{"id":121063,"date":"1996-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996"},"modified":"2015-12-09T23:23:39","modified_gmt":"2015-12-09T17:53:39","slug":"suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996","title":{"rendered":"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: Hansaria.<\/div>\n
Bench: G.N.Ray, B.L.Hansaria<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSURESH LOHIYA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/08\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.N.RAY, B.L.HANSARIA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nHANSARIA. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Whether bamboo  mat as  a\tforest-produce\tas  is\tthis
\nexpression known  to the  Indian forest\t Act ?\trequires our
\ndetermination on  this appeal.\tThis question  would  decide
\nWhether the order of confiscation of bamboo mat belonging to
\nthe appellant  was in  accordance with\tlaw. The Bombay High
\nCourt, having  been approached\tin  revision  by  the  State
\nagainst the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing
\nrelease of  the bamboo\tmat, has reversed the order being of
\nthe view  that the product confiscated was “forest-produce”.
\nThe owner  of the  bamboo mat  has approached  this Court by
\nfiling this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.   “Forest-produce” has  been defined in The Indian Forest
\nAct, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as below:\n<\/p>\n
     “2(4) “forest-produce” includes :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) the  following she  their found
\n     in, or  brought from,  a forest  or
\n     not,  that\t  is  to   say\t timber,
\n     charcoal,\t caoutchouc,\tcatechu,
\n     wood-oil, resin,  natural\tvarnish,
\n     bark,  lac,  mahua\t flowers,  mahua
\n     seeds, kuth and myrabolams, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) the following when found in, or
\n     brought from  a forest,  that is to
\n     say –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) trees\tand leaves,  flowers and
\n     fruits,  and  all\tother  parts  or
\n     produce\tnot\therein\t  before
\n     mentioned, of trees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)   plants   not   being   trees
\n     (including grass,\tcreepers,  reeds
\n     and moss), and all parts or produce
\n     of such plants,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) wild animals an skins, tusks,
\n     horns, bones,  silk,  horns,  honey
\n     and was,  and all\tother  parts  or
\n     produce of animals, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) peat,\t surface soil,\trock and
\n     minerals\t(including   lime-stone,
\n     laterite.\tmineral\t oils,\tand  all
\n     products of mines or quarries).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We must  also note\t the definition of “timber” as given
\nin sub-clause (6) and of “tree’ in sub-clause (7) – the same
\nbeing as below :\n<\/p>\n
     “(6) ”  timber’ includes trees when
\n     they  have\t  fallen  or  have  been
\n     felled, and all wood whether cut up
\n     or fashioned  or hollowed\tout  for
\n     any purpose or not; and
\n     (7) “tree” includes palms, bamboos,
\n     stumps, brush-wood and canes.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.   The High  Court’s decision\t is principally\t based on  a
\nconjoint reading  of definition\t of “timber”  and “tree”. It
\nhas stated that as definition of “tree” includes bamboo, and
\nas definition  of “timber”  includes tree,  even a fashioned
\nbamboo would  be a  tree. It  was then\tstated that “forest-
\nproduce” having\t been defined as any produce of tree in sub-
\nclause (i)  of clause  (b) of sub section (4), bamboo mat is
\nforest-produce. In  taking this view the High Court differed
\nfrom what had been held Gujarat High Court in Fatesang Gimba
\nVasava Vs.  State of  Gujarat High  Court in  Fatesang Gimba
\nVasava vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 Gujarat 9.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Shri Bhatia, appearing for the appellant, who was\tduly
\nassisted by  Ms. Verma,\t submitted that the High Court erred
\nin holding  that a  product like bamboo mat would be forest-
\nproduce by  relying on\tthe definition\tof “timber”  because
\nthat definition\t is in\ttwo parts  and the second part which
\nspeaks of  “all\t  wood ……fashioned……. or not” has no
\napplication so\tfar trees  are concerned,  which  have\tbeen
\ndealt in  the first part of the definition. It has also been
\nurged that  bamboo mat\tbeing a\t separate commercial product
\nwhat was stated by the Gujarat High Court in Fatesang’s case
\nmerits our acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Shri Dholakia,  who was  duly assisted  by Shri Jadhav,
\nhowever, contends  that if  bamboo mat\tis held\t to be not a
\nforest-produce, the  object of\tthe Act\t would be frustrated
\ninasmuch as it would debar the forest authorities to inquire
\nabout the  removal of  such goods  from the  forests,  which
\nwould be  used as a handle by unscrupulous dealers to denude
\nthe  country   of  his\t forest\t wealth.   To  buttress\t his
\nsubmission, reference  has been\t made in  the definition  of
\n“produce” in  Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary which reads : the
\nexpression  ‘produce   of  mines   or  minerals’   does\t not
\nnecessarily mean  produce in  its native  state; coke may be
\nsuch produce,  although by combustion its chemical nature is
\nchanged.”\n<\/p>\n
6.   We have  given our\t considered  thought  to  the  rival
\ncontentions. It\t appears to  us that the High Court erred in
\ntaking the  abovesaid view by referring to the definition of
\n“timber” inasmuch  as we  agree with  Shri Bhatia  that\t the
\nsecond part  of the definition does not take within its fold
\nfashioned bamboo  as that part is relatable to wood, and not
\ntree. We  have\tsaid  so  because  the\tdefinition  of\ttree
\nincludes even  canes, and  a cane cannot be taken as a wood,
\neven if\t a tree\t could be. But then, the High Court has also
\nreferred to  sub-clause (i)  (supra) which speaks of produce
\nof tree\t as well.  As to this, submission of the appellant’s
\ncounsel has been that when sub-clause (i) is read as a whole
\nthe same  would clearly\t indicate that\tsuch produce of tree
\nalone is  contemplated which  is a natural growth or product
\nlike flowers  and fruits. This submission has force when the
\ndefinition of  forest-produce is  read in its entirety which
\nwould show  that the  definition  either  includes  nature’s
\ngifts like charcoal, mahua flowers or minerals. Wild animals
\nof which sub-clause (iii) speaks of is also a God’s gift and
\nnot man-made.  Wherever the  legislature wanted\t to  include
\narticle produced  with the  aid of human labour, it has said
\nso specifically\t as would appear from sub-clause (iv), as it
\nspeaks, apart\tfrom minerals etc. of “all products of mines
\nor quarries”.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The legislature  having defined “forest-produce”, it is
\nnot permissible\t to us\tto read\t in the definition something
\nwhich is not there. We are conscious of the fact that forest
\nwealth is  required to\tbe preserved; but, it is not open to
\nus to  legislate, as what a court can do in a matter like at
\nhand is\t to iron out cresses; it cannot weave a new texture.
\nIf there  be any  lacuna in  the definition it is really for
\nthe legislature to take care of the same.\n<\/p>\n
8.   We may  also state\t that according to us the view taken
\nby the\tGujarat High  Court in\tFatesang’s case\t is correct,
\nbecause though\tbamboo as  a whole  is forest  produce, if a
\nproduct,  commercially\t new  and  distinct,  known  to\t the
\nbusiness community  as totally\tdifferent  is  brought\tinto
\nexistence by  human labour,  such an  article\tand  product
\nwould cease  to be  a forest-produce. The definition of this
\nexpression leaves  nothing to  doubt that  it would dot take
\nwithin its  fold an  article or\t   thing  which\t is  totally
\ndifferent  from,   forest-produce,     having\ta   distinct
\ncharacter. May\tit be  stated that  where    a\tword  or  an
\nexpression is  defined by  the legislature,   courts have to
\nlook to that definition; the general understanding of it can
\nnot be\tdeterminative. So,  what has been stated in Strouds’
\nJudicial  Dictionary   regarding  a  “produce”\tcan  not  be
\ndecisive.  Therefore,\twhere  a   product  from  bamboo  is
\ncommercially different\tfrom it and in common parlance taken
\nas a  distinct product,\t the same  would not  be encompassed
\nwithin the expression “forest-produce” as defined in section
\n2 (4) of the Act, despite it being inclusive in nature. that
\nbamboo mat is taken as a product distinct from bamboo in the
\ncommercial world,  has\tnot  been  disputed  before  us\t and
\nrightly.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In view  of all  the above,  we hold that bamboo mat is
\nnot a  forest-produce in  the eye  of the Act, and so, allow
\nthe appeal,  set aside\tthe impugned  judgment of  the\tHigh
\nCourt and state that the order of confiscation passed by the
\nConservator of Forest was not in accordance with law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996 Author: Hansaria. Bench: G.N.Ray, B.L.Hansaria PETITIONER: SURESH LOHIYA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/08\/1996 BENCH: G.N.RAY, B.L.HANSARIA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T HANSARIA. J. Whether bamboo mat as […]<\/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-121063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSuresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996 - 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\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-09T17:53:39+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T17:53:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1269,\"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\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996\",\"name\":\"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-09T17:53:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996 - 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\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-09T17:53:39+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996","datePublished":"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T17:53:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996"},"wordCount":1269,"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\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996","name":"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-09T17:53:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-lohiya-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-another-on-23-august-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996"}]},{"@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\/121063","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=121063"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121063\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121063"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}