{"id":257354,"date":"2008-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-15T02:28:57","modified_gmt":"2016-08-14T20:58:57","slug":"mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: V.M. Kanade<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n                   CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.282  OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                                                   \n    1  Mangesh Ramchandra Karande                         )\n    Age: 25 years, Occ: Labourer                   )\n    R\/at Khetwadi, 4th Cross Lane,               )\n    Masjid Bldg No.11, Room No.2,                )\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n    Mumbai - 400 004.                            )\n                                                 )\n    2    Liladhar Pralhad Patil,                 )\n    Age 25 years, Occ: Labourer                           )\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    R\/at 1\/102 Desai Bldg.              )\n\n    Mumbai 400 004.\n                         rdig\n    Dr. M. G. M. Marg, 3  Kumbharwada )\n                                                 )  ..... Appellants.\n                                                 (Original accused Nos.1 & 2)\n                         \n                  \n                   V\/s\n\n    The State of Maharashtra                )\n       \n\n\n    (At the instance of L.T. Marg           )\n    Police Station)                         )  ...... Respondent.\n    \n\n\n\n    -----\n    Mr. A.P. Mundargi i\/b Mr. S.P. Borade for the appellants.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State.\n    ------\n     \n\n                            CORAM:  V.M. KANADE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                            DATE:     29th September, 2008\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned
\n    APP for the State.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.    Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the judgment and
\n    order passed by the Sessions Court, convicting the accused for an<\/p>\n
    offence   punishable   under   section   394   read   with   section   34<\/a>   of   the<\/p>\n
    Indian Penal Code and under section 397<\/a> read with section 392<\/a> of the
\n    Indian Penal Code.   By the said judgment and order, the Sessions
\n    Court was pleased to sentence both the accused to suffer rigorous<\/p>\n
    imprisonment  for a period of 5 years and 7 years respectively and, in
\n    default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for
\n    two months respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    3.<\/p>\n
          Appellant No.1 (accused No.1) was arrested at the spot when
\n    the robbery took place and, thereafter, he was released on bail.   He<\/p>\n
    has undergone the sentence which was imposed by the Trial Court
\n    and   has   been   released   after   he   has   completed   the   sentence.\n<\/p>\n
    Appellant No.2 (accused No.2), however, was released on bail.\n<\/p>\n
    4.    Prosecution case, in brief, is  that the complainant, on the date
\n    of the incident, was an employee of one Vijay Devrukar and he was<\/p>\n
    coming back from the house of his owner.  He was having cloth bag in
\n    which diamonds were kept in two aluminium boxes.  At that time, all of
\n    a sudden,  accused No.1 came near the complainant and asked him<\/p>\n
    what was the time. By the time complainant looked at his watch and
\n    informed him the time, accused No.1 took out a Gupti and put it on his
\n    neck.     Thereafter,   accused   No.2   i.e   the   present   appellant   No.2
\n    reached there and he was having a big knife in his hand and he tried
\n    to snatch the cloth bag from the complainant.   It is the case of the
\n    prosecution that the complainant resisted and did not leave the cloth<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
    bag and, therefore, accused No.2 gave a knife blow  on the hands of
\n    the   complainant,   as   a   result   of   which   the   complainant   sustained<\/p>\n
    injuries on his hands.  Both the accused, thereafter, ran away with the<\/p>\n
    cloth bag which was snatched by accused No.2, towards Churni Road
\n    Railway Station. However, the complainant raised   hue and cry and
\n    the   accused   No.1   was   arrested   while   he   was   sitting   in   taxi.     The<\/p>\n
    accused No.2, however, got down from the taxi and threatened the
\n    complainant   and   others   with   his   knife   and   ran   away   towards   the
\n    Marine   Lines.       Accused   No.1   was   apprehended   on   the   spot   and,<\/p>\n
    thereafter, accused No.2 was arrested on the same day in the evening<\/p>\n
    at about 7.30 p.m.  FIR was lodged and in the FIR it was mentioned
\n    that   an   offence   of   robbery   had   been   committed   and   the   name   of<\/p>\n
    accused No.1 was mentioned.   The name of accused No.2 was not
\n    mentioned and it was stated that one unknown person between the<\/p>\n
    age of 22 and 25 had committed an offence alongwith accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    Police, thereafter, recorded statements of eye witness P. W. 3 – Milind
\n    Parsekar     and   one   other   eye   witness   P.   W.   7   –   Sandip   Shinde   in
\n    respect of the place of offence.  The identification parade was later on<\/p>\n
    held at the Police Station where both the accused were identified by
\n    the complainant.  A chopper was recovered at the instance of accused
\n    No.2.     Charge-sheet   was   filed.     The   Trial   Court   disbelieved   the<\/p>\n
    identification   of   accused   by   the   complainant   in   the   identification
\n    parade primarily because it was held in the Police Station.   Two eye
\n    witnesses viz. P. W. 3 – Milind Parsekar and P. W. 7 – Sandip Shinde
\n    turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.   The other
\n    panch witnesses also could not be traced and, therefore, the recovery
\n    of the chopper at the instance of accused No.2 was not corroborated<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
    by an independent witness.  The Medical Officer had been examined
\n    and he submitted the medico-legal certificate at Exhibit-37 &   38 in<\/p>\n
    which he gave his opinion that the injuries which were sustained by<\/p>\n
    the   complainant   were   caused   by   knife.     The   Trial   Court,   however,
\n    relied on the evidence of  P. W. 1 and more particularly his evidence
\n    regarding   identification   of   accused   No.2   in   court.     The   Trial   Court<\/p>\n
    expressed its doubt regarding recovery of weapon at the instance of
\n    accused   No.2   and   did   not   lay   any   emphasis   on   the   said   evidence
\n    while convicting both the accused.  On the basis of the said evidence,<\/p>\n
    the   Trial   Court   was   pleased   to   convict   both   the   accused   for   the<\/p>\n
    aforesaid offences.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     Mr Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
\n    the   appellants,   submitted   that   so   far   as   appellant     No.1   (accused<\/p>\n
    No.1) is concerned, he had already undergone the sentence and was<\/p>\n
    released.     However,   so   far   as   appellant   No.2   (accused   No.2)   is
\n    concerned, he submitted that the Trial Court had erred in relying on
\n    the identification of accused No.2 in court for the purpose of convicting<\/p>\n
    him   for   the   aforesaid   offences.     He   submitted   that   the   Trial   Court,
\n    having disbelieved the test identification parade which was held in the
\n    Police   Station,   ought   not   to   have   relied   upon   the   identification   of<\/p>\n
    accused No.2 by the complainant in Court in view of  the fact that the
\n    first test identification was disbelieved and   a logical inference which
\n    could be drawn was that the accused No.2 could have been seen by
\n    the complainant in the Police Station or could have been shown by the
\n    Police before the test identification parade.   He submitted that, that
\n    being the position, no emphasis could have been laid on the fact that<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    accused  No.2  was   identified   in   the  Court  Room  subsequently.    He
\n    submitted that  identification  of  accused  No.2 was  the only piece  of<\/p>\n
    evidence which was available with the prosecution as there was no<\/p>\n
    other evidence for establishing the identity of accused No.2.\n<\/p>\n
    6.     There   is   much   substance   in   the   submissions   made   by   the<\/p>\n
    learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused.  The Trial
\n    Court, having discarded the first test identification parade of accused
\n    No.2, could not have relied on the identification of accused No.2 by<\/p>\n
    the complainant in court.   Firstly, a logical inference which could be<\/p>\n
    drawn from the rejection of the first identification parade was that the
\n    Police   had   an   opportunity   to   show   the   accused   No.2   to   the<\/p>\n
    complainant in the Police Station.   Accused No.2 having thus been
\n    shown by the Police, his subsequent identification in court also cannot<\/p>\n
    be relied upon.   Secondly, the Trial Court has clearly lost site of the<\/p>\n
    fact that the accused No.2 being shown to the complainant prior to the
\n    identification by him in  court, the said evidence of identification by the
\n    complainant in   court loses its significance and could not have been<\/p>\n
    relied   upon   by   the   Trial   Court   for   the   purpose   of   establishing   his
\n    identity in the commission of the said offences. Once it is held that the
\n    identification   by   the   complainant   of   accused   No.2   cannot   be   relied<\/p>\n
    upon, there is no other evidence available with the prosecution on the
\n    basis of which the appellant No.2 can be convicted.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     P.   W.   1,   complainant   herein,   in   his   evidence   has   stated   that
\n    accused  No.2  was  having  a  big  knife  in   his  hand  and   that  he  had
\n    inflicted   injuries   on   his   hands   with   the   said   knife.     However,   the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
    weapon which is recovered by the Police at the instance of accused
\n    No.2 is a  chopper and not a knife.  Apart from that, none of the panch<\/p>\n
    witnesses who have carried out the panchanama was ever examined<\/p>\n
    by the prosecution.  No attempt had been made by the prosecution to
\n    even make a statement before the Court that these witnesses could
\n    not   be   traced.     The   Investigating   Officer   also   has   not   stated   what<\/p>\n
    steps   were   taken   by   him   to   locate   these   panch   witnesses.     The
\n    recovery of chopper, therefore, at the instance of accused No.2 also is
\n    not of any assistance to the prosecution. Even the name of accused<\/p>\n
    No.2 is also not mentioned in the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
    8.     It   is   no   doubt   true   that   the   Medical   Officer   who   has   been<\/p>\n
    examined   has   established   that   certain   injuries   were   there   on   the
\n    hands of the complainant   but in the absence of any other proof, it<\/p>\n
    cannot be inferred that the accused No.2 was responsible for inflicting<\/p>\n
    these   injuries.     Further,   it   is   an   admitted   position   that   the   stolen
\n    property was not recovered at the instance of the accused.  Two eye
\n    witnesses who were examined by the prosecution have turned hostile.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, in my view, the Trial Court clearly erred in relying solely on
\n    the identification parade of accused No.2 by the complainant in court
\n    more particularly when the Trial Court itself discarded the identification<\/p>\n
    of accused No.2 by the complainant in the Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
    9.     Under   these   circumstances,   in   my   view,   the   prosecution   has
\n    failed to establish that the accused No.2, appellant No.2 herein, was
\n    involved in the commission of the said offences.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
    10.   Accordingly, the following order is passed:-\n<\/p>\n
                            O R D E R<\/p>\n
          In the result the conviction of appellant No.1 (accused No.1) is
\n    confirmed.   He has   already undergone the sentence and has been<\/p>\n
    released by the jail authorities.\n<\/p>\n
          The appellant  No.2 (accused No.2) is hereby acquitted of  the<\/p>\n
    offence punishable under sections 394<\/a>, 397<\/a> read with sections 392<\/a><\/p>\n
    and 34<\/a> of the I.P.C.  His bail bond stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
          Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (V.M. KANADE, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:08 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008 Bench: V.M. Kanade 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282 OF 2003 1 Mangesh Ramchandra Karande ) Age: 25 years, Occ: Labourer ) R\/at Khetwadi, 4th Cross Lane, ) Masjid […]<\/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-257354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008 - 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\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-14T20:58:57+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-14T20:58:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1556,\"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\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-14T20:58:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008 - 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\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-14T20:58:57+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-14T20:58:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008"},"wordCount":1556,"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\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008","name":"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-14T20:58:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumbai-400-004-vs-at-the-instance-of-l-t-marg-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mumbai 400 004 vs At The Instance Of L.T. Marg on 29 September, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/257354","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=257354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}