{"id":192837,"date":"2009-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-25T09:02:14","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T03:32:14","slug":"state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n<pre>                                                                         REPORTABLE\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1052 OF 2002\n\n\nState of Maharashtra                                       ..Appellant\n\n                                          Versus\n\nKrishnarao Dudhappa Shinde                                 ..Respondent\n\n\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the<\/p>\n<p>Bombay High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the<\/p>\n<p>judgment of the trial Court, and directed acquittal of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>      The respondent a government servant was Inspector of Police at the time<\/p>\n<p>when a raid was conducted in his house on 28.12.1971. He was convicted for<\/p>\n<p>offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,<br \/>\n1947 (in short the `Act&#8217;) and was sentenced to under minimum sentence of one<\/p>\n<p>year and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000\/-. The only point which was<\/p>\n<p>examined by the High Court was whether the respondent could be convicted<\/p>\n<p>for acquisition of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income prior<\/p>\n<p>to 1964 i.e. from the date of inception of service on 29.5.1944 till the date of<\/p>\n<p>raid under Section 5(1)(e) which came into force only on 18.12.1964. The<\/p>\n<p>High Court was of the view that any acquisition of wealth said to be<\/p>\n<p>disproportionate to his known sources of income prior to 1964 could not be<\/p>\n<p>taken into account since prior to 1964 the same was not an offence. Reliance<\/p>\n<p>was placed by two judgments for the purpose one of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/729391\/\">State of<\/p>\n<p>Maharashtra v. Kaliar Koli Subramaniaum Ramaswamy<\/a> (1977 (3) SCC 525),<\/p>\n<p>and the other of the Bombay High Court in Ramanand Pundalik Kamat v. State<\/p>\n<p>of Maharashtra (ILR 1973 Bom 1066).\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    The primary stand of learned counel for the appellant is that the scope<\/p>\n<p>and ambit of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act has been lost sight of.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the<\/p>\n<p>judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    Section 5(1)(e) of the Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            &#8220;5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty:1.\n<\/p>\n<p>            A public servant is said to commit the offence of<br \/>\n            criminal misconduct..\n<\/p>\n<p>            (e) if he, or any person on his behalf is in possession or<br \/>\n            has at any time during the period of his office, been in<br \/>\n            possession for which the public servant cannot<br \/>\n            satisfactory account of pecuniary resources or property<br \/>\n            disproportionate to his known sources of income.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    A three-Judge Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1417605\/\">Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a><\/p>\n<p>(1964(4) SCR 630) noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;12. Mr Lall contends that when the section speaks of<br \/>\n            the accused being in possession of pecuniary resources<br \/>\n            or property disproportionate to his known sources of<br \/>\n            income only pecuniary resources or property acquired<br \/>\n            after the date of the Act is meant. To think otherwise,<br \/>\n            says the learned counsel, would be to give the Act<br \/>\n            retrospective operation and for this there is no<br \/>\n            justification. We agree with the learned counsel that the<br \/>\n            Act has no retrospective operation. We are unable to<br \/>\n            agree however that to take into consideration the<br \/>\n            pecuniary resources or property in the possession of the<br \/>\n            accused or any other person on his behalf which are<br \/>\n            acquired before the date of the Act is in any way giving<br \/>\n            the Act a retrospective operation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>            13. A statute cannot be said to be retrospective `because<br \/>\n            a part of the requisites for its actions is drawn from a<br \/>\n            time antecedent to its passing? (Maxwell on<br \/>\n            Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., p. 211; see also<br \/>\n            State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandran). Notice must<br \/>\n            be taken in this connection of a suggestion made by the<br \/>\n            learned counsel that in effect sub-section 3 of Section 5<br \/>\n            creates a new offence in the discharge of official duty,<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   3<\/span><br \/>\ndifferent from what is defined in the four clauses of<br \/>\nSection 5(1). It is said that the act of being in possession<br \/>\nof pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to<br \/>\nknown sources of income, if it cannot be satisfactorily<br \/>\naccounted for, is said by this sub-section to constitute the<br \/>\noffence of criminal misconduct in addition to those other<br \/>\nacts mentioned in clauses a, b, c and d of Section 5(1)<br \/>\nwhich constitute the offence of criminal misconduct. On<br \/>\nthe basis of this contention the further argument is built<br \/>\nthat if the pecuniary resources or property acquired<br \/>\nbefore the date of the Act is taken into consideration<br \/>\nunder sub-section 3 what is in fact being done is that a<br \/>\nperson is being convicted for the acquisition of<br \/>\npecuniary resources or property, though it was not in<br \/>\nviolation of a law in force at the time of the commission<br \/>\nof such act of acquisition. If this argument were correct a<br \/>\nconviction of a person under the presumption raised<br \/>\nunder Section 5(3) in respect of pecuniary resources or<br \/>\nproperty acquired before the Prevention of Corruption<br \/>\nAct would be a breach of fundamental rights under<br \/>\nArticle 20(1) of the Constitution and so it would be<br \/>\nproper for the court to construe Section 5(3) in a way so<br \/>\nas not to include possession of pecuniary resources or<br \/>\nproperty acquired before the Act for the purpose of that<br \/>\nsub-section. The basis of the argument that Section 5(3)<br \/>\ncreates a new kind of offence of criminal misconduct by<br \/>\na public servant in the discharge of his official duty is<br \/>\nhowever unsound. The sub-section does nothing of the<br \/>\nkind. It merely prescribes a rule of evidence for the<br \/>\npurpose of proving the offence of criminal misconduct as<br \/>\ndefined in Section 5(1) for which an accused person is<br \/>\nalready under trial. It was so held by this Court in C.D.S.<br \/>\nSwamy v. State and again in Surajpal Singh v. State of<br \/>\nU.P.. It is only when a trial has commenced for criminal<br \/>\nmisconduct by doing one or more of the acts mentioned<br \/>\nin clauses a, b, c and d of Section 5(1) that sub-section 3<br \/>\ncan come into operation. When there is such a trial,<br \/>\nwhich necessarily must be in respect of acts committed<br \/>\nafter the Prevention of Corruption Act came into force,<br \/>\nsub-section 3 places in the hands of the prosecution a<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                        4<\/span><br \/>\n            new mode of proving an offence with which an accused<br \/>\n            has already been charged.\n<\/p>\n<p>            14. Looking at the words of the section and giving them<br \/>\n            their plain and natural meaning we find it impossible to<br \/>\n            say that pecuniary resources and property acquired<br \/>\n            before the date on which the Prevention of Corruption<br \/>\n            Act came into force should not be taken into account<br \/>\n            even if in possession of the accused or any other person<br \/>\n            on his behalf. To accept the contention that such<br \/>\n            pecuniary resources or property should not be taken into<br \/>\n            consideration one has to read into the section the<br \/>\n            additional word &#8220;if acquired after the date of this Act&#8221;<br \/>\n            after the word &#8220;property&#8221;. For this there is no<br \/>\n            justification.\n<\/p>\n<p>            15. It may also be mentioned that if pecuniary resources<br \/>\n            or property acquired before the date of commencement<br \/>\n            of the Act were to be left out of account in applying sub-<br \/>\n            section 3 of Section 5 it would be proper and reasonable<br \/>\n            to limit the receipt of income against which the<br \/>\n            proportion is to be considered also to the period after the<br \/>\n            Act. On the face of it this would lead to a curious and<br \/>\n            anomalous position by no means satisfactory or helpful<br \/>\n            to the accused himself. For, the income received during<br \/>\n            the years previous to the commencement of the Act may<br \/>\n            have helped in the acquisition of property after the<br \/>\n            commencement of the Act. From whatever point we look<br \/>\n            at the matter it seems to us clear that the pecuniary<br \/>\n            resources and property in possession of the accused<br \/>\n            person or any other person on his behalf have to be taken<br \/>\n            into consideration for the purpose of sub-section 3 of<br \/>\n            Section 5, whether these were acquired before or after<br \/>\n            the Act came into force.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    The view expressed by the High Court is apparently in conflict with<\/p>\n<p>the view expressed by this Court in Sajjan Singh&#8217;s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>8.    Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if the accused<\/p>\n<p>has no case on the legal question raised on facts the respondent was bound<\/p>\n<p>to succeed. We find that the High Court did not examine the other aspects<\/p>\n<p>and only dealt with the applicability of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act on the<\/p>\n<p>factual position highlighted above. While we set aside the order of the High<\/p>\n<p>Court so far as it relates to the scope and ambit of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act,<\/p>\n<p>we remit the matter to it for considering the other aspects which according<\/p>\n<p>to learned counsel for the respondent were in issue before the High Court in<\/p>\n<p>appeal filed by the accused person. Since the matter is pending since long<\/p>\n<p>we request the High Court to take up the matter at an early date and make an<\/p>\n<p>effort to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of<\/p>\n<p>receipt of our judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                           &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.<br \/>\n                                           (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n<p>                                           &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.<br \/>\n                                           (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<br \/>\nNew Delhi,<br \/>\nFebruary 05, 2009<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      6<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1052 OF 2002 State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Versus Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde ..Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. [&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-192837","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>State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-25T03:32:14+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\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T03:32:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1474,\"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\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009\",\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T03:32:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009 - 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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-25T03:32:14+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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T03:32:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009"},"wordCount":1474,"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\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009","name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T03:32:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-maharashtra-vs-krishnarao-dudhappa-shinde-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde on 5 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/192837","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=192837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}