{"id":122910,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-22T14:11:13","modified_gmt":"2018-03-22T08:41:13","slug":"shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, J.P. Devadhar<\/div>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.2488 OF 1998\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman,                    )\n    presently residing at post Ambat,             )\n    Tal. Mahasale, Dist. Raigad,                  )\n    Maharashtra State - 402 101.                  )..Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n            V\/s.\n\n\n    1)    The Union of India                      )\n\n\n\n\n                                \n          Having office at Ayakar Bhavan,         )\n          new Marine Lines, Mumbai-20.            )\n                                                  )\n    2)\n                     \n          The Joint Secretary to the\n          Govenment of India, having his\n          office at 3rd floor, Jeevan Deep,\n                                                  )\n                                                  )\n                                                  )\n          Parliament Street, Sansad Marg,         )\n                    \n          New Delhi - 110 001.                    )\n                                                  )\n    3)    Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)       )\n          having his office at 1st floor,         )\n          Air Cargo Complex, NIPT, Sahar,         )\n          Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 099.         )\n      \n\n\n                                                  )\n    4)    Commissioner of Customs, having         )\n   \n\n\n\n          his office at Sahar International       )\n          Airport, Mumbai-400 099.                )\n                                                  )\n    5)   Deputy Commissioner of Customs,          )\n         having his office at Air Customs         )\n\n\n\n\n\n         Pool, Sahar International                )\n         Airport, Mumbai-400 099.                 )..Respondents.\n\n\n\n    Mr.Sujay Kantawala with N.M.Shah, Ramesh Purwani                   and\n\n\n\n\n\n    Brijesh Pathak for petitioner.\n\n\n    Mr.R.V.Desai,    senior   advocate with Pradeep Jetly              for\n    respondents.\n\n\n                                CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND\n                                        J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                              -    =     :    2     :    =     -\n\n\n\n\n                                            DATED :         3RD DECEMBER, 2008.\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                                                             \n    1.           During      the      pendency           of       an     appeal        filed\n\n    against    the    confiscation order, whether                          the     customs\n\n<\/pre>\n
    authorities could sell the confiscated gold and when it<\/p>\n
    is   ultimately held that the petitioner is entitled                                    to<\/p>\n
    redemption    of      the confiscated gold, whether the                              sale<\/p>\n
    proceeds    could be returned after deducting the customs<\/p>\n
    duty    from the sale proceeds, is the question raised in<\/p>\n
    this petition.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           In    the       present         case,          on     17\/4\/1997          the<\/p>\n
    petitioner    on his arrival from Muscat was                            apprehended<\/p>\n
    at   the Airport as he was carrying 41 gold bars                                 valued<\/p>\n
    at     Rs.18,88,337\/-         (international                  market        value)        \/<\/p>\n
    Rs.23,16,500\/-        (local      market           value) concealed                in     a<\/p>\n
    pouch.     The    said       gold       bars       were       seized        from      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner    on      the     reasonable belief                  that       they      are<\/p>\n
    liable to be confiscated.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           Thereafter,          on completion of investigation,<\/p>\n
    a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3rd<\/p>\n
    July, 1997 and by an order in original dated 11\/11\/1997<\/p>\n
    (despatched      on    25\/11\/1997)            it was ordered                that      the<\/p>\n
    seized    gold    bars       are liable to              be     confiscated            and<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                             –    =    :    3   :   =    –\n<\/p>\n
    penalty of Rs.3,00,000\/- was also imposed.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           Being      aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the<\/p>\n
    petitioner      filed an appeal before the Commissioner                           of<\/p>\n
    Customs    (Appeals)        who    by his order          dated        23\/2\/1998<\/p>\n
    directed    reshipment of the gold in question subject to<\/p>\n
    payment    of    reshipment        fine     of     Rs.6,00,000\/-.               The<\/p>\n
    Commissioner      (A)    reduced        the personal           penalty         from<\/p>\n
    Rs.3,00,000\/- to Rs.1,00,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
    5.<\/p>\n
                 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both<\/p>\n
    the   Commissioner       of      Customs as also           the      petitioner<\/p>\n
    filed    revision    application before the                  Government           of<\/p>\n
    India.    By the impugned order dated 21\/9\/1998 the Joint<\/p>\n
    Secretary    to    the      Government of India held                  that      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner      is entitled to redeem the confiscated                          gold<\/p>\n
    subject    to    payment of duty and also fine and                       penalty<\/p>\n
    imposed    by Commissioner (A).             As the gold was              already<\/p>\n
    disposed    off, the Commissioner was directed to                          return<\/p>\n
    the   sale proceeds subject to payment of duty, fine and<\/p>\n
    penalty.     Challenging the aforesaid order, the present<\/p>\n
    petition    is    filed.         The    revenue       has      accepted         the<\/p>\n
    decision of the revisional authority.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           Mr.S.N.Kantawala,             learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order in<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                              –    =    :   4    :    =    –\n<\/p>\n
    original     dated       11\/11\/1997         was       received            by      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner        on   25\/11\/1997          and    by      a    letter          dated<\/p>\n
    28\/11\/1997      the    petitioner          had informed            the     customs<\/p>\n
    authorities       that    the petitioner is filing                    an     appeal<\/p>\n
    against the adjudication order and the confiscated gold<\/p>\n
    should    not     be   disposed of.          As      per      circular         dated<\/p>\n
    16\/11\/1994,       the customs authorities ought not to                           have<\/p>\n
    disposed of the confiscated gold during the pendency of<\/p>\n
    the    appeal.      Relying upon the decision of                      the      Delhi<\/p>\n
    High    Court in the case of Kailash Ribbon Factory                              Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
    V\/s.    Commr.\n                       \n                      of Cus.          & C.    Ex., New Delhi reported in\n\n    2002(143)    E.L.T.           60   (Del.), Collector               of     Customs,\n                      \n    Madras    V\/s.     Meena A.Bharwani reported in 2006                           (194)\n\n    E.L.T.      273   (Mad.) and the decision of this Court                             in\n\n    the    case of Girdharlal Kalyandas Advani V\/s.                           Union of\n      \n\n\n    India     reported       in    1992(58)          E.L.T.          453       (Bom.),\n                                                                               (Bom.)\n   \n\n\n\n    Mr.Kantawala      submitted that the petitioner is entitled\n\n    to    the market value of the confiscated goods                           together\n\n\n\n\n\n    with    interest thereon at the rate fixed by this                             Court\n\n<\/pre>\n
    from the date of auction till payment.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           Mr.R.V.Desai,             learned            senior          Advocate<\/p>\n
    appearing    on    behalf of the respondents, on the                           other<\/p>\n
    hand    submitted that in the present case, although                              the<\/p>\n
    petitioner      had informed by his letter dated 28\/11\/1997<\/p>\n
    that    the petitioner would be filing an appeal                           against<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                             –    =   :   5   :   =    –\n<\/p>\n
    the    adjudication      order, by a letter            dated        5\/12\/1997<\/p>\n
    Advocate    or    the    petitioner       was     informed          that      the<\/p>\n
    confiscated      gold    had already been handed over to                      the<\/p>\n
    basement    warehouse        of New Custom House for                disposal.\n<\/p>\n
    Accordingly,      the    gold bars in question were                   sold      on<\/p>\n
    12\/2\/1998      and    the sale proceeds received were in                      the<\/p>\n
    sum    of Rs.18,98,965\/-.         He submitted that in the light<\/p>\n
    of    the Notification No.42\/89-Cus.(NT) dated 30th June,<\/p>\n
    1989     the    customs      authorities         were      justified            in<\/p>\n
    disposing off the confiscated gold.\n<\/p>\n
    8.             Mr.Desai,      further submitted that as per the<\/p>\n
    order    passed      by the revisional authority, the                    amount<\/p>\n
    payable    to the petitioner after deducting the                       baggage<\/p>\n
    rate of duty, redemption fine and penalty from the sale<\/p>\n
    proceeds    comes      to Rs.2,16,724\/-.          Mr.Desai          submitted<\/p>\n
    that    the respondents were ready and willing to pay the<\/p>\n
    said    amount    to    the petitioner,          however,         since       the<\/p>\n
    whereabouts      of    the    petitioner      was      not      known,        the<\/p>\n
    customs authorities could not pay the balance amount of<\/p>\n
    Rs.2,16,724\/-.        Accordingly, Mr.Desai submitted that in<\/p>\n
    the    facts    of    the    present case,        since        the     customs<\/p>\n
    authorities      were    always ready and willing to pay                      the<\/p>\n
    balance    amount of Rs.2,16,724\/-, there is no                       question<\/p>\n
    of paying the said amount with interest.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                               -    =    :    6   :    =    -\n\n\n\n\n    9.             We    have      carefully          considered           the      rival\n\n    submissions.         Admittedly, the order in original                          dated\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
    11\/11\/1997 was despatched on 25\/11\/1997 and by a letter<\/p>\n
    dated    28\/11\/1997        the      petitioner           had      informed         the<\/p>\n
    customs authorities that he is filing an appeal against<\/p>\n
    the    order    in original.            No doubt that by             the      letter<\/p>\n
    dated    5\/12\/1997        the customs authorities had                      informed<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner        that the confiscated gold has                      already<\/p>\n
    been    handed      over      for    disposal.           Handing         over      the<\/p>\n
    confiscated gold immediately after serving the order of<\/p>\n
    confiscation<\/p>\n
                        itself was improper.               In any event             after<\/p>\n
    receiving      letter      from      the     petitioner,            the     customs<\/p>\n
    authorities      ought to have stopped the auction sale                              of<\/p>\n
    the    confiscated        gold.      However, the gold was sold                      on<\/p>\n
    12\/2\/1998      during      the pendency of the appeal filed                          by<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner        before Commissioner (A).                   The     finding<\/p>\n
    recorded    by      the revisional authority and accepted                            by<\/p>\n
    the    revenue      is    that      the      action        of     the       customs<\/p>\n
    authorities      in selling the gold during the pendency of<\/p>\n
    the    appeal    is      against         the     existing           departmental<\/p>\n
    instructions        and is not in good taste.                   Therefore, the<\/p>\n
    argument    of the revenue in selling the gold during the<\/p>\n
    pendency of the appeal cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
    10.            Since the petitioner seeks redemption of the<\/p>\n
    confiscated      gold      as      per    the     order       passed        by     the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                               –   =   :    7   :    =    –\n<\/p>\n
    revisional         authority,      the     first         question         to       be<\/p>\n
    considered        is, whether the petitioner is justified                          in<\/p>\n
    claiming        market value of the said gold ?                   It is not in<\/p>\n
    dispute      that the market value of the gold was                        falling<\/p>\n
    at    the    relevant time.        In fact, the specific case                      of<\/p>\n
    the petitioner before the Commissioner (A) was that the<\/p>\n
    prices      of the gold had fallen sharply (see page 106 of<\/p>\n
    the    petition).         In these circumstances, the claim                        of<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner       in    seeking market value of                  the      gold<\/p>\n
    cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
    11.              The   question       then     to    be     considered           is,<\/p>\n
    whether the petitioner is entitled to the sale proceeds<\/p>\n
    after deducting duty, fine and penalty imposed upon the<\/p>\n
    petitioner         ?    Since     the      petitioner             is      seeking<\/p>\n
    redemption        of   the confiscated gold, he cannot                      escape<\/p>\n
    payment      of fine and penalty.            In fact, counsel for the<\/p>\n
    petitioner offered to pay fine and penalty.                          As regards<\/p>\n
    payment      of    duty    is concerned, in our               opinion,          duty<\/p>\n
    would      be payable only if the gold was actually allowed<\/p>\n
    to    be    redeemed.      In the present case, what                   is     being<\/p>\n
    given      is    the sale proceeds and not the gold as                        such.\n<\/p>\n
    In    such a case, the question of paying duty in respect<\/p>\n
    of the sale proceeds would not arise.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    12.              The   argument of the revenue that they                        were\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span>\n                               -    =   :    8    :    =     -\n\n\n\n\n    ready    to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,16,724\/-,                                but\n\n    the    petitioner      was not available cannot be                        accepted,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    because,    firstly,          nowhere in the affidavit                    in     reply\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n<\/pre>\n
    filed on behalf of the revenue it is so stated and such<\/p>\n
    contention      is    being raised for the first time                          during<\/p>\n
    the    course of arguments.             Secondly, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
    filed    the present petition through an Advocate in                                the<\/p>\n
    year 1998 and nothing prevented the customs authorities<\/p>\n
    in    addressing      a    letter       to       the      Advocate          for     the<\/p>\n
    petitioner in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    13.          In      this view of the matter, in our opinion,<\/p>\n
    the customs authorities are liable to return the entire<\/p>\n
    sale    proceeds without deducting therefrom the duty but<\/p>\n
    subject    to    deduction         of fine        of      Rs.6,00,000\/-             and<\/p>\n
    penalty    of    Rs.1,00,000\/- imposed by the                        Commissioner<\/p>\n
    (A) with interest.\n<\/p>\n
    14.          Accordingly,              we        direct            the       customs<\/p>\n
    authorities      to    deduct Rs.7,00,000\/- towards fine                            and<\/p>\n
    penalty    from the amount of Rs.18,98,965\/- and pay                                the<\/p>\n
    balance    amount      of Rs.11,98,965 with interest                         at     the<\/p>\n
    rate    of 9% p.a.        from the date of the revisional order<\/p>\n
    dated 21\/9\/1998 till payment.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    15.          Rule      is      made absolute in the                  above       terms\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span>\n                       -   =   :   9   :   =    -\n\n\n\n\n    with no order as to costs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                                              \n                                              (P.B.MAJMUDAR J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                                              (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n                  \n                 \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:06:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, J.P. Devadhar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2488 OF 1998 Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman, ) presently residing at post Ambat, ) Tal. Mahasale, Dist. Raigad, ) […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008 - 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\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-22T08:41:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-22T08:41:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1242,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-22T08:41:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008 - 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\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-22T08:41:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-22T08:41:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":1242,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008","name":"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-22T08:41:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabir-ahmed-abdul-rehman-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/122910","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=122910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}