \/>\nthe Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam and the Post<br \/>\nMaster\tGeneral,  West Bengal were made respondents  to\t the<br \/>\nwrit petition.\tThis Court ordered a rule nisi to be  issued<br \/>\non  the writ petition but directed that the petitioner\tneed<br \/>\nnot  be\t produced  in  person.\t The  District\t Magistrate,<br \/>\nDarjeeling  and the State of West Bengal filed their  return<br \/>\nto the rule<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">282<\/span><br \/>\nnisi  on 19th April, 1973 and the Superintendent of  Central<br \/>\nJail,  Visakhapatnam  filed his return to the rule  nisi  on<br \/>\n11th  May,  1973.  When the writ petition  reached  hearing,<br \/>\ncounsel\t appearing  on\tbehalf of the  petitioner  raised  a<br \/>\ncontention that the writ petition could not be heard by\t the<br \/>\nCourt  unless the petitioner was produced in person and\t his<br \/>\nargument  was that once rule nisi was issued, the Court\t was<br \/>\nbound  to order production of the petitioner.\tSince,\tthis<br \/>\ncontention raised an important question of law affecting the<br \/>\npractice  of  the Court while dealing with petitions  for  a<br \/>\nwrit  of habeas corpus, the Division Beach hearing the\twrit<br \/>\npetition   referred  this  question  for  decision  by\t the<br \/>\nConstitution Bench.  The writ petition was thereafter placed<br \/>\nbefore the Constitution Bench and by a judgment delivered by<br \/>\nthe Constitution Bench on 11th September, 1973, it was\theld<br \/>\nthat  it  was competent to the Court to\t dispense  with\t the<br \/>\nproduction of the body of the person detained while  issuing<br \/>\nrule nisi, and the rule nisi could be heard without  requir-<br \/>\ning the body of the person detained to be brought before the<br \/>\nCourt.\tOn this view being taken by the Constitution  Bench,<br \/>\nthe writ petition again came back to the Division Bench\t for<br \/>\nfinal  disposal.  In the meantime the committal\t proceedings<br \/>\nwhich  were being held by the Special  Judge,  Visakhapatnam<br \/>\nagainst\t the petitioner and his other  associates  concluded<br \/>\nand by an order dated 12th July, 1973 the petitioner and  66<br \/>\nother  accused\twere commuted to the court  of\tSessions  to<br \/>\nstand  their trial for various offences.  The trial of\tthis<br \/>\nSessions Case, being Sessions Case No. 46 of 1973, is  still<br \/>\npending\t against the petitioner in the Court of\t the  Second<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the  petitioner<br \/>\nis  under  detention  in  the&#8217;\tCentral\t Jail,-Visakhapatnam<br \/>\npursuant  to  the  orders  made\t by  the  Second  Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge, Visakhapatnam pending trial.<br \/>\nThe  learned counsel appearing on behalf of  the  petitioner<br \/>\nput  forward three grounds challenging the legality  of\t the<br \/>\ndetention  of  the  petitioner\tand  they  may\tbe   briefly<br \/>\nsummarised as follows<br \/>\n\t      A. The initial detention of the petitioner  in<br \/>\n\t      the  District  Jail,  Darjeeling\twas  illegal<br \/>\n\t      because he was detained without being informed<br \/>\n\t      of the grounds for his arrest as required by<br \/>\n\t      cl (i) of Art. 22 of the Constitution;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      B.  The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,  Darjeeling<br \/>\n\t      had no jurisdiction to try the two  Phansidewa<br \/>\n\t      P.S. cases against.the petitioner and he could<br \/>\n\t      not, therefore, authorise the detention of the<br \/>\n\t      petitioner  under\t S.  157  of  the&#8217;  Code  of<br \/>\n\t      Criminal\t Procedure  for\t a  term   exceeding<br \/>\n\t      fifteen  days in the whole.  It was  only\t the<br \/>\n\t      Sub  Divisional  Magistrate Siliguri  who\t had<br \/>\n\t      jurisdiction  to try the two  Phansidewa\tP.S.<br \/>\n\t      cases and he alone could remand the petitioner<br \/>\n\t      to custody after the expiration of the initial<br \/>\n\t      period  of  fifteen days under S. 344  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Code  of\tCriminal Procedure.  The  orders  of<br \/>\n\t\t\t    remand under which the petitioner was<br \/>\ndetained<br \/>\n\t      in   the\tDistrict  Jail,\t  Darjeeling   were,<br \/>\n\t      however,\t  made\t by    the    Sub-Divisional<br \/>\n\t      Magistrate,  Darjeeling and the  detention  of<br \/>\n\t      the   petitioner\t in  the   District   Court,<br \/>\n\t      Darjeeling was, therefore illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      283<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      C.    The\t officer in charge of  the  District<br \/>\n\t      Jail,  Darjeeling\t was bound to  abstain\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      complying\t with  the  warrant  for  production<br \/>\n\t      issued by the Special Judge, Visakhapatnam  by<br \/>\n\t      reason of S. 6 of the Prisoners (Attendance in<br \/>\n\t      Courts)  Act, 1955 and the production  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      petitioner    before   the   Special    Judge,<br \/>\n\t      Visakhapatnam  pursuant  to such\twarrant\t for<br \/>\n\t      production  and his detention in\tthe  Central<br \/>\n\t      Jail, Visakhapatnam were consequently  without<br \/>\n\t      the authority of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      Re   Grounds A and B.\n<\/p>\n<p>These two grounds relate exclusively to the legality of\t the<br \/>\ninitial\t detention of the petitioner in the  District  Jail,<br \/>\nDarjeeling.  We think it unnecessary to decide them.  It  is<br \/>\nnow  welt settled that the earliest date with  reference  to<br \/>\nwhich  the  legality  of detention challenged  in  a  habeas<br \/>\ncorpus\tproceeding may be examined is the date on which\t the<br \/>\napplication  for habeas corpus is made to the  Court.\tThis<br \/>\nCourt speaking through Wanchoo, J., (as he then was) said in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/259980\/\">A.  K.\tGopalan\t v. Government of India<\/a>(1)  :  &#8220;It  is\twell<br \/>\nsettled that in dealing with the petition for habeas  corpus<br \/>\nthe  Court  is to see whether the detention on the  date  on<br \/>\nwhich  the  application is made to the Court  is  legal,  if<br \/>\nnothing\t more  has  intervened\tbetween\t the  date  of\t the<br \/>\napplication  and  the  date  of\t hearing&#8221;.   In\t two   early<br \/>\ndecisions of this Court, however, namely, Naranjan Singh  v.<br \/>\nState of Punjab(2) and Ram Narain Singh v. State of Delhi(3)<br \/>\na  slightly different view was expressed and that  view\t was<br \/>\nreiterated by this Court in B. R. Rao v. State of  Orissa(4)<br \/>\nwhere  it was said : &#8220;In habeas corpus the Court is to\thave<br \/>\nregard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at\t the<br \/>\ntime of the return and not with reference to the institution<br \/>\nof  the proceedings&#8221;.  And yet in another decision  of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/750545\/\">Talib Husain v. State of Jammu &amp;  Kashmir<\/a>(5)\t Mr.<br \/>\nJustice\t Dua, sitting as a Single Judge, presumably  in\t the<br \/>\nvacation,  observed that &#8220;in habeas corpus  proceedings\t the<br \/>\nCourt  has to consider the legality of the detention on\t the<br \/>\ndate  of  the hearing&#8221;.\t of these three views taken  by\t the<br \/>\nCourt  at different times, the second appears to be more  in<br \/>\nconsonance  with the law and practice in England and may  be<br \/>\ntaken as- having received the largest measure of approval in<br \/>\nIndia,\tthough\tthe third view also cannot be  discarded  as<br \/>\nincorrect, because an inquiry whether the detention is legal<br \/>\nor not at the date of hearing of the application for  habeas<br \/>\ncorpus\twould be quite relevant, for the simple reason\tthat<br \/>\nif  on\tthat date the detention is legal, the  Court  cannot<br \/>\norder  release of the person detained by issuing a  writ  of<br \/>\nhabeas corpus.\tBut, for the purpose of the present case, it<br \/>\nis  immaterial\twhich of these three views  is\taccepted  as<br \/>\ncorrect,  for  it is clear that, whichever  be\tthe  correct<br \/>\nview, the earliest date with reference to which the legality<br \/>\nof  detention may be examined is the date of filing  of\t the<br \/>\napplication for habeas corpus and the Court is not, to quote<br \/>\nthe  words  of\tMr. Justice Dua in B. R.  Rao  v.  State  of<br \/>\nOrissa,(4) &#8220;concerned with a date prior to the-initiation of<br \/>\nthe proceed-\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) [1966]2 S. C. R. 427    (2) [1952] S. C. R. 395<br \/>\n(3) [1953] S. C. R. 652\t    (4) A. 1. R. 1971 S. C. 2197<br \/>\n(5)  A. 1. R. 1971 S. C. 62<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">284<\/span><br \/>\nings for a writ of habeas corpus&#8221;.  Now the writ petition in<br \/>\nthe present case was filed on 6th January, 1973 and on\tthat<br \/>\ndate  the petitioner was in detention in the  Central  Jail,<br \/>\nVisakhapatnam.\t The initial detention of the petitioner  in<br \/>\nthe District Jail, Darjeeling had come to an end long before<br \/>\nthe  date  of  the  filing of the  writ\t petition.   It\t is,<br \/>\ntherefore, unnecessary to examine the legality or  otherwise<br \/>\nof  the\t detention of the petitioner in the  District  Jail,<br \/>\nDarjeeling.  The only question that calls for  consideration<br \/>\nis  whether the detention of the petitioner in\tthe  Central<br \/>\nJail, Visakhapatnam is legal or not.  Even if we assume that<br \/>\ngrounds A and B are well founded and there was infirmity  in<br \/>\nthe  detention of the petitioner in the District Jail,\tDar-<br \/>\njeeling, that cannot invalidate the subsequent detention  of<br \/>\nthe petitioner in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam.  See para<br \/>\n7  of  the judgment of this Court in B. R. Rao v.  State  of<br \/>\nOrissa,\t  (4).\t The  legality\tof  the\t detention  of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam would have  to<br \/>\nbe  judged  on its own merits.\tWe, therefore,\tconsider  it<br \/>\nunnecessary to embark on a discussion of grounds A and B and<br \/>\ndecline to decide them.\n<\/p>\n<p>Re : Ground &#8216;C&#8217;<br \/>\nThe   only  question  which,  therefore.  requires   to\t  be<br \/>\nconsidered is whether the detention of the petitioner in the<br \/>\nCentral Jail, Visakhapatnam is illegal.\t Now the legality of<br \/>\nthis detention is challenged on the ground that by reason of<br \/>\nS.  6 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955\t the<br \/>\nofficers  in  charge of the District  Jail,  Darjeeling\t was<br \/>\nbound to abstain from complying with the warrant for produc-<br \/>\ntion issued by the Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and was<br \/>\nnot entitled to send the petitioner to the Court of  Special<br \/>\nMagistrate,  Visakhapatnam in compliance with  such  warrant<br \/>\nfor  production.  This ground is wholly\t without  substance.<br \/>\nIt  overlooks the Proviso to s. 6 of the Act.  In  order  to<br \/>\narrive\tat.  a\tproper\tinterpretation of  s.  6  with\tthe,<br \/>\nProviso,  it is necessary to have a look at ss. 3 and  5  as<br \/>\nwell.\tSub-s.\t(1)  of\t s. 3 provides\tthat  any  civil  or<br \/>\ncriminal  court may, if it thinks that the evidence  of\t any<br \/>\nperson\tconfined  in any prison is material  in\t any  matter<br \/>\npending\t before it, make an order in the form set  forth  in<br \/>\nthe  First  Schedule, directed to the officer in  charge  of<br \/>\nthe,  prison.  It is clear from this sub-section as well  as<br \/>\nthe  form  set\tout in the First  Schedule  that  the  order<br \/>\ncontemplated by this sub-section is an order for  production<br \/>\nof a person detained, in any prison for giving evidence\t and<br \/>\nsuch  an  order may be made by a civil court or\t a  criminal<br \/>\ncourt.\t Section  3,  sub-s. (2) provides  for\ta  different<br \/>\nsituation.  It says that any criminal court may, if a charge<br \/>\nof  an\toffence against a person confined in any  prison  is<br \/>\nmade  or pending before it,, make an order in the  form\t set<br \/>\nforth  in  the second Schedule directed to  the\t officer  in<br \/>\ncharge\tof the prison.\tThe order contemplated in this\tsub-<br \/>\nsection-and that is evident also from the form set forth  in<br \/>\nthe Second Schedule-is an order of production for  answering<br \/>\na  charge  and exhypothesi that can only be  by\t a  criminal<br \/>\ncourt.\t The warrant for production in the present case\t was<br \/>\nunder  s.  3, sub-s. (2) as the\t petitioner  was  admittedly<br \/>\nrequired  to  be  produced before  the\tSpecial\t Magistrate,<br \/>\nVisakhapatnam for answering the charges against him.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">285<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Now, when an order of production is made under sub-s. (1) or<br \/>\nsub-s. (2) of s. 3, what is to happen ? That is provided  in<br \/>\nS.  5  which  says  that upon  delivery\t of  such  order  of<br \/>\nproduction  to\tthe officer in charge of  the  prison,\tthat<br \/>\nofficer\t shall\tcause the person named in the  order  to  be<br \/>\ntaken to the Court in which his attendance is required so as<br \/>\nto  be\tpresent in the Court at the time  mentioned  in\t the<br \/>\norder.\t The  main part of s. 6, however, sets\tout  certain<br \/>\ncircumstances  in which the officer in charge of the  prison<br \/>\nshall  abstain from complying with the order of\t production.<br \/>\nIt reads :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;6.  Officer  in\tcharge\tof  prison  when  to<br \/>\n\t      abstain  from  carrying  out  order-Where\t the<br \/>\n\t      person  in  respect of whom an order  is\tmade<br \/>\n\t      under section 3-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   is, in accordance with the rules made in<br \/>\n\t      this  behalf,  declared  to  be  unfit  to  be<br \/>\n\t      removed  from the prison where he is  confined<br \/>\n\t      by reason of sickness or other infirmity; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   is under committal for trial; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   is under remand pending trial or pending<br \/>\n\t      a preliminary investigation; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (d)   is\tin custody for a period which  would<br \/>\n\t      expire  before  the  expiration  of  the\ttime<br \/>\n\t      required\tfor removing him under this Act\t and<br \/>\n\t      for taking him back to the prison in which  he<br \/>\n\t      is confined;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      the  officer  in charge of  the  prison  shall<br \/>\n\t      abstain from carrying out the order and  shall<br \/>\n\t      send  to\tthe Court from which the  order\t had<br \/>\n\t      been  issued a statement of reason.-,  for  so<br \/>\n\t      abstaining : &#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      But  there is a proviso to this section  which<br \/>\n\t      carves out an exception in the following terms<br \/>\n\t      :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Provided that such officer as aforesaid shall<br \/>\n\t      not abstain where-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   the\t order has been made by\t a  criminal<br \/>\n\t      Court; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)  the\t  person  named\t in  the  order\t  is<br \/>\n\t      confined\tunder committal for trial  or  under<br \/>\n\t      remand pending trial or pending a\t preliminary<br \/>\n\t      investigation   and   is\t not   declared\t  in<br \/>\n\t      accordance with the rules made in this  behalf<br \/>\n\t      to  be  unfit to be removed  from\t the  prison<br \/>\n\t      where he is confined by reason of sickness  or<br \/>\n\t      other infirmity; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (iii) the\t place,. where the evidence  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      person  named in the order is required is\t not<br \/>\n\t      more than fives miles distant from the  prison<br \/>\n\t      in which he is confined.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Now  there can be no dispute that the petitioner in  respect<br \/>\nof whom the warrant for production was issued by the Special<br \/>\nMagistrate, Visa<br \/>\n6&#8211;L954Sup.C.I.\/74<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">286<\/span><br \/>\nkhapatnam  under S. 3, sub-s. (2) was under  remand  pending<br \/>\npreliminary  investigation in the two Phansidewa  PS  cases,<br \/>\nand therefore, under the main provision in s. 6, the officer<br \/>\nin  charge  of the District Jail, Darjeeling  was  bound  to<br \/>\nabstain\t from  complying with the  warrant  for\t production,<br \/>\nunless, of-course, the Proviso was applicable.\tThe  Proviso<br \/>\nlays  down three conditions for its applicability.  The\t two<br \/>\nconditions  set\t out in cls. (i) and  (ii)  were  admittedly<br \/>\nsatisfied.   The only question could be about the  condition<br \/>\nin   cl.  (iii),  but  that  condition\thas   obviously\t  no<br \/>\napplication  in case of an order of production under  sub-s.<br \/>\n(2) of s. 3. Clause (iii) posits an order of production\t for<br \/>\ngiving\tevidence made under sub-s. (1) of s. 3. It  is\tonly<br \/>\nwhere such an order of production is made that the condition<br \/>\nin cl. (iii) can apply.\t It can have no application where an<br \/>\norder  is made by a criminal court under sub-section (2)  of<br \/>\ns. 3 requiring production for answering a charge.  In such a<br \/>\ncase,\tthe   condition\t in  cl.  (iii)\t would\t be   wholly<br \/>\ninappropriate  and  would  not have to\tbe  satisfied.\t The<br \/>\nfulfillment  of the conditions set out in cls. (i) and\t(ii)<br \/>\nwould\tin   that  case\t be  sufficient\t  to   attract\t the<br \/>\napplicability\tof  the\t Proviso.   Here  the  warrant\t for<br \/>\nproduction  was admittedly issued under sub-s. (2) of  s.  3<br \/>\nand therefore the only requirement for bringing the  Proviso<br \/>\ninto operation was the fulfillment of the conditions set out<br \/>\nin  cls.  (i) and (ii).\t These two conditions  were  clearly<br \/>\nsatisfied  and the Proviso was accordingly attracted and  it<br \/>\ntook the case out of the main provision in s. 6. The officer<br \/>\nin  charge of the District Jail, Darjeeling was,  therefore,<br \/>\nbound  to  send the petitioner to the Court of\tthe  Special<br \/>\nMagistrate.   Visakhapatnam in compliance with\tthe  warrant<br \/>\nfor  production and he acted according to law in  doing\t so.<br \/>\nThe, production of the petitioner before the Special  Judge,<br \/>\nVisakhapatnam,\tcould not, therefore, be said to be  illegal<br \/>\nand   his   subsequent\tdetention  in  the   Central   Jail,<br \/>\nVisakhapatnam.\tpursuant to the orders made by\tthe  Special<br \/>\nJudge,\tVisakhapatnam,\tpending\t trial must be\theld  to  be<br \/>\nvalid.\t This  Court pointed out in B. R. Rao  v.  State  of<br \/>\nOrissa(4)  that\t a writ of habeas corpus cannot\t be  granted<br \/>\n&#8220;Where\tperson is committed to jail custody by\ta  competent<br \/>\ncourt  by an order which prima &#8216;facie does not appear to  be<br \/>\nwithout\t jurisdiction wholly illegal&#8221;.\tThe present case  is<br \/>\nclearly\t covered by these observation and the petitioner  is<br \/>\nnot  entitled to a writ\t of habeas corpus to free  him\tfrom<br \/>\ndetention.\n<\/p>\n<p>The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the rule nisi<br \/>\nis discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">287<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; &#8230; on 5 February, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 510, 1974 SCR (3) 279 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: KANU SANYAL Vs. RESPONDENT: DIST. MAGISTRATE, DARJEELING &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/02\/1974 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. GOSWAMI, P.K. CITATION: 1974 AIR [&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-83957","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>Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; ... on 5 February, 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\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; ... on 5 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-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=\"1974-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-13T12:20:48+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; &#8230; on 5 February, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-13T12:20:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974\"},\"wordCount\":3349,\"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\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974\",\"name\":\"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; ... on 5 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-13T12:20:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; &#8230; on 5 February, 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":"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; ... on 5 February, 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\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; ... on 5 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-13T12:20:48+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; &#8230; on 5 February, 1974","datePublished":"1974-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-13T12:20:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974"},"wordCount":3349,"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\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974","name":"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; ... on 5 February, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-13T12:20:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanu-sanyal-vs-dist-magistrate-darjeeling-on-5-february-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanu Sanyal vs Dist. Magistrate, Darjeeling &amp; &#8230; on 5 February, 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\/83957","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=83957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}