{"id":171588,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-16T09:44:03","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T04:14:03","slug":"and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
    revn171.08.odt                                                                                                        1\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                      \n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.171\/2008\n                                             AND\n                                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.172\/2008\n\n    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.171\/2008\n\n\n    APPLICANT:-                   Shyamrao s\/o Narayanrao Borghare,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                                  aged 48 years, Occu. Private Service,\n                                  R\/o Plot No.206, Janki Nagar,\n                                               \n                                  Ring Road, Nagpur.\n\n                                            ...VERSUS...\n                                              \n    NON-APPLICANT:- Narendramal s\/o Mishrimal Bafna,\n                    aged 56 years, Occ. Business,\n                    R\/o Plot No.6, Susnehanagar,\n                    Near Manjusha Convent, (Near Khamla),\n              \n\n                    Nagpur O\/A Director, Coventry Spring\n                    Engineering Company Limited,\n           \n\n\n\n                    Plot No.D2, Maharashtra Industrial\n                    Development Corporation, Industrial Area,\n                    Hingna Road, Nagpur.\n\n    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   [Shri N.P. Hiwase, Ms Meena N. Hiwase, Advs. for applicant]\n                                   [Shri A.P. Wachasunder, Adv. for non-applicant]\n    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.172\/2008\n\n\n\n\n\n    APPLICANT:-                   Mahadeo s\/o Govindrao Jibhkate\n                                  Aged 56 years, Occu. Private Service,\n                                  R\/o Plot No.254, Ashirwad Nagar, Hudkeshwar,\n                                  Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::\n     revn171.08.odt                                                                                                        2\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                      \n                                            ...VERSUS...\n\n    NON-APPLICANT:- Narendramal s\/o Mishrimal Bafna,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                    aged 56 years, Occ. Business,\n                    R\/o Plot No.6, Susnehanagar,\n                    Near Manjusha Convent, (Near Khamla),\n                    Nagpur O\/A Director, Coventry Spring\n                    Engineering Company Limited,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                    Plot No.D2, Maharashtra Industrial\n                    Development Corporation, Industrial Area,\n                    Hingna Road, Nagpur.\n\n    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                                   [Shri N.P. Hiwase, Ms Meena N. Hiwase, Advs. for applicant]\n                                   [Shri A.P. Wachasunder, Adv. for non-applicant]\n                                               \n    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                                      CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                      DATED :- 16.02.2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    1.                  Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.                                   Heard finally by<\/p>\n
    consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.                  Both these revisions are being disposed of by this common<\/p>\n
    judgment since the issue involved is the same in both the cases.\n<\/p>\n
    3.                  The applicants in both these revisions had filed their<\/p>\n
    respective complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
    Act in the Court of Magistrate in respect of the dishonor of cheques<\/p>\n
    issued in their favour by the non-applicant for the amount of<\/p>\n
    Rs.1,25,373\/- and Rs.80,559\/- vide cheques dated 19.2.2007 and<\/p>\n
    16.2.2007 respectively.                     The revision applicants were working in the<\/p>\n
                                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span>
\n     revn171.08.odt                                                                   3\/10<\/p>\n
    Industry, namely, Coventry Spring Engineering Limited at Nagpur. The<\/p>\n
    non-applicant had signed both these cheques in his capacity as the<\/p>\n
    Director of the said Company, which eventually were dishonoured. The<\/p>\n
    cheques were towards the unpaid wages of both the applicants. The<\/p>\n
    Magistrate upon receipt of the complaint and the documentary and oral<\/p>\n
    evidence placed before him made a reasoned order and issued process<\/p>\n
    against    the   non-applicant   by   order   dated     16.11.2007.              The<\/p>\n
    non-applicant filed two revisions against the said two orders in the said<\/p>\n
    two criminal complaint cases before the Additional Sessions Judge – 8,<\/p>\n
    Nagpur. The Additional Sessions Judge – 8, Nagpur held that there was<\/p>\n
    no averment in the complaint that the non-applicant\/accused, who is<\/p>\n
    Director of the Company was responsible for day-to-day transaction of<\/p>\n
    the Company and was managing and looking after the Company. It is<\/p>\n
    on this basis, he allowed both revisions and set aside the order of<\/p>\n
    issuance of process in both these cases. Hence, these revisions by the<\/p>\n
    two workers.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           Learned Counsel for the applicants in both the revision<\/p>\n
    applications argued that there were averments in the complaint, which<\/p>\n
    satisfy the requirement of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
    Act and therefore, the revisional Court has factually committed an error<\/p>\n
    in coming to the conclusion that the non-applicant\/Director of the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span>
\n     revn171.08.odt                                                                4\/10<\/p>\n
    Company was not responsible.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           Per contra, learned Counsel for the non-applicant\/accused<\/p>\n
    argued that these being second revisions, the bar of Section 397 (3) of<\/p>\n
    the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply and these revisions are,<\/p>\n
    therefore, liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, they being<\/p>\n
    second revisions.   He then argued that this case is covered by the<\/p>\n
    decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals<\/p>\n
    Ltd….Versus…Neeta Bhalla and another, reported in 2007 (4)<\/p>\n
    Mh.L.J. 452, Supreme Court, in the case of Everest Advertising<\/p>\n
    (P) Ltd….Versus…State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others,<\/p>\n
    reported in 2007 (5) Supreme Court Cases 54 and in the case of<\/p>\n
    N. Rangachari…Versus…Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., reported in<\/p>\n
    2007 (5) Supreme Court Cases 108.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           On the basis of those Supreme Court judgments, he argued<\/p>\n
    that the order of the revisional Court is clearly supportable and no error<\/p>\n
    of law has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge and<\/p>\n
    therefore, no interference could be made by this Court.               He then<\/p>\n
    argued that the Company has started proceedings before Debt<\/p>\n
    Recovery Tribunal against the attachment of properties of the Company<\/p>\n
    and the non-applicant as well as Company were pulled to get relief<\/p>\n
    after which the payments could be made to all the workers including<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span>
\n     revn171.08.odt                                                                5\/10<\/p>\n
    the present applicants towards their wages. He then argued that the<\/p>\n
    Company was not made a party to the complaint and that defect could<\/p>\n
    not be cured and therefore, the revisional Court was right in dismissing<\/p>\n
    the complaints filed by the complainants\/applicants.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            I have gone through the impugned revisional order so also<\/p>\n
    the complaints and the other documents including cheques placed on<\/p>\n
    record.     It would be proper to quote relevant averment from the<\/p>\n
    complaints, which reads thus in paragraph No.1 of the complaints.\n<\/p>\n
                          “The accused was the employer of the
\n              complainant and the complainant was working in the
\n              company of the accused.    The accused was one of the
\n              directors of the company, named as, Coventry Spring<\/p>\n
              Engineering   Company   Limited   and he     was     holding<\/p>\n
              account and was making payments of the labourers and
\n              workers. He was having authority to make payments and
\n              issue cheques on his name to the workers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          That the complainant was working in the
\n              company of the accused and when the company was
\n              closed by the accused the total wages of Rs.1,25,373\/-
\n              (Rs. One Lac Twenty Five Thousands Three Hundreds<\/p>\n
              Seventy Three) and Rs.80,559\/- (Rs. Eighty Thousands
\n              Five Hundreds and Fifty nine) are due on the accused. For
\n              the payments of the same the accused had issued
\n              cheques.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     revn171.08.odt                                                               6\/10<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    8.           Perusal of both cheques show that they were issued in<\/p>\n
    favour of both the applicants singed by Director i.e. non-applicant for<\/p>\n
    Coventry Spring Engineering Limited and perusal of the above<\/p>\n
    averments and the signature on cheques clearly show that both the<\/p>\n
    cheques were signed by the non-applicant\/accused in the capacity of<\/p>\n
    the Director of the Company. The above averments, in my opinion, are<\/p>\n
    enough to fasten the liability on the non-applicant as he is the<\/p>\n
    signatory to the cheques and the averment shows that it is he, who<\/p>\n
    was making payments to labourers and workers during the course of<\/p>\n
    functioning of the Company. It can, therefore, be easily said that it was<\/p>\n
    the non-applicant\/accused who was fully in-charge of the affairs of the<\/p>\n
    Company. Thus, finding recorded by the revisional Court, contrary to<\/p>\n
    the above, is factually wrong and perverse. That apart, at the trial, the<\/p>\n
    complainants are entitled to amplify the above pleadings in the<\/p>\n
    complaints with necessary documentary as well as oral evidence and<\/p>\n
    therefore, it would be premature to say that the non-applicant was not<\/p>\n
    responsible. Having regard to the three Judges decision of the Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd….Versus…Neeta<\/p>\n
    Bhalla and another, (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph<\/p>\n
    No.10-19 (c) observed thus.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
     revn171.08.odt                                                                 7\/10\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                            \"10 -19 (c).       The answer to Question\n               (c) has to be in the affirmative.     The question notes\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n<\/pre>\n
               that the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director
\n               would be admittedly in-charge of the company and
\n               responsible to the company for the conduct of its<\/p>\n
               business. When that is so, holders of such positions in
\n               a company become liable under section 141 of the Act.
\n               By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director
\n               or Joint Managing Director, these persons are in-charge<\/p>\n
               of and responsible for the conduct of business of the<\/p>\n
               141.<\/span><\/p>\n
               company. Therefore, they get covered under section
\n                       So far as the signatory of a cheque which is<\/p>\n
               dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for
\n               the incriminating act and will be covered under
\n               sub-section (2) of section 141.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9.             The aforesaid paragraph No.10-19 (c) was the answer given<\/p>\n
    by the two Judge decision of the Supreme Court in the said case. This<\/p>\n
    decision was rendered on 20.2.2007 and in my opinion, the said<\/p>\n
    answer in paragraph No.10-19 (c) is squarely applicable in the instant<\/p>\n
    case since the non-applicant is a signatory of the cheques, apart from<\/p>\n
    the averments, which I have already reproduced above which clearly<\/p>\n
    bring the non-applicant in the net. Thereafter, on 19.4.2007 another<\/p>\n
    two    judge     decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in    the     case      of<\/p>\n
    N. Rangachari…Versus…Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) was<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span>
\n     revn171.08.odt                                                                  8\/10<\/p>\n
    rendered.        The relevant paragraph No.21 from the said decision is<\/p>\n
    reproduced below.\n<\/p>\n
                            “21.    A person normally having business or
\n              commercial dealings with a company, would satisfy
\n              himself about its creditworthiness and reliability by<\/p>\n
              looking at its promoters and Board of Directors and the
\n              nature and extent of its business and its memorandum
\n              or articles of association. Other than that, he may not<\/p>\n
              be aware of the arrangements within the company in<\/p>\n
              regard to its management, daily routine, etc. Therefore,
\n              when a cheque issued to him by the company is
\n              dishonoured, he is expected only to be aware generally<\/p>\n
              of who are in charge of the affairs of the company. It is
\n              not reasonable to expect him to know whether the
\n              person who signed the cheque was instructed to do so<\/p>\n
              or whether he has been deprived of his authority to do<\/p>\n
              so when he actually signed the cheque.            Those are
\n              matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the company
\n              and those in charge of it.       So, all that a payee of a<\/p>\n
              cheque that is dishonoured can be expected to allege is
\n              that the persons named in the complaint are in charge
\n              of its affairs.      The Directors are prima facie in that
\n              position.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10.          In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the<\/p>\n
    non-applicant who is the signatory of cheques in both the cases, who is<\/p>\n
    also Director of the Company cannot escape the liability.                     It is<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span>
\n     revn171.08.odt                                                                 9\/10<\/p>\n
    unfortunate that the non-applicant who has issued cheques to the<\/p>\n
    applicants towards their hard earned wages is now refusing to make<\/p>\n
    payments thereof to the workers.         The cheques are of the dates<\/p>\n
    19.2.2007 and 16.2.2007 and the poor workmen have yet not received<\/p>\n
    the same.        The aforesaid legal position and the fact that the<\/p>\n
    non-applicant is signatory of the said cheques cannot be said to be not<\/p>\n
    in the knowledge of the non-applicant, who has endeavoured to<\/p>\n
    prolong the said two criminal cases on such flimsy grounds.\n<\/p>\n
                                ig                                                 The\n\n    workmen          cannot    be     expected     to     fight        with        the\n                              \n    non-applicant\/Industrialist without any means.       Thus, looking to the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    conduct of the non-applicant in not paying them their hard earned<\/p>\n
    wages but making them move from the Court to Court will have to be<\/p>\n
    taken note and consequently, this Court inclined to award suitable<\/p>\n
    costs to the applicants\/workmen. Hence, I make the following order.\n<\/p>\n
                              ORD ER<\/p>\n
          (i)           Both criminal revisions are partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
          (ii)          The impugned judgments and orders in Criminal<\/p>\n
    Revision No.257\/2008 and 256\/2008, dated 18.7.2008, passed by the<\/p>\n
    Additional Sessions Judge – 8, Nagpur are set aside with costs of<\/p>\n
    Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in each case, payable to the<\/p>\n
    applicants workers within a period of four weeks from today by<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span>
\n     revn171.08.odt                                                               10\/10<\/p>\n
    depositing the same in the trial Court, which shall be a precondition.\n<\/p>\n
          (iii)       Proceedings in Criminal Complaint (Summary Case)<\/p>\n
    Nos.15296\/2007 and 15292\/2007 are restored on the file of the trial<\/p>\n
    Court for fresh disposal and trial in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
          (iv)        The complainants shall be allowed to amend their<\/p>\n
    complaints as permissible in law.\n<\/p>\n
          (v)         The trial Court shall take up the criminal cases for<\/p>\n
    hearing and final disposal and decide the same finally within a period<\/p>\n
    of six months from today.\n<\/p>\n
                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
    SSW<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:21 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari revn171.08.odt 1\/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.171\/2008 AND CRIMINAL REVISION NO.172\/2008 ————————————————————————————————— CRIMINAL REVISION NO.171\/2008 APPLICANT:- Shyamrao s\/o Narayanrao Borghare, aged 48 years, Occu. Private Service, R\/o Plot No.206, Janki Nagar, Ring […]<\/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-171588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnd vs Unknown on 16 February, 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\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-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=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-16T04:14:03+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\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T04:14:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1726,\"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\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-16T04:14:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 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":"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 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\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-16T04:14:03+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\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T04:14:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":1726,"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\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010","name":"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-16T04:14:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/and-vs-unknown-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"And vs Unknown on 16 February, 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\/171588","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=171588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}