{"id":16974,"date":"2010-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-18T16:31:45","modified_gmt":"2017-05-18T11:01:45","slug":"shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                                                 \n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n                   Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2001\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     Shri Suresh son of Ramaji Pandav,\n     aged about 40 years,\n     occupation Tax Collector,\n     Nagpur Municipal Corporation,\n\n\n\n\n                                \n     Nagpur, resident of Bhande\n     Plot No. 114, Umrer Road,\n     Nagpur.        ig          Versus\n                                                  ....             Appellant.\n                  \n     The State of Maharashtra,\n     through Police Inspector,\n     Kotwali Police Station\n     and A.C.B., Nagpur.                          ....            Respondent.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                                 *****\n\n     Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv., for the appellant.\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr. D.B. Patel, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent.\n                              *****\n\n\n                                 CORAM       :     A.H. JOSHI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                 Date        :      2nd July, 2010.\n\n\n     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n\n     1.      The   appellant   was       charged      for      commission          of\n\n<\/pre>\n
     offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                                2<\/span>
\n     with Section 13 (2)           of the Prevention of Corruption Act,<\/p>\n
     1988,    and    has   been    convicted         and     sentenced         to    undergo<\/p>\n
     Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500\/-,<\/p>\n
     in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for the<\/p>\n
     former offence, and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and<\/p>\n
     a fine of Rs.600\/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for<\/p>\n
     three months for the latter offence.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         Prosecution has examined in all eleven witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
     3.<\/p>\n
                Panch witness one Shri Ramesh Ambadas Linge has<\/p>\n
     not been examined.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         PW    6           Shri     Somaji        Mahaguji         Meshram,         the<\/p>\n
     complainant, has turned hostile.\n<\/p>\n
     5.         Entire     reliance       of       the   prosecution         is     on    oral<\/p>\n
     testimony of PW 3           Shri Sadashiv Yeshwantrao Ingale.\n<\/p>\n
     6.         Crux of the matter is the demand of bribe amount,<\/p>\n
     its acceptance by the accused and recovery thereof from<\/p>\n
     him.\n<\/p>\n
     7.         In   so    far    as     the   demand      is    concerned,         PW    6<\/p>\n
     Somaji   Mahaduji      Meshram,       the      complainant,         has      stated      as<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                      3<\/span>
\n     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              2.      On the next day, I alone went to
\n             A.C.B. Office. Rizvi has given\/put 600 Rs. in
\n             my pocket. From Anti Corruption office, one<\/p>\n
             person, myself and staff members went to the
\n             Corporation office, by a jeep. The person who
\n             was accompanying with me and myself went to the
\n             office of Pandav. I have put 600\/ Rs. on his
\n             table, and asked him for the receipt.    He has<\/p>\n
             put 600\/ Rs. in his pocket. He has started to
\n             prepare the receipt, in the meantime, police
\n             came and accosted him.    Police has taken the
\n             search of Pandav.   The amount of Rs.600\/- was
\n             taken from him. Police has seized that amount.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Then we came back. No further incidence taken
\n             place.   The receipt now shown to me is of my
\n             name. ……………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [Quoted from page no. 114 of the Appeal paper-book.
\n     Underlining is done to highlight the important and relevant
\n     portion].\n<\/p>\n
     8.      This witness was cross-examined, and even in the<\/p>\n
     cross-examination,   he   has   reiterated    what      he     told      in<\/p>\n
     Examination-in-Chief.     The relevant portion from the cross-\n<\/p>\n
     examination is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
              13.     ………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             ……….It is not true that, I have given Rs.
\n             600\/- to Pandav. Pandav has counted the
\n             currency notes by both hands, and put the fold
\n             in his Manila pocket. It is not true that,
\n             accused said that now, I should not worry,
\n             there will be tax demand to the lady, soon.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n             Portion mark    K  from my statement now read\n\n\n\n\n\n             over         to        me         is        not\n<\/pre>\n
             correct. …………….. ……………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [Quoted from page no. 121 of the Appeal paper-book.
\n     Underlining is done to highlight the important and relevant
\n     portion].\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.           PW 3     Sadashiv Yeshwantrao Ingale, Panch witness,<\/p>\n
     states that he was not present when the demand was made by<\/p>\n
     the accused.         His version in Examination-in-Chief reads as<\/p>\n
     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                   2.      Myself and other trap party members
\n                  were waiting outside the office of the accused,<\/p>\n
                  after 10 to 15 minutes Somaji has given the
\n                  signal by rubbing and handkerchief on the face.
\n                  Myself and other trap party members entered to
\n                  the office. Both hands of the Pandav were
\n                  caught.   The accused before the court is the<\/p>\n
                  same. Rizvi has given his identity to Pandao.
\n                  I was with Rizvi. Rizvi has introduced us with
\n                  Mr. Pandav. Pandao was frightened. Rizvi asked<\/p>\n
                  him to be calm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [Quoted   from  page  no.46   of  the   Appeal  paper-book.
\n     Underlining is done to highlight the important and relevant<\/p>\n
     portion].\n<\/p>\n
     10.          In the Cross-examination, PW 3              Sadashiv Ingale<\/p>\n
     confirms what he has stated in Examination-in-Chief as to<\/p>\n
     talk,   if    any,    between   the   complainant     and    the     accused.\n<\/p>\n
     Text of cross-examination of PW 3              Sadashiv Ingale reads<\/p>\n
     as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                  4.         Cross by Shri Rizvi Adv., for accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           Pandao has not demanded anything in my
\n                  presence to Somaji or Kalpanabai. I do not know
\n                  the   talk  between   complainant,  Linge   and<\/p>\n
                  accused.   There were 20 to 25 clerks in the
\n                  office of accused and they were sitting
\n                  adjacent to each other. I cannot say from whose
\n                  custody Articles from Exh.37 were seized. I
\n                  cannot say whose signature is on Exh.37. I
\n                  cannot say from whom the seizure of Exh.38 was
\n                  made.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [Quoted from page no.48 of the Appeal paper-book].\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
     11.       Based       on   this     evidence,      learned      Adv.,      for     the<\/p>\n
     appellant      has    placed   reliance      on    following         judgments       in<\/p>\n
     support of his contention:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.          Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra
\n                 [AIR 1979 SC 1191],\n<\/p>\n
     2.          Arjun Bajirao Kale Vs. State of Mah. [2009 ALL<\/p>\n
                 MR (Cri) 85], and\n<\/p>\n
     3.          Manohar Dhondu Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra
\n                 & another [2006 (2) AIR Bom R 294].\n<\/p>\n
     12.       These judgments are relied upon to urge that:-\n<\/p>\n
                 [1]      Bare recovery of amount of bribe from the
\n                          accused   is     not    sufficient,        and      demand<\/p>\n
                          ought to be proved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 [2]      In the event of suspicion, the accused is
\n                          liable to be given benefit of doubt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13.       Probably another witness of Panchanama Mr. Ramesh<\/p>\n
     Ambadas     Linge      could   have    been       examined      to    prove      what<\/p>\n
     prosecution       desired,     however,      prosecution        has     failed       to<\/p>\n
     examine him.\n<\/p>\n
     14.       It is, thus, a clear case where demand was not<\/p>\n
     proved    by    the     complainant,        as    he   turned      hostile,        and<\/p>\n
     prosecution witnesses, who were examined, have also failed<\/p>\n
     to prove the demand as well the acceptance of bribe money.\n<\/p>\n
     15.       Thus, on what is shown by the prosecution, demand<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:50 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span>
\n     of amount of bribe by the accused is not proved.                           In the<\/p>\n
     result,   recovery   of    amount       of    bribe       from    the     accused<\/p>\n
     becomes insignificant.\n<\/p>\n
     16.       Moreover, it has come on record that complainant<\/p>\n
     had demanded     receipt   of    money       paid   and    the    accused       had<\/p>\n
     started writing and completed the writing of Tax Receipt<\/p>\n
     towards amount received by him.\n<\/p>\n
     17.<\/p>\n
               Collective effect of the evidence is that accused<\/p>\n
     is not guilty.\n<\/p>\n
     18.       Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is<\/p>\n
     liable to be set aside.         Appellant is acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
     19.       His Bail Bonds stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                     -0-0-0-0-\n<\/p>\n
     |hedau|<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:50 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010 Bench: A. H. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2001 Shri Suresh son of Ramaji Pandav, aged about 40 years, occupation Tax Collector, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, resident […]<\/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-16974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010 - 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\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-18T11:01:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-18T11:01:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":947,\"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\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-18T11:01:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010 - 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\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-18T11:01:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-18T11:01:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010"},"wordCount":947,"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\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010","name":"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-18T11:01:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suresh-son-of-ramaji-pandav-vs-unknown-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Suresh Son Of Ramaji Pandav vs Unknown on 2 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/16974","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=16974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16974\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}