{"id":198081,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-05T15:57:06","modified_gmt":"2016-11-05T10:27:06","slug":"sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State … on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State … on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar<\/div>\n
  Bangaioreei\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT.'BEiN.CiH\"'v~.,\nAT DHARWAD I \" t u *  \n\nDATED THIS Tm: 28TH DAY oFWAUGU_sT\u00bb  ~ _ 1: E  \n\nBEFORE Q A' i\nTHE I~1ON'BLE MR. JIi'\u00a73Ti..CEVii1'J.,iiKIJMAi{i~..j.\\.'i..._..V 5; V\nCriminal Revisiori 13etitiV(_):i1\"':ix\\..lbu_:_).- ef'  \nBetween: A i. ii 1 A.\n\nSri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj\" -- \nGorikhan     \nAged about 46 years 5; _  '\n\nOcc: Driver it  H ' -- . \u00e9  .\nR\/o Veerabhadrai1.a\"ga*r,__ _ .. '\nBelgaum ' = 7  i\n\n_  V V V  .. Petitioner\n(By Sri Jagaeii\u00absi1'-Piatili'.i\u00a7i'\u00a3\u00a7i1.re'e~:eit'e<ii \n\nAnd:  V A V 'V\n\n 'statgi  Ef<8.I'V1v'i3."1Zak'\u00e9iH %%%% " ii\n\nByits State  1i~'r'osecutor\n\nHigh -Court' B:1ii.1.Vdi\ufb01.g.Sv"\nA   ..Respondent\n\n\ufb02ay' s_r1 P.H..Gct-tigiiindi, HCGP)\n\n;  i\u00bbffTAh'iS'~..crimina1 revision petition is filed 11\/3 397 Cr.P.C.\n bv the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this I-Iorfble\n\n '.'jjvC'._<__)fui*1: may be pleased to set aside the order dt. 09.11.2005\n\nu\n\n\n\npassed by the R0,, F.T.C.~I (Dist. as S.J.), ch11<ee11._g1n\nCr1.A.No.1-42\/2004 and etc.   \n\nThis petition coming on for final hear'  \n\nN.Kumar J., made the following:\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
This revision is preferred by’ the ace-useei ch’eii1\u00e9en,ging thee]<\/p>\n
order of conviction passed in order of
\nconviction passed by the L ,I*’or the purpose
\nof convenience, the 4p’ar_tie:’th\u00a7ey are referred
\nto before the leairnfed   3. A .\n<\/p>\n
2. on:’=22.o-4i  12.30 hrs within the limits of
\nBCPS on Nipe1r’ri’f.Chi];{‘;\u00a2?’c’jg1i,i_  the Samadhi Math, the
\neicciiseci.  bearing registration No.KA-28<\/p>\n
P’r’8:75;fi’Qrn side towards Nipani side in high speed<\/p>\n
 negligently vveinudfgj-genidangering the human life. He dashed<\/p>\n
7,e.ga1inst the ie.ornp1ainant’s mother Shakuntala and her son<\/p>\n
‘i._”vV4ivei_kain2\u00a3n.d, while Shakuntala was crossing the road from<\/p>\n
V” ‘V.’j~vn_o1′:the.rn edge to southern end. On account of the accident,<\/p>\n
t<\/p>\n
5\/’.\n<\/p>\n
the mother Shakuntala died at the Spot and the son .po’fpthe
\ncomplainant was seriously injured.\n<\/p>\n
jurisdictional police filed a charge–sheet
\npunishable under Sections 279,
\nsubmitting the charge~sheet,
\nCourt. Provisions of Section 2o7lc\u00a3._’:>’.c.  l\u00a70f\ufb011pll’i\u00a7eldl with.
\nPlea was recorded on  not
\nguilty and claimed trial. ‘1lhe:’_p.r(ise{#1t~}\u00a7ii~ii\/\/M,-fstablish their<\/p>\n
case examined sixi_’.wi:tnesse–s a_sJPWs_– I ltow\ufb01 and got marked<\/p>\n
13 documeihl\u00e9iv  to Accused in cross–\n<\/p>\n
examination”1n:arl{ed.lVV_ti;iio.iidolcurrients which are marked as
\neXhibits–D.1–.  c.ross–eXamining PW\u00bb6, after the
\nieviidence\ufb02,  was examined under 313 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
The’leargxed-ti:’Magi’sti*ate on appreciation of the oral and<\/p>\n
7l’documentax”y_”evidence on record held that the prosecution<\/p>\n
approved that the accused drove his bus in a high speed<\/p>\n
 ‘Chikkodi side towards Nipani side and dashed to the<\/p>\n
 icol::r1plainant’s mother and son and caused the accident and<\/p>\n
l\u00bb2\/<\/p>\n
the prosecution has proved the offence beyond all reaso~n:a.h1e<\/p>\n
doubt against the accused and in the <\/p>\n
comp1ainant’s mother Shakuntala diedmdue to”‘thie’gne’gIige11t ii”<\/p>\n
and rash driving of the accused and ‘the1jefo:rei,’tn\u00bbhe~ <\/p>\n
an offence punishable under Sec’ti’on_304\u00a5’A   v V L’<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo one year  pay
\nfine of RS500\/~ for offenvciesf Section 279
\nIPC and in default togpay   one month’s
\nsimple iInpTiSOI\u20ac1I’\u00a31\u00a7’\u20acI}VfA::~i\u00e9iielifid   months simple
\nimprisonmezvntiiiian’d}_.V \/- for the offence
\ncommitted   In default to pay, he shall
\nundergo simpie  Further the accused was also
\n simple imprisonment and pay<\/p>\n
fine: the offence committed under Section<\/p>\n
 IAPC. ,.__’In~.ti’efau1t to pay fine, to undergo one month<\/p>\n
“svimpie..imprisonment. The sentence was ordered to be run<\/p>\n
V ” e . V ‘concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
gt, <\/p>\n
3. Aggrieved by the order convicting him, the actiised<\/p>\n
preferred a criminal appeal No.142 of 2004 <\/p>\n
Track Court–I (District and Sessions Judge,  Their ‘<\/p>\n
appellate court on reappreciation ofitheilentire-evidence’<\/p>\n
record formulated five issues for; consideratiorl,.5Tln”fact;’. l’.1’1\u20acV.”‘.<\/p>\n
accused had filed an application foi\ufb01ahdditionial. evidence under
\nSection 391 of the Crirriinal Efrnocevdiiifl”-Coded” ffhe said
\napplication was alsovpconsidered  appeal on<\/p>\n
merits. The  held  are not just and<\/p>\n
reasonable to:i\u00a7.rec:al’lil.:l_’theAurnlotor vehicle inspector to
\ndepose befolrepl ‘the “additional evidence. The
\nprosecution. provevd ibevond reasonable doubt that on
\n   p.rn. accused drove the bus on<\/p>\n
Nipanieii-Fi.ikl?iodi’ Road near BCPS in a high speed in a rash<\/p>\n
 and negl’i\u00abgen.__t’ ‘manner so as to endanger the human life and<\/p>\n
l  of others and dashed against Shakuntaia and<\/p>\n
 and caused death of Shakuntala and grievous<\/p>\n
 li11l_i4ur”‘ie’s to Vivekanand and therefore committed offences<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
punishabie under Sections 279, 338 and 3o54;jA\u00a7t’,;i1\u00a75c,.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it affirmed the order of conviction  <\/p>\n
learned Magistrate, but it modified the
\nMagistrate sentencing the accused
\nsimple imprisonment and pay   to
\nundergo simple imprisonment   offence
\npunishable under Section   remaining
\npart of the senten?ei:7iVi\u00a7’S  by these two<\/p>\n
orders, the accLt:s_ed;:has p–refetred’thisirevision petition.<\/p>\n
3. SriCjagadishw’:’f?atil,Vi4Vi1a%.arned counsel for the accused
\nassailing the  passed by the courts below
\ncc’-n.tende’cli,  the””ey_i__dence on record shows that the<\/p>\n
a\u00a2\u00a2::;:1e1}1t’r:o,o–x,’p1a\u00a2\u00e9 not on account of the rash and negligent<\/p>\n
 but because the deceased suddenly<\/p>\n
_jii_ipc*-tri4ed_,to cro~ss}the road with her grandchildren, which fact is<\/p>\n
‘1._’_’r;o_tfpf\u00e9periy appreciated by the courts below. Even<\/p>\n
it V-i:,otheI’w1?se, the deceased has also contributed by her<\/p>\n
it,\/<\/p>\n
047’-‘<\/p>\n
negligence to the accident which fact is not considered. <\/p>\n
courts below. Thirdly, he contended an app_1i’cat-ion:<\/p>\n
additional evidence to examine the motor ve–hic-}.e:’~..ir1’s.pector <\/p>\n
was made and it was rejected by the lower a=pf3’e1’l’ateV:courtsl<\/p>\n
without sufficient cause. Theref-‘)re..,_’ thel’ab’plication\u00bb0ugl_”lt to<\/p>\n
be allowed. Permission is to be grantee te”1\u00abe.e_d additional
\nevidence. Lastly he contended   sentence viz., one
\nyear simple imprisonment”‘i’s-::on’ht.h_el  side and it<\/p>\n
requires to be E~{vel:.:a_\ufb02lso that the accused
\nis entitled to _io1’\u00ab.v.:l.Secti.lonV 4 of the Probation of
\nOffenders Acts1958ands_iih’e..:c’o1;i1d be released by imposing<\/p>\n
only fine. :.~ ..\n<\/p>\n
..r\u00a7\u00a7;.n’tra~,learned public prosecutor supported the<\/p>\n
V liirripugned. 0rd’e1’s;~”\n<\/p>\n
“the death of Shakuntala and injury to Vivekanand.<\/p>\n
if\/is<\/p>\n
 ‘I’i1_eW:_rr1aterial on record clearly establishes the<\/p>\n
In fact the suggestions made to the prosecution.’Hvdvititeases<\/p>\n
and the statements made under Section 313  <\/p>\n
accused does not dispute the accideifitf “Iti_s”–.the caseiofuthe.<\/p>\n
accused that the deceased with the chi_1d’.<\/p>\n
the road and it is because of her r1vegiigence”‘Vtook
\nplace. It is in this contextigthe  hasvvitoxestablish
\nthat the accident, the death  due to the
\nrash and negligent ‘dri:\\3ing:=A.’0f  The material on
\nrecord clearly   is on the right
\nside of  from Chikkodi side at
\na distance oi;  road. The road is running
\neast to west. LA viras i’aci’ngTtowards west 80 feet away from
\n   H  mark on the tar road also<\/p>\n
bloodspoits” were’ pfresent. Even meat pieces were spread over.<\/p>\n
rent Wheel fit”  conductors side was touched to the dead<\/p>\n
 Even wheel was bloodstained. Exhibits–<\/p>\n
   sketch of scene of offence. In the sketch the bus<\/p>\n
  shcwn proceeding from Chikodi side to Nipani side and<\/p>\n
EL. 3<\/p>\n
the accident piace is shown towards right side i.e., nort4hce_rn<\/p>\n
side of the road about 3 feet away from <\/p>\n
road. On both sides 8 feet kutcha road is shown’ toiwardrs ”<\/p>\n
southern side KEB office is shown just a:’o’o2.it <\/p>\n
feet away. On the eastern side Sarriadi Math. i’oad=[i’s\u00bb..sho’wn. 2 L’<\/p>\n
Again towards the eastern side oftthis=r_oad.h\u00abou’se_ibf PW–2
\nMuneer Nabbesab Mulia andiiifishop \\u\/ithja’g1f’t’Jani are shown.
\nThe sketch disc1oses_’th_at or’ib’oth sidfgg e’~;’oo};:'{ 116 feet kutcha<\/p>\n
road exists and:.t’12″et<__tot,aE width-…of road is about 35 feet.<\/p>\n
80 feet away" is placed. Brake
\nmarks were  having meat pieces and
\nblood on the fo\ufb01dl  about four feet awar from the
\n daughter of the deceased is the<\/p>\n
eye–uw-itriiess" ~.i.vifr'1._ith.i's.–:case. She has deposed that while she<\/p>\n
 standing"i1i,A\u00ab:'front of the shop situated opposite Nipani–<\/p>\n
 on the northern side facing to the south the<\/p>\n
 high speed and dashed to her mother. Then the<\/p>\n
 id1*jii_x:r'e1"–"app1ied the brake and stopped the bus. The bus<\/p>\n
_ 19"\n<\/p>\n
dragged her mother for about 100 feet ahead a1’1d_~-then<\/p>\n
stopped. The left side front Wheel of the bus was on <\/p>\n
of her mother. immediately she ran to the spot  <\/p>\n
son. He had sustained injuries to head ‘and.other\u00abpia’rts of<\/p>\n
body. Bleeding was present and their %aw_-her <\/p>\n
who died on the spot. When the”‘-accident’—-tooi<eitwas
\nabout 12.30 pm. Further. she a}_.soiisL:atepdc'-that the said shop
\nis situated 200 feet away froni which was<\/p>\n
visible to them.  crosseef{arninatiwo_n;fit is elicited that<\/p>\n
she has  This evidence of hers
\nhas in no waypptaintediiindV.thc.:cro'ss–examination. In fact the
\nphotographs–i?9   been produced which clearly<\/p>\n
account'  thevpiace of the accident, the width of the<\/p>\n
road,i'—the  and the kutcha road on either side of<\/p>\n
 tar ir"o._adi.__"a\u00a7nd\u00ab:i"'the place where the bus stopped after the<\/p>\n
 Ir1*-thhe cross–examination of PW6 the accused got<\/p>\n
 'two documents as e:s<hibits–D1 to D2 which pertain to<\/p>\n
 "shop. It has been suggested that this is the shop to<\/p>\n
ta\/N<\/p>\n
which the complainant had gone to purchase the<\/p>\n
From the said photograph, it is clear that the shop  .<\/p>\n
beside the Nipani–Chikkodi road andhinear eierseei\u00abe\u00bbo1~the~<\/p>\n
accident. Thus photographs also reireaT.'_"th'atiiithe ::sa.id:i'i_T1=oiad:<\/p>\n
has got sufficient width and kutc-ha-..roadi'besi.c1ei"the._:tar. road. * it<\/p>\n
It is on appreciation of the aforesaid.:'ev_idenceionrecoird, both
\nthe courts have concurrently'heidgvft.h\u00bbati"theV:accident was on
\naccount of the rash..:ia.nd jziegligient the accused.<\/p>\n
The deceased    child Vivekanand<\/p>\n
sustained  nothing on record to
\nsuggest thatiiiithp\u00e9.dec’c.asiei(j.i;i’1t_a\u00a7p”contributed to the accident as
\ncontendedpbyf. the Similarly there is nothing on
\n accused was trying to cross the<\/p>\n
road suddenly got into the road which is<\/p>\n
 cause. for’ aeeident. The photographs clearly show that<\/p>\n
T accused “was driving the bus on the wrong side. He had<\/p>\n
V”\u00ab_:ta.i\u00a7\u00a2_f1″‘theVehicle to the extreme right side of the road. The<\/p>\n
  evide1’1ce on record discloses that the road was straight to an
\n‘ \\_,:iV,.-\n<\/p>\n
sidelined in forming the said opinion is “the nature-<\/p>\n
of the offence.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus Parliament has left it to the Court to decide:When’–a11d <\/p>\n
how the Court should form suchlgopiniojnll’=._l<\/p>\n
sufficient indication that releasing-.._the ‘c.on”victedl’Awper_son on. ”<\/p>\n
probation of good conductmust to  to be
\nexpedient. The Word   thoughtfully
\nemployed by the Parliarnent”i’n’:.tEi:e   to mean it as
\n“apt and  accomplishment
\nof a specified   ‘apt and suitable to
\nthe end in   held that the Court must
\nconstrue the said.  with the context and object
\nof.-the   iltlsfvid\ufb02est amplitude. The Word expedient<\/p>\n
used ‘inl'”Seyct.i’on:v’4l’o.f the Probation of Offenders Act in the<\/p>\n
.’ll”i._cvontext .of’lcastihg  duty on the Court to take into account<\/p>\n
Lthe’circumstances of the case including the nature of the<\/p>\n
 it means that Section 4 can be resorted to<\/p>\n
H  the Court considers the circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
particularly the nature of the offence and the court <\/p>\n
opinion that it is suitable and appropriate for    <\/p>\n
specified object that the offender can beiiirelreased <\/p>\n
of good conduct.\n<\/p>\n
After laying down the~..aforeisaiti–:’j\u00e9principlesvviiniivv applying
\nthe said principles to a case  iivsectiaga.n__’_i304–A IPC is<\/p>\n
concerned, the Sup’re’rne’ Court; 12as’ob’se’1″ve_df as under:<\/p>\n
 Clo’-rJrts::f:’\u00a7\ufb0221is~t;”bear_”iinV\u00e9mind that when
\nany plea is  S.-4 of the PO Act for
\napplicationjito VaVcoriifictietiii\u00e9pierson under 8.30-4–A of
\nI.P.C:..-,–. txhatua i”oaC1′.”‘accic1er1ts have profliferated to<\/p>\n
 evxxtentiiiantivthe toll is galloping up day-
\n ‘b;y–‘day\u00abv._ini  and that no solution is in sight
\n any quarters to bring them<\/p>\n
down.  this Court lamented two decades ago<\/p>\n
[7-‘\u00ab.___V’~\u00bb.that “:n\u00a2’re people die of road accidents than by<\/p>\n
“:i’1nos’t~\u00ab_.diseases, so much so the Indian highway are<\/p>\n
 among the top killers of the country” the<\/p>\n
saturation of accidents toll was not even <\/p>\n
what it is today.”\n<\/p>\n
In fact as on today, India is No’.__1 i::’1rthe’eeworld i”11:”=r_o’a1d<\/p>\n
accidents and the number of perv.-\u00a7(_)13.$ killedxin roaldlV.ac-cigdents. <\/p>\n
It is in this background the Supreme Cvourt   what
\nshould be the sentence -para 13 of the<\/p>\n
judgment it is stated as under”: — in V<\/p>\n
\u00ab 1  Bfea.\u00a31\ufb01g%: in it the… galloping trend in
\nroad   and the devastating
\nconsequences  victims and their
\nfamilies, Cr’imV_\u00a3na,1′:–Court’sV cannot treat the nature<\/p>\n
.–__of tire offencelu’n\u00abde_r.S.304–\u00bb~A, I.P.C. as attracting
\n provisions of S.-4 of the’PO Act.\n<\/p>\n
  the quantum of sentence, to be
\nimp.osedv.for:’..–the offence of causing death by rash
\nlpuor negligent driving of automobiles, one of the
\nllvv\ufb02fprinie considerations should be deterrence. A
\n e:’_lprofessiona1 driver pedals the accelerator of the<\/p>\n
VA   _,a1.:ltomobi1e almost throughout his working hours.<\/p>\n
He must constantly inform himself that he cannot
\nafford to have a single moment of laxity or___
\ninattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of
\nVehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should~~–noVt’__’__l”I’
\ntake a chance thinking that a rash driving.__:nejeclvvi’l–li
\nnot necessarily result in the death of’
\nbeing; or even if such death ensluesfhe
\nbe convicted of the offence; and  that\u00bb’eve.nv’l.if <\/p>\n
he is convicted of the offence”;\u00ab.aiid lastlv that <\/p>\n
if he is convicted he would be dealt-avvith\ufb01leniently<\/p>\n
by the Court. He  his mind<\/p>\n
the fear psyche  of the<\/p>\n
offence  a human being due to
\nhis callous drivingVgioifiuvehicle he cannot escape
\nfrom jailiiilsentenlcebv is the role which the
\nCotuits can pilayii: ip8.l’:’I1lCL11aI1y at the level of trial
\n,.4~Courts;””i:’pfoVi”g._lessevning the high rate of motor<\/p>\n
 ._.a”c._c.iden”ts_!dueto callous driving of automobiles.”<\/p>\n
‘V 6.  the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court,<\/p>\n
 getheijtrialii-…Acourt rightly applied those principles. and has<\/p>\n
i””‘_’~coi–ivicted the accused to undergo simple imprisonment as<\/p>\n
lg,<\/p>\n
well as to pay fine. The judgment and order <\/p>\n
learned Magistrate as well as by the Appellate Cotiirt   <\/p>\n
in accordance with law and they hai}e'”rigFi.t1y.gtiec.iine(3;: <\/p>\n
exercise their power under Section 4?, of the ‘Probatio=n”~.of<\/p>\n
Offenders Act. In that View   for
\ninterference is made outnor   out for
\nexercising the power under  Probation of
\nOffenders Act, esppeciiaiiiy  theeiiightiijof”tlrieiflaw laid down by
\nthe Apex Courtiin   Hence no merits,<\/p>\n
revision petition is cisrniisse4d’.\u00ab~., _.<\/p>\n
Sd\/-5
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State … on 28 August, 2009 Author: N.Kumar Bangaioreei IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT.’BEiN.CiH”‘v~., AT DHARWAD I ” t u * DATED THIS Tm: 28TH DAY oFWAUGU_sT\u00bb ~ _ 1: E BEFORE Q A’ i THE I~1ON’BLE MR. JIi’\u00a73Ti..CEVii1’J.,iiKIJMAi{i~..j.\\.’i…_..V 5; […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198081","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State ... on 28 August, 2009 - 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\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-05T10:27:06+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State … on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T10:27:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2382,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T10:27:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State … on 28 August, 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":"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State ... on 28 August, 2009 - 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\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-05T10:27:06+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State … on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T10:27:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":2382,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009","name":"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T10:27:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-shabbir-mohammadshiraj-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-by-its-state-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Shabbir Mohammadshiraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Its State … on 28 August, 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\/198081","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=198081"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198081\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198081"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198081"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198081"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}