{"id":218934,"date":"2011-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-13T10:27:14","modified_gmt":"2015-12-13T04:57:14","slug":"chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A.M. Thipsay<\/div>\n
                                        1\n                                                                    cri-app.423-2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n    mgn\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n          Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh         .......Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                Vs.\n                         \n          The State of Maharashtra              ........Respondent\n\n          Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhari i\/b. Ms. Tasneem E. Kanthawala for\n                        \n          the appellant.\n          Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP for the State.\n\n                                   CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE &\n                                          A.M. THIPSAY, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                     DATED: 22nd March, 2011<\/p>\n
          ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)<\/p>\n
                The appellant was tried as accused No.3 in Sessions<\/p>\n
          Case No.363 of 2005 and as per the judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
          10th August, 2006 the appellant along with accused No.4-Arjul<\/p>\n
          Nepal Gazi and accused No.5-Lambu @ Aminuru Ijul Gazi has<\/p>\n
          been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
          Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and the said order of<\/p>\n
          conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
     2.    Before the trial Court the appellant’s age was shown as<\/p>\n
     19 years and from the record it is clear that he is not treated to<\/p>\n
     be a juvenile as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and<\/p>\n
     Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for       short “the Juvenile<\/p>\n
     Justice Act, 2000). The appeal came to be admitted on 6th April,<\/p>\n
     2009 by this Court and it appears that during the pendency of<\/p>\n
     this appeal he filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.<\/p>\n
     2156 of 2009 in Sessions Case No.360 of 2005 before the<\/p>\n
     learned Additional Sessions Judge at Thane. In the application<\/p>\n
     it was stated that the appellant was never admitted to any<\/p>\n
     school and did not possess any document showing his date of<\/p>\n
     birth. His father Mohamed Istraeel was examined along with<\/p>\n
     himself and in the oral depositions it was claimed that the<\/p>\n
     applicant was born in the year 1989.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    By following the requirements of Rule 12(3) (b) of the<\/p>\n
     Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007<\/p>\n
     (for short Rules of 2007) the trial Court ordered ossification<\/p>\n
     test to be carried out for determination of the appellant’s age<\/p>\n
     and he was sent to the Civil Hospital at Thane. His ossification<\/p>\n
     test was conducted on 10th April, 2010 and on the same day<\/p>\n
     the Medical Officer gave his opinion that the age of the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                     3<\/span>
\n                                                                  cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
     appellant was between 20 to 25 years. The Court accepted the<\/p>\n
     said opinion and having regard to the scheme of Rule 12(3)(b)<\/p>\n
     of the Rules of 2007 it held by its order dated 21st January,<\/p>\n
     2011 that on the date of the offence i.e. on 3rd June, 2005 the<\/p>\n
     appellant was below the age of 18 years and, therefore, a<\/p>\n
     juvenile in conflict with law. However, as the instant appeal<\/p>\n
     has been pending in this Court the learned Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
     Judge could not grant any further relief to the appellant and has<\/p>\n
     forwarded his findings under the letter dated 21st January, 2011<\/p>\n
     to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    Dr. Chaudhari the learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
     appellant urged before us that the findings of the Additional<\/p>\n
     Sessions Judge recorded in the order dated 21st January, 2011<\/p>\n
     in Criminal Misc. Application No.215 of 2009 do not suffer<\/p>\n
     from any error and are, therefore, required to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    Mrs. Pai, the learned A.P.P., on the other hand submitted<\/p>\n
     that under Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules of 2007 the ossification<\/p>\n
     test was required to be undertaken by a Medical Board duly<\/p>\n
     constituted by the State Government and not by any Medical<\/p>\n
     Officer in the Civil Hospital. As per Mrs. Pai, the medical<\/p>\n
     opinion recorded in favour of the appellant and accepted by the<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span>
\n                                                               cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
     trial Court is thus not in keeping with the requirements of Rule<\/p>\n
     12(3)(b) of the Rules of 2007 and, therefore, unless the age<\/p>\n
     determination test is conducted by the Medical Board the case<\/p>\n
     of the appellant cannot be considered for his claim of being a<\/p>\n
     juvenile in conflict with law.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    In rebuttal Dr. Chaudhari has invited our attention to the<\/p>\n
     Rules amended by the State of Maharashtra by its notification<\/p>\n
     dated 11th January, 2011 published in the Government Gazette<\/p>\n
     dated 13th January, 2011. The Government of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     published the Maharashtra Juvenile Justice (Care and<\/p>\n
     Protection of Children) Amendment Rules, 2011 thereby<\/p>\n
     amending the Maharashtra Juvenile Justice (Care and<\/p>\n
     Protection of Children) Rules, 2002 and referred to in the<\/p>\n
     notification as Principal Rules. Rule 8G of the amended Rules<\/p>\n
     of 2011 deals with age determination and it would be<\/p>\n
     appropriate to reproduce the said Rule as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “8G. Age determination.– (1) In every case concerning<\/p>\n
           a juvenile or child the Board or the Committee or any<\/p>\n
           court shall determine the age of such juvenile or child<\/p>\n
           within a period of thirty days from,–<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i) the date of first production before the Board or<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                   5<\/span>
\n                                                           cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
      Committee, or<\/p>\n
      (ii) the date of filing of application before any court<\/p>\n
      claiming that an accused or a person convicted of an<\/p>\n
      offence is a juvenile, or<\/p>\n
      (iii) the date of raising the issue of age before any court<\/p>\n
      that is seized of any proceeding relating to a child in<\/p>\n
      need of care and protection, or<\/p>\n
      (iv) the date when any court initiates suo-motto action<\/p>\n
      for determination of age.\n<\/p>\n
      (2) While conducting an inquiry for determination of<\/p>\n
      age, the Board or the Committee or the court, shall seek<\/p>\n
      proof of age by obtaining any of the following<\/p>\n
      documents:-\n<\/p>\n
      (i) a birth certificate issued by a local self Government.\n<\/p>\n
      (ii) a certificate issued by school reflecting the date of<\/p>\n
      birth as recorded in the school register.\n<\/p>\n
      (3) In the event of doubting the authenticity of the above<\/p>\n
      documents, the Board or the Committee or any court<\/p>\n
      shall call upon the Special Juvenile Police Unit or<\/p>\n
      Juvenile Welfare Officer of concerned police station to<\/p>\n
      enquire the authenticity of any of the documents<\/p>\n
      submitted as proof of age.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                          cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
      (4) on the basis of above documents, the Board or<\/p>\n
      Committee or any court shall record a finding of age<\/p>\n
      which shall be conclusive proof of age regarding that<\/p>\n
      juvenile or child.\n<\/p>\n
      (5) If the documents mentioned in sub-rule (2) are not<\/p>\n
      available or the document submitted is not found to be<\/p>\n
      authentic, the age of the person shall be determine by<\/p>\n
      seeking the medical opinion of hospitals authorized by<\/p>\n
      the Government. On the basis of the medical opinion,<\/p>\n
      the Boards or the Committee or any Court shall record a<\/p>\n
      finding of age, which shall be conclusive proof of age<\/p>\n
      cannot be done, the Board or the Committee or any court<\/p>\n
      for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if<\/p>\n
      considered necessary, give benefit to the child or<\/p>\n
      juvenile by considering his\/her age on lower side within<\/p>\n
      the margin of one year.\n<\/p>\n
      (6) In the event of doubting the bona-fides and integrity<\/p>\n
      of the medical opinion, the Board or the Committee or<\/p>\n
      any court may direct a second medical examination to<\/p>\n
      ascertain the age of the juvenile or child. In the event of<\/p>\n
      conflict between the two medical opinions, the Board or<\/p>\n
      Committee or the court may examine the registered<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                      7<\/span>
\n                                                              cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
          medical practitioners to determine the age of the juvenile<\/p>\n
          or child.\n<\/p>\n
          (7) If necessary, the Board or the Committee or any court<\/p>\n
          conducting an age determination inquiry may orally<\/p>\n
          examine the parent or guardian or school authority or<\/p>\n
          representative of hospital authorized by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
          (8) On completion of the age determination inquiry, the<\/p>\n
          Board or the Committee or any court shall record a<\/p>\n
          finding with regards to age by passing a written order<\/p>\n
          recording the age and declaring whether the person in<\/p>\n
          respect of whom the age inquiry was conducted is a<\/p>\n
          juvenile or child for the purpose of the Act, and a copy<\/p>\n
          of such order shall be furnished to the juvenile or child<\/p>\n
          or person concerned.\n<\/p>\n
          (9) The Board or the Committee shall not conduct an age<\/p>\n
          determination inquiry if the juvenile or child has been<\/p>\n
          produced before the Board or the Committee under the<\/p>\n
          orders of any court which has conducted the age<\/p>\n
          determination inquiry and found the concerned person to<\/p>\n
          be a juvenile or child.”\n<\/p>\n
     7.   We are concerned with Rule 8G (5) of the amended<\/p>\n
     Rules 2011 of the Government of Maharashtra. As per Dr.<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                    8<\/span>
\n                                                               cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
     Chaudhari even though these Rules have come into force from<\/p>\n
     the date of their publication i.e. 13th January, 2011 the order<\/p>\n
     passed by the trial Court cannot be faulted with and even if the<\/p>\n
     appellant was required to be sent to the Medical Board, the<\/p>\n
     learned A.P.P., who appeared before the trial Court appears to<\/p>\n
     have accepted the ossification test conducted by the Civil<\/p>\n
     Hospital at Thane. However, as of now in the State of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra the amended Rules of 2011 would prevail and as<\/p>\n
     per Rule 8G (5) of the said Rules a medical opinion of the<\/p>\n
     hospital authorised by the Government regarding the<\/p>\n
     determination of age has to be accepted and it is not necessary<\/p>\n
     that in every case the age determination has to be done by the<\/p>\n
     Medical Board.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    We, therefore, do not find any case made out to doubt or<\/p>\n
     discard the opinion of the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,<\/p>\n
     Thane, determining the age of the appellant as between 20 to<\/p>\n
     25 years as on 10th April, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    Now coming to the determination of being a juvenile,<\/p>\n
     the trial Court has considered the date of offence i.e. on 3rd<\/p>\n
     June, 2005 and if the age of the appellant was accepted to be<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                    9<\/span>
\n                                                               cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
     20 years (lower side) as on the date of the offence, his age<\/p>\n
     would be 15 years and 2 months. In the alternative, if the age<\/p>\n
     of 20 and 25 years is taken into consideration, the appellant’s<\/p>\n
     age as on 10th April, 2010 would be 22 \u00bd years ( by average<\/p>\n
     method) and thus as on the date of the offence his age would<\/p>\n
     be 17 years and 8 months. By any of these alternative methods<\/p>\n
     the appellant would be a juvenile as on 3rd June, 2005 i.e. less<\/p>\n
     than 18 years of age. Under Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules of 2007<\/p>\n
     as framed by the Government of India as well as under Rule<\/p>\n
     8G(5) of the Rules amended in 2011 by the Government of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra the age of the juvenile could be terminated by<\/p>\n
     giving margin of one year on the lower side and we have noted<\/p>\n
     that even without giving such a margin the trial Court has<\/p>\n
     recorded findings on both counts. We are, therefore, satisfied<\/p>\n
     that the findings of the trial Court do not suffer from any<\/p>\n
     infirmity and the opinion about the age of the appellant being<\/p>\n
     less than 18 years as on 3rd June, 2005 is required to be<\/p>\n
     accepted. Dr. Chaudhari in this regard has rightly relied upon<\/p>\n
     the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Babban Rai<\/p>\n
     & Anr. vs. State of Bihar, 2008 Cri. L.J. 1038.\n<\/p>\n
     10.    Once we uphold the finding that the appellant is a<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                   10<\/span>
\n                                                               cri-app.423-2009<\/p>\n
     juvenile in conflict with law as defined under Section 2(l) of<\/p>\n
     the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 the order of sentence has to be<\/p>\n
     set aside and so far as the order of conviction is concerned, Dr.<\/p>\n
     Chaudhari seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal. The appellant<\/p>\n
     has by now crossed the age of 18 years and, therefore, there is<\/p>\n
     no question of his being directed to be produced before the<\/p>\n
     Juvenile Board to undergo sentence and even otherwise, by<\/p>\n
     now he has actually undergone the sentence of 5 years.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   In the result, the order of sentence of life imprisonment<\/p>\n
     awarded to the appellant is set aside as the appellant was a<\/p>\n
     juvenile on the date of the incident i.e. 3rd June, 2005 and the<\/p>\n
     appeal is partly allowed and for the challenge to the order of<\/p>\n
     conviction the appeal is disposed as withdrawn. We direct that<\/p>\n
     the appellant be released forthwith unless required to be<\/p>\n
     detained in any other criminal case.\n<\/p>\n
     (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)                     (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:07:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011 Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A.M. Thipsay 1 cri-app.423-2009 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 of 2009 Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh …….Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ……..Respondent Dr. Yug […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011 - 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\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-13T04:57:14+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-13T04:57:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1927,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-13T04:57:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011 - 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\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-13T04:57:14+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-13T04:57:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011"},"wordCount":1927,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011","name":"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-13T04:57:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotu-asif-istraeel-shaikh-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chhotu @ Asif Istraeel Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/218934","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=218934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}