{"id":233274,"date":"2004-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004"},"modified":"2017-11-27T14:08:13","modified_gmt":"2017-11-27T08:38:13","slug":"kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1350 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nKachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLegality of action taken and order passed  by learned Sub-
\nDivisional Magistrate, Sakoli  (for short ‘SDM’) under Section 133 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) having
\nupheld by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, this appeal
\nhas been filed.  It is of relevance to note that the appellants had
\nfiled a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia,
\nquestioning legality of the order dated 7.2.1989 passed by the SDM. The
\nrevisional authority held that the order passed by the SDM was not
\nlegal.  Thereafter a revision was filed by the five of the original
\napplicants, who had initiated action before the SDM.  The High Court as
\nnoted above, by the impugned judgment held that the order passed by the
\nSDM was legal and proper.  The revisional court should not have
\ninterfered with it.\n<\/p>\n
\tBackgrounds facts as per the complainants are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe original non-applicant M\/s. Ramchand Bhagirath is a
\nproprietary concern of Bhagirath Ramchand Agrawal (since deceased). He
\nwas a commission agent in a Kirana goods and was also a wholesale
\ndealer in dry chillies.  In Ansari Ward of Gondia city, he had a godown
\nin a double storied building known as Vishnu Kunj where he used to
\nstore large quantity of chillies.  The applicants before learned SDM
\nare residents of Ansari Ward which is mainly a residential locality.
\nPresent appellant No.1 being a wholesale dealer in dry chillies,
\neveryday trucks loaded with dry chillies come to his godown and then
\nthe same are unloaded and stored in the godown.  Similarly, loading of
\ndry chillies also goes on for distributing the same to his customers.
\nThis has been going on since several years and it appears to have
\nbecome a routine thing.  The applicants however made a grievance that
\non account of storing of dry chillies in the godown as well as the work
\nof loading and unloading thereof the health and physical comfort of the
\nresidents in that locality were affected and it has become practically
\nimpossible for them to bear any further.  According to them, the
\nloading and unloading of chillies cause pollution with the result that
\nmany residents in the locality suffer from sneezing, coughing, asthma,
\nirritation of skin and burning sensation.  The applicants, therefore,
\nmoved the Municipal Council for taking necessary action in this behalf.
\nHowever, since the Municipal Council did not give any response, the
\napplicants moved learned SDM, Gondia, under Section 133 of the Code.
\nThe learned SDM, after finding that there was a prima facie case
\nagainst the present applicants issued a conditional order dated
\n12.3.1985 under Section 133(1)(b) of the Code with a notice to them to
\nshow cause as to why the same should not be confirmed and made
\nabsolute.  Pursuant to the said notice, the appellants appeared before
\nlearned SDM, Gondia, and filed reply.  In the said reply, it was
\nsubmitted that the building “Vishnu Kunj” was being used as godown but
\nit was denied that the loading and unloading of dry chillies pollutes
\nthe atmosphere and causes physical injury or discomfort to the
\nresidents of the locality.  It was pointed out that the godown is a
\npakka construction and that whenever loading and unloading is required
\nto be done, water is sprinkled to avoid pollution.  This has been going
\non for about 20 years and nobody ever made any complaint in that
\nbehalf. Learned SDM, Gondia, allowed the parties to lead evidence in
\nsupport of their respective contentions.  He recorded part of the
\nevidence and thereafter the case was transferred to learned SDM,
\nSakoli, who completed the enquiry. Learned SDM, Sakoli, upon
\nconsideration of the evidence of the witnesses came to the following
\nconclusions viz.:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tPeople in general in the locality in sufficient number are
\nsuffering from the loading and unloading of dry chillies and
\nits storage in the godown;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tIt has resulted not only in their adverse health and
\ndiscomfort but a few are permanently suffering in the sense
\nthat some of them are suffering from sickness and ailment;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tEven the witnesses of the non-applicant admitted that due to
\nthis business, there is discomfort and injury to physical
\nhealth;\n<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, learned SDM, Sakoli, held that the
\napplicants proved public nuisance and physical discomfort to them.
\nConsequently, learned SDM, Sakoli, proceeded to pass an order under
\nSection 133 of the Code, operative part of which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The non-applicant is hereby directed that he will
\nnot keep, store and transport chillies in the
\ngodown, Vishnu Kunj as the same is injurious to the
\nhealth and physical comfort of the community and he
\nshall also remove all the goods stored therein. This
\norder shall be given effect from 22nd February, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
Notice in form No.21 be issued to the non-\n<\/p>\n
applicant.”\n<\/p>\n
Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present appellants preferred
\nCriminal Revision Application No.17 of 1989 in the court of the
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Gondia.  The learned Additional Sessions
\nJudge proceeded to reassess the  evidence adduced by the parties and
\ncame to the conclusion that the learned SDM, committed error in holding
\nthat the business of the non-applicant causes public nuisance.  He
\nfurther held that the learned SDM ignored the evidence adduced on
\nbehalf of the non-applicant and attached too much importance to the
\nevidence of the applicants.  The learned Additional Sessions Judge
\nfurther held that the learned SDM had arbitrarily used his discretion
\nin favour of the original applicants and, therefore, it was a fit case
\nto interfere with the impugned order.  In this view of the matter, the
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application
\nfiled by the original non-applicant and set aside the order passed by
\nlearned SDM.  A Criminal Revision Application was filed by some of the
\noriginal applicants before the High Court to set aside the revisional
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
\tOriginally, there were ten applicants, five of whom later on had
\nwithdrawn.  Therefore, five of the original applicants moved the High
\nCourt, which came to hold that the conditions requisite for passing of
\norder under Section 133(1)(b) as well as final order under Section 138
\nof the Code were not fulfilled. Accordingly it set aside order of the
\nrevisional Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants
\nsubmitted that the scope and ambit of Section 133 has not been kept in
\nview.  The evidence was not sufficient to show that community was
\naffected by the conduct of keeping any goods by the appellant. It has
\nnot been established that such conduct of business was injurious to the
\nhealth or physical comfort of the community.  It was pointed out that
\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge had analysed the factual and legal
\nposition to hold that the basic requirements for passing an order under
\nSection 133 of the Code were absent. Alternatively, it was submitted
\nthat the SDM had the jurisdiction to pass directions regulating conduct
\nof the trade or keeping of the goods.  This aspect has not been
\nexamined by learned SDM and the High Court.  For pretty long time the
\nappellant was carrying business without any grievance whatsoever by any
\nmember of the community. It was submitted that the appellant is a
\ncommission agent and there was no material to conclude that he was
\ndealing in red chilly.  The non-dried chillies were stored and cannot
\nin any manner create inconvenience or injuries to the health and legal
\ncomfort of the community. There was no material to show that the
\ncommunity as such was affected. In fact, because of business rivalry
\nten applicants had filed petitions before the learned SDM. Five of them
\nlater on realized that it was not worthwhile to proceed in the matter
\nas the ingredients of Section 133 of the Code were not satisfied and
\nwithdrew.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
\nthe learned SDM had elaborately examined the factual and legal
\nposition.\n<\/p>\n
It was pointed out that while exercising revisional jurisdiction
\nlearned Sessions Judge should not have interfered with the well-
\nreasoned and well-merited order passed by the learned SDM.  The High
\nCourt, therefore, analysed the factual and legal position afresh and
\ncame to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned SDM under
\nSection 133 of the Code was justified.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 133 so far as it is relevant for our purpose reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
133. CONDITIONAL ORDER FOR REMOVAL OF NUISANCE.
\n(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-\n<\/p>\n
divisional Magistrate or any other Executive
\nMagistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the
\nState Government, on receiving the report of a
\npolice officer or other information and on taking
\nsuch evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers –\n<\/p>\n
(a) xx\t\t\txx\t\t\txx\n<\/p>\n
(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or
\nthe keeping of any goods or merchandise, is
\ninjurious to the health or physical comfort of the
\ncommunity, and that in consequence such trade or
\noccupation should be prohibited or regulated or such
\ngoods or merchandise should be removed or the
\nkeeping thereof regulated; or\n<\/p>\n
(c)to (f) xx\t\t\txx\t\t\txx
\nsuch Magistrate may make a conditional order
\nrequiring the person causing such obstruction or
\nnuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation,
\nor keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning,
\npossessing or controlling such building, tent,
\nstructure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or
\nowning or possessing such animal or tree, within a
\ntime to be fixed in the order –\n<\/p>\n
(i) xx\t\t\t\txx\t\t\txx\n<\/p>\n
(ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or
\nregulate in such manner as may be directed, such
\ntrade or occupation, or to remove such goods or
\nmerchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in
\nsuch manner as may be directed; or\n<\/p>\n
(iii) to (vi)\txx\t\t  xx\t\t\txx
\nor, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself
\nor some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to
\nhim at a time and place to be fixed by the order,
\nand show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided,
\nwhy the order should not be made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
(2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this
\nsection shall be called in question in any Civil
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
 xx\t\t\t\txx\t\t\t\txx”\n<\/p>\n
\tA proceeding under Section 133 is of a summary nature. It appears
\nas a part of Chapter X of the Code which relates to maintenance of
\npublic order and tranquility. The Chapter has been classified into four
\ncategories. Sections 129 to 132 come under the category of “unlawful
\nassemblies”.  Sections 133 to 143 come under the category of “public
\nnuisance”. Section 144 comes under the category of “urgent cases of
\nnuisance or apprehended danger” and the last category cover Sections
\n145 to 149 relating to “disputes as to immovable property”.  Nuisances
\nare of two kinds, i.e. (i) Public; and (ii) Private.  ‘Public nuisance’
\nor ‘common nuisance’ as defined in Section 268 of the Indian Penal
\nCode, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) is an offence against the public either
\nby doing a thing which tends to the annoyance of the whole community in
\ngeneral or by neglecting to do anything which the common good requires.
\nIt is an act or omission which causes any common injury, danger or
\nannoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy
\nproperty in the vicinity.  ‘Private nuisance’ on the other hand,
\naffects some individuals as distinguished from the public at large.
\nThe remedies are of two kinds  civil and criminal.  The remedies under
\nthe civil law are of two kinds.  One is under Section 91 of the Code of
\nCivil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’).  Under it a suit lies and the
\nplaintiffs need not prove that they have sustained any special damage.
\nThe second remedy is a suit by a private individual for a special
\ndamage suffered by him.  There are three remedies under the criminal
\nlaw.  The first relates to the prosecution under Chapter XIV of IPC.
\nThe second provides for summary proceedings under Sections 133 to 144
\nof the Code, and the third relates to remedies under special or local
\nlaws.  Sub-section (2) of Section 133 postulates that no order duly
\nmade by a Magistrate under this Section shall be called in question in
\nany civil Court. The provisions of Chapter X of the Code should be so
\nworked as not to become themselves a nuisance to the community at
\nlarge.  Although every person is bound to so use his property that it
\nmay not work legal damage or harm to his neighbour, yet on the other
\nhand, no one has a right to interfere with the free and full enjoyment
\nby such person of his property, except on clear and absolute proof that
\nsuch use of it by him is producing such legal damage or harm.
\nTherefore, a lawful and necessary trade ought not to be interfered with
\nunless it is proved to be injurious to the health or physical comfort
\nof the community. Proceedings under Section 133 are not intended to
\nsettle private disputes between different members of the public.  They
\nare in fact intended to protect the public as a whole against
\ninconvenience. A comparison between the provisions of Section 133 and
\n144 of the Code shows that while the former is more specific the latter
\nis more general.  Therefore, nuisance specially provided in the former
\nsection is taken out of the general provisions of the latter section.
\nThe proceedings under Section 133 are more in the nature of civil
\nproceedings than of criminal nature. Section 133(1)(b) relates to trade
\nor occupation which is injurious to health or physical comfort.  It
\ndeals with itself physical comfort to the community and not with those
\nwhich are in themselves nuisance but in the course of which public
\nnuisance is committed.  In order to bring a trade or occupation within
\nthe operation of this Section, it must be shown that the interference
\nwith public comfort was considerable and a large section of the public
\nwas affected injuriously.  The word ‘community’ in Clause (b) of
\nSection 133(1) cannot be taken to mean residents of a particular house.
\nIt means something wider, that is, the public at large or the residents
\nof an entire locality.  The very fact that the provision occurs in a
\nChapter with “Public Nuisance” is indicative of this aspect.  It would,
\nhowever, depend on the facts situation of each case and it would be
\nhazardous to lay down any straitjacket formula.
\n\tThe guns of Section 133 go into action wherever there is public
\nnuisance.  The public power of the Magistrate under the Code is a
\npublic duty to the members of the public who are victims of the
\nnuisance, and so he shall exercise it when the jurisdictional facts are
\npresent.  “All power is a trust  that we are accountable for its
\nexercise  that, from the people, and for the people, all springs and
\nall must exist”.  The conduct of the trade must be injurious in
\npresenti to the health or physical comfort of the community.  There
\nmust, at any rate, be an imminent danger to the health or the physical
\ncomfort of the community in the locality in which the trade or
\noccupation is conducted.  Unless there is such imminent danger to the
\nhealth or physical comfort of that community or the conduct of the
\ntrade and occupation is in fact injurious to the health or the physical
\ncomfort of that community, an order under Section 133 cannot be passed.
\nA conjoint reading of Sections 133 and 138 of the Code discloses that
\nit is the function of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and to
\ndecide as to whether there was reliable evidence or not to come to the
\nconclusion to act under Section 133.\n<\/p>\n
Section 133 of the Code as noted above appears in Chapter X of
\nthe Code which deals with maintenance of public order and tranquility.
\nIt is a part of the heading “Public nuisance”.  The term “nuisance” as
\nused in law is not a term capable of exact definition and it has been
\npointed out in Halsbury’s Laws of England that:
\n“even in the present day there is not entire
\nagreement as to whether certain acts or omissions
\nshall be classed as nuisances or whether they do not
\nrather fall under other divisions of the law of
\ntour”.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Vasant Manga Nikumba v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu (1995 Supp (4)
\nSCC 54) it was observed that nuisance is an inconvenience which
\nmaterially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human
\nexistence. It is not capable of precise definition.  To bring in
\napplication of Section 133 of the Code, there must be imminent danger
\nto the property and consequential nuisance to the public. The nuisance
\nis the concomitant act resulting in danger to the life or property due
\nto likely collapse etc. The object and purpose behind Section 133 of
\nthe Code is essentially to prevent public nuisance and involves a sense
\nof urgency in the sense that if the Magistrate fails to take recourse
\nimmediately irreparable danger would be done to the public.  It applies
\nto a condition of the nuisance at the time when the order is passed and
\nit is not intended to apply to future likelihood or what may happen at
\nsome later point of time.  It does not deal with all potential
\nnuisances and on the other hand applies when the nuisance is in
\nexistence. It has to be noted that sometimes there is confusion between
\nSection 133 and Section 144 of the Code.  While the latter is a more
\ngeneral provision the former is more specific.  While the order under
\nthe former is conditional, the order under the latter is absolute.
\n\t[See State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Ors.<\/a> (2003
\n(7) SCC 389)].\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the background of legal principles set out above, the judgment
\nof the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity.
\nThe residual question, however, is whether learned SDM could
\nconsider the suggestions, if any, given by the appellants, as to the
\nmanner in which goods can be stored or connected activities by passing
\norder of a regulatory nature.  This is permissible by the provisions
\nitself which provide that SDM can regulate such activities.  Therefore,
\nwithout expressing any opinion on that matter for which material can be
\nplaced by the appellants before the learned SDM for appropriate orders
\nin the matter, we direct that if any suggestion or alternative
\narrangement is brought to the notice of learned SDM it shall be
\nconsidered in its proper perspective in accordance with law.
\n\tWith the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1350 of 2003 PETITIONER: Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/09\/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. […]<\/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-233274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - 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\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-27T08:38:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-27T08:38:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3090,\"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\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-27T08:38:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 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":"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - 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\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-27T08:38:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-27T08:38:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004"},"wordCount":3090,"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\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004","name":"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-27T08:38:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kachrulal-bhagirath-agrawal-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 September, 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\/233274","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=233274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}