{"id":183826,"date":"2006-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006"},"modified":"2015-03-31T11:13:13","modified_gmt":"2015-03-31T05:43:13","slug":"vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3164 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nVijay\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/07\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25219 of 2004) <\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant herein was elected as a member of Grampanchayat<br \/>\nShipora Bazar in the year 2000.  He was also elected as Sarpanch of  the said<br \/>\nvillage.  He was thereafter elected as Councillor of Zilla Parishad.\n<\/p>\n<p>The State of Maharashtra enacted Bombay Village Panchayats Act,<br \/>\n1958 (&#8216;the Act&#8217;, for short).  In view of amendment of Section 14(1)(J-2) of<br \/>\nthe said Act, he was held to have disqualified himself to hold the said post<br \/>\nby the Additional Collector, Jalna.  An appeal preferred thereagainst by the<br \/>\nappellant herein was dismissed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner<br \/>\nby an order dated 2.8.2004.  A writ petition preferred by the appellant,<br \/>\nquestioning the legality of said orders was dismissed by the High Court by<br \/>\nreason of the impugned judgment and order.  The appellant is, thus, before<br \/>\nus.\n<\/p>\n<p>The short question raised by Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the appellant is that Section 14(1)(J-2) of the Act is<br \/>\nprospective in nature and thus, the concerned respondents as also the High<br \/>\nCourt acted illegally and without jurisdiction in arriving at a finding that the<br \/>\nappellant stood disqualified by reason thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 14(1)(J-2) reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;14.  \tDisqualifications &#8211; (1) No person shall be a<br \/>\nmember of a Panchayat, or continue as such, who :\n<\/p>\n<p>* \t\t*\t\t*\t\t*<\/p>\n<p>(J-2) has been elected as Councillor of the Zilla<br \/>\nParishad or as a member of the Panchayat Samiti.&#8221;<br \/>\nThe said amendment came into force with effect from 8.8.2003.<br \/>\nAccording to the appellant, having regard to the fact that he was elected as a<br \/>\nmember of Grampanchayat on 27.12.2000, he derived a vested right to<br \/>\ncontinue in the said post and in that view of the matter, he could not have<br \/>\nbeen held to be disqualified by reason of the said amendment.\n<\/p>\n<p>The said Act is a disqualifying statute.  A plain reading of the<br \/>\namended provision clearly shows that it was intended by legislature to have<br \/>\nretrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>The general rule that a statute shall be construed to be prospective has<br \/>\ntwo exceptions: it should be expressly so stated in the enactment or<br \/>\ninference in relation thereto becomes evident by necessary implication.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case it is stated expressly that the amendment would<br \/>\napply also to a case where the elected candidate had been elected as a<br \/>\nmember of Panchayat earlier thereto.  It not only incorporates within its<br \/>\npurview all persons who would be members of the Panchayat in futuro, but<br \/>\nalso those who were sitting members.  In other words, the bar created to hold<br \/>\nthe post of member of Panchayat would bring within its purview also those<br \/>\nwho were continuing to hold post.\n<\/p>\n<p>It may be true the amendment came into effect on 8.8.2003.  The<br \/>\nlegislative policy emanating from the aforesaid provision, in our opinion, is<br \/>\nabsolutely clear and unambiguous.  By introducing the said provision, the<br \/>\nlegislature, inter alia, intended that for the purpose of bringing grassroot<br \/>\ndemocracy, a person should not be permitted to hold two posts created in<br \/>\nterms of Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act.  It is true that ordinarily a<br \/>\nstatute is construed to have prospective effect, but the same rule does not<br \/>\napply to a disqualifying provision.  The inhibition against retrospective<br \/>\nconstruction is not a rigid rule.  It does not apply to a curative or a<br \/>\nclarificatory statute.  If from a perusal of the statute intendment of the<br \/>\nlegislature is clear, the Court will give effect thereto.  For the said purpose,<br \/>\nthe general scope of the statute is relevant.  Every law that takes away a right<br \/>\nvested under the existing law is retrospective in nature.  [<a href=\"\/doc\/156688302\/\">See Govt. of India<br \/>\n&amp; Ors. vs. Indian Tobacco Association,<\/a> (2005) 7 SCC 396.] <\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The cardinal principle is that statutes must always<br \/>\nbe interpreted prospectively, unless the language of the<br \/>\nstatutes makes them retrospective, either expressly or by<br \/>\nnecessary implication. Penal statutes which create new<br \/>\noffences are always prospective, but penal statutes which<br \/>\ncreate disabilities, though ordinarily interpreted<br \/>\nprospectively, are sometimes interpreted retrospectively<br \/>\nwhen there is a clear intendment that they are to be<br \/>\napplied to past events. The reason why penal statutes are<br \/>\nso construed was stated by Erle, C.J., in Midland Rly. Co.<br \/>\nv. Pye, (1861) 10 C.B. NS 179 at p.191  in the following<br \/>\nwords:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Those whose duty it is to administer the law very<br \/>\nproperly guard against giving to an Act of Parliament a<br \/>\nretrospective operation, unless the intention of the<br \/>\nlegislature that it should be so construed is expressed in<br \/>\nclear, plain and unambiguous language; because it<br \/>\nmanifestly shocks one&#8217;s sense of justice that an act, legal<br \/>\nat the time of doing it, should be made unlawful by some<br \/>\nnew enactment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>This principle has now been recognised by our<br \/>\nConstitution and established as a Constitutional<br \/>\nrestriction on legislative power.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>While construing the beneficial provisions of 428 of the Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure Code, 1973 in <a href=\"\/doc\/532707\/\">Boucher Pierre Andre vs. Superintendent,<br \/>\nCentral Jail, Tihar, New Delhi &amp; Anr.<\/a> [(1975) 1 SCC 192], this Court<br \/>\nopined:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This section, on a plain natural construction of its<br \/>\nlanguage, posits for its applicability a fact situation which<br \/>\nis described by the clause &#8220;where an accused person has,<br \/>\non conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a<br \/>\nterm&#8221;. There is nothing in this clause which suggests,<br \/>\neither expressly or by necessary implication, that the<br \/>\nconviction and sentence must be after the coming into<br \/>\nforce of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. The<br \/>\nlanguage of the clause is neutral. It does not refer to any<br \/>\nparticular point of time when the accused person should<br \/>\nhave been convicted and sentenced. It merely indicates a<br \/>\nfact situation which must exist in order to attract the<br \/>\napplicability of the section and this fact situation would<br \/>\nbe satisfied equally whether an accused person has been<br \/>\nconvicted and sentenced before or after the coming into<br \/>\nforce of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. Even<br \/>\nwhere an accused person has been convicted prior to the<br \/>\ncoming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\nbut his sentence is still running, it would not be<br \/>\ninappropriate to say that the &#8220;accused person has, on<br \/>\nconviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term&#8221;.<br \/>\nTherefore, where an accused person has been convicted<br \/>\nand he is still serving his sentence at the date when the<br \/>\nnew Code of Criminal Procedure came into force.<br \/>\nSection 428 would apply and he would be entitled to<br \/>\nclaim that the period of detention undergone by him<br \/>\nduring the investigation, inquiry or trial of the case<br \/>\nshould be set off against the term of imprisonment<br \/>\nimposed on him and he should be required to undergo<br \/>\nonly the remainder of the term.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant was elected in terms of the provisions of a statute. The<br \/>\nright to be elected was created by a statute and, thus, can be taken away by a<br \/>\nstatute.  It is now well-settled that when a literal reading of the provision<br \/>\ngiving retrospective effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same<br \/>\nwould not be construed to be only prospective.  The negation is not a rigid<br \/>\nrule and varies with the intention and purport of the legislature, but to apply<br \/>\nit in such a case is a doctrine of fairness.  When a law is enacted for the<br \/>\nbenefit of the community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision, the<br \/>\nstatute may be held to be retrospective in nature.  The appellant does not and<br \/>\ncannot question the competence of the legislature in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the High<br \/>\nCourt was correct in its view.  We, thus, find no merit in this appeal.  It is,<br \/>\naccordingly, dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3164 of 2006 PETITIONER: Vijay RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/07\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-31T05:43:13+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-31T05:43:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1292,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-31T05:43:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-31T05:43:13+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-31T05:43:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006"},"wordCount":1292,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006","name":"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-31T05:43:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-26-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 26 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/183826","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=183826"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183826\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}