{"id":154880,"date":"1979-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979"},"modified":"2017-10-28T01:36:41","modified_gmt":"2017-10-27T20:06:41","slug":"mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 564, \t\t 1979 SCR (2) 997<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHD. SHABIR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/01\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nKOSHAL, A.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  564\t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 997\n 1979 SCC  (1) 568\n\n\nACT:\n     Drugs and\tCosmeties  Act,\t 1940,\tS.  27,\t \"Stocks  or\nexhlbits for  sale\" interpreration-Possession simpliciter of\ndrug, whither sufficient for conviction.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The apellant  was apperhended  at the Bhuysawal railway\nstation, and  17 containers  with 17,000  white tablets were\nrecovered from\thim. The  tablets were\ttested by the public\nanalyst, and found to be not in accordance with the standard\nspecified under s. 18(a) of the Drugs and Cosmeties Act. The\nappelant  was\tduly  tried   and  convicted  by  the  Trial\nMagistrate, under  Sections 27(a)(ii) and 28 of the Act. The\nappellant pleaded  guilty, and in view of his young age, and\nthat it\t was his first offence, the Magistrate sentenced him\nonly till the rising of the Court. But in revision, the High\nCourt enhanced the sentence to one year's R.I.\n     It was  contended that as there was no evidence to show\nthat  the   tablets  were   \"for  sale\",   their  possession\nsimpliciter,  of   any\tquantity   whatsoever,\t would\t not\nconstitute an offence under s. 27.\n     Allowing the  appeal as regards the conviction under s.\n27, the Court,\n^\n     HELD:1. The absence of any cmma after the word \"stocks\"\nclearly indicates  that the  clause \"stocks  or exhibits for\nsale\" is  one indivisible whole and it contemplates not mere\nstocking the  drugs, but  stocking the drugs for the purpose\nof sale, and unless all the ingredients of this category are\nsatisfied, section  27 of  the Act  would not  be satisfied.\n[999 F-G]\n     2. There  is no evidence to show that the appellant had\neither got  these tablets  for sale,  or was selling them or\nhad stocked them for sale. Before a person can be liable for\nprosecution or conviction under s. 27(a)(i)(ii) read with s.\n18(c) of  the Act,  it must  be proved\tby  the\t prosecution\naffirmatively that  he was  manufacturing the drugs for sale\nor was\tselling the  same, or  had stocked them or exhibited\nthe articles  for sale.\t The possession\t simpliciter of\t the\narticles does  not appear  to be punishable under any of the\nprovisions of the Act. [999 G. 1000 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n103 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated\t12-2-1973 of  the  Bombay  High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nApplication No. 774\/72.\n<\/p>\n
     U. P. Singh for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J.-In this  appeal  by\t special  leave\t the
\nappellant has been convicted under section 27 (a) (i) of the
\nDrugs and Cosmeties
\n998<\/span>
\nAct, 1940  and sentenced  to rigorous  imprisonment for\t one
\nyear and  a fine of Rs. 200\/- as modified by the High Court.
\nThe trial  court also  convicted the appellant under section
\n27 (a)\t(ii) and  section 28  of the  Act  but\tno  separate
\nsentence was  awarded under  these counts.  The trial  court
\nhad, in\t fact, imposed\ta sentence of imprisonment only till
\nthe rising of the Court but the High Court in its revisional
\njurisdiction enhanced  the sentence  to one  year’s rigourus
\nimprisonment,  and  hence  this\t appeal\t by  sepcial  leave.
\nAccording to  the prosecution,\ton 5.5.1970  at about  11.30
\na.m. the  complainant Drugs  Inspector, Jalagaon  received a
\ntelephonic meassage  from the  Senior Railway  Sub-Inspector
\nBhusawal to the effect that the appellant had been caught at
\nthe Bhusawal  railway station  with  17\t plastic  containers
\ncontaining 17,000  white coloured tablets. On receiving this
\nmessage the  complainant went to Bhusawal railway station on
\nthe next day and after taking permission from the magistrate
\nhe took\t the sample of the tablets and sent it to the public
\nanalyst and after receiving his report, he filed a complaint
\nagainst the  appellant under  the various  sections  of\t the
\nDrugs and  Cosmetics Act, 1940. The learned trial magistrate
\nframed two  charges against  the appellant.  One charge\t was
\nunder section  27 (a)  (i) and\t27 (a) (ii) of the Drugs and
\nCosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the
\nother charge  related to section 28 read with section 18A of
\nthe Act.  The appellant\t pleaded guilty\t to the\t charge\t and
\nadmitted  all\tthe  facts  contained  in  the\tcharge.\t The
\nappellant, however,  stated  that  as  this  was  his  first
\noffence, he  promised not to commit any offence again and as
\nhe was\tan agriculturist  and a\t young man,  he pleaded\t for
\nmercy. The  prosecution in  support of the case examined the
\ncomplainant to prove the facts leading to the prosecution of
\nthe appellant.\tThe learned  magistrate acccpted the plea of
\nguilty and  convicted the  appellant  as  indicated  in\t the
\njudgment. The  High Court, however, enhanced the sentence as
\nmentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. U.  P. Singh appearing in support of the appeal has
\nraised a short point before us. He has submitted that taking
\nthe prosecution\t case at  its face  value, no offence can be
\nsaid to have been committed under section 27 (a) (i) or (ii)
\nof the\tAct. It\t was submitted that the ingredients required
\nby section  27\thave  not  been\t proved\t in  this  case\t and
\ntherefore, even\t if, the  accused pleaded  guilty, that will
\nnot enable  the prosecution  to convict\t him on\t his plea of
\nguilty. Section 18 (c) runs thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “manufacture\tfor  sale,  or\tsell,  or  stock  or
\n     exhibit for  sale, or  distribute any drug or cosmetic,
\n     except under, and in accordance with the conditions of,
\n     a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
999<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section 27 is the penal section under which the offence
\nis punishable and this section runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whoever himself  or by  any other  person on\t his
\n     behalf manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits
\n     for sale or distributes-(a) any drug-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)  deemed to  be misbranded\t under\tclause\t(a),
\n\t       clause (b),  clause (e),\t clause (d),  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (f) or clause (g) of secton 17 or adulterated
\n\t       under section 17B; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) without a  valid licence\t as  required  under
\n\t       caluse (c) of section 18.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     shall be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which
\n     shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
\n     ten years and shall also be liable to fine;
\n\t  Provided that\t the  Court  may,  for\tany  special
\n     reasons to\t be recorded in writing impose a sentence of
\n     imprisonment of less than one year;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  contended by  Mr. Singh  that in  order to fall
\nwithin\tthe,   ambit  of   this\t section  the  accused\tmust
\nmanufacture the\t drugs for sale or stock or exhibit for sale
\nor distribute the same. There is no evidence in this case to
\nshow that  the appellant  had any  shop or  that  he  was  a
\ndistributing agent.  All that  has been\t shown is  that\t the
\ntablets concerned were recovered from his possession. It was
\nurged that  possession simpliciter  of the  tablets  of\t any
\nquantity whatsoever  would not\tfall within  the mischief of
\nsection 27  of the  Act. On an interpretation of section 27,
\nit seems  to us\t that the  arguments of\t Mr. Singh  is\twell
\nfounded and  must prevail.  The words  used in\tsection\t 27,
\nnameely, “manufacture  for sale”,  sells, have a comma after
\neach clause  but there\tis no comma after the clause “stocks
\nor exhibits  for sale”.\t Thus the  section  postulate  three
\nseparate categories  of cases  and no other. (1) manufacture
\nfor sale;  (2) actual  sale; (3)  stocking or exhibiting for
\nsale or\t distribution of any drugs. The absence of any comma
\nafter the  word “stocks”  clearly indicates  that the clause
\n“stocks or  exhibits for  sale” is one indivisible whole and
\nit contemplates\t not merely  stocking the drugs but stocking
\nthe drugs  for the  purpose  of\t sale  and  unless  all\t the
\ningredients of\tthis category  are satisfied,  section 27 of
\nthe Act would not be attracted. In the present case there is
\nno evidence  to show that the appellant had either got these
\ntablets for sale or was selling them or had stocked them for
\nsale. Mr. Khanna appearing for the State, however, contended
\nthat the  word “stock”\tused in\t section is  wide enough  to
\ninclude the possession
\n1000<\/span>
\nof a  person with  the tablets and where such a person is in
\nthe possession\tof  tablets  of\t a  very  huge\tquantity,  a
\npresumption should be drawn that they were meant for sale or
\nfor distribution.  In our  opinion, the\t contenton is wholly
\nuntenable and  must be\trejected. The inter pretation sought
\nto be  placed by  Shri Khanna  does not flow from a true and
\nproper interpretation  of section  27. We,  therefore,\thold
\nthat before  a person  can  be\tliable\tfor  prosecution  or
\nconviction under  section 27  (a) (i) (ii) read with section
\n18 (c)\tof the\tAct, it\t must be  proved by  the prosecution
\naffirmatively that  he was  manufacturing the drugs for sale
\nor was selling the same or had stocked them or exhibited the
\narticles  for\tsale.  The  possession\tsimpliciter  of\t the
\narticles does  not appear  to be punishable under any of the
\nprovisions  of\t the  Act.   If,  therefore,  the  essential
\ningredients of\tsection 27  are not  satisfied the  plea  of
\nguilty cannot lead the Court to convict the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards\t the second  charge, it seems to us that the
\ncase of\t the appellant\tis clearly  covered by\tthe language
\ncontained in  section 18A  read with section 28. Section 18A
\nruns thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Every person,  not being  the manufacturer  of  a
\n     drug or  cosmetic or  his agent  for  the\tdistribution
\n     thereof,  shall,\tif  so\trequired,  disclose  to\t the
\n     Inspector the  same, address  and other  particulars of
\n     the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 28\t which makes no disclosure of 18A punishable
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 18A
\n     shall be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which
\n     may extend\t to one\t year, or with fine which may extend
\n     to five hundred rupees, or with both.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In this  case, there  is unchallengable evidence of the
\ncomplainant  that   after  recovering\ttablets\t  from\t the
\npossession of  the appellant,  he had  served  a  registered
\nnotice to  him to  disclose the\t source from  which  he\t had
\nacquired the  tablets and  despite this notice the appellant
\nrefused\t to  disclose  the  source.  Thus  the\tact  of\t the
\nappellant clearly  falls within\t the ambit  of section 28 of
\nthe Act. The trial court further did not impose any separate
\nsentence under\tthis section.  But that will not be a bar to
\nimposing a  proper  sentence  by  this\tCourt  provided\t the
\nsentence does  not exceed the sentence already imposed under
\nsection 27  (a) (i).  When the\tHigh  Court  was  moved\t for
\nenhancing the  sentence, it  was moved only under section 27\n<\/p>\n
(a) (ii) of the Act because under that
\n1001<\/span>
\nsection the  minimum sentence  to be  given was one year. As
\nthe High  Court was  not satisfied with the reasons given by
\nthe trial  court for  giving sentence  less than one year it
\nappears to  have enhanced  the sentence to one year. In view
\nof our\tfinding that  section 27 (a) (i) have no application
\nto this case, the charge on this count against the appellant
\nmust fail  and the  appellant  must  be\t acquitted  of\tthis
\ncharge. So  far as  section  28\t is  concerned\tthe  maximum
\npunishment which  can be  imposed  is  only  one  year.\t The
\nappellant is a young man and comes from a respectable family
\nand had\t made a\t very candid  confession before the Court in
\npleading guilty. In these circumstances, we therefore do not
\nthink that  any deterrent  sentence is called for. We would,
\ntherefore, uphold  the conviction  of  the  appellant  under
\nsection 28  but give  the sentence  till the  rising of\t the
\nCourt which he has already undergone. The appellant will now
\nbe released  forthwith. The  sentence of  a fine  of Rs. 200
\nwill be maintained under section 28 and not under section 27\n<\/p>\n
(a) (i).  The fine  if not paid shall be paid within a month
\nfrom today. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
M.R.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed in part.\n1002<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 564, 1979 SCR (2) 997 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: MOHD. SHABIR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/01\/1979 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA KOSHAL, A.D. CITATION: 1979 AIR […]<\/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-154880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979 - 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\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-27T20:06:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T20:06:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1604,\"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\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T20:06:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979 - 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\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-27T20:06:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979","datePublished":"1979-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T20:06:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979"},"wordCount":1604,"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\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979","name":"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T20:06:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-shabir-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-17-january-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Shabir vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 January, 1979"}]},{"@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\/154880","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=154880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}