{"id":163477,"date":"2001-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001"},"modified":"2018-08-16T23:45:23","modified_gmt":"2018-08-16T18:15:23","slug":"seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001","title":{"rendered":"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And … vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And … vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Thomas<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 176  of  2001\nAppeal (crl.)\t177\t of  2001\nSpecial Leave Petition (crl.)\t447\t of  2001\nSpecial Leave Petition (crl.)\t2311\t of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSEETA HEMCHANDRA SHASHITTAL AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/02\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nR.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      J\t U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
      THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n
       Leave granted.  Two  lady
\noctogenarians feel that there is not much time ahead of them
\nto  complete a trial which is yet to begin, and counting the
\nnumber\tof  years  which   the\tinvestigation  consumed\t for
\nfinalising the charge-sheet, the trial would not be anything
\nless  than a long drawn out one.  The two ladies  approached
\nthe High Court of Bombay, along with their kinsfolk, who too
\nare arrayed in the same case, one of them as the kingpin, to
\nget  the  criminal  case axed down at the threshold  of\t the
\ntrial  stage,  mainly  on  the\t ground\t of  long  delay  in
\ncompleting  the investigation.\tBut the High Court,  instead
\nof  snipping  down the case charge- sheeted,  dismissed\t the
\nwrit  petition\tsolely on the ground that in a similar\tcase
\nthe High Court refused to countenance similar contention.\n<\/p>\n
      The  facts,  barely  necessary for disposal  of  these
\nappeals,  can be stated thus:  Appellant Niranjan Hemchandra
\nShashittal  is a Government servant who attained the rank of
\nDeputy\tCommissioner  in the Department of  Prohibition\t and
\nExcise of the Maharashtra Government (he will hereinafter be
\nreferred  to as the appellant-public servant).\t Appellant
\nSeeta  Hemchandra Shashittal who is now aged 83, and  Shanta
\nSubarao\t Shirali,  who\tis now aged 81, are the\t mother\t and
\nmother-in-law of the appellant-public servant, respectively.
\nHis  wife  Anuradha  is\t also an appellant as  she  too\t was
\narrayed as accused.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the basis of some information received by the Anti
\nCorruption  Bureau (ACB for short) a preliminary enquiry was
\nconducted  and\ton 26.6.1986 an FIR was lodged\tagainst\t the
\nappellant-public  servant for the offence under Section 5(2)
\nof  the\t Prevention  of\t Corruption  Act,  1947.   This\t was
\nimmediately  followed by raids conducted at the places which
\nthe  ACB  officials  believed  to be the  buildings  of\t the
\nappellant-public  servant situated at Mumbai and Nasik.\t The
\nraids and certain other enquiries conducted by them revealed
\nthat  appellant-public\tservant\t had acquired  assets  worth
\nRs.33.44 lacs, in the year 1986, which were far in excess of
\nhis   known  sources  of   income.   The  investigation\t was
\ncompleted  by the Assistant Commissioner of Police  attached
\nto the ACB and he submitted the final report to his superior
\nwho  was the Director of ACB, in July 1990.  After the draft
\nfinal  report was approved the ACB approached the Government
\nof  Maharashtra\t on  6.4.1991\tfor  obtaining\tsanction  to
\nprosecute  the\tappellant-public  servant.   The  Government
\naccorded  sanction  on\t22.1.1993 and thereupon\t the  charge
\nsheet was laid against all the appellants on 4.3.1993 before
\nthe Special Court dealing with offences under the Prevention
\nof   Corruption\t Act.\tThe   offence  alleged\tagainst\t the
\nappellant-public  servant was under Section 13(2) read\twith
\nSection\t 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
\nThe offence alleged against the lady appellants was abetment
\nof  the\t main  offence pitted against  the  appellant-public
\nservant.\n<\/p>\n
      All  the appellants appeared before the Special  Judge
\non  14.1.1994  when  process was issued to them.   The\tnext
\nposting\t in  the  said court happened to be only  after\t the
\nlapse  of  one year.  On the said day appellants moved\tsome
\ninterlocutory  applications.   After  posting  the  case  on
\ndifferent  future  dates for disposal of such  interlocutory
\napplications,  the case moved at a slow pace and reached the
\nstage  of  hearing  preliminary\t arguments  for\t considering
\nwhether\t charge\t should\t be framed or not.  It\twas  in\t the
\naforesaid  context  that  the\tappellants  filed  the\twrit
\npetition  before  the High Court of Bombay on 15.4.1997\t for
\nquashing the criminal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
      The  main\t ground urged in the writ petition  is\tthat
\nthere  was  gross delay of 11 years for filing\tthe  charge-
\nsheet  and  that  such\tdelay violates\tArticle\t 21  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tAccording to the appellants, such delay\t had
\ncaused\tunbearable mental trauma, fear psychosis and tension
\nto  them  as  well as to the other members  of\tthe  family,
\nbesides\t tremendous  humiliation  and defamation  heaped  on
\nthem.\tThey  also said that the abnormal delay\t had  caused
\ncolossal  financial losses to the appellants and the  impact
\nof  it had shattered the prospects of personal, professional
\nand business development of the members of the family.\n<\/p>\n
      A\t Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
\npetition  merely  because two other writ petitions filed  by
\nsome others, in some other cases were dismissed.  The entire
\njudgment  of the Division Bench in the present writ petition
\nis  in a cryptic form and the same is extracted below:\t In
\nview  of  the common order passed in Criminal Writ  Petition
\nNo.1642\t of 1999 and Criminal Writ Petition No.1742 of 1999,
\nthis petition stands disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      As a copy of the said common order was produced by the
\nappellants we could peruse the same, but the fact situations@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nin  those other cases were vastly different from the present
\ncase,  except  the common factor that offences alleged\twere
\nunder  the  provisions of the Prevention of Corruption\tAct.
\nOf  course,  learned counsel for the appellants made a\tplea
\nbefore\tus to remand the writ petition to the High Court for
\nfresh disposal.\t But we refrain from adopting that shortcut,
\nlest, that would further protract the already delayed case.\n<\/p>\n
      Dr.   Rajeev  Dhawan,  who  argued for  the  old\tlady
\nappellants,  divided the post FIR period of the present case
\ninto  three different stages.  First is the period from 1986
\nto  1990  which\t is  claimed  to be  the  period  taken\t for
\ninvestigation.\t Second is from 1990 to 1993, which is\tsaid
\nto  be\tthe  period  taken for\tobtaining  sanction  of\t the
\nGovernment  for laying charge-sheet before the court.  Third
\nis  the period from 1994 till the date of filing of the writ
\npetition  in  the  High\t Court in  1997,  during  which\t the
\nprogress in the trial court was slower than creeping through
\nthe process and consequently no charge could be framed until
\nthe  appellants\t filed\tthe writ petition  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
      This  Court  has emphasised, time and again, the\tneed
\nfor  speeding up the trial as undue delay in culminating the
\ncriminal  proceedings  is antithesis to\t the  Constitutional
\nprotection  enshrined  in  Article 21 of  the  Constitution.
\nNonetheless  the  court\t has  to   view\t it  from  pragmatic
\nperspectives  and the question of delay cannot be considered
\nentirely  from an academic angle.  In other words, the\tHigh
\nCourt  and  this Court, when approached by accused to  quash
\nproceedings  on the ground of delay, must consider each case
\non  its own facts.  Unfortunately the delay has so permeated
\nin  our legal system that at all levels tardiness has become
\nthe leitmotif.\tSuch a malady has been judicially reprobated
\nand  efforts  have been made to curtail the delay which\t has
\ndeveloped as a systemic canker.\n<\/p>\n
      For  the\tfirst  time the Code of\t Criminal  Procedure
\nprovided  periods for completing investigation in regard  to
\noffences  punishable  with sentences upto  imprisonment\t not
\nexceeding three years.\tProvisions have been incorporated in
\nChapter\t 36 of the Code imposing a legal bar on the court to
\ntake  cognizance  of  such offences after the lapse  of\t the
\nperiod\t of  limitation\t fixed\tin  respect   of   different
\ncategories  of\toffences  the punishment of which  does\t not
\nexceed\tthe aforesaid limit.  However, the offences relating
\nto  corruption were among those excluded from the purview of
\nsuch periods of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Hussainara Khatoon and ors.  vs.  Home  Secretary,
\nState  of  Bihar<\/a> {1980 (1) SCC 81} the entire focus made  by
\nthe  three-Judge Bench was on the trial stage.\tAn  advocate
\nof this Court filed a habeas corpus petition on the basis of
\nnewspaper   reports  that   several  under-trial  prisoners,
\nincluding  women  and  children, were languishing  in  Bihar
\njails\tfor  several  years   awaiting\ttrial.\t Hence\t the
\nconsideration  in  that\t case  was  confined  to  the  delay
\ninvolved in trials.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was  in State of Andhra Pradesh vs.  PV  Pavithran<\/a>
\n[1990(2) SCC 340] that delay in completing investigation was
\nrecognised  as\ta ground for quashing criminal\tproceedings.
\nThe  following observation was made by the learned Judges in
\nthe said decision:\n<\/p>\n
      There  is\t no denying the fact that a  lethargic\tand
\nlackadaisical  manner  of  investigation  over\ta  prolonged
\nperiod\tmakes  an accused in a criminal proceedings to\tlive
\nevery  moment under extreme emotional and mental stress\t and
\nstrain\tand  to\t remain\t always\t  under\t a  fear  psychosis.
\nTherefore,  it\tis  imperative that if\tinvestigation  of  a
\ncriminal  proceedings staggers on with tardy pace due to the
\nindolence  or  inefficiency  of\t  the  investigating  agency
\ncausing\t unreasonable  and  substantial delay  resulting  in
\ngrave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the court as
\nthe  protector\tof  the right and personal  liberty  of\t the
\ncitizen\t will  step in and resort to the drastic  remedy  of
\nquashing further proceedings in such investigation.\n<\/p>\n
      Nonetheless,  learned Judges hastened to add that\t it
\nis  not possible to formulate inflexible guidelines or rigid
\nprinciples  of uniform application for speedy  investigation
\nor  to\tstipulate any arbitrary period of limitation  within
\nwhich investigation in a criminal case should be completed.\n<\/p>\n
      The   matter   gained  further\tattention   when   a
\nConstitution  Bench of this Court has made a glimpse of\t the
\ndelay  involved in criminal proceedings at all stages  (A.R.
\nAntulay\t vs.   R.S.  Nayak<\/a> – 1992 (1) SCC 225).\t Though\t the
\nbackground  for\t the  reference\t made in that  case  to\t the
\nConstitution  Bench  pertained\tto the delay  in  the  trial
\nstages,\t the Bench has made clear references to the delay in
\nthe  investigation stage also.\tIn paragraph 81 the  learned
\nJudges have observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
      Now, can it be said that a law which does not provide
\nfor  a reasonably prompt investigation, trial and conclusion
\nof a criminal case is fair, just and reasonable?  It is both
\nin the interest of the accused as well as the society that a
\ncriminal  case is concluded soon.  If the accused is guilty,
\nhe  ought  to  be  declared so.\t  Social  interest  lies  in
\npunishing  the\tguilty and exoneration of the  innocent\t but
\nthis  determination (of guilt or innocence) must be  arrived
\nat   with  reasonable  despatch\t   reasonable  in  all\tthe
\ncircumstances  of the case.  Since it is the accused who  is
\ncharged\t with the offence and is also the person whose\tlife
\nand\/or\tliberty\t is at peril, it is but fair to say that  he
\nhas  a\tright to be tried speedily.  Correspondingly, it  is
\nthe  obligation\t of  the State to respect  and\tensure\tthis
\nright.\t It needs no emphasis to say, the very fact of being
\naccused\t of  a crime is cause for concern.  It\taffects\t the
\nreputation  and\t the  standing\tof   the  person  among\t his
\ncolleagues  and in the society.\t It is a cause for worry and
\nexpense.   It  is  more so, if he is arrested.\tIf it  is  a
\nserious\t offence,  the\tman  may stand\tto  lose  his  life,
\nliberty, career and all that he cherishes.\n<\/p>\n
      While  laying  down the propositions the\tConstitution
\nBench encompassed investigation as part of the amplitude for
\nregistering speedy trial.  At the same time the bench struck
\na  note\t of caution that a realistic and practical  approach
\nshould\t be  made  regard  being   had\tto  all\t  attending
\ncircumstances,\tincluding  the nature of the  offences,\t the
\nnumber\tof accused and witnesses etc. Each case, therefore,
\nmust  be  considered  on  its\town  facts,  without   being
\npedantically  persuaded merely because delay had  occasioned
\nduring investigation stage.\n<\/p>\n
      Though  learned  Senior Counsel made reference to\t the
\ndecision of this Court in Rajdeo Sharma vs.  State of Bihar,<\/a>
\n[1998  (7) SCC 507, as well as in 1999 (7) SCC 604]  wherein
\nthe  earlier  directions  were\t slightly  modified,   those
\ndirections  need  be applied during the post charge  period.
\nThe trial was explained in the said decision as covering the
\nperiod commencing from recording the plea of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
      With  the\t above\tlegal position in mind\twe  have  to
\nanalysis this case to find out whether the delay involved in
\nthe  investigation  have impaired the fundamental rights  of
\nthe  appellants\t which\tis enshrined in Article\t 21  of\t the
\nConstitution.  Viewing the investigation in this case from a
\nrealistic angle it has spread over to a period of four years
\ni.e.\tfrom  June  1986  to   July  1990.   The   Assistant
\nCommissioner  of Police attached to the ACB who has sworn to
\nan  affidavit  before  the  High  Court\t in  answer  to\t the
\naverments  contained  in the Writ Petition, has stated\tthat
\nthe  case  involves  voluminous records as well as  a  large
\nnumber\tof  properties which are situated at various  places
\nand that hundreds of documents regarding shares, debentures,
\nfixed  deposits\t and  receipts\tpertaining  to\thundreds  of
\ncompanies  were\t also to be scrutinized.  According  to\t him
\nsuch a heavy work turned out to be a time consuming job.  It
\nis  not disputed that the documents sought to be produced by
\nthe  prosecution run into fourteen large volumes.  Officials
\nof  the\t ACB  had  to  take a lot of  time  to\tconduct\t the
\ninvestigation  relating\t to every item of assets  which\t was
\nsuspected to be belonging to the appellant public servant.\n<\/p>\n
      If  this was a case which needed no sanction from\t the
\ngovernment for submitting the charge-sheet before the court,
\nthe  investigating agency could have filed the\tcharge-sheet
\nat  the end of four years from the lodgment of FIR.  In this
\ncontext, it is apposite to refer to the legislative fixation
\nof  periods for taking cognizance of different offences.  An
\noffence\t  punishable  with  imprisonment   for\ta  term\t not
\nexceeding  three years has to be taken cognizance of by\t the
\ncourt\tconcerned  within  three  years\t  of  the  date\t  of
\nregistration  of  the  FIR.  Of course, this is\t subject  to
\ncertain\t other\texceptions.   As pointed  out  earlier,\t the
\nlegislature  has  not  chosen  to fix  any  period  to\ttake
\ncognizance  of\tthe  offence if\t the  punishment  prescribed
\nthereto\t exceeds imprisonment for three years.\tThe  offence
\nalleged\t  against   the\t appellant    is   punishable\twith
\nimprisonment   up  to  seven   years.\tThese  aspects\twere
\nhighlighted  by\t us for the purpose of satisfying  ourselves
\nthat  criminal\tproceedings pending against  the  appellants
\ncannot\tbe quashed on the mere ground that the investigation
\nconsumed a period of four years.\n<\/p>\n
      The  delay  taken\t for  obtaining\t sanction  from\t the
\nGovernment  cannot  be\tattributed   to\t the   investigating
\nofficers.   As pointed out earlier, sanction was applied for
\non   6.4.1991  and  the\t  Government  accorded\tsanction  on
\n21.2.1993.  Though we are unable to approve the said time of
\ntwo  years  for\t the Government to decide  the\tquestion  of
\ngiving\tsanction, considering the number of desks over which
\nthe  matter  had to pass, and the voluminous records  to  be
\nstudied\t at  all levels, we hesitate to hold that  the\tsaid
\ninterval  was  so  unreasonably\t long\tas  to\taffect\t the
\nfundamental  right of the appellants.  The charge-sheet\t was
\nlaid within a few days of obtaining the sanction.\n<\/p>\n
      For the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to quash
\nthe  criminal  prosecution  merely on the  ground  of  delay@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nhighlighted by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      Nonetheless, we are told that the only offence alleged
\nagainst\t the  two  senescent lady appellants  is  that\tthey@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nabetted\t the  public  servant to commit\t the  offence  under
\nSection\t 13(2)\tof  the P.C.  Act.  For two reasons  we\t are
\ndisposed  to quash the criminal proceedings as against those
\ntwo ladies.  First is, the materials are too insufficient to
\nprove  that  those two old ladies intentionally abetted\t the
\npublic\t  servant   in\t  acquiring    assets\twhich\t are
\ndisproportionate  to his known source of income.  If that is
\nthe  position, why should those two old ladies be  compelled
\nto  embark upon a trial which, in all probabilities,  cannot
\nend  in\t conviction  against them, even\t assuming  that\t the
\noctogenarian ladies would be able to survive till the end of
\nthe trial.  Second is, the trial is not likely to end within
\none  or two years.  Even if the Special Court would strictly
\nadhere\tto  the\t directions issued by this Court  in  Rajdeo
\nSharmas\t case  (supra)\twe   reasonably\t foresee  that\tthe
\nprosecution  would  be\table to complete the  evidence\tonly
\nwithin\tthe  farthest time permitted in Rajdeo Sharma as  we
\ncan  have  a glimpse of the volume of documents and  of\t the
\nevidence  to be adduced by the prosecution.  We feel that it
\nwould  be unfair and unreasonable to compel the two  ladies,
\nwho  by\t the  advancement  of old age  would  possibly\thave
\nalready\t crossed  into\tgeriatric stage, to stand  the\tlong
\ntrial  having no reasonable prospect of ultimate  conviction
\nagainst\t them.\t We are, therefore, inclined to delink\tthem
\nfrom the array of accused and quash the criminal prosecution
\nso far as those two ladies are concerned.  We do so.\n<\/p>\n
      Thus,  the appeals filed by the two lady appellants  –
\nSeeta  Hemchandra  Shashittal and Shanta Subarao  Shirali  –
\nwould  stand allowed but the appeals filed by the appellant-
\npublic\tservant Niranjan Hemchandra Shashittal and his\twife
\nAnuradha Niranjan Shashittal, would stand dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And … vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001 Author: Thomas Bench: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 176 of 2001 Appeal (crl.) 177 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (crl.) 447 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (crl.) 2311 of 2000 PETITIONER: SEETA HEMCHANDRA SHASHITTAL AND […]<\/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-163477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSeeta Hemchandra Shashittal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001 - 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\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-16T18:15:23+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And … vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T18:15:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2753,\"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\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001\",\"name\":\"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-16T18:15:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And … vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001 - 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\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-16T18:15:23+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And … vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001","datePublished":"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T18:15:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001"},"wordCount":2753,"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\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001","name":"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-16T18:15:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seeta-hemchandra-shashittal-and-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-on-13-february-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal And … vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February, 2001"}]},{"@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\/163477","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=163477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}