{"id":201147,"date":"2004-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004"},"modified":"2017-07-22T07:42:30","modified_gmt":"2017-07-22T02:12:30","slug":"union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  288 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMahaboob Alam\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/02\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN.Santosh Hegde &amp; B.P.Singh.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.5200 of 2003)<\/p>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent herein was convicted by the Special<br \/>\nJudge, N.D.P.S. Court, Lucknow, under section 21 of the<br \/>\nNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the<br \/>\nAct) and since he was a previous offender, the court awarded<br \/>\nhim the enhanced punishment provided under section 31 of the<br \/>\nAct and he was sentenced to undergo RI for 15 years with a fine<br \/>\nof Rs.1,50,000; in default to undergo RI for an additional period<br \/>\nof 2 years. It is to be noted that the respondent herein was<br \/>\naccused No.2 in the said case before the trial court while A-1<br \/>\nbeing a first offender was sentenced under section 21 of the Act<br \/>\nto undergo RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 lac; in default of<br \/>\npayment of fine he was sentenced to undergo RI for an<br \/>\nadditional period of 1 = years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court while entertaining an appeal against the<br \/>\nsaid judgment and conviction filed by the respondent herein,<br \/>\ndid not grant the respondent&#8217;s prayer for bail, consequently the<br \/>\nsaid application for bail was rejected on 9.7.2002. On a second<br \/>\napplication filed by the respondent for grant of bail, the High<br \/>\nCourt allowed the said application by the impugned order dated<br \/>\n4.3.2003 solely on the ground that A-1 from whom the<br \/>\ncontraband was recovered, was released on bail and the<br \/>\ncontraband in question was not recovered from the respondent.<br \/>\nFrom the impugned judgment we notice that the High Court did<br \/>\nnot advert to any other aspect of the case nor to the legal<br \/>\nrestriction imposed by the statute under section 32A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Union of India has preferred the above appeal<br \/>\nagainst the said order of the High Court enlarging the<br \/>\nrespondent on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is relevant to mention herein that against the grant of<br \/>\nbail in regard to A-1 who was also enlarged on bail and whose<br \/>\nenlargement on bail was made the sole ground for enlarging the<br \/>\npresent respondent bail, the Union of India has preferred a<br \/>\nseparate SLP in which notice and non-bailable warrants have<br \/>\nbeen issued by this Court which have remained unexecuted till<br \/>\ndate. The fact remains that the Union of India has challenged<br \/>\nthe grant of bail to said accused also.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the<br \/>\nUnion of India contended that the High Court apart from not<br \/>\nconsidering the mandatory restriction under section 32A of the<br \/>\nAct, did not also notice the fact that the respondent was a<br \/>\nprevious offender and there were at least 4 other similar cases<br \/>\npending against him under the Act. The High Court also did not<br \/>\nconsider the possibility of the offender again indulging in the<br \/>\ndealings of contraband articles in the event of he being released<br \/>\non bail which is also a very relevant factor to be borne in mind<br \/>\nwhile granting bail in cases involving offences under the Act.<br \/>\nHe further contended that the respondent having suffered a<br \/>\nconviction, there is a presumption that the prosecution has<br \/>\nestablished its case against him in that circumstance, it was not<br \/>\nproper for the High Court to have enlarged the respondent on<br \/>\nbail. Learned counsel also submitted that the High Court failed<br \/>\nto take into consideration various judgments of this Court in<br \/>\nregard to enlarging the offenders on bail under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPer contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended<br \/>\nthat the respondent is a victim of conspiracy hatched by the<br \/>\nDepartment of Narcotics and the Police because in the year<br \/>\n1995, he had made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police<br \/>\nthat some of the Police Officers had illegally detained him and<br \/>\nhad demanded and collected a sum of Rs.50,000 for his release.<br \/>\nIt is because of that complaint made by the respondent, the<br \/>\nPolice and the officials of the Department of Narcotics are<br \/>\nfoisting false cases against the respondent. He also contended<br \/>\nthat in the present case as well as in other cases also no<br \/>\ncontraband goods have been recovered from the respondent and<br \/>\nthat the respondent has served nearly 4 years of his sentence,<br \/>\nand there is no possibility of the appeal being taken up for final<br \/>\nhearing in the near future, hence, the High Court was justified<br \/>\nin granting bail to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the case of Dadu alias Tulsidas etc. v. State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra (2000 8 SCC 437), this Court held that though a<br \/>\npart of section 32-A insofar as it ousts the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\ncourt to suspend the sentence awarded to the convict under the<br \/>\nAct is unconstitutional, still held that the whole of the section<br \/>\nwould not be invalid and the restriction imposed by the<br \/>\noffending section was distinct and severable. It further held that<br \/>\nthe legislative mandate under that Section has to be followed by<br \/>\nthe courts while granting bail to the offenders under the Act. It<br \/>\nalso held that the court should bear in mind &#8220;that in a murder<br \/>\ncase, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while<br \/>\nthose persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are<br \/>\ninstrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a<br \/>\nnumber of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it<br \/>\ncauses deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society;<br \/>\nthey are a hazard to the society; even if they are released<br \/>\ntemporarily, in all probability, they would continue their<br \/>\nnefarious activities of trafficking and\/or dealing in intoxicants<br \/>\nclandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit<br \/>\ninvolved.&#8221; In the said judgment also relied on the following<br \/>\npassage with approval in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1054146\/\">Durand Didier v. Chief<br \/>\nSecretary, Union Territory of Goa<\/a> (1990 1 SCC 95) in the<br \/>\nfollowing words :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;With deep concern, we may point out that the organised<br \/>\nactivities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of<br \/>\nnarcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country<br \/>\nand illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to<br \/>\ndrug addiction among a sizeable section of the public,<br \/>\nparticularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the<br \/>\nmenace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the<br \/>\nrecent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and<br \/>\neradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace,<br \/>\ncausing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as<br \/>\na whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective<br \/>\nprovisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying<br \/>\nmandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFollowing the above dangerous trend arising out of<br \/>\nnarcotics trade, this Court in the said case held though the court<br \/>\nhas the power of granting bail inspite of the language of section<br \/>\n32-A that the same should be done only and strictly subject to<br \/>\nthe conditions spelt out in section 37 of the Act.<br \/>\nWe notice that in the impugned judgment there has been<br \/>\nabsolutely no application of mind to the above requirement of<br \/>\nlaw while granting bail to the respondent and the learned Judge<br \/>\nseriously erred in granting bail to a repeat offender merely on<br \/>\nthe ground that a co-accused has been granted bail. While doing<br \/>\nso, the learned Judge has totally ignored the legislative intent of<br \/>\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe argument of learned counsel for the respondent that<br \/>\nthe appellant is a victim of vengeance, is an argument to be<br \/>\ntaken note of by the High Court when it hears the appeal on<br \/>\nmerit, and cannot be an argument for the purpose of grant of<br \/>\nbail; more so when the trial court has taken note of this<br \/>\nargument and has rejected the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHaving perused the records, we are satisfied that this is<br \/>\nnot a case in which the High Court ought to have enlarged the<br \/>\nrespondent on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set<br \/>\naside the impugned order. The respondent who is in custody by<br \/>\nvirtue of the non-bailable warrants  issued by this Court, shall<br \/>\ncontinue to be in custody unless for good reasons, he is<br \/>\nenlarged on bail by a competent court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004 Author: S Hegde Bench: N.Santosh Hegde, B.P.Singh. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 288 of 2004 PETITIONER: Union of India RESPONDENT: Mahaboob Alam DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/02\/2004 BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde &amp; B.P.Singh. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out [&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-201147","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>Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-22T02:12:30+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\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T02:12:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1338,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T02:12:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-22T02:12:30+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\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T02:12:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004"},"wordCount":1338,"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\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004","name":"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T02:12:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-mahaboob-alam-on-27-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Mahaboob Alam on 27 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/201147","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=201147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}