{"id":136682,"date":"2011-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2"},"modified":"2019-02-10T23:42:53","modified_gmt":"2019-02-10T18:12:53","slug":"amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan<\/div>\n
                                                                        REPORTABLE\n\n                                                            \n\n               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n               CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n\n         WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 16  OF 2010\n\n\n\n\nAmit Singh                                               .... Petitioner(s)\n\n\n\n             Versus\n\n\n\nState of Maharashtra & Anr.                            .... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                            J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)    The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 <\/p>\n
of   the   Constitution   of   India   praying   for   issuance   of   an <\/p>\n
appropriate   writ   in   the   nature   of  habeas  corpus  directing   the <\/p>\n
respondents   to   release   him   from   Central   Jail,   Agra   forthwith <\/p>\n
as   the   detention   is   contrary   to   the   fundamental   rights <\/p>\n
guaranteed   under   Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and <\/p>\n
the   Juvenile   Justice   (Care   and   Protection   of   Children)   Act, <\/p>\n
2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
2)   The facts of the case are:\n<\/p>\n
(a)    On 01.05.1999, at about 8.30 p.m., one Santosh Kumar <\/p>\n
(since   deceased)   along   with   his   servant   was   returning   to   his <\/p>\n
house   with   daily   earning   cash   from   his   shop.     When   he <\/p>\n
reached near the hospital of Dr. Desh Pandey at Ahmednagar, <\/p>\n
two   unknown   persons   came   on   a   Motorcycle   and   demanded <\/p>\n
the money  bag which was  in his  hand but he refused to give <\/p>\n
that   bag.     Thereafter,   the   pillion   rider   got   down   from   the <\/p>\n
Motorcycle   and   threatened   to   kill   him   if   the   bag   is   not   given <\/p>\n
and taken out a revolver which was kept underneath his shirt <\/p>\n
and fired which resulted in injury on his chest.   In spite of the <\/p>\n
injury,   the   deceased   ran   towards   his   residence   which   was <\/p>\n
nearer   to   the   scene   of   occurrence   but   dashed   against   the <\/p>\n
window and fell down.  His relatives came out and took him to <\/p>\n
the Hospital where he was declared dead at about 9.05 p.m.  <\/p>\n
(b)      A complaint was registered by the police bearing Crime <\/p>\n
Case   No.   I-96\/1999   under   Sections   307,   392,   341,   34,   506 <\/p>\n
read   with   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (hereinafter <\/p>\n
referred  to   as   “the   IPC”)   and   Sections   3,   5,   25   and   27   of  the <\/p>\n
Arms   Act,   1959.     The   Investigating   Officer   arrested   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
accused   persons   namely,   Balu   Rangnath   Chintamani,   Vithal <\/p>\n
Ramayya   Madur,   Intekhab   Alam  Abdul   Salam  Sain  and  Amit <\/p>\n
Singh   Thakur,   the   petitioner   herein,   and   Sessions   Case   No. <\/p>\n
150   of   1999   was   registered   against   the   said   four   accused   in <\/p>\n
the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar.\n<\/p>\n
(c)    The   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Ahmednagar,   vide   order <\/p>\n
dated   16.04.2001   held   all   the   four   accused   persons   to   be <\/p>\n
guilty   of   offences   punishable   under   Sections   396,   506,   341, <\/p>\n
379   read   with   Section   120-B   of   IPC   and   sentenced   each   of <\/p>\n
them   to   suffer   life   imprisonment   and   to   pay   a   fine   of <\/p>\n
Rs.3000\/- and also under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) <\/p>\n
and Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and <\/p>\n
sentenced   them   to   suffer   rigorous   imprisonment   for   5   years <\/p>\n
and to pay a fine of Rs.3000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
(d)    Against   the   said   judgment,   all   the   four   accused   filed <\/p>\n
appeals before the High Court.   The High Court, by judgment <\/p>\n
dated   05.08.2005,   allowed   the   appeals   filed   by   A-2   and   A-3 <\/p>\n
and   dismissed   the   appeals   filed   by   A-1   and   A-4   (appellant <\/p>\n
herein).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
(e)    Challenging   the   said   judgment   of   the   High   Court,   the <\/p>\n
appellant   filed   Special   Leave   Petition   (Crl.)   No.   1114   of   2006 <\/p>\n
before this Court which was dismissed on 05.01.2007.\n<\/p>\n
3)     Heard   Mr.   Brijender   Chahar,   learned   senior   counsel   for <\/p>\n
the petitioner and Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel for <\/p>\n
the   State-respondent   No.1   and   Mr.   Ameet   Singh,   learned <\/p>\n
counsel for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
4)     This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying that he <\/p>\n
was a Juvenile at the time of the alleged offence and therefore, <\/p>\n
he could be tried only by the Juvenile Justice Board (in short <\/p>\n
`the Board’).\n<\/p>\n
5)     According   to   the   petitioner,   he   had   not   completed   18 <\/p>\n
years of age as on the date of commission of the offence, i.e., <\/p>\n
01.05.1999,   though   he   had   completed   18   years   as   on <\/p>\n
01.04.2001   i.e.   the   date   of   implementation   of   the   Act.\n<\/p>\n
According to amending Act 33\/2006 in the Act, the benefit of <\/p>\n
juvenility   shall   be   extended   to   the   petitioner.     It   was   further <\/p>\n
stated   that   he   is   entitled   to   get   the   benefit   of   the   said   law, <\/p>\n
which was after due consideration by this Court in the case of <\/p>\n
Hari   Ram  vs.  State   of   Rajasthan   and   Others,<\/a>   (2009)   13 <\/p>\n
                                                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
SCC 211 settled the position, whereby this Court gave effect to <\/p>\n
the Proviso and the Explanation to Sections 20 and 7A which <\/p>\n
were introduced  by the above said Amending Act by applying <\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect.  Accordingly, <\/p>\n
it is prayed that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of <\/p>\n
the Act, even after final conviction.\n<\/p>\n
6)    We   have   already   adverted   to   in   the   earlier   paras <\/p>\n
regarding the petitioner’s involvement in the criminal charges <\/p>\n
framed   against   him   and   the   orders   of   conviction   imposed.\n<\/p>\n
From   the   materials,   it   is   seen   that   the   petitioner   Amit   Singh <\/p>\n
s\/o   late   Bhikamsingh   Thakur   was   born   on   10.05.1982   in <\/p>\n
Jhansi,   U.P.   and   his   date   of   birth   is   registered   with   the <\/p>\n
Registrar,   Births   and   Death,   Nagar   Palika   Parishad,   Jhansi.\n<\/p>\n
According to the record of Nagar Palika Parishad, Jhansi, the <\/p>\n
date   of   birth   certificate   of   the   petitioner   is   recorded   as <\/p>\n
10.05.1982   bearing   registration   No.   1184\/97   dated <\/p>\n
04.08.1997.     The   petitioner   has   produced   a   copy   of   birth <\/p>\n
certificate (Annexure-P1) issued by the Registrar, Nagar Palika <\/p>\n
Parishad, Jhansi.   A perusal of the birth certificate issued by <\/p>\n
                                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
the competent authority clearly shows that his date of birth is <\/p>\n
10.05.1982.\n<\/p>\n
7)    Further information from the materials placed shows that <\/p>\n
the   petitioner   started   his   studies   from   St.   Mark’s   College, <\/p>\n
Jhansi   w.e.f.   12.06.1985.     He   left   the   school   on   27.05.1996 <\/p>\n
and obtained a Transfer Certificate mentioning that his date of <\/p>\n
birth   is   recorded   as   10.05.1982   in   the   admission   register   of <\/p>\n
the   school.     Transfer   Certificate   dated   14.06.1997   issued   by <\/p>\n
the Principal,  St. Mark’s  College, Jhansi has been marked as <\/p>\n
Annexure-P2.  A perusal of the said Transfer Certificate clearly <\/p>\n
shows that his date of birth is 10.05.1982 and the same was <\/p>\n
duly   noted   by   the   School   Authorities   with   the   seal   and <\/p>\n
signature   of   the   Principal,   St.   Mark’s   College,   Jhansi.     Apart <\/p>\n
from the above materials, when the petitioner was arrayed as <\/p>\n
accused in Criminal Case No. 64 of 1997 entitled  Amit Singh <\/p>\n
vs.  State   of   M.P.  he   moved   an   application   for   bail   being   No. <\/p>\n
935   of   1997   before   the   Special   Judge,   Murena,   M.P.     The <\/p>\n
learned   Special   Judge   considered   the   above-mentioned   High <\/p>\n
School   Certificate,   birth   certificate,   report   of   Civil   Surgeon, <\/p>\n
report   of   Dental   Surgeon,   affidavit   of   his   mother   Shakuntala <\/p>\n
                                                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
Bai and report of Radiologist.  The Special Judge, relying upon <\/p>\n
the   above-mentioned   reports,   found   that   the   date   of   birth   of <\/p>\n
the   petitioner   is   10.05.1982   and   his   age   was   below   16   years <\/p>\n
on the date of occurrence, directed the police to produce him <\/p>\n
before the Juvenile Court for further action.   Copy of the said <\/p>\n
order dated 13.08.1987 passed by the Special Judge, Murena <\/p>\n
is   placed   before   this   Court   (Annexure-P3).     A   perusal   of   the <\/p>\n
order   of   the   Special   Judge,   Murena   also   shows   that <\/p>\n
considering   various   materials   relating   to   the   date   of   birth   of <\/p>\n
the petitioner,  he had concluded that the date of birth  of the <\/p>\n
petitioner is 10.05.1982 and the alleged incident took place on <\/p>\n
01.05.1999,   on   the   date   of   the   occurrence,   the   age   of   the <\/p>\n
petitioner was 16 years 11 months and 21 days.  The Act came <\/p>\n
into   effect   from   01.04.2001   which   provides   that   juvenile <\/p>\n
means who has not completed 18 years of age as substituted <\/p>\n
for 16 years which was the position under the old Act of 1986.\n<\/p>\n
According to the Act, the petitioner was juvenile at the time of <\/p>\n
commission of offence because he had not completed 18 years <\/p>\n
of   age   on   the   date   of   offence,   and   therefore,   the   petitioner   is <\/p>\n
entitled to get the benefit of provisions under Sections 2(l), 7A, <\/p>\n
                                                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
20 and 64 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8)    The   petitioner-(A-4)   was   convicted   for   the   offence   under <\/p>\n
Sections 307, 392, 341, 34, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and <\/p>\n
Sections 3, 5, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to <\/p>\n
life  imprisonment   with  fine  of  Rs.3,000\/-.   Though  the  above <\/p>\n
said   conviction   and   sentence   was   confirmed   by   this   Court, <\/p>\n
vide  its impugned  judgment  and order  dated  05.01.2007, the <\/p>\n
age   of   the   petitioner   and   the   benefit   of   the   Act   was   not <\/p>\n
considered by this Court.   No doubt, this plea and the benefit <\/p>\n
was not claimed by the petitioner earlier neither the same was <\/p>\n
raised   before   the   trial   Court   nor   thereafter   up   to   this   Court.\n<\/p>\n
We have already observed that from the materials placed, the <\/p>\n
petitioner had substantiated that he was a juvenile as per the <\/p>\n
Act   and   he   could   be   tried   only   by   the   Board   and   hence   the <\/p>\n
matter   should   be   referred   before   the   Board   for   trial.     It   is <\/p>\n
further seen that the proceedings were started against him on <\/p>\n
01.05.1989 before the regular Court and during the pendency <\/p>\n
of   the   trial,   the   Act   was   enacted   and   it   is   his   claim   that <\/p>\n
inadvertently he was not advised that he is entitled to get the <\/p>\n
benefit   under   the   Act   after   the   enactment   because   he   had <\/p>\n
                                                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
already completed the age of 18 years as on 01.04.2001.  It is <\/p>\n
relevant   to   point   out   that   the   applicability   of   the   Act   was <\/p>\n
clarified   by   Amending   Act   33\/2006   which   provided   that   the <\/p>\n
benefit of juvenility shall be extended even to juvenile who had <\/p>\n
completed the age of 18 years on 01.04.2001 and the Act shall <\/p>\n
have retrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
9)    The   relief   prayed   for   in   this   writ   petition   is   squarely <\/p>\n
covered by the law laid down in the case of Hari Ram  (supra) <\/p>\n
whereby   this   Court   had   occasion   to   consider   the   question <\/p>\n
elaborately   regarding   applicability   of   the   Act.     This   Court <\/p>\n
considered the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case <\/p>\n
of  Pratap   Singh  vs.  State   of   Jharkhand   &   Anr.,   (2005)   3 <\/p>\n
SCC   551,   wherein   this   Court   formulated   two   points   for <\/p>\n
consideration:\n<\/p>\n
      A.     Whether   the   date   of   occurrence   will   be   the <\/p>\n
             reckoning date for determining the age of the alleged <\/p>\n
             offender as juvenile offender or the date when he is <\/p>\n
             produced in the Court\/Competent Authority?<\/p>\n
      B.     Whether   the   Act   of   2000   will   be   applicable   in   the <\/p>\n
             case   a   proceeding   is   initiated   under   the   1986   Act <\/p>\n
                                                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
              and   pending   when   the   Act   of   2000   was   enforced <\/p>\n
              with effect from 01.04.2001?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The Constitution Bench in the above case held that the benefit <\/p>\n
of   juvenility   cannot   be   extended   to   the   person   who   has <\/p>\n
completed the 18 years of age as on 01.04.2001 i.e. the date of <\/p>\n
enforcement of  the Act.   In the  background  of this judgment, <\/p>\n
the Legislature brought Amendment Act 33\/2006 proviso and <\/p>\n
explanation   in   Section   20   to   set   at   rest   doubts   that   have <\/p>\n
arisen   with  regard   to  the  applicability   of  the   Act  to  the  cases <\/p>\n
pending   on   01.04.2001,   where   a   juvenile,   who   was   below   18 <\/p>\n
years   of   age   at   the   time   of   commission   of   the   offence,   was <\/p>\n
involved.     The   explanation  to   Section  20   which  was  added  in <\/p>\n
2006   makes   it   clear   that   in   all   pending   cases,   which   would <\/p>\n
include   not   only   trials   but   even   subsequent   proceedings   by <\/p>\n
way  of  revision  or appeal, the  determination  of  juvenility   of  a <\/p>\n
juvenile   would   be   in   terms   of   clause   (l)   of   Section   2,   even   if <\/p>\n
juvenile ceased to be a juvenile on or before 01.04.2001, when <\/p>\n
the   Act   came   into   force   and   the   provisions   of   the   Act   would <\/p>\n
apply as if the said provision had been in force for all purposes <\/p>\n
and   for   all   material   times   when   the   alleged   offence   was <\/p>\n
                                                                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
committed.     Section   20   enables   the   Court   to   consider   and <\/p>\n
determine   the   juvenility   of   a   person   even   after   conviction   by <\/p>\n
the   regular   court   and   also   empowers   the   court,   while <\/p>\n
maintaining the conviction, to set aside the sentence imposed <\/p>\n
and   forward   the   case   to   the   Board   concerned   for   passing <\/p>\n
sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
10)    After the judgment of the Constitution Bench in  Pratap  <\/p>\n
Singh  (supra),   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Hari   Ram  (supra) <\/p>\n
considered   the   above   question   of   law   in   the   light   of <\/p>\n
Amendment Act 33 of 2006 in the provisions of the Act which <\/p>\n
substituted   Section   2(l)   to   define   a   “juvenile   in   conflict   with <\/p>\n
law” as a “juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence <\/p>\n
and   has   not   completed   18   years   of   age   as   on   the   date   of <\/p>\n
commission   of   such   offence”.     By   way   of   Amendment   Act <\/p>\n
33\/2006, Section 7A was inserted which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “7A. Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is <\/p>\n
       raised before any court.–(1) Whenever a claim of juvenility <\/p>\n
       is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an <\/p>\n
       accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of <\/p>\n
       the   offence,   the   court   shall   make   an   inquiry,   take   such <\/p>\n
       evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to <\/p>\n
       determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding <\/p>\n
       whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his <\/p>\n
       age as nearly as may be:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                                                                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             Provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before <\/p>\n
      any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after <\/p>\n
      final   disposal   of   the   case,   and   such   claim   shall   be <\/p>\n
      determined   in terms  of the  provisions  contained   in  this  Act <\/p>\n
      and   the   rules   made   thereunder,   even   if   the   juvenile   has <\/p>\n
      ceased   to   be   so   on   or   before   the   date   of   commencement   of <\/p>\n
      this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      (2) If the court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of <\/p>\n
      commission   of   the   offence   under   sub-section   (1),   it   shall <\/p>\n
      forward   the   juvenile   to   the   Board   for   passing   appropriate <\/p>\n
      orders  and the sentence,  if any,  passed  by a court shall  be <\/p>\n
      deemed to have no effect. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
It   is   clear   from   the   above   provision,   namely,   Section   7A   the <\/p>\n
claim of  juvenility  to be  raised before any court at any stage, <\/p>\n
even after final disposal of the case and sets out the procedure <\/p>\n
which   the   court   is   required   to   adopt,   when   such   claim   of <\/p>\n
juvenility is raised.  Apart from the aforesaid provisions of the <\/p>\n
Act as amended, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection <\/p>\n
of   Children)   Rules,   2007,   (in   short   `the   Rules’)   Rule   98,   in <\/p>\n
particular, has to be read along with Section 20 of the Act as <\/p>\n
amended   by   the   Amendment   Act,   2006   which   provides   that <\/p>\n
even   after   disposal   of   cases   of   juveniles   in   conflict   with   law, <\/p>\n
the State Government or  the Board could,  either  suo motu  or <\/p>\n
on   an   application   made   for   the   purpose,   review   the   case   of <\/p>\n
juvenile,   determine   the   juvenility   and   pass   an   appropriate <\/p>\n
                                                                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
order under Section 64 of the Act for immediate release of the <\/p>\n
juvenile whose period of detention had exceeded the maximum <\/p>\n
period   provided  in   Section   15   of   the   Act   i.e.   3  years.     All   the <\/p>\n
above relevant provisions including the amended provisions of <\/p>\n
the Act and the Rules have been elaborately considered by this <\/p>\n
Court in Hari Ram (supra).\n<\/p>\n
11)    We have already referred to the entry relating to the date <\/p>\n
of birth of the petitioner in the Birth Certificate (Annexure-P1), <\/p>\n
entry   relating   to   his   date   of   birth   in   the   Transfer   Certificate <\/p>\n
(Annexure-P2), date of birth recorded in the mark sheet issued <\/p>\n
by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations.\n<\/p>\n
In all these documents, his date of birth has been recorded as <\/p>\n
10.05.1982   and   duly   certified   and   authenticated   by   the <\/p>\n
authorities concerned.  In a recent decision of this Court dated <\/p>\n
05.08.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2011 arising out of <\/p>\n
SLP   (Criminal)   No.   3361   of   2011,  Shah   Nawaz  vs.  State   of  <\/p>\n
U.P.<\/a>  while   considering   similar   documents,   namely,   certificate <\/p>\n
issued  by the School Authorities and basing reliance on Rule <\/p>\n
12 of the Rules held that all those documents are relevant and <\/p>\n
admissible in evidence.   Inasmuch as the date of birth of the <\/p>\n
                                                                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner is 10.05.1982 and on the date of the alleged incident <\/p>\n
which   took   place   on   01.05.1999,   his   age   was   16   years,   11 <\/p>\n
months and 21 days i.e. below 18 years, hence on the date of <\/p>\n
the incident, the petitioner was a juvenile in terms of the Act <\/p>\n
because he had not completed 18 years of age and is entitled <\/p>\n
to get the benefit of provisions under Sections 2(l), 7A, 20 and <\/p>\n
64 of the Act.  It is also specifically asserted that the petitioner <\/p>\n
had   already   undergone   12   years   in   jail   since   then   which   is <\/p>\n
more   than   the   maximum   period   for   which   a   juvenile   may   be <\/p>\n
confined to a special home.\n<\/p>\n
12)    Under   these   circumstances,   the   petitioner   is   directed   to <\/p>\n
be   released   from   the   custody   forthwith.     The   writ   petition   is <\/p>\n
allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ………………………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                        (P. SATHASIVAM) <\/p>\n
                                       ………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                       (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) <\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
AUGUST 08, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 16 OF 2010 Amit Singh …. Petitioner(s) Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondent(s) J U […]<\/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-136682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAmit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 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\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-10T18:12:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T18:12:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":2586,\"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\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T18:12:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 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\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-10T18:12:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T18:12:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2"},"wordCount":2586,"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\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2","name":"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T18:12:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amit-singh-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-august-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amit Singh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 8 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/136682","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=136682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}