{"id":154282,"date":"2008-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-07-29T23:45:45","modified_gmt":"2017-07-29T18:15:45","slug":"vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                                        \n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                  Criminal Appeal No.485 of 2007\n\n     Vinayak son of Wamanrao\n     Thakare,\n     aged about 65 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n     occupation - Agriculture,\n     resident of Camp Area,\n     Amravati,     \n     Tq. & Distt. Amravati.              ....     Appellant.\n                                         [org. complainant]\n                  \n                              Versus\n\n     1.   The State of Maharashtra.\n\n     2.   Laxmikant Govindprasad\n      \n\n\n          Ganediwal,\n          aged about 64 years,\n   \n\n\n\n          occupation - business,\n          resident of New Swastik Nagar,\n          Badnera Road,\n          Amravati,\n\n\n\n\n\n          Tq. & Distt. Amravati.         ....          Respondents.\n          [Org. Accused]\n\n\n\n                              *****\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr. A.V. Gawande, Adv., for the appellant.\n\n     Mr. V.A. Thakre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the\n     respondent no.1.\n\n     Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2.\n                              *****\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::\n                                 2\n                               CORAM    :     A.H.JOSHI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                               Date     :     08th September,2008.\n\n     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n<\/pre>\n
     1.      This is an appeal against acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
     2.      Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Gawande for<\/p>\n
     the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.<\/p>\n
     A.V. Thakre for respondent no.1 and learned Advocate<\/p>\n
     Mr. V.M. Deshpande for respondent no.2.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      This Court had heard this case from time to<\/p>\n
     time.   After completing the hearing on merits, on 1st<\/p>\n
     September, 2008, this Court gave an indication to the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.2 that the eventuality of hearing the<\/p>\n
     accused on sentence is about to arise and, therefore,<\/p>\n
     directed the presence of accused on 8th September, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly, the accused is present.\n<\/p>\n
                            F a c t s<\/p>\n
     4.      Though the accused has denied any liability<\/p>\n
     and has averred that cheque was given to complainant,<\/p>\n
     certain matters are either admitted or proved, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
     [a]        Complainant had kept a sum of Rs.25,000-00<\/p>\n
                as a “Dharohar” with the respondent no.2.
\n     [b]        Admittedly, the respondent no.2 passed a<\/p>\n
                “Dharohar Chiththi”.\n<\/p>\n
     [c] [i]    various payments     made   by the           accused to
\n                the complainant,<\/p>\n
           [ii] service of notice,
\n           [iii]legality thereof etc., and
\n           [iv] payment by the accused to the complainant
\n                of Rs.27,400-00 between March, 1997 till<\/p>\n
                2002,<\/p>\n
     5.        The document of “Dharohar” is at Exh.22.                           It<\/p>\n
     consists of rate of interest, which is described as<\/p>\n
     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               “Rate of Interest – 1.6.”\n<\/p>\n
     6.        Apparently, it is ambiguous as to what is the<\/p>\n
     periodicity    of   agreed    rate     of      interest.           However,<\/p>\n
     parties have admitted that it is “1.6 per cent per<\/p>\n
     month.”\n<\/p>\n
     7.        It is also admitted that the amount paid by<\/p>\n
     the accused matches with the rate of interest payable<\/p>\n
     at the interval of every four months, as he has paid<\/p>\n
     periodically   an amount      of Rs.1600-00           at     the end         of<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span>
\n     every four months on most occasions.\n<\/p>\n
     8.       Accused     has   attempted           to      rely        upon       an<\/p>\n
     admission of the complainant that as the amount was<\/p>\n
     given   on   “Dharohar”,    it       did     not       bear       interest.\n<\/p>\n
     Reliance is placed on complainant’s admission in the<\/p>\n
     cross-examination.     The accused, however, admits in his<\/p>\n
     examination that he has paid towards interest, and also<\/p>\n
     admits execution and contents of Exh.22, the “Dharohar<\/p>\n
     Chitthi”.\n<\/p>\n
     9.       After hearing the parties, in paragraph no.15,<\/p>\n
     learned Trial Court has recorded a finding, which reads<\/p>\n
     as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              “15.     Thus, considering the evidence
\n              adduced by the accused, in my opinion the
\n              defence raised by accused is probable one.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              It can be said that on 3\/4\/2002 there was
\n              no debt in existence against the accused
\n              and therefore, it can be said that, the
\n              cheque in question Ex.23 was not issued in
\n              discharge of legally enforceable debt.
\n              Hence,   I   answer  point  No.1   in  the<\/p>\n
              negative.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [quoted from pages 77 and 78 of the paper-book                                of
\n     Criminal Appeal]<\/p>\n
     10.      While   the   learned       Trial     Judge       accepted          the<\/p>\n
     fact that the “Dharohar Chiththi” consists of a promise<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                        5<\/span>
\n     to pay interest at the rate of 1.6 at monthly rate,<\/p>\n
     yet, the Trial Court has impliedly held that the amount<\/p>\n
     of     Rs.   27,400-00    received    by    the      complainant            was<\/p>\n
     towards principal amount. The findings recorded in para<\/p>\n
     15 are seen to be totally contrary to the facts on<\/p>\n
     record which are duly proved, and are emerging from<\/p>\n
     admitted documents.\n<\/p>\n
     11.
\n                  The accused is a trader and he is supposed to<\/p>\n
     have maintained accounts. He has not brought forward<\/p>\n
     documents in his possession and control from which he<\/p>\n
     could have at least made an attempt to demonstrate as<\/p>\n
     to how the amount paid every four months was accounted<\/p>\n
     for     by   him.   Had   the     payment     been       made        towards<\/p>\n
     satisfaction of part of principal amount, there would<\/p>\n
     have been a corresponding reflection in the books, in<\/p>\n
     the account of the accused and it would have been shown<\/p>\n
     that the amount payable under “Dharohar” was wiped out<\/p>\n
     upon completion of refund of Rs.25,000-00. The accused<\/p>\n
     has,    however,    failed   to   bring     on    record        such      best<\/p>\n
     evidence in his control and possession.\n<\/p>\n
     12.          Moreover,    what    Trial     Court       has       done       is<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span>
\n     recording rival submissions in para nos. 13 and 14 and<\/p>\n
     dictum is recorded in para 15, but reasons thereto are<\/p>\n
     nowhere seen.\n<\/p>\n
     13.        This Court, therefore, holds that the findings<\/p>\n
     contained in para no.15 quoted in para no.9 above are<\/p>\n
     not just based on totally erroneous appreciation of<\/p>\n
     oral as well as documentary evidence, but are perverse.\n<\/p>\n
     14.<\/p>\n
                In the circumstances, the Judgment impugned,<\/p>\n
     therefore, deserves to be reversed and set aside. The<\/p>\n
     appeal is allowed and accused is convicted for offence<\/p>\n
     punishable    under   Section       138    of      the       Negotiable<\/p>\n
     Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
     15.        Learned Advocate for the accused and accused,<\/p>\n
     who is present, were called to make submission on the<\/p>\n
     sentence and I have heard them.\n<\/p>\n
     16.        The accused, who is present in the Court, at<\/p>\n
     this stage, sought time to negotiate and settle the<\/p>\n
     matter. The matter was accordingly adjourned for half<\/p>\n
     an hour.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
     17.        On   resuming        hearing,     parties          have       filed<\/p>\n
     Consent    Terms    which    are    taken    on    record        and     which<\/p>\n
     consist of following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
                “1] That the Respondent No.2 shall pay<\/p>\n
                Rs.45,000\/- (Rs. Fourty Five Thousand only)
\n                to   the  Appellant   as   full  and  final
\n                settlement in respect of dispute relating
\n                to the cheque in question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                2}   The amount of Rs.45,000\/- shall be
\n                paid by Respondent no.2 to Appellant on<\/p>\n
                The<\/p>\n
                24.12.2008 to the Appellant without fail.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       Appellant
\n                accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  shall   issue    receipt\n                     \n     18.        In   view of      these Consent Terms,                this Court\n\n<\/pre>\n
     makes an order in terms of Compromise Pursis and this<\/p>\n
     Court further directs that if the promise to pay amount<\/p>\n
     of Rs.45,000-00 [rupees forty-five thousand only] by<\/p>\n
     Demand Draft drawn on a Nationalized Bank on or before<\/p>\n
     24th December, 2008, is not fulfilled before due date,<\/p>\n
     in that event, the sentence shall be as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                In the event of failure to pay as per Consent<\/p>\n
     Terms, the accused is sentenced to suffer                          Rigorous<\/p>\n
     Imprisonment       for    two     years     and    pay       a     fine       of<\/p>\n
     Rs.50,000-00       [rupees      fifty   thousand       only],        and      in<\/p>\n
     default,    suffer       imprisonment       for    six      months.         The<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                     8<\/span>
\n     amount    of   fine,   if    recovered,      be     paid        to     the<\/p>\n
     complainant by way of compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                 -0-0-0-0-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     |hedau|<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:49:53 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008 Bench: A. H. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.485 of 2007 Vinayak son of Wamanrao Thakare, aged about 65 years, occupation – Agriculture, resident of Camp Area, Amravati, […]<\/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-154282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 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\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-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=\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-29T18:15:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T18:15:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1001,\"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\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T18:15:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 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":"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 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\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-29T18:15:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T18:15:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008"},"wordCount":1001,"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\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008","name":"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T18:15:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-son-of-wamanrao-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-8-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinayak Son Of Wamanrao vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 September, 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\/154282","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=154282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}