{"id":96736,"date":"1972-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972"},"modified":"2019-01-05T12:51:53","modified_gmt":"2019-01-05T07:21:53","slug":"mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972","title":{"rendered":"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 484, \t\t 1973 SCR (1) 350<\/div>\n
Author: K K Mathew<\/div>\n
Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAMMED YAMIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADE5H & ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nBENCH:\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  484\t\t  1973 SCR  (1) 350\n 1972 SCC  (2) 184\n\n\nACT:\nPrevention  of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954 ss.  7\t and\n16-Definition  of  jaggery in Para A. 07.05  of\t Rules\tmade\nunder Act-Standard laid down for jaggery whether applies  to\nShakkar-Shakkar whether jaggery-If dealer sells\t adulterated\nShakkar he commits offence under s. 16 read with s. 7 of Act\neven  if  the Shakkar was not stored for sale-Sale  to\tFood\nInspector is a sale for the Purpose of s. 16(1) of the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe Food Inspector purchased 1-1\/2 seers of Shakkar from the\nappellant  after  paying its price.  He divided\t the  sample\ninto three parts, gave one to the appellant and retained the\nother  two with him.  One of the samples retained' was\tsent\nto  the Public Analyst for examination.\t The Public  Analyst\nfound  it to be adulterated because of excess of  extraneous\nmatter.\t  The  food Inspector filed a complaint\t before\t the\nMagistrate who convicted the appellant 'for an offence under\ns.  16\tread  with  section 7  of  the\tPrevention  of\tFood\nAdulteration  Act  1954.   In  appeal  the  Sessions   Judge\nacquitted the appellant but in further appeal to High  Court\nthe  appellant\twas again convicted.  He  appealed  to\tthis\nCourt  by special leave.  The contentions on behalf  of\t the\nappellant  were : (i) that Shakkar is not jaggery and  since\nno standard of quality has been prescribed for Shakkar under\nthe  rules  framed  under  the\tAct  the  Shakkar  was\t not\nadulterated; (ii) that he had not kept the Shakkar for\tsale\nbut  for  manufacturing\t Rab out of  it\t and  therefore\t the\nconvicion  under  s. 16 read with section 7 of The  Act\t was\nbad.\nHELD  :\t (i)  Shakkar is a  product  obtained  by  following\nprocessing juce pressed from out of sugar cane and therefore\nin  view  of the definition of jaggery in  para\t A.07.05  of\nAppendix  B  of the rules framed under the  Act\t Shakkar  is\njaggery.   In  Chambers\t 20th  Century\tDictionary  (revised\nedition)  also\tthe  Hindi equivalent of  jaggery  given  as\nShakkar.   Therefore  the finding of the High Court  on\t the\nbasis of the report of the Analyst that the Shakkar did\t not\nconform\t to the standard of quality prescribed\tfor  jaggery\nand  was  thus\tadulterated  was  correct  and\thad  to\t  be\nmaintained. [353 B-F]\n(2)  The finding of the High Court was that the Shakkar\t was\nkept  by the appellant for the purpose of sale and  not\t for\nthe  purpose  of manufacturing Rab out of it  and  that\t the\nattempt\t of  the  appellant was to sell the  Shakkar  as  an\narticle of food after mixing Shelkhari in it.  There was  no\nreason\tto think that the finding was wrong.   But  assuming\nthat  the finding was wrong and that the appellant kept\t the\nShakkar\t not for sale, but for manufacturing Rab out of\t it,\nthe  appellant\twould still be guilty.\tIf  Shakkar  is\t an\narticle\t of food, it does not matter whether  the  appellant\nkept  it,  for\tsale  or for manufacturing  Rab\t out  of  it\nprovided the appellant bad sold it.  And a sale to the\tFood\nInspector is a sale for the purpose of 16(1) of the Act. [C-\nD]\nThe  Food  Inspector, Calicut  Corporation  v,\tCharukanttil\nGopalan\t and  another,\t[1971] 2 S.C.R.\t 322,  followed\t and\napplied.\nThe appeal must accordingly be dismissed.\n351\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 253  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\tOrder  dated
\nApril 12, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Govt.
\nAppeal\tNo. 13 of 1965 and Criminal Govt.  Appeal No. 10  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
B.   P. Maheshwari and Sobhagmal Jain, for the appellant.
\nO.   P. Rana, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMathew,\t J.  This appeal , by special leave,  is  against  a
\njudgment of the High Court of Allahabad by which it restored
\nthe  order of the Magistrate convicting the appellant of  an
\noffence\t under\tsection\t 16  read with\tsection\t 7.  of\t the
\nPrevention  of\tFood  Adulteration Act\t(Act  37  of  1954),
\nhereinafter  called the ‘Act, and sentencing him to  undergo
\none  year’s  rigorous  imprisonment and pay a  fine  of\t Rs.
\n1,000\/-\t and  in  default  of payment  of  fine\t to  undergo
\nrigorous  imprisonment for a further period of\tsix  months,
\nafter  reversing the order passed by the Sessions  Judge  in
\nappeal acquitting him of the offence.\n<\/p>\n
On  June 13, 1963, Head Constable Baboo Khan was  on  patrol
\nduty.\tHe  happened  to come to the  Chakki  of  one  Abdul
\nRazaaq.\t There he found a heap of Shakkar and some labourers
\nmixing Shelkhari in it with spades.  He went to the police
\nstation\t to  inform  the Station Officer about\tit  but\t the
\nStation\t Officer’ was not there.  He then met  the  Sanitary
\nInspector and informed him about what he, saw at the Chakki.
\nThe  Sanitary  Inspector accompanied by the  Food  Inspector
\nproceeded to the Chakki and there, they found the  labourers
\nmixing\tShelkhari  with\t Shakkar.   The\t stock\tof   Shakkar
\nbelonged to the appellant.  The Food Inspector purchased  1-
\n1\/2  seers  of Shakkar from the appellant by way  of  sample
\nafter  paying its price.  He divided the sample\t into  three
\nparts, gave one to the appellant and retained the other\t two
\nwith  him.   One  of the samples retained was  sent  to\t the
\nPublic\tAnalyst for examination.  The Analyst found, in\t his
\nreport dated July 11, 1963, that the Shakkar contained\t2.4%
\nmoisture,  72.7% total sugar, 64.7% sucrose, 17%  extraneous
\nmatter insoluble in water.  According to him the  extraneous
\nmatter\tinsoluble in water, total ash and ash  insoluble  in
\nHydrochloric  acid  exceeded  by  15,O%,  10.1%\t and   13.3%
\nrespectively as against the maximum prescribed standards  of
\n2.0%, 6.0% and O.5% respectively.\n<\/p>\n
On  the basis of a complaint filed by the Food Inspector  of
\nthe  Municipal Board, Saharanpur, the Magistrate  who  tried
\nthe ap-\n<\/p>\n
352<\/span><\/p>\n
pellant for an offence under section 16 read with section  7
\nof  the\t Act came to the conclusion that the  appellant\t had
\nstored\tthe  Shakkar for sale, that it was  adulterated\t and
\nthat  he  was  guilty  of  the\toffence\t and  convicted\t and
\nsentenced him as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant filed an appeal against the order before\t the
\nSessions  Judge.   The Sessions Judge acquitted him  of\t the
\noffence\t  for the reason that the prosecution had notproved
\n‘that the Shakkar stored by the appellant was for sale.He
\nsaid that the  appellant  was mixing extraneous matter\twith
\nthe Shakkar for\t    converting\tit into Rab and as  such  it
\ncannotbe said that the\t  Shakkar was stored for sale by
\nthe appellant.He also said that\t  no  standard\tof  quality
\nwas prescribed by therules  framed  under  the\tAct  for
\nShakkar,  that\tas an article of food, Shakkar\twas  neither
\n‘gur’ nor ‘Jaggery’ and that the sale of Shakkar to the Food
\nInspector  by the appellant was under duress and was  not  a
\nsale in the eye of the law.\n<\/p>\n
 The  Municipal Board filed an appeal against the  order  to
\nthe High Court.\t The High Court held that Shakkar is same as
\n‘jaggery’, that standard ‘of quality has been prescribed  by
\nthe rules framed under the Act for jaggery, that the Shakkar
\nin  question was adulterated, that the sample  purchased  by
\nthe  Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis amounted  to
\nsale within the meaning of section 2 (xiii) of the Act, that
\nFood  Inspector\t had power under the Act to get\t the  sample
\neven  if the Shakkar was stored for being manufactured\tinto
\nRab  and  not  for  sale  and  restored\t the  order  of\t the
\nMagistrate  convicting\tand  sentencing\t the  appellant\t  as
\naforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  contention on behalf of the appellant  was\tthat
\nShakkar\t is not ‘jaggery’, and since no standard of  quality
\nhas been prescribed for Shakkar under the rules formed under
\nthe Act, the Shakkar was not adulterated.
\nWe  find it difficult to accept the contention that  Shakkar
\nis  not\t Jaggery.  Para A.07.05 of Appendix B of  the  Rules
\nreads
\n\t      “Gur or jaggery means the product obtained  by
\n\t      boiling  or  processing juice pressed  out  of
\n\t      sugar  cane  or extracted from  palmyra  palm,
\n\t      date  palm or coconut palm.  It shall be\tfree
\n\t      from  substances\tdeleterious  to\t health\t and
\n\t      shall  conform  to  the  following  analytical
\n\t      standards on dry weight basis\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)total\tsugars not less than 90 per  cent
\n\t      and sucrose not less than 70 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  extraneous matter insoluble in water not
\n\t      more than 2 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      3 5 3\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)total ash not more than 6 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iv)  ash insoluble in hydrochloric acid (HCI)
\n\t      not more than O.5 per cent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Gur  or jaggery other than that of the  liquid
\n\t      or semi-liquid variety shall not contain\tmore
\n\t      than 10 per cent moisture.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tnot disputed that Shakkar is a product\tobtained  by
\nboiling or processing _juice pressed from out of  sugarcane,
\nand  therefore,\t it is clear that Shakkar is  jaggery.\t But
\ncounsel\t for the appellant submitted that Appendix B of\t the
\nRules does not define jaggery but only gives the description
\nof what ‘jaggery’ is and it cannot, therefore, be said\tthat
\njaggery\t would\tcomprehend  all the  varieties\tof  products
\nobtained  by  boiling or processing _juice  pressed  out  of
\nsugarcane.  In other words, counsel said that Appendix B  to
\nthe Rules only describes what jaggery or gur is and that  it
\ndoes  not define what jaggery or gur is.  We are  unable  to
\naccept the contention for the reason that jaggery or gur  is
\ndefined\t as  any product obtained by boiling  or  processing
\njuice  pressed\tout  of\t sugarcane and\tso  any\t product  so
\nobtained  would be comprehend within the definition.   Quite
\napart  from  this,  we find in\tChambers  Twentieth  Century
\nDictionary (Revised Edition) the meaning of ‘jaggery’ as :
\n“A  coarse  dark  sugar made from  palm\t sap  or  otherwise.
\n(Hindi-Shakkar; Sanskrit-Sarkara).”
\nIt  is, therefore, clear that Shakkar is ‘jaggery’; and\t the
\nfinding of the High Court, on the basis of the report of the
\nAnalyst, that the Shakkar has not conformed to the  standard
\nof  quality prescribed for jaggery and, therefore, the\tfood
\nwas adulterated, was correct and has to be maintained.
\nThe second contention on behalf of the appellant was that he
\nhad  kept the Shakkar for manufacturing Rab out of it.\t The
\ncontention,  in\t other words, is that he had  not  kept\t the
\nShakkar for sale but kept it for manufacturing Rab out of it
\nand,  therefore, the conviction under section 16  read\twith
\nsection 7 of the Act was bad.  We do not think that there is
\nany  substance in this contention either.  Section 7 of\t the
\nAct, in so far as it is material, Provides
\n\t      “No  person shall himself or by any person  on
\n\t      his  behalf  manufacture for sale,  or  store,
\n\t      sell or distribute-\n<\/p>\n
\t      354<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (i) any adulterated food;”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  16, which imposes the punishment,  in
\n\t      so far as it is relevant, says :\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” 16 (1) If any person-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)whether  by  himself or  by  any  other
\n\t      person  on  his behalf imports into  India  or
\n\t      manufactures  for\t sale, or stores,  sells  or
\n\t      distributes any article of food-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   which  is adulterated or  misbranded  or
\n\t      the  sale of which is prohibited by  the\tFood
\n\t      (Health)\tauthority in the interest of  public
\n\t      health;”\n<\/p>\n
The  finding of the High Court is that the Shakkar was\tkept
\nby  the\t appellant for the purpose of sale and not  for\t the
\npurpose of manufacturing Rab out of it and that the  attempt
\nof  the appellant was to sell the Shakkar as an article,  of
\nfood  after mixing Shelkhari with it.  We see no  reason  to
\nthink  that  the finding was wrong.  But assuming  that\t the
\nfinding\t was wrong and that the appellant kept\tthe  Shakkar
\nwas  for  sale\tbut for manufacturing Rab out  of  it,\twhat
\nfollows\t ?  If Shakkar is an article of food,  it  does\t not
\nmatter\twhether\t the  appellant kept it\t for  sale,  or\t for
\nmanufacturing Rab out of it, provided the appellant has sold
\nit.   Arid  a sale to the Food Inspector is a sale  for\t the
\npurpose\t of section 16 of the Act.  In The  Food  Inspector,
\nCalicut\t Corporation v. Charukattil Gapalan  and  another(),
\nthis  Court held that, if any articles of food are  sold  by
\nany  person, whether he be a dealer in them or not,  and  if
\nthe food is adulterated, he is liable to be convicted  under
\nsection 16 read with section 7 of the Act.  The\t respondents
\nbefore this Court in that case were the manager and owner of
\na  tea stall.  The case against them was that they sold\t 600
\ngrains\tof sugar to the appellant, the Food  Inspector,\t for
\nanalysis   and\t that  the  sugar  was\t adulterated.\t The
\nrespondents pleaded that the sugar was not sold ‘as such’ in
\nthe  tea  stall and was only used for  preparing  tea  which
\nalone  was  sold.   The plea was accepted  by  the  District
\nMagistrate   and  the  respondents  were   acquitted.\t The
\nacquittal  was\tconfirmed by the High Court.  In  appeal  to
\nthis  Court by the Food Inspector, one of the arguments\t for
\nthe respondents, was that they were not dealers in sugar and
\nthe  sugar  was\t not kept for sale and\tso  they  cannot  be
\nconvicted  under section 16 read with section 7 of the\tAct.
\nThe Court held, inter-alia, that sale to a Food Inspector is
\na  sale for the purpose of section 16 of the Act,  that\t the
\narticle\t of  food sold to the Food Inspector need  not\thave
\nbeen  taken from a larger quantity kept for sale,  and\tthat
\nthe person by whom the article of food was sold to the\tFood
\nInspector need not be a dealer as such in the article.
\n(1)  [1971] 2 S.C.C.322.\n<\/p>\n
355<\/span><\/p>\n
In that case it was assumed by this Court that the sugar was
\nadulterated.  Whether it was adulterated or not as a  matter
\nof fact, this _Court proceeded on the assumption that it was
\nadulterated.  it that be so, we see no reason to  doubt\t the
\ncorrectness of the ratio of the case.\n<\/p>\n
We  think  the High Court was right in its  conclusion.\t  We
\ndismiss the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n356<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 484, 1973 SCR (1) 350 Author: K K Mathew Bench: Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien PETITIONER: MOHAMMED YAMIN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADE5H & ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1972 BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL […]<\/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-96736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972 - 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\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-05T07:21:53+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\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-05T07:21:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972\"},\"wordCount\":1758,\"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\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972\",\"name\":\"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-05T07:21:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972 - 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\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-05T07:21:53+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\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972","datePublished":"1972-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-05T07:21:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972"},"wordCount":1758,"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\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972","name":"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-05T07:21:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-yamin-vs-state-of-uttar-prade5h-another-on-26-april-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammed Yamin vs State Of Uttar Prade5H & Another on 26 April, 1972"}]},{"@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\/96736","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=96736"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96736\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}