{"id":129022,"date":"2011-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-24T10:33:26","modified_gmt":"2015-05-24T05:03:26","slug":"unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                                   - 1 -\n\n                                                                        3100.11\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n     rng\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3100 OF 2011\n     Pradip S.Dixit\n     Aged about 49 yrs,\n     Occu: Business having address\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     at Hotel Shantidoot\n     Opp Hindmata cinema,\n     Babasaheb Ambvedkar Rd,\n     Dadar (E) Mumbai            .. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n                    vs\n                   \n     1.State of Maharashtra\n     2.Mr.Lalit More\n     aged 44 yrs,\n                  \n     Prop.M\/s Alcto Control Systems\n     having address of office no.2\n     Sankalp,A wing, Film city Rd,\n     Malad (E) Mumbai-97         ..               Respondents<\/pre>\n
     Mr.K.H.Giri for Petitioner
\n     Ms.R.V.Newton APP for State
\n                         CORAM:     K.U.CHANDIWAL, J<\/p>\n
                         DATE:      18th October, 2011
\n     ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
           Rule.     Rule made returnable forthwith. No<\/p>\n
     notice to the Respondent no.2<\/p>\n
     1.    Heard    learned       counsel    for       the         Accused-\n<\/p>\n
     Applicant.          The   conviction       recorded           by      the
\n                                                              th
\n     learned       Metropolitan      Magistrate,            7        Court,<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             3100.11<\/p>\n
     Dadar,      Mumbai       by     order     dated        10.5.2011            was<\/p>\n
     questioned before the learned Sessions Court in<\/p>\n
     Criminal      Revision         Application        No.118         of     2011.\n<\/p>\n
     By    an     order        dated        19.9.2011         the        learned<\/p>\n
     Additional          Sessions           Judge        dismissed               the<\/p>\n
     Revision. Hence the writ.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The<\/p>\n
                  case       propounded        by     the       Complainant-\n<\/p>\n
     respondent         No.2        was,     he      has      carried            out<\/p>\n
     activities of supply of CC TV cameras and lodged<\/p>\n
     installations at hotel of the Accused-Applicant.\n<\/p>\n
     It was on going process of 4\/5 bills since 2007,<\/p>\n
     2008.       There was another contract in January,<\/p>\n
     2009.       Contract of January,2009 was extended up<\/p>\n
     to June, 2009.            After the work as per schedule<\/p>\n
     in discharge of liability the Accused-Applicant<\/p>\n
     has   issued       a    cheque    dated         7.5.2009         drawn        on<\/p>\n
     Allahabad      bank       in     the      sum    of      Rs.3,50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     (Three      lacs       fifty    thousand        only).           The      said<\/p>\n
     cheque       on         presentation            was        dishonoured.\n<\/p>\n
     Consequently, statutory notice was issued. The<\/p>\n
     Accused-Applicant denied that the cheque was in<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    3100.11<\/p>\n
     discharge of the entire liability, as according<\/p>\n
     to the Accused-Applicant still the work was left<\/p>\n
     to be completed and certain deficiencies were<\/p>\n
     noticed by him. After statutory notice complaint<\/p>\n
     was filed. Process was issued to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     The accused claimed that he has issued a blank<\/p>\n
     signed cheque in favour of the Complainant for<\/p>\n
     security<\/p>\n
                and   without    completing          the      contract<\/p>\n
     misused the said cheque.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   Learned     counsel   for     the    Writ       Petitioner<\/p>\n
     (accused) has raised following points :\n<\/p>\n
          (a) The learned Judge erroneously relied on<\/p>\n
          bills         produced       by         the
\n          complainant\/respondent at the fag end of
\n          the matter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b)   The verification of the affidavit in
\n          chief is defective.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (c) The reply notice dated 15.6.2009 did
\n          not     meet     rejoinder  from     the
\n          complainant\/respondent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          d) There does not       stand any legally
\n          enforceable liability and consequently no
\n          presumption in terms of section 139 of
\n          Negotiable Instrument Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     – 4 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                             3100.11<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     4.   Before adverting to the contentions raised<\/p>\n
     by learned counsel for the Applicant-Accused one<\/p>\n
     fact is to be taken into consideration that as<\/p>\n
     against conviction the revision was preferred by<\/p>\n
     the accused applicant as stated above and after<\/p>\n
     getting the Revision dismissed Writ Petition is<\/p>\n
     filed   before      this     court.     Consequently,                  it     is<\/p>\n
     needless to indicate that scope of Writ Petition<\/p>\n
     is   very     limited.       Law       does        not        permit          to<\/p>\n
     entertain     the     said    Writ      Petition             to     canvass<\/p>\n
     factual      details    and    disputes                 as      there         is<\/p>\n
     specific bar under section 397 (3) of Cr.P.C.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     However     learned    counsel         has      elaborately             dealt<\/p>\n
     with evidence, read the reply notice and even<\/p>\n
     the arguments tendered before the learned Judge<\/p>\n
     particularly page 72 (para 6).                       learned counsel<\/p>\n
     reiterate reading portions of the judgment the<\/p>\n
     findings are contrary to the record.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   Having gone through the judgment, I find no<\/p>\n
     error   of    facts    or     law      can      be     attributed             to<\/p>\n
     either the learned Metropolitan Magistrate or to<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           3100.11<\/p>\n
     the   learned       Revisional           Court.       There         is      no<\/p>\n
     miscarriage of justice or failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    The       documents        which       were          purportedly<\/p>\n
     produced below Exhibit 27 by the complainant are<\/p>\n
     not   considered      by     the       learned       Judge        barring<\/p>\n
     giving      a   reference,       that     such     documents             were<\/p>\n
     indeed<\/p>\n
                     produced    by    complainant             for     court’s<\/p>\n
     satisfaction as asked by learned Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     7. On the point of verification learned counsel<\/p>\n
     for the Applicant-Accused has pointed to chapter<\/p>\n
     7 of Criminal Manual dealing with affidavits and<\/p>\n
     relied on the judgment reported in:\n<\/p>\n
           (1) AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 652 (AAK NAMBIAR
\n           VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR) para 11 therein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2) MR.EVAN NORONHA VS MR.\/LLOYD JOSEPOH
\n           SIQUEIRA 2009 All MR (Cri) 1058.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3) 1989 (1) Bom. C.R.337 (RAJENDRA
\n           GANDHI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA)<\/p>\n
           In the matter of AKK NAMBIAR, observations<\/p>\n
     of    Their       Lordships       in      para       11      being          of<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  3100.11<\/p>\n
     importance are produced hereinafter:\n<\/p>\n
          11.    The   reasons  for   verification  of<\/p>\n
          affidavits are to enable to court to find
\n          out which facts can be said to be proved on
\n          the affidavit evidence of rival parties.
\n          Allegations maybe true to knowledge or
\n          allegations may be true to information<\/p>\n
          received from persons or allegations may be
\n          based on records.        The importance of<\/p>\n
          verifications to test the genuineness and
\n          authenticity of allegations and also to
\n          make    the    deponent    responsible   for<\/p>\n
          allegations.    In essence verification is
\n          required to enable the court to find out as
\n          to whether it will be safe to act on such
\n          affidavit evidence. In absence of proper
\n          verification, affidavits cannot be admitted<\/p>\n
          in evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.    In the light of the observations of the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court let us see the factual details of<\/p>\n
     the present case. At page 23 of the petition,<\/p>\n
     verification   of   the      Affiant\/Complainant                   is<\/p>\n
     reproduced, which reads:\n<\/p>\n
                               Verification<\/p>\n
                 I,Lalit More, the Complainant above
\n                named, aged 43 years, Prop.of M\/s
\n                AutoControl Systems, having office
\n                No.2 Sankalp, A-wing, Film City Road,
\n                Malad (E) Mumbai 400 097, do hereby
\n                state    and   declare    on   solemn<\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   – 7 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                       3100.11<\/p>\n
                    affirmation that whatever stated in
\n                    foregoing paragraphs above are true<\/p>\n
                    and correct to the best of my
\n                    knowledge and belief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai<\/p>\n
                    this 24th day of November,2010<\/p>\n
                                                 Complainant<\/p>\n
                     Explained & Identified by me
\n                     ig   s\/d<\/p>\n
                     (S.H.Tiwari) Advocate High Court<\/p>\n
                    Wadala, Mumbai-400 031.             Before me,<\/p>\n
          Learned counsel submits that this verification<\/p>\n
     is short of informing that what are facts to the<\/p>\n
     personal knowledge of the Complainant and what<\/p>\n
     he derived from the source from the Attorneys.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     There     cannot      be      quarrel           on        legal<\/p>\n
     proposition and also the guidelines indicated in<\/p>\n
     the Criminal Manual as to how affidavit are to<\/p>\n
     be    sworn    in.     However,      verification            in      the<\/p>\n
     instant case needs to be seen on the factual<\/p>\n
     matrix    as   it    was   examination-in-chief               of     the<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                              3100.11<\/p>\n
     Complainant in the form of an affidavit.                                     The<\/p>\n
     details in the examination-in-chief from                               para 1<\/p>\n
     to    para 10 informed everything of the personal<\/p>\n
     knowledge    and    the    transaction               the      Complainant<\/p>\n
     (Respondent       No.1)    had     with        the      accused          (Writ<\/p>\n
     Petitioner).        There          is          nothing            in         the<\/p>\n
     examination-in-chief             of       the        Complainant               to<\/p>\n
     borrow that he had gathered certain information<\/p>\n
     from any other source. There is no garble to his<\/p>\n
     stand.     This     position             is      clear         concerning<\/p>\n
     verification       of     affidavit             as       indicated             in<\/p>\n
     section 145 of Negotiable Instrument Act and as<\/p>\n
     to which      contingence affidavit to be read in<\/p>\n
     evidence in any inquiry. Hence, facts as has<\/p>\n
     been stated by complainant                    certainly within his<\/p>\n
     own    knowledge        and      which          is       in       tune         to<\/p>\n
     requirement in manual and even as per para 11<\/p>\n
     the Supreme Court indicated in the matter of AKK<\/p>\n
     NAMBIAR.\n<\/p>\n
     10.    Learned counsel for the Accused-Applicant<\/p>\n
     stated     that    there      was        no     legal         enforceable<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           3100.11<\/p>\n
     liability.     He    has       relied    on     the     judgment           of<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble   Supreme       court       in    the     matter         of      (1)<\/p>\n
     RANGAPPA VS SRIMOHAN 2010 ALL SCR (Cri) 1349                               of<\/p>\n
     this Court      (2) In the matter of MR.EVAN NORONHA<\/p>\n
     vs MR.LLOYD JOSEPH SIQUEIRA 2009 ALL MR Cri)<\/p>\n
     1058 and (3) in the matter of SESHRAO KRISHNARAO<\/p>\n
     UMREDKAR VS H.K.PANDE & ANR 2010                       (2) Bom.C.R.\n<\/p>\n
     (Cri)725.\n<\/p>\n
     11. The hon’ble Supreme court has by judgment<\/p>\n
     in the matter of RANGAPPA VS SRI MOHAN has (2010<\/p>\n
     ALL SCR (Cri) 1349              dealt with section 139 of<\/p>\n
     Negotiable      Instruments          Act.       The       presumption<\/p>\n
     mandated in section 139 of the Act does indeed<\/p>\n
     include   the       existence       of   legally          enforceable<\/p>\n
     debt or liability.\n<\/p>\n
          Negotiable Instruments Act was enacted with<\/p>\n
     a specified object of making special provision<\/p>\n
     by   incorporating         a    strict        liability          so      far<\/p>\n
     cheque    is    concerned.               The     presumption               of<\/p>\n
     innocence is a human right, however section 139<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            3100.11<\/p>\n
     raise a presumption in regard to the cheque was<\/p>\n
     drawn in discharge of debt or other liability.\n<\/p>\n
     There is nothing on record to show applicant has<\/p>\n
     anywhere       whispered           to      dispel           the         said<\/p>\n
     presumption in tune to the requirement.\n<\/p>\n
     12.<\/p>\n
              Considering       this     legal<\/p>\n
     been enunciated by the Supreme court the factual
\n                                                     position           as     has<\/p>\n
     matrix    of   the    present       case        involve        that       the<\/p>\n
     cheque    issued      by     the    Accused-         Applicant            was<\/p>\n
     certainly       as     against           legally           enforceable<\/p>\n
     liability of the work of installations carried<\/p>\n
     out by the Complainant\/Respondent No.1 at the<\/p>\n
     hotel of the Accused-Applicant. Deficiences if<\/p>\n
     any,   noticed       later    on,       would    not      invoke            to<\/p>\n
     dishonour      of    cheque,       in    the     absence          of      any<\/p>\n
     contract.\n<\/p>\n
     13.    Taking survey of these facts, I do not see<\/p>\n
     any error in the judgment of conviction.                                Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition lacks merit. Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
                                               3100.11<\/p>\n
                    K.U.Chandiwal, J<\/p>\n
                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:45 :::<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011 Bench: K.U. Chandiwal – 1 – 3100.11 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3100 OF 2011 Pradip S.Dixit Aged about 49 yrs, Occu: Business having address at Hotel Shantidoot Opp Hindmata cinema, Babasaheb Ambvedkar […]<\/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-129022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011 - 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\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-24T05:03:26+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T05:03:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1397,\"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\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-24T05:03:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011 - 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\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-24T05:03:26+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T05:03:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011"},"wordCount":1397,"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\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011","name":"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-24T05:03:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/unknown-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unknown vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 October, 2011"}]},{"@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\/129022","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=129022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}