{"id":157305,"date":"2009-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-02T03:09:03","modified_gmt":"2017-07-01T21:39:03","slug":"maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n    Ladda\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1378 OF 2003\n\n\n        1. Maruti G. Gund, age 70\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n           years,   resident   at\n           Tungat,       District\n           Solapur.\n        2. Chandrakant       Babu\n           Bitkar @ Chandrakant\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n           Dattatraya Godke, age\n           52 years, residing at\n                           \n           Tungat,       District\n           Solapur.\n        3. Shahaji          Trimbak\n                          \n           Bhadakwad,     age    55\n           years,    residing    at\n           Bhimnagar,       Angaar,\n           Taluka Mohol, District\n           Sholapur.\n          \n\n\n              Appellants\/Ori.Accused\n                        Nos. 1 to 3.\n       \n\n\n\n                                 Versus\n\n        1. The     Inspector     of\n\n\n\n\n\n           Customs      Preventive\n           Narcotic Cell, 41-A,\n           ICE    House,     Sasoon\n           Road,Pune.\n        2. The      State        of\n\n\n\n\n\n           Maharashtra.\n                       Respondents.\n\n    Shri Prakash Naik, Advocate with Ganesh Bhujbal,Advocate\n    for the Appellants.\n\n    Mr, H. V. Mehta, for the Respondent No.1.\n    Mr A.S. Shitole, A.P.P.for the Respondent No.2-State.\n\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::\n                                               2\n\n\n\n                                                     CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                     DATE : 11TH JUNE,2009.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT.\n<\/p>\n
    1.               Present appeal is preferred by all three original<\/p>\n
    accused against their conviction in Sessions Case No. 245<\/p>\n
    of 2002 in the matter of offences punishable under Sections<\/p>\n
    8 (c), 20 (b)(ii) (c) and also for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
    of    the    N.D.P.S.Act,<\/p>\n
    under Section 29 r.w.s. 8 (c) and also 27 (A) r.w.s. 8 (c)<\/p>\n
                                     1985    on    which    count     accused         were<\/p>\n
    sentenced for ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac<\/p>\n
    each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment<\/p>\n
    for one year each. The said impugned judgment and order<\/p>\n
    came to be passed on 24.9.2003 by the Special Court under<\/p>\n
    the     Narcotic         Drugs   and     Psychotropic       Substances            Act,<\/p>\n
    (N.D.P.S.Act for short) at Sholapur.\n<\/p>\n
    2.               Being   aggrieved      by    the   impugned      judgment          and<\/p>\n
    order, the present appeal came to be filed before this<\/p>\n
    Court and yesterday rival arguments were heard at length.\n<\/p>\n
    Prior       to    appreciating     such       arguments,     certain         factual<\/p>\n
    position         and   the   materials       produced   before      the      Special<\/p>\n
    Court as to the              case of the prosecution i.e. Customs<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Department, can be narrated, as under:-\n<\/p>\n
    3.            The    Customs    Department     on   17.7.2002           received<\/p>\n
    information         regarding   one    Chandrakant      Dattatraya          Ghodke<\/p>\n
    (    i.e.    Accused    no.2)    resident      of   post    Tungat,         taluka<\/p>\n
    Pandharpur, District Sholapur had stored eight gunny bags<\/p>\n
    of Ganja weighing about 200.5 kgs in the residence of one<\/p>\n
    Shahaji Trimbak Bhadakwad, accused no.3 at and post                          Angar<\/p>\n
    village,      Taluka    Mohol, District        Sholapur.        In the         said<\/p>\n
    information it was mentioned that if the said premises is<\/p>\n
    raided       on   17.7.2002
\n                                  igduring      night    time,<\/p>\n
    Preventive Narcotic Cell can recover the Ganja. The said
\n                                                                    the       Customs<\/p>\n
    information was recorded in writing in the form DRI-I; and<\/p>\n
    was placed before the Superiors and requisite permission<\/p>\n
    was obtained for conducting the raid at the given premises.\n<\/p>\n
    As such on the next date i.e., on 18.7.2002 at the said<\/p>\n
    given       premises    at   Post     Angar,   Taluka      Mohol,       District<\/p>\n
    Sholapur, purported to be the premises belonging to accused<\/p>\n
    no.3,    raid     was   conducted     and   contraband      Ganja,        totally<\/p>\n
    weighing 200 kilograms and 500 grams,                kept in seven gunny<\/p>\n
    bags and one polythene bag, was found. Requisite samples<\/p>\n
    were taken out in the presence of panch witnesses including<\/p>\n
    P.W.1 panch. Said search was conducted at the early hours<\/p>\n
    of   18.7.2002       just    after    midnight.     Usual     procedure          was<\/p>\n
    adopted as per the requirements of the conducting the trap<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    under N.D.P.S.Act. At the time of such search and seizure,<\/p>\n
    accused no.1 was found in the premises.                 He was apprehended<\/p>\n
    and subsequently his statements were recorded u\/s 67 of<\/p>\n
    N.D.P.S.Act At this juncture, it must be mentioned that<\/p>\n
    contents      of   such    statements       are   significant           and      also<\/p>\n
    relevant so far as the establishment of case against the<\/p>\n
    accused persons is concerned. as through such statements<\/p>\n
    names of accused nos. 2 and 3 were revealed including their<\/p>\n
    roles inasmuch as accused no.2 was the employer of accused<\/p>\n
    no.1 and accused no.1 was working as a servant and selling<\/p>\n
    the Ganja on retail basis from the said premises for and on<\/p>\n
    behalf of accused no.2. It was also revealed through such<\/p>\n
    statements and also through the statements of accused no.2<\/p>\n
    who was subsequently put under arrest as to the involvement<\/p>\n
    of accused no.3 as the person who had engaged accused no.2<\/p>\n
    to deal with the bulk Ganja.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            After the first search and seizure as mentioned<\/p>\n
    above   and    after      revealing   the    address       of     the     premises<\/p>\n
    belonging to accused no.2 at Pandharpur, said house was<\/p>\n
    also searched on 31.7.2002 and narcotic contraband Ganja<\/p>\n
    weighing       2   kgs      was   recovered       in   presence          of    panch<\/p>\n
    witnesses      under a panchnama.         During the said house search<\/p>\n
    panchnama, one old woman was found and her statement was<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
    also recorded.        Requisite samples were taken and samples<\/p>\n
    and    contraband     were       taken       charge       of   and      during         the<\/p>\n
    investigation the samples were sent for chemical analysis<\/p>\n
    through carrier P.W.no.5, an employee from the office of<\/p>\n
    the Customs Department.              C.A.,report was obtained which<\/p>\n
    show the samples show positive for the presence of Ganja<\/p>\n
    being a narcotic contraband.\n<\/p>\n
    5.             It is admitted position that during the first<\/p>\n
    raid conducted on 18.7.2002              only accused no.1 was present<\/p>\n
    and was apprehended.\n<\/p>\n
                               ig   However, certain documents connecting<\/p>\n
    accused no.3 with the said premises were recovered such as<\/p>\n
    the Ration Card in his name.                  During the said search and<\/p>\n
    seizure one receipt was found showing the name of accused<\/p>\n
    no.1   Maruti     Gund    issued    by       some   sugar      mill      of     Muldhar<\/p>\n
    village, Taluka Mohol,District Sholapur. The said documents<\/p>\n
    were seized by the raiding party members.\n<\/p>\n
    6.             It is also the factual position during the search<\/p>\n
    and seizure of the house            of one Mangal alias Suwarna Raju<\/p>\n
    Chavan    at    Akulj,    Tq.    Pandharpur which              was conducted             on<\/p>\n
    31.7.2002 though accused no.2 was not present when 2 kgs<\/p>\n
    Ganja was seized, the statement of a woman, Mangal alias<\/p>\n
    Suwarna    Raju,    who    was    found        in     a    room,      connects         the<\/p>\n
    accused no.2 with the room. So also during investigation it<\/p>\n
    was found out that the owner of that room had rented the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
    same to accused no.2 and said owner Shri Shelke has been<\/p>\n
    examined as P.W.3. Again it may be mentioned that so far as<\/p>\n
    whereabouts and residence of accused no.2 is concerned at<\/p>\n
    Tungat,       Taluka      Pandharpur,     District      Sholapur,         there       is<\/p>\n
    substantive evidence of P.W.4, one Gram Sevak of the said<\/p>\n
    village who identified and connects accused no.2 with the<\/p>\n
    premises at Tungat.            At this juncture, it must be mentioned<\/p>\n
    that    the     secret       information      received       by     the      Customs<\/p>\n
    contains the name of said accused no.2 Chandrakant Ghodke,<\/p>\n
    resident<\/p>\n
    Sholapur.\n<\/p>\n
                   of     post   \n                                  Tungat,     Taluka      Pandharpur,          District\n                                \n<\/pre>\n
    7.            Next prosecution witness is P.W.5 carrier of the<\/p>\n
    samples    to       the   office   of the     Chemical Analyser              (C.A.).\n<\/p>\n
    P.W.no.6 is Rural Development Officer and who identified<\/p>\n
    accused no.3 as the resident of the house at Solapur and<\/p>\n
    which    was    raided       in    the   first      search   and      seizure         of<\/p>\n
    18.7.2002 by customs.              P.W.7 is also the another witness<\/p>\n
    Nursing Mhatre examined in order to connect accused no.3<\/p>\n
    with the said house at Solapur and which bear No. 628 and<\/p>\n
    the    said    number      appearing     on   the    said    house      which       was<\/p>\n
    searched at early hours of 18.7.2002.                   P.W.8 is the godown<\/p>\n
    incharge in whose custody the bulk contraband was given and<\/p>\n
    the    material      was     stored.     P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11 are the<\/p>\n
    officers from the Customs Department and virtually they<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
    narrated the same story as to the seizure                        at both the<\/p>\n
    premises and connection of all three accused with the said<\/p>\n
    search and seizure of 200            kgs     and 500 grams Ganja and<\/p>\n
    connection of accused no.2 with the seizure of 2 kgs Ganja<\/p>\n
    on 31.7.2002.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          Finding      the    substantive       evidence           of      these<\/p>\n
    prosecution witnesses and mainly placing reliance on the<\/p>\n
    statements of the witnesses recorded under section 67 of<\/p>\n
    N.D.P.S. Act and also the statements of the accused persons<\/p>\n
    so recorded under the said Act and being relevant in the<\/p>\n
    matter, learned Special Court came to the conclusion as to<\/p>\n
    the involvement of          three accused in the offences charged<\/p>\n
    and accordingly convicted them. At this juncture, it must<\/p>\n
    be mentioned that the charge was framed against all three<\/p>\n
    accused vide Exh.3 on 27.2.2003.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          During    the    arguments     learned     Advocate          for     the<\/p>\n
    appellant-accused raised the main objection and exception<\/p>\n
    to the substantive evidence of both the panch witnesses. It<\/p>\n
    is pointed out by referring to the answers given by these<\/p>\n
    witnesses      through      their   cross-examinations,             as    to     the<\/p>\n
    pancha P.W.1 was relative of the raiding party member, P.W.\n<\/p>\n
    10   Officer    Ram   Tonpe.    So       also,   P.W.2     in      the      cross-\n<\/p>\n
    examination admitted that Inspector Tonpe had seized 2 kgs<\/p>\n
    Ganja from the house of accused no.2 and as such said panch<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
    had acted on the directions of said Tonpe. By pointing out<\/p>\n
    such evidence of panch witnesses P.W.Nos. 1 and 2, it is<\/p>\n
    strongly submitted that their evidence cannot be accepted<\/p>\n
    as trustworthy and as such the search and seizure on both<\/p>\n
    the relevant dates            is required to be discarded. It is also<\/p>\n
    further argued that in fact for want of absence of accused<\/p>\n
    Nos. 2 and 3 during both the said searches and seizures,<\/p>\n
    said accused Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held responsible and<\/p>\n
    cannot be linked with such seizures of Ganja. It is also<\/p>\n
    argued<\/p>\n
    brought
\n              on<\/p>\n
              on
\n                    behalf<\/p>\n
                        record<\/p>\n
                                 of<\/p>\n
                                 in
\n                                      the   appellants<\/p>\n
                                      the substantive
\n                                                         that        nowhere<\/p>\n
                                                              evidence of
\n                                                                                    it<\/p>\n
                                                                                     P.W.2
\n                                                                                           is<\/p>\n
    panch that for what purpose he had been to the place of the<\/p>\n
    raid at village Angar at the house of accused No.3 Shahaji<\/p>\n
    after mid-night on 18.7.2002 i.e.,at early hours and as<\/p>\n
    such the presence of said panch during such search and<\/p>\n
    seizure can be termed as concocted, further argued.\n<\/p>\n
    10.             Counter to the aforesaid                 arguments, learned<\/p>\n
    A.P.P.,for the Customs Department placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
    ratio propounded by the following authority.\n<\/p>\n
          2009 Cr.LJ 1752 Mahipati and Ors vs. State of M.P.\n<\/p>\n
    11.            It    is   submitted     that   if   at    all     there       is     any<\/p>\n
    relationship between the Officer and the panch the same in<\/p>\n
    itself cannot be treated as a ground for disbelieving the<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    panch witness.              In other words, without there being any<\/p>\n
    foundation          led    for     affecting       the     credibility               of     the<\/p>\n
    witness and such foundation must be by way of appropriate<\/p>\n
    materials brought on record by the accused, the testimony<\/p>\n
    of such panch witness cannot be discarded.\n<\/p>\n
    12.            In the opinion of this Court, mere admission of a<\/p>\n
    panch witness as to having relation with one of the raiding<\/p>\n
    party members may not per se affect the credibility of the<\/p>\n
    said     witness          and    when    there     is     another         corroborative<\/p>\n
    evidence by way of<\/p>\n
                                     statements recorded under Section 67 of<\/p>\n
    the N.D.P.S.,Act connecting the accused persons with the<\/p>\n
    offence     of       storing       and     possessing       narcotic            contraband<\/p>\n
    Ganja.\n<\/p>\n
    13.            On    going        through    the    reasonings           given       by     the<\/p>\n
    Special Court after assessing the substantive evidence of<\/p>\n
    the prosecution witnesses, it can be said that the Trial<\/p>\n
    Court    had     rightly         reached     to    the    conclusion           as    to     the<\/p>\n
    involvement          of     the     accused       persons        for      the       offences<\/p>\n
    charged.       Needless to mention that in order to establish<\/p>\n
    the guilt of the accused there need not be hundred percent<\/p>\n
    proof required to be established but what is required to be<\/p>\n
    proved is the proof which is beyond reasonable doubt so as<\/p>\n
    to    connect       the     accused      persons         with    offences           charged.\n<\/p>\n
    Considering          the        cumulative       effect     of      the       substantive<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
    evidence brought before the Trial Sessions Court it must be<\/p>\n
    said that the prosecution has gathered the evidence which<\/p>\n
    has reached to that standard of proof, which is beyond<\/p>\n
    reasonable doubt to link the accused-appellants with the<\/p>\n
    offences   charged.   Under   these   circumstances,         there        is<\/p>\n
    nothing to view the impugned order differently or to alter<\/p>\n
    the same in any manner and consequently the present appeal<\/p>\n
    must fail and accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
    14.        In the result, the following order is passed.\n<\/p>\n
                           ig ORDER:\n<\/p>\n
               Criminal Appeal No. 1378 stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                              (A.R.JOSHI,J)<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:38:29 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009 Bench: A. R. Joshi 1 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1378 OF 2003 1. Maruti G. Gund, age 70 years, resident at Tungat, District Solapur. 2. Chandrakant Babu Bitkar @ Chandrakant Dattatraya […]<\/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-157305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009 - 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\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-01T21:39:03+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\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T21:39:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1828,\"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\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T21:39:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009 - 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\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-01T21:39:03+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\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T21:39:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009"},"wordCount":1828,"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\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009","name":"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T21:39:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maruti-g-gund-vs-the-inspector-of-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maruti G. Gund vs The Inspector Of on 11 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/157305","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=157305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}