{"id":95459,"date":"1959-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959"},"modified":"2015-08-19T14:36:01","modified_gmt":"2015-08-19T09:06:01","slug":"jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959","title":{"rendered":"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi … on 15 September, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi … on 15 September, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 89, \t\t 1960 SCR (1) 755<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJETHANAND BETAB\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF DELHI(now Delhi Administration)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/09\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR   89\t\t  1960 SCR  (1) 755\n\n\nACT:\nRepeal\tof  Statute-Repealing and Amending Act,\t object\t of-\nEnactment making Possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus\nwithout\t licence  punishable-Amending  Act  introducing\t new\nsection\t making Possession of wireless\ttransmitter  without\nlicence liable to heavier Punishment-Repeal of Amending Act-\nWhether amendment introduced by it survives-Indian  Wireless\nTelegraphy  Act,  1933 (XVII of 1933), ss. 3, 6\t and  6(1A)-\nIndian\tWireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949  (XXXI  of\n1949),\ts.  5-Repealing and Amending Act,  1952\t (XLVIII  of\n1952),\tss. 2 and 4--General Clauses Act, 1879 (X of  1879),\nS. 6A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSection\t 3  of\tthe Indian  Wireless  Telegraphy  Act,\t1933\nprovided  that no person shall possess\twireless  telegraphy\napparatus  without a licence and s. 6 made  such  possession\npunishable.  The Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act,\n1949,  introduced s. 6(1A) in the 1933 Act,  which  provided\nfor  a\theavier\t sentence  for\tpossession  of\ta   wireless\ntransmitter  without a licence.\t The Repealing and  Amending\nAct, 1952, repealed the whole of the Amendment Act of  1949,\nbut  by s. 4 provided that the repeal shall not\t affect\t any\nother  enactment  in which the repealed enactment  had\tbeen\napplied,  incorporated\tor referred to.\t The  appellant\t was\nconvicted  under  s.  6(1A) for being, in  possession  of  a\nwireless transmitter on July 31, 1953.\tHe contended that s.\n6(1A)  had  been repealed and his  conviction  and  sentence\nthereunder could not be sustained.\nHeld,  that  s.\t 6(1A) was saved by s.\t6A  of\tthe  General\nClauses Act, 1897, though s. 4 of the Repealing and Amending\nAct, 1952, did not save it.\n756\nThe  object of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1952, was  to\nstrike\tout unnecessary Acts and to excise dead matter\tfrom\nthe statute book.\nKhuda  Bux  v. Manager, Caledonian Press, A.I.R.  1954\tCal.\n484, referred to.\nSection\t 4  of the Repealing and Amending  Act,\t 1952,\tonly\nsaved  other enactments in which the repealed enactment\t had\nbeen  applied,\tincorporated  or referred  to.\t It  had  no\napplication to the case of a later amending Act inserting  a\nnew provision in an earlier Act as it could not be said that\nthe  earlier  Act applied, incorporated or referred  to\t the\nAmending Act.\nSecretary  of State for India in Council v.  Hindusthan\t Co-\noperative  Insurance  Society,\tLtd.,  L.R.  58\t I.A.\t259,\nfollowed.\nMohinder  Singh v. Mst.\t Harbhajan Kaur, I.L.R.<\/a>\t 1955  Punj.\n625  and Darbara Singh v. Shrimati Karnail Kaur,  61  P.L.R.\n762, disapproved.\nSection 6A of the General Clauses Act provided that when any\nCentral Act repealed any enactment by which the text of\t any\nCentral\t Act was amended then unless a\tdifferent  intention\nappeared  the repeal would not affect such  amendment.\t The\nword  \" text \" in s. 6A was comprehensive enough to  include\nthe  subject as well as the terminology used in\t a  statute,\nand  the  insertion  of\t s. 6(1A) in the  1933\tAct  was  an\namendment  in  the text.  No  different\t intention  appeared\neither\tfrom  the repealing Act or from the history  of\t the\nlegislation and s. 6A applied to the repeal of the Amendment\nAct, 1949.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 185  of
\n1957.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nthe  6th December, 1955, of the Punjab High  Court  (Circuit
\nBench)\tat  Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 122-D  of  1955,
\narising\t out of the judgment and order dated July 29,  1955,
\nof  the First Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in  Cr.\t  A.
\nNo. 367\/55.\n<\/p>\n
Mohan Behari Lal and Eluri Udayarathnam, for the appellant.
\nN.   S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
\n1959.\tSeptember  15.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\nSUBBA  RAO  J.-This  appeal by\tspecial\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the  order  of the High Court\tof  Punjab  (Circuit
\nBench), Delhi confirming the conviction of the appellant and
\nthe sentence passed on him by the
\n757<\/span>
\nMagistrate,  First  Class,  Delhi, under s.  6(1-A)  of\t the
\nIndian\t Wireless  Telegraphy  Act,  1933  (XVII  of   1933)
\n(hereinafter called ” the Act “).\n<\/p>\n
Jethanand, the appellant herein, was prosecuted, along\twith
\nanother, in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Delhi,
\nunder  s.  6(1-A)  of  the Act\tfor  possessing\t a  wireless
\ntransmitter  in contravention of the provisions of s.  3  of
\nthe   Act,  and\t was  sentenced\t to  six   months   rigorous
\nimprisonment.\tOn  appeal,  the  learned  First  Additional
\nSessions Judge, Delhi, upheld the conviction but reduced the
\nsentence  to  the period of imprisonment  already  undergone
\nplus  a\t fine  of  Rs. 500.  On\t revision,  the\t High  Court
\nconfirmed  both\t the  conviction and the  sentence.   On  an
\napplication  filed  for special leave, this Court  gave\t the
\nsame, but limited it\t to the question of sentence.
\nLearned\t  Counsel    raised   before   us   the\t   following
\ncontentions:   (1) s. 6(1-A) of the Act was repealed, and,
\ntherefore,   neither   the  conviction\tnor   the   sentence
\nthereunder  could be sustained; and (2) if s. 6(1-A) of\t the
\nAct  was repealed, this Court in limiting the appeal to\t the
\nquestion  of sentence only went wrong, for, if that  section
\nwas  not  on  the statute book at the time  of\tthe  alleged
\ncommission  of the offence, not only the sentence  but\talso
\nthe   conviction   thereunder  would  be  bad.\t  Both\t the
\ncontentions raised turn upon the same point.  The  different
\nsteps in the argument may be stated thus: In the Act XVII of
\n1933,  as  it  originally  stood,  there  was  no   specific
\nprovision  making the possession of wireless transmitter  an
\noffence.  By the Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act,
\n1949 (XXXI of 1949) (hereinafter called the ” 1949 Act”), s.
\n6(1-A) was inserted in the Act, whereunder the possession of
\na  wireless transmitter was constituted a separate  offence.
\nThe amending Act was repealed by the Repealing and  Amending
\nAct,  1952 (XLVIII of 1952) (hereinafter called the  ”\t1952
\nAct  “),  with the result that on the date  of\tthe  alleged
\ncommission  of the offence the said section was not  on\t the
\nstatute\t  book.\t  If  that  was\t the  legal  position,\t the
\nlimitation  on the leave granted by this Court would  result
\nin an
\n96<\/span>
\n758<\/span>
\nanomaly,  namely,  that the conviction would stand  but\t the
\nsentence  would\t be  quashed.\tThe  argument  so  presented
\nappears to be plausible, but, in our view, not sound.
\nThere  is a real justification for this Court  limiting\t the
\nscope of the special leave.  The High Court by mistake cited
\nin its judgment the provisions of s. 6(1) of the Act instead
\nof s. 6(1-A) thereof.  If the conviction was under s.  6(1),
\nthe  maximum  sentence\tpermissible  on\t the  first  offence
\nthereunder  was\t only  fine which may  extend  to  Rs.\t100.
\nPresumably  on the assumption that the conviction  could  be
\nsustained  under s. 6(1), even if s. 6(1 -A) was not on\t the
\nstatute\t book-there may be justification for this  view,  as
\nthe words it wireless telegraphy apparatus ” in s. 6(1)\t are
\ncomprehensive  enough  to  take\t in  ”\twireless  telegraphy
\ntransmitter “-this Court gave leave limited to the  question
\nof  sentence.  The inconsistency, if any, was the result  of
\nthe appellant’s presentation of his case at that stage,\t and
\nhe cannot now be allowed to take advantage of his default to
\nenlarge the scope of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
That  apart, there are no merits in the contention.  At\t the
\noutset\t it  would  be\tconvenient  to\tread  the   relevant
\nprovisions of the three Acts:\n<\/p>\n
The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.
\nS.   3\t:  Save as provided by section 4,  no  person  shall
\npossess\t wireless telegraphy apparatus except under  and  in
\naccordance with a licence issued under this Act.
\nS.   6(1):   Whoever  possesses\t any   wireless\t  telegraphy
\napparatus  in contravention of the provisions of  section  3
\nshall  be  punished in the case of the first  offence,\twith
\nfine  which  may extend to one hundred rupees, and,  in\t the
\ncase of a second or subsequent offence, with fine which\t may
\nextend to two hundred and fifty rupess.\n<\/p>\n
The Indian Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) Act, 1949.
\nS.   5. Amendment of section 6, Act XVII of 1933. In section
\n6 of the said Act,-\n<\/p>\n
*\t\t\t  *\t       *
\n759<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(ii) after sub-section (1), the following sub-section  shall
\nbe inserted, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
“(1A)\twhoever\t possesses  any\t wireless   transmitter\t  in
\ncontravention  of  the\tprovisions of  section\t3  shall  be
\npunished with imprisonment which may extend to three  years,
\nor  with  fine which may extend to one thousand\t rupees,  or
\nwith both.”\n<\/p>\n
REPEALING AND AMENDING ACT, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
S.   2:\t The enactments specified in the First Schedule\t are
\nhereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the fourth column
\nthereof
\n\t       The First Schedule
\nYear   No.\t  Short title\t\t    Extent of repeal
\n(1)   (2)\t      (3)\t\t\t   (4)
\n1949 XXXI  The Indian Wireless Telegraphy\t The whole
\n\t\t(Amendment) Act, 1949.\n<\/p>\n
S.   4:\t The repeal by this Act of any enactment  shall\t not
\naffect\tany other enactment in which the repealed  enactment
\nhas been applied, incorporated or referred to;\n<\/p>\n
*\t\t\t*\t\t\t *
\nThe  substance\tof the aforesaid provisions  may  be  stated
\nthus:  The  Act of 1949 inserted s. 6 (1 -A) in the  Act  of
\n1933.\tThe 1949 Act was repealed by the 1952 Act,  but\t the
\nlatter Act saved the operation of other enactments in  which
\nthe  repealed  enactment has been applied,  incorporated  or
\nreferred   to.\t  The  first  question\t that\tarises\t for
\nconsideration is whether the amendments inserted by the 1949
\nAct in the 1933 Act were saved by reason of s. 4 of the 1952
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The general object of a repealing and amending Act is stated
\nin  Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edition, Vol. 31, at  p.
\n563, thus:\n<\/p>\n
“A  statute  Law Revision Act does not alter  the  law,\t but
\nsimply\tstrikes\t out certain enactments which\thave  become
\nunnecessary.  It invariably contains elaborate provisos.”
\nIn  Khuda  Bux v. Manager,  Caledonian\tPress  Chakravartti,
\nC.J., neatly brings out the purpose and
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 484.\n<\/p>\n
760<\/span><\/p>\n
scope  of such Acts.  The learned Chief Justice says  at  p.
\n486:\n<\/p>\n
” Such Acts have no  Legislative effect, but are
\ndesigned  for  editorial revision, being  intended  only  to
\nexcise\tdead matter from the statute book and to reduce\t its
\nvolume.\t  Mostly,  they\t expurgate  amending  Acts,  because
\nhaving imparted the amendments to the main Acts, those\tActs
\nhave  served  their purpose and have no further\t reason\t for
\ntheir  existence. At times inconsistencies are also  removed
\nby  repealing and ‘amending Acts.  The only object  of\tsuch
\nActs, which in England are called Statute Law Revision Acts,
\nis legislative spring-cleaning and they are not intended  to
\nmake  any change in the law.  Even so, they are\t guarded  by
\nsaving clauses drawn with elaborate care,. . .”.
\nIt is, therefore, clear that the main object of the 1952 Act
\nwas only to strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise\tdead
\nmatter from the statute book in order to lighten the  burden
\nof  ever  increasing  spate of\tlegislation  and  to  remove
\nconfusion from the public mind.\t The object of the Repealing
\nand Amending Act of 1952 was only to expurgate the  amending
\nAct  of 1949, along with similar Acts, which had served\t its
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
The  next question is whether s. 4 of the Act of 1952  saved
\nthe  operation of the amendments that had been\tinserted  in
\nthe  Act of 1933 by the repealed Act.  The relevant part  of
\ns.  4  only  saved other enactments in\twhich  the  repealed
\nenactments  have been applied, incorporated or referred\t to.
\nCan  it\t be  said that the amendments  are  covered  by\t the
\nlanguage  of the crucial words in s. 4 of the Act  of  1952,
\nnamely,\t applied,  incorporated or referred to”.   We  think
\nnot.  Section 4 of the said Act is designed to provide for a
\ndifferent  situation, namely, the repeal of an\tearlier\t Act
\nwhich  has  been applied, incorporated or referred to  in  a
\nlater Act.  Under hat section the repeal of the earlier\t Act
\ndoes not affect the subsequent Act.  The said principle\t has
\nbeen succinctly stated in Maxwell on Interpretation of
\nStatutes, 10th Edition, page 406:\n<\/p>\n
Where  the  provisions\tof one statute\tare,  by  reference,
\nincorporated in another and the earlier
\n761<\/span>
\nstatute\t is  afterwards\t repealed  the\tprovisions  so\t in-
\ncorporated  obviously continue in force so far as they\tform
\npart of the second enactment.”\n<\/p>\n
So too, in Craies on Statute Law, 3rd Edition, the sama idea
\nis expressed in the following words, at p. 349:
\n”  Sometimes  an  Act of Parliament,  instead  of  expressly
\nrepeating the words of a section contained in a former\tAct,
\nmerely refers to it, and by relation applies its  provisions
\nto  some new state of things created by the subsequent\tAct.
\nIn  such a case the is rule of construction is that where  a
\nstatute is incorporated by reference into a second  statute,
\nthe  repeal of the first statute by a third does not  affect
\nthe second “.\n<\/p>\n
The  Judicial Committee in Secretary of State for  India  in
\nCouncil v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society,\tLtd.
\n(1) endorsed the said principle and restated the same, at p.
\n267, thus:\n<\/p>\n
”  This doctrine finds expression in a\tcommon-form  section
\nwhich  regularly appears in the amending and repealing\tActs
\nwhich  are passed from time to time in India.\tThe  section
\nruns:  ” The repeal by this Act of any enactment  shall\t not
\naffect\tany  Act………….. in which such  enactment\t has
\nbeen applied, incorporated or referred to.” The\t independent
\nexistence  of the two Acts is therefore recognized;  despite
\nthe  death of the parent Act, its offspring survives in\t the
\nincorporating Act.  Though no such saving clause appears  in
\nthe  General  Clauses Act, their Lordships  think  that\t the
\nprinciple  involved  is as applicable in India as it  is  in
\nthis country.”\n<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, manifest that s. 4 of the 1952 Act has  no
\napplication to a case of a later amending Act inserting\t new
\nprovisions  in an earlier Act, for, where an earlier Act  is
\namended\t by a later Act, it cannot be said that the  earlier
\nAct  applies,  incorporates or refers to the  amending\tAct.
\nThe  earlier Act cannot incorporate the later Act,  but\t can
\nonly be amended by it.\tWe cannot, therefore, agree with the
\nview expressed by the Punjab High Court in Mohinder Singh v.
\nMst.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  L.R. 58 I.A. 259.\n<\/p>\n
762<\/span><\/p>\n
Harbhajan Kaur (1) and in Darbara Singh v. Shrimati  Karnail
\nKaur(2)that  s. 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act of\t1952
\napplies to a case of repeal of an amending Act.
\nThis legal position does not really help the appellant,\t for
\nthe  case on hand directly falls within the four corners  of
\ns.  6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897). –\t The
\nabove section reads:\n<\/p>\n
“Where\tany  Central  Act  or  Regulation  made\t after\t the
\ncommencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which\t the
\ntext  of  any Central Act or Regulation was amended  by\t the
\nexpress\t omission, insertion or substitution of any  matter,
\nthen, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall
\nnot affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the
\nenactment  so repealed and in operation at the time of\tsuch
\nrepeal.”\n<\/p>\n
As, by the amending Act of 1949, the text of the Act XVII of
\n1933,  was amended by the insertion of 6 (1-A) therein,\t the
\nrepeal\tof the amending Act by the 1952 Act did\t not  affect
\nthe  continuance of the amendment made by the  enactment  so
\nrepealed.  It is said that for the application of s. 6-A  of
\nthe  General Clauses Act, the text of any  enactment  should
\nhave been amended; but in the present case the insertion  of
\ns.  6  (1-A) was not a textual amendment but  a\t substantial
\none.   The text of an enactment, the argument  proceeds,  is
\nthe phraseology or the terminology used in the Act, but\t not
\nthe  content of that Act.  This argument, if we may say\t so,
\nis  more  subtle  than sound.  The word ”  text\t “,  in\t its
\ndictionary  meaning,  means ” subject or theme\t“.  When  an
\nenactment amends the text of another, it amends the  subject
\nor theme of it, though sometimes it may expunge\t unnecessary
\nwords  without\taltering the subject.  We  must,  therefore,
\nhold that the word ” text ” is comprehensive enough to\ttake
\nin the subject as well as the terminology used in a statute.
\nAnother\t escape from the operation of s. 6-A of the  General
\nClauses\t Act  is sought to be effected on the basis  of\t the
\nwords ” unless a different intention
\n(1) I.L.R. 1955 Punj. 625.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 61 P.L.R. 762.\n<\/p>\n
763<\/span><\/p>\n
appears “. The repealing Act does not indicate any intention
\ndifferent from that envisaged by the said section.   Indeed,
\nthe object of the said Act is not to give it any legislative
\neffect but to excise dead matter from the statute book.\t The
\nlearned\t Counsel placed before us the historical  background
\nof  the\t amending  Act with a view  to\testablish  that\t the
\nintention of the legislature in passing the said Act was  to
\nexpurgate  s. 6 (1 -A) from the statute as it was  redundant
\nand unnecessary.  It is said that the Indian Telegraph\tAct,
\n1885 (XIII of 1885) provided for the offence covered by s. 6
\n(1-A), and, therefore, the legislature though, by the Act of
\n1948, inserted the said section in the Act of 1933,  removed
\nit  in the year 1952 as the said amendment  was\t unnecessary
\nand  redundant.\t There is no foundation for  this  argument,
\nand the entire premises is wrong.  Section 20 of Act XIII of
\n1885 reads;\n<\/p>\n
S.   20 (1): If any person establishes, maintains or works a
\ntelegraph within India in contravention of the provisions of
\nsection 4 or otherwise than as permitted by rules made under
\nthat  section, he shall be punished, if the telegraph  is  a
\nwireless  telegraph  with imprisoment which  may  extend  to
\nthree  years, or with fine, or with both, and in  any  other
\ncase, with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
\nThough\tthe  words  are comprehensive enough to\t take  in  a
\nwireless  transmitter,\tthe section does  not  prohibit\t the
\npossession  of a wireless apparatus.  As the Act  only\tgave
\npower to control the establishment, maintenance and  working
\nof  wireless  apparatus, in practice it was found  that\t the
\ndetection   of\tunlicenced  apparatus  and  the\t  successful
\nprosecution of the offenders were difficult, with the result
\nthat  the State was losing revenue.  To remove this  defect,
\nAct  XVII  of  1933 was passed to  prohibit  the  possession
\nwithout\t licence of a wireless apparatus.  Under s.  6,\t the
\npenalty for such illegal possession of a wireless telegraphy
\napparatus  was made an offence, but the sentence  prescribed
\nwas  rather lenient.  Subsequently, the legislature  thought
\nthat the possession of a wireless transmitter
\n764<\/span>
\nwas  a graver offence; sometimes involving the\tsecurity  of
\nthe  State,  and  so an amendment  was\tintroduced  in\t1949
\nconstituting  the  possession  of such\tapparatus  a  graver
\noffence\t and imposing a more severe punishment.\t  Therefore,
\nit  cannot be said that s. 6(1-A), inserted in the Act\tXVII
\nof  1933 by the amending Act of 1949, is either\t covered  by
\nthe  provisions\t of  the Indian Telegraph Act,\t1885,  or  a
\nsurplusage not serving any definite purpose.  Even from\t the
\nhistory\t of the legislation we find it not possible  to\t say
\nthat it disclosed an intention different from that envisaged
\nin s. 6-A of the General Clauses Act.\n<\/p>\n
For  the aforesaid reasons, we hold that s. 6 (1 -A) of\t the
\nAct  continued\tto  be on the statute book  even  after\t the
\namending Act of 1949 was repealed by Act XLVIII of 1952, and
\nthat  it was in force when the offence was committed by\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal fails and is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi … on 15 September, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 89, 1960 SCR (1) 755 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: JETHANAND BETAB Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF DELHI(now Delhi Administration) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1959 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. IMAM, SYED […]<\/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-95459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi ... on 15 September, 1959 - 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\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi ... on 15 September, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959\" \/>\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=\"1959-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-19T09:06:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi … on 15 September, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-19T09:06:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959\"},\"wordCount\":2612,\"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\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959\",\"name\":\"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi ... on 15 September, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-19T09:06:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi … on 15 September, 1959\"}]},{\"@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":"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi ... on 15 September, 1959 - 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\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi ... on 15 September, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-19T09:06:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi … on 15 September, 1959","datePublished":"1959-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-19T09:06:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959"},"wordCount":2612,"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\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959","name":"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi ... on 15 September, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-19T09:06:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jethanand-betab-vs-the-state-of-delhinow-delhi-on-15-september-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jethanand Betab vs The State Of Delhi(Now Delhi … on 15 September, 1959"}]},{"@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\/95459","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=95459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95459\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}