{"id":96432,"date":"1965-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2"},"modified":"2015-10-02T06:31:02","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T01:01:02","slug":"mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2","title":{"rendered":"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR   22, \t\t  1966 SCR  (1) 229<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMAHANT KAUSHALYA DAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADRAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/05\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR   22\t\t  1966 SCR  (1) 229\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of  Criminal  Procedure  (Act 5  of  1898),  ss.\t243,\n362(2)(A)- S.  243-Whether mandatory-Violation, if  vitiates\ntrial-If overrides 362(2)(A).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\twas arrested by the police  and\t immediately\nproduced  before  the  Presidency Magistrate,  Madras  on  a\ncharge\tunder s. 4(1) (A) of the Madras Prohibition  Act  on\nthe allegation that he was in possession of a certain amount\nof  Ganja concealed in a wooden box in his premises  without\nany  permit.   The appellant pleaded guilty  and  upon\tthat\nplea,  he  was convicted by the Magistrate.   The  appellant\npreferred an appeal to the High Court alleging, inter  alia,\nthat  he  was  an illiterate  person,  not  acquainted\twith\nEnglish or Tamil or with any other South Indian language and\nhe  only knew Hindi as it was spoken in Uttar Pradesh,\tthat\nthe  proceedings were rushed through with undue haste,\tthat\nhe  did\t not really plead guilty to the charge\tand  he\t had\nnever\tunderstood  the\t implications  of  the\toffence\t  or\nproceedings  before the Magistrate.  The High  Court  called\nfor  a report from the Presidency Magistrate  who  submitted\nthat  the particulars of the offence and the plea of  guilty\nby  the\t appellant  were explained to the  appellant  by  an\ninterpreter-the\t Bench Clerk who had passed examinations  in\nHindi,\t and   the  appellant's\t allegations   were   false.\nThereafter  the High Court dismissed the appeal.  In  appeal\nby certificate, the appelant, inter alia, contended that the\nMagistrate  did not comply with the mandatory provisions  of\ns. 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the appellant\nhad been deprived of the substance of a fair trial, that the\nconviction of the appellant was legally invalid.\nHELD : The requirements of s. 243 of the Criminal  Procedure\nCode  are  mandatory in character and a violation  of  these\nprovisions  vitiates  the trial and renders  the  conviction\nlegally\t invalid.  The requirement of the section is  not  a\nmere  empty formality but is a matter of substance  intended\nto secure proper administration of justice.  It is important\nthat  the  terms of the section are strictly  complied\twith\nbecause the right of appeal of the accused depends upon\t the\ncircumstance whether he pleaded guilty or not and it is\t for\nthis  reason  that the legislature requires that  the  exact\nwords  used by the accused in his plea of guilty should,  as\nnearly as possible, be recorded in his own language in order\nto prevent any mistake or misapprehension. [233 D-F]\nSection\t 243  of  the  Code is\ta  provision  of  a  special\ncharacter   and\t according  to\twell  established  rule\t  of\ninterpretation\tthat special provision will take  precedence\nand  override the general provision of s. 362(2)(A)  of\t the\nCode. [234 A-B]\nThe  violation\tof the procedure in s. 243 of the  Code\t was\nsufficiently  serious to invalid the the conviction  of\t the\naccused. it was manifest from the record that the  admission\nof  the\t appellant  had\t not been  recorded  \"as  nearly  as\npossible in the words used by him\", as required by s. 243 of\nthe Code. [233 F. B-C]\n230\nQueen-Empress  v.  Erugadu, I.L.R. 15  Mad.  85,  Shailabata\nDasee  V.  Emperor, I.L.R. 62 Cal. 1127 and Mukandi  Lal  v.\nState, A.I.R. 1952 All. 212, approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JUIUSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 131 of 1963.<br \/>\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1963\t -of<br \/>\nthe Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963.<br \/>\nE.   C. Agarwala and P. C.  Agarwala, for the appellant.<br \/>\nA.   Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the respon-<br \/>\ndent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRamaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate  granted<br \/>\nunder Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution from a judgment  of<br \/>\nthe  Madras  High  Court dated April 29,  1963\tin  Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal\tNo.  251  of 1963 affirming the\t conviction  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant-Sri Mahant Kaushalya Das under s. 4 (1) (a) of the<br \/>\nMadras Prohibition Act and the sentence of one year Rigorous<br \/>\nImprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 or in default rigorous im-<br \/>\nprisonment for one month.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant is the hereditary Mahant of Sri Bairaghi Matam\n<\/p>\n<p>-a Hindu Religious and Charitable Institution of a  monastic<br \/>\nnature.\t  The  appellant  has been  residing  in  the  Matam<br \/>\npremises,  Elephant Gate, Madras which is a public place  of<br \/>\nworship.   On March 22, 1963 at about 10 a.m. the  appellant<br \/>\nwas  arrested by the police and immediately produced  before<br \/>\nthe  VIII Presidency Magistrate on the same day on a  charge<br \/>\nunder  s.  4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition\tAct  on\t the<br \/>\nallegation that he was in possession of 3,960 grams of Ganja<br \/>\nconcealed in a wooden box in the Matam premises without\t any<br \/>\npermit.\t The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and upon<br \/>\nthat  plea  he was convicted by the Magistrate\tto  rigorous<br \/>\nimprisonment  for one year and a fine Rs. 50, in default  to<br \/>\nrigorous   imprisonment\t for  one  month.    The   appellant<br \/>\npreferred Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1963 to the High  Court<br \/>\nalleging that his eye-sight was very bad and defective, that<br \/>\nhe was an illiterate person, not acquainted with English  or<br \/>\nTamil  or with any other South Indian language and  that  he<br \/>\nonly knew Hindi as it was spoken in Uttar Pradesh.  He .also<br \/>\ncomplained that he had no time to consult either his  lawyer<br \/>\nor  his disciples, that the proceedings were rushed  through<br \/>\nwith undue haste, that he did not really plead guilty to the<br \/>\ncharge and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    231<\/span><br \/>\nthat he never understood the implications of the offence  or<br \/>\nthe proceedings before the Magistrate.\tThe appellant  filed<br \/>\nan affidavit in support of the appeal before the High  Court<br \/>\nin  regard to these allegations.  Kailasam, J. called for  a<br \/>\nreport\tfrom the VIII Presidency Magistrate with  regard  to<br \/>\nthe allegations made in the affidavit of the appellant.\t  On<br \/>\nApril 23, 1963 the Magistrate submitted a report as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The particulars of the offence were explained<br \/>\n\t      to  the  accused by the Interpreter.   It\t was<br \/>\n\t      translated  to  accused  in Hindi\t by  Sri  M.<br \/>\n\t      Sukumara\tRao, Bench Clerk of this  Court\t who<br \/>\n\t      has passed examination in Hindi.\tThe plea  of<br \/>\n\t      guilty by the accused was also interpreted  to<br \/>\n\t      the  Court  by  Sri  M.  Sukumara\t Rao.\t The<br \/>\n\t      allegations  contained  in the  affidavit\t are<br \/>\n\t      false.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Thereafter   Kailasam,\tJ.  confirmed  the  conviction\t and<br \/>\nsentence and dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned\t Counsel on behalf of the appellant put forward\t the<br \/>\nargument  that\tthe  Magistrate\t did  not  comply  with\t the<br \/>\nmandatory  provisions of S. 243.  Criminal  Procedure  Code,<br \/>\nthat  the appellant has been deprived of the substance of  a<br \/>\nfair  trial,  and that the conviction of  the  appellant  is<br \/>\nlegally\t invalid.  it was also submitted on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  that the necessary ingredients of the offence  of<br \/>\npossession  of the contraband article under s. 4 (1) (a)  of<br \/>\nthe  Madras Prohibition Act have not been established  as  a<br \/>\nmatter of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  is\tnecessary to reproduce, at this\t stage,\t the  charge<br \/>\nframed\tby  the\t VIII  Presidency  Magistrate  against\t the<br \/>\nappellant  as well as the judgment pronounced in  the  case.<br \/>\nThe charge reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      &#8220;On  22nd March 1963 at about 8 a.m. at No.  1<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      General  Muthiah Mudali street in C-2  limits,<br \/>\n\t      the  accused was found in possession of  3,960<br \/>\n\t      grams of Ganja concealed in wooden box in\t his<br \/>\n\t      Matam premises without any permit.  Hence\t the<br \/>\n\t      charge.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The judgment by the Magistrate reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Judgment,  dated\t 22nd March  1964  :-Accused<br \/>\n\t      produced.\t Pleads guilty.\t Found guilty.\t The<br \/>\n\t      quantity\tis  very  huge\tviz.,  3,960   grams<br \/>\n\t      concealed\t in  a wooden box.   I\tconvict\t and<br \/>\n\t      sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for\t one<br \/>\n\t      year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default<br \/>\n3 2<br \/>\nto   rigorous  imprisonment  for  one\tmonth.\t  Confiscate<br \/>\nproperty.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Section 4 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 (Madras Act IO<br \/>\nof 1937) as amended by Madras Act 8 of 1958 states<br \/>\n&#8220;4. ( 1 ) Whoever-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (a)   imports,\texports,    transports\t  or<br \/>\n\t      possesses\t liquor\t  be  or  any\tintoxicating<br \/>\n\t      drug;********* shall be punished &#8211;**\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (ii)  in any other case with imprisonment\t for<br \/>\n\t      a\t term which may extend to one year and\twith<br \/>\n\t      fine which may extend to two thousand  rupees,<br \/>\n\t      but  in  the absence of special  and  adequate<br \/>\n\t      reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the<br \/>\n\t      judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall<br \/>\n\t      not  be less than three months and  such\tfine<br \/>\n\t      shall not be less than five hundred rupees, in<br \/>\n\t      the  case of the offence of import, export  or<br \/>\n\t      transport\t of liquor or any intoxicating\tdrug<br \/>\n\t      falling under clause (a) :*******<br \/>\n\t      (2)   It shall be presumed until the  contrary<br \/>\n\t      is shown-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (a)   that  a  person accused of\tany  offence<br \/>\n\t      under  clauses (a) to (j) of  sub-section\t (1)<br \/>\n\t      has  committed such offence in respect of\t any<br \/>\n\t      liquor or any intoxicating drug or any  still,<br \/>\n\t      utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for<br \/>\n\t      the  tapping of toddy or the  manufacture\t of.<br \/>\n\t      liquor  or any intoxicating drug or  any\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      materials\t is  are  ordinarily  used  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      tapping of toddy or the manufacture of  liquor<br \/>\n\t      or  any  intoxicating drug  or  any  materials<br \/>\n\t      which  have undergone any process towards\t the<br \/>\n\t      manufacture of liquor or any intoxicating drug<br \/>\n\t      or from which any liquor or intoxicating\tdrug<br \/>\n\t      has  been manufactured, for the possession  of<br \/>\n\t      which he is unable to account  satisfactorily,<br \/>\n\t      and *******<br \/>\nIt  cannot  be disputed in the present case that  there\t has<br \/>\nbeen a violation by the Magistrate of the requirements of s.<br \/>\n243 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;243.   If  the  accused admits  that  he\t has<br \/>\n\t      committed the offence of which he is  accused,<br \/>\n\t      his admission shall<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">233<\/span><br \/>\n\t      be recorded as nearly as possible in the words<br \/>\n\t      used  by him; and, if he shows  no  sufficient<br \/>\n\t      cause  why  he should not\t be  convicted,\t the<br \/>\n\t      Magistrate may convict him accordingly.  &#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  is\tstated\tby  the\t Magistrate in his   report that the<br \/>\nparticulars of the offence were explained to the  :appellant<br \/>\nby  the Bench Clerk Sri M. Sukumara Rao and that the plea of<br \/>\nguilty by  the appellant was interpreted    to the  Court by<br \/>\nthe same  Bench\t Clerk. It is manifest from the record\tthat<br \/>\ntheadmission  of the appellant has not been  recorded  &#8220;as<br \/>\nnearly as possible in the words used by him&#8221;, as required by<br \/>\ns.  243 of the Criminal Procedure Code.\t It is true that  in<br \/>\nthe  judgment dated March 22, 1963 the Magistrate  has\tsaid<br \/>\nthat the appellant &#8220;pleads guilty&#8221;, but the record  contains<br \/>\nno  indication whatsoever as to what exactly  the  appellant<br \/>\nadmitted  before  the  Magistrate.   In\t our  opinion,\t the<br \/>\nrequirements  of s. 243 of the Criminal Procedure  Code\t are<br \/>\nmandatory in character and a violation of these\t  provisions<br \/>\nvitiates  the  trial  and  renders  the\t conviction  legally<br \/>\ninvalid. The requirement of the section is not a mere empty<br \/>\nformalitybut  is a matter of substance intended\t to  secure<br \/>\nproper administration of justice.  It is important that\t the<br \/>\nterms of the section are strictly complied with because\t the<br \/>\nright of appeal of the accused depends upon the circumstance<br \/>\nwhether lie pleaded guilty or not and it is for this  reason<br \/>\nthat  the legislature requires that the exact words used  by<br \/>\nthe  accused  in  his plea of guilty should,  as  nearly  as<br \/>\npossible,  be  recorded\t in his own  language  in  order  to<br \/>\nprevent any mistake or misapprehension.\t It his been held by<br \/>\nthe  Madras High Court in Queen-Empress v.  Erugadu(1)\tthat<br \/>\nthe  violation\tof the procedure in s. 243 of  the  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  Code was sufficiently serious to  invalidate\t the<br \/>\nconviction of the accused.  The same view has been taken  by<br \/>\nthe  Calcutta High Court in Shailabala Dasee  v.  Emperor(2)<br \/>\nand by the Allahabad High Court in Mukandi Lai v.  Stale(3).<br \/>\nIn  our opinion, these cases correctly lay down the  law  on<br \/>\nthe point.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that under s.  3<br \/>\n62 (2) (A), Criminal Procedure Code it was sufficient if the<br \/>\nMagistrate made a memorandum of the substance of the  exami-<br \/>\nnation\tof  the\t accused and that it was  not  necessary  to<br \/>\nrecord\tthe  actual  words  used by  the  accused.   In\t our<br \/>\nopinion, S. 362(2) (A) of the Criminal Procedure Code has no<br \/>\napplication in a case<br \/>\n(1)  I.L.R. 15 Mad. 83.\t\t\t\t (2)  I.L.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>62 Cal. 1127.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)  A.I.R. 1952 Allahabad 212<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">234<\/span><br \/>\nwhere the accused pleads guilty and the special provision of<br \/>\ns. 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be attracted  in<br \/>\nsuch a case.  Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code  is<br \/>\na  provision of a special character and according  to  well-<br \/>\nestablished  rule of interpretation that  special  provision<br \/>\nwill  take precedence and override the general provision  of<br \/>\ns.   362  (2)(A)  of  the  Criminal  Procedure\tCode.\t We,<br \/>\ntherefore. reject the argument of Cousel for the  respondent<br \/>\non this point.\n<\/p>\n<p>For  these  reasons  we allow this  appeal,  set  aside\t the<br \/>\nconviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant and order<br \/>\nthat  the  case\t should\t go  back  to  the  VIII  Presidency<br \/>\nMagistrate,  Madras  for  being retried\t and  brought  to  a<br \/>\nconclusion in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">235<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 22, 1966 SCR (1) 229 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: MAHANT KAUSHALYA DAS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADRAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/1965 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SARKAR, A.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. CITATION: 1966 [&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-96432","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>Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965 - 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\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2\" \/>\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=\"1965-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-02T01:01:02+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\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-02T01:01:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2\"},\"wordCount\":1574,\"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\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2\",\"name\":\"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-02T01:01:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965 - 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\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-02T01:01:02+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\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965","datePublished":"1965-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-02T01:01:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2"},"wordCount":1574,"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\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2","name":"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-02T01:01:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-kaushalya-das-vs-state-of-madras-on-7-may-1965-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant Kaushalya Das vs State Of Madras on 7 May, 1965"}]},{"@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\/96432","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=96432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}