{"id":183245,"date":"2008-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-28T16:19:00","modified_gmt":"2017-02-28T10:49:00","slug":"400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: R.M.S. Khandeparkar, V.K. Tahilramani<\/div>\n
                               [1]\n\n\n\n           IN THE\n              TH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         APPELLATE SIDE\n             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1531 OF 2006\n                               IN\n                     CASE NO.685\/N OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                               IN\n                      C.R. NO.264 OF 2005\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    D'damas Jewellery India Pvt.\n    Ltd., a company incorporated\n    under the Companies Act,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    1956 having its registered\n    office at Shabnam House,\n    Plot No.A-15\/16, MIDC,\n    Central Cross Road - B,\n    Andheri (E), Mumbai -\n\n\n\n\n                              \n    400 093, through its\n    authorised representative\n    Mr. Krishnanand C. Kulkarni        ....     Petitioner\n                   \n            - Versus -\n\n    1. State of Maharashtra\n                  \n    2. Mr. Himanshu Kamlashankar\n       Thakar, D-502, Mahavir\n       Darshan Co-op. Housing\n       Society, Sector 2, RDP-1,\n       Plot No.2, Charkop,\n      \n\n\n       Kandivali (W),\n       Mumbai - 400 067.\n   \n\n\n\n    3. Mr. Rakesh L. Goda,\n       8\/Tushar Co-op. Hsg. Society\n       Ltd., Datta Mandir Road,\n       Dahanukar Wadi, Kandivali\n\n\n\n\n\n       (W), Mumbai - 400 067.          ....     Respondents\n\n\n    Shri LeRoy Collaco i\/b M\/s. LeRoy Collaco\n    & Associates for the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Ms A.S. Pai, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for\n    the Respondent No.1.\n\n    Shri Satish S. Adsule for the Respondent\n    No.2.\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:35:50 :::\n                                        [2]\n\n\n\n\n                             CORAM: Sri R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &\n                                    Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                             DATED: JULY 15, 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    JUDGMENT (Per Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.):\n<\/pre>\n
    1.    The point referred for consideration is whether each<\/p>\n
    and    every order passed under Section 457 of the Code of<\/p>\n
    Criminal      Procedure,     1973, hereinafter called              as     “the<\/p>\n
    Code” is to be considered as an interlocutory order.\n<\/p>\n
    2.     We<\/p>\n
                 have heard Shri LeRoy Collaco and              Shri      Satish<\/p>\n
    Adsule      for    the parties, as also we have heard Ms                  A.S.\n<\/p>\n
    Pai,    amicus      curaie   on   the above    point        arising        for<\/p>\n
    consideration in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     Chapter XXXIV of the Code deals with the subject of<\/p>\n
    disposal      of    property.     Section   451     relates          to    the<\/p>\n
    matters pertaining to orders for custody and disposal of<\/p>\n
    property      pending    trial    before    the     Criminal          Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Section      452 refers to orders to be passed for                 disposal<\/p>\n
    of property at the conclusion of the trial.                  Section 457<\/p>\n
    relates      to the procedure by the police upon seizure                     of<\/p>\n
    property.      The sub-section (1) thereof reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
                “Whenever the seizure of property by any<\/p>\n
                police     officer     is    reported       to       a<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                           [3]<\/p>\n
                Magistrate        under the provisions of this<\/p>\n
                Code,    and such property is not produced<\/p>\n
                before       a    Criminal      Court      during        an<\/p>\n
                inquiry      or    trial, the      Magistrate          may<\/p>\n
                make    such      order   as     he    thinks          fit<\/p>\n
                respecting the disposal of such property<\/p>\n
                or    the delivery of such property to the<\/p>\n
                person       entitled     to     the       possession<\/p>\n
                thereof,      or    if such person         cannot        be<\/p>\n
                ascertained,        respecting the custody and<\/p>\n
                production of such property.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4.     As    the    sub-title      of the      section        suggests,          the<\/p>\n
    provision        under Section 457(1) of the Code would                       apply<\/p>\n
    to   the     cases      when police seizes any property                   in     the<\/p>\n
    course of investigation and which is not produced in the<\/p>\n
    Court,      either      during the inquiry or trial.                   In     other<\/p>\n
    words,      if    the    police in the course            of     investigation<\/p>\n
    takes    in      its possession any property belonging to                        any<\/p>\n
    person      including the accused, but does not produce                          the<\/p>\n
    same    before the Court, either in the course of                         inquiry<\/p>\n
    or   trial,       then the person entitled for                possession           of<\/p>\n
    such    property can approach the Magistrate within                           whose<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction        the      property    was    seized        to     claim       the<\/p>\n
    restoration        thereof.       When such person approaches                    the<\/p>\n
    Magistrate and in case the Magistrate upon consideration<\/p>\n
    of   his application in that regard finds it                       appropriate<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                        [4]<\/p>\n
    to    decide about the possession of such property,                      prior<\/p>\n
    to    disposal, or even before commencement of, the trial,<\/p>\n
    than    the concerned Magistrate can pass an order                     either<\/p>\n
    disposing      the    property or delivering such property                    to<\/p>\n
    the    person entitled to the possession thereof.                    In     the<\/p>\n
    cases    where a person who is entitled to the                  possession<\/p>\n
    thereof    cannot be ascertained, the Magistrate can                       pass<\/p>\n
    an     appropriate      order    regarding      the        custody          and<\/p>\n
    production      of    such property.      In other words,            if     the<\/p>\n
    claimant    of    the    property      is unable     to      satisfy        the<\/p>\n
    Magistrate      that    he is entitled for possession                of     the<\/p>\n
    property    in<\/p>\n
                      question,      even in such a        situation,           the<\/p>\n
    Magistrate      is    empowered under Section 457(1)                to     pass<\/p>\n
    appropriate      order    for    the     purpose     of      custody        and<\/p>\n
    production of such property whenever occasion arises for<\/p>\n
    the    same.    For that purpose, the Magistrate can entrust<\/p>\n
    the    property to the applicant or any other person                       whom<\/p>\n
    the Magistrate thinks fit and proper.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     Section 457(1) visualises three types of orders                        in<\/p>\n
    relation    to    the property seized by the police                  in     the<\/p>\n
    course    of    investigation.         The   first     type       of     order<\/p>\n
    relates    to    disposal of the property.             Obviously,           the<\/p>\n
    occasion    for      disposal would arise in cases              where       the<\/p>\n
    property    is either of perishable nature or is of such a<\/p>\n
    nature     which      requires    disposal      thereof           for       any<\/p>\n
    justifiable reason.        The second type of order relates to<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                            [5]<\/p>\n
    the    delivery        of    the possession of         the      property         for<\/p>\n
    proper      custody      and    production      thereof         as     and      when<\/p>\n
    required.         The    third    type    of order        relates         to     the<\/p>\n
    custody      of    the      property    in   case      where       the      person<\/p>\n
    entitled to possess is not ascertainable.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     Three      types of orders under Section 457(1) can                         be<\/p>\n
    passed      in    various eventualities.          Occasion to pass                 an<\/p>\n
    order      for    disposal      of property can arise              in     various<\/p>\n
    circumstances.           It    can    be in a    situation           where       the<\/p>\n
    property      is subject to decay or may be of such a nature<\/p>\n
    that it cannot be retained in the same form or condition<\/p>\n
    beyond      certain      time or that the retention                thereof         is<\/p>\n
    either      harmful to the public or the disposal thereof is<\/p>\n
    in    the public interest.            The second type of orders                  can<\/p>\n
    be    in    the circumstances when somebody                 approaches           the<\/p>\n
    concerned        Criminal      Court    claiming to be            entitled         to<\/p>\n
    possess      such property.          If the claimant in that                regard<\/p>\n
    is    able to satisfy the Court about his claim                        regarding<\/p>\n
    possession        to    the    property, certainly            the      Court       is<\/p>\n
    empowered        to    pass    appropriate order          in      that      regard<\/p>\n
    subject      to    conditions regarding production thereof                         in<\/p>\n
    the    Court whenever required.              The third eventuality can<\/p>\n
    also    arise when the property is required to be kept                             in<\/p>\n
    custody      of somebody to enable him to produce it in                          the<\/p>\n
    course of trial or inventory or whenever required by the<\/p>\n
    Court      and    at    the same time, the        person          entitled         to<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                        [6]<\/p>\n
    possess     such    property cannot be ascertained.                In     such<\/p>\n
    circumstances       also the Court can pass appropriate order<\/p>\n
    for    delivery of property to a person ready and                   willing<\/p>\n
    to    produce     the same as and when required by the                  Court<\/p>\n
    and subject to conditions to be specified by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     Considering the ingredient of Section 457(1) of the<\/p>\n
    Code,    it   may appear to be the power invariably                   to     be<\/p>\n
    exercised at the interim stage and, therefore, any order<\/p>\n
    passed      in    exercise    of   such     power     has      to     be     an<\/p>\n
    interlocutory         order.          Undoubtedly,           the          term<\/p>\n
    “interlocutory”\n<\/p>\n
                         igwill    have    to    be    understood             with\n\n    reference     to    the   expression used in        that       regard        in\n                       \n    Section 397 of the Code.           The sub-section (2) of Section\n\n    397    clearly debars the exercise of revisional power                       in\n\n    case    of any interlocutory order passed by the                   Criminal\n      \n\n\n    Court.      Considering the same, can it be said that merely\n   \n\n\n\n    because     the    power under Section 457(1) can be                invoked\n\n<\/pre>\n
    even before the disposal of inquiry or trial, every such<\/p>\n
    order passed thereunder would be an interlocutory order?\n<\/p>\n
    Can it be said that because the order to be passed under<\/p>\n
    Section     457(1) would relate to delivery of property                      in<\/p>\n
    the    course     of inquiry or trial, it would amount to                    an<\/p>\n
    interlocutory       order?     As seen above, the           exercise         of<\/p>\n
    power    under     Section 457(1) can be in         three        different<\/p>\n
    circumstances.       Will such exercise of power irrespective<\/p>\n
    of    the   eventuality in which such power             is     exercised,<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                          [7]<\/p>\n
    would result in an interlocutory order?\n<\/p>\n
    8.     As    seen    above,       there    are   three       eventualities<\/p>\n
    visualised        for exercise of power under Section                  457(1),<\/p>\n
    and    one    eventuality        clearly    refers     to      disposal         of<\/p>\n
    property,      while      the other to delivery of the                property<\/p>\n
    and    the    third one for custody.          Once the         property         is<\/p>\n
    disposed      of during the pendency of the trial or                     before<\/p>\n
    the    conclusion of the trial, in our considered opinion,<\/p>\n
    any    order resulting in disposal of property can                       hardly<\/p>\n
    be    said    to be an interlocutory order.              Such       an     order<\/p>\n
    would    automatically
\n                           ig     result      in final     adjudication             in<\/p>\n
    relation to the property ordered to be disposed of.                           The<\/p>\n
    disposal      may also include destruction of the                   property.\n<\/p>\n
    In    case    the    property is      destroyed,       nothing         further<\/p>\n
    remains      to    be considered in relation to the                 property.\n<\/p>\n
    Obviously,        therefore, any such order can, by no stretch<\/p>\n
    of    imagination,        be said to be an interlocutory                 order.\n<\/p>\n
    Such    an    order      will put an end to all          the      rights        or<\/p>\n
    interest in the property.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     As    regards the delivery of property to any                     person<\/p>\n
    entitled      for    possession thereof, it will stand on                     the<\/p>\n
    same    footing      as that of disposal of the property.                       In<\/p>\n
    case    of    such    delivery of property, it would                  be     only<\/p>\n
    after    ascertaining the right of the person claiming                          to<\/p>\n
    be    entitled      to    have     possession     of     such       property.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          [8]<\/p>\n
    Obviously,      therefore, the Court will have to decide the<\/p>\n
    issue    relating to the right to possess and                   accordingly<\/p>\n
    deliver      the    property to the person who is entitled                      to<\/p>\n
    possess      the same.      Being so, such an order deciding the<\/p>\n
    issue    regarding right to possess the property cannot be<\/p>\n
    said    to    b an interlocutory order.           For      that       purpose,<\/p>\n
    such     an     order      would    be   amenable        to       revisional<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
    10.     As regards the third eventuality under Section 457<\/p>\n
    of    the Code, the order in such an eventuality would                          be<\/p>\n
    only    for    custody
\n                           ig   of the property       during        the      trial,<\/p>\n
    subject to condition that the same should be produced at<\/p>\n
    any    time    required by the Court.         Such an          order       would<\/p>\n
    certainly      fall    within      the category       of     interlocutory<\/p>\n
    order as one cannot attach any finality to such an order<\/p>\n
    since    it does not decide any right to the property                         nor<\/p>\n
    it implies any adjudication of any issue as such.\n<\/p>\n
    11.     It is also to be clarified that while passing                         the<\/p>\n
    order in relation to the second eventuality i.e.                         to say<\/p>\n
    delivery of property to a person entitled to possess the<\/p>\n
    same,     the      Court    is     not   forbidden       from         imposing<\/p>\n
    conditions      in    respect of production of             such       property<\/p>\n
    whenever      required      by   the     Court    during        the      trial.\n<\/p>\n
    However,      such a condition by itself would not amount to<\/p>\n
    nullify      the    effect of adjudication in relation to                     the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       [9]<\/p>\n
    issue    pertaining      to   right to   possess       the      property.\n<\/p>\n
    Being    so,    irrespective of any condition laid down                   for<\/p>\n
    production of the property while delivering the property<\/p>\n
    to    the   person     entitled to possess,       nevertheless            the<\/p>\n
    order would be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    12.     The    point    of reference, therefore,           is     answered<\/p>\n
    accordingly.       The    matter now is required to be               placed<\/p>\n
    before the appropriate Bench of the learned single Judge<\/p>\n
    for decision on merits.         Order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.)                (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)<\/p>\n
    sjs\/rcwp1531.6<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:35:51 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court 400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008 Bench: R.M.S. Khandeparkar, V.K. Tahilramani [1] IN THE TH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1531 OF 2006 IN CASE NO.685\/N OF 2005 IN C.R. NO.264 OF 2005 D’damas Jewellery India Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under […]<\/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-183245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008 - 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\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-28T10:49:00+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T10:49:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1551,\"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\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008\",\"name\":\"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T10:49:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008 - 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\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-28T10:49:00+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T10:49:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008"},"wordCount":1551,"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\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008","name":"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T10:49:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/400-093-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"400 093 vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/183245","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=183245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}