{"id":267147,"date":"2008-06-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-23T02:43:45","modified_gmt":"2016-10-22T21:13:45","slug":"rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: D.G. Karnik<\/div>\n
abs\n\n\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3850 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                                                      \n      1. Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari\n      2. Rafik Moddin Shaikh                                   .. Applicants\n\n                 V\/s\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n      The State of Maharashtra                                 .. Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n      Mr.A.P. Mundargi i\/b Mr.P.P. Runwal for the applicants.\n\n      Mr.D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the respondent.\n                         \n                        \n                                              CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.\n\n                                              DATE    : 27TH JUNE 2008\n        \n\n\n      JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
      1.        By     this    application under section               167(2)        and<\/p>\n
      section    439<\/a>     of    the Code of        Criminal      Procedure,           the<\/p>\n
      applicants       seek    bail    in    connection        with      the      crime<\/p>\n
      registered       under    C.R.    No.281 of 2006 at Wagle                 Police<\/p>\n
      Station,    District       Thane      for     the    alleged           offences<\/p>\n
      punishable       under section 395<\/a>, 397<\/a> and 342<\/a> of the Indian<\/p>\n
      Penal   Code      and    section      3(1)(ii),      2    and      4    of     the<\/p>\n
      Maharashtra       Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999                      (for<\/p>\n
      short “the MCOC Act”).\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
    2.          The applicants along with another had previously<\/p>\n
    filed    application nos.719, 803 and 807 of 2007 for bail<\/p>\n
    before       the    Sessions    Judge       and      the      Special         Court<\/p>\n
    constituted        under    section 5 of the MCOC Act.                  All      the<\/p>\n
    bail    applications were rejected by the Special Court by<\/p>\n
    a     common      order    dated     13th    September           2007.           The<\/p>\n
    applicants        have    therefore    approached this               court       for<\/p>\n
    bail.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    3.          The    only    ground on which the bail                was      prayed\n\n    before       the\n                        \n                         Special    Court       was      that        the        charge\n\n    sheet\/challan        was    not filed before the              Special         Court\n                       \n    within      the stipulated period of 180 days from the                         date\n\n    of    the    arrest and the first remand to custody                       of     the\n\n    applicants.         The very ground is pressed for bail before\n      \n\n\n    me.\n   \n\n\n\n    4.          The    applicants were arrested on 25th                    September\n\n\n\n\n\n    2006    for    the alleged offences under sections 395<\/a>,                          397<\/a>\n\n    and    342<\/a> of the I.P.C.        Thereafter the provisions of the\n\n<\/pre>\n
    MCOC Act were applied and on 10th January 2007 they were<\/p>\n
    shown    as    arrested      under    the MCOC         Act.        The      charge<\/p>\n
    sheet\/challan        was filed against the applicants on                       20th<\/p>\n
    March    2007 in the Court of JMFC, Thane – a Court                           which<\/p>\n
    had no jurisdiction to try the applicants for an offence<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
    under    the MCOC Act.        It is not clear whether the charge<\/p>\n
    sheet    was      returned by the JMFC, Thane whether                     it     was<\/p>\n
    transmitted        by the magistrate to the special Court,                         or<\/p>\n
    returned      to the police who then filed it in the Special<\/p>\n
    Court.      The undisputed fact, however, is that the charge<\/p>\n
    sheet\/challan        was    filed or came to the              Special         Court<\/p>\n
    constituted        under the MCOC Act on 30th June 2007,                       that<\/p>\n
    is beyond the period of 180 days of the arrest and first<\/p>\n
    remand      to    police    custody    of    the       applicants.               The<\/p>\n
    applicants,        therefore, moved the Special Court for bail<\/p>\n
    on    the    ground    that the charge sheet\/challan                    was      not<\/p>\n
    filed    in<\/p>\n
                     the competent court within 180 days of                       their<\/p>\n
    arrest.       The    Special      Court,     however,           rejected         the<\/p>\n
    application holding that filing of a charge sheet before<\/p>\n
    the    JMFC,      Thane    on 20th March 2007           was      a     technical<\/p>\n
    mistake      and as the investigation was completed and                          the<\/p>\n
    charge      sheet    was filed in the court, though having                         no<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction,the Court cannot take a rigid approach when<\/p>\n
    such a mistake was committed.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          The     only     question      that         arises          for        my<\/p>\n
    consideration        is:    whether the applicants are                  entitled<\/p>\n
    to    bail    on    account    of     non-filing          of     the        charge<\/p>\n
    sheet\/challan         in    the    competent         court       within          the<\/p>\n
    statutory period?\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
    6.        Sub-section      (2) of section 167<\/a> of the             Criminal<\/p>\n
    Procedure      Code (for short “the Code”) provides that the<\/p>\n
    magistrate      to whom an accused person is forwarded                  may,<\/p>\n
    whether      he has or has no jurisdiction to try the                  case,<\/p>\n
    from time to time authorise the detention of the accused<\/p>\n
    in such custody as such magistrate thinks fit for a term<\/p>\n
    not    exceeding      15 days in the whole, and if he              has      no<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and<\/p>\n
    considers      further    detention unnecessary, he may                order<\/p>\n
    the    accused to be forwarded to a magistrate having such<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction.      Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167<\/a><\/p>\n
    provides<\/p>\n
                  that the magistrate may authorise detention of<\/p>\n
    an    accused    person    otherwise than in       custody         of     the<\/p>\n
    police, beyond the period of 15 days, if he is satisfied<\/p>\n
    that    the    adequate ground exists for doing so,                but      no<\/p>\n
    magistrate      shall authorise the detention of the accused<\/p>\n
    person    in    custody    under this paragraph          for     a     total<\/p>\n
    period exceeding 90 days, where the offence committed is<\/p>\n
    an    offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
    or    imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years,                     and<\/p>\n
    60    days    where the investigation relates to              any      other<\/p>\n
    offence.      The proviso further provides that on expiry of<\/p>\n
    the period of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be, the<\/p>\n
    accused      person    shall   be   released on bail          if     he     is<\/p>\n
    prepared to furnish bail.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Sub-section     (2) of section 167<\/a> of the Code                  has<\/p>\n
    been amended in relation to its application in the State<\/p>\n
    of    Maharashtra by sub-section (2) of section 21 of                       the<\/p>\n
    MCOC    Act.    The amendment provides that reference to                      15<\/p>\n
    days    and 60 days in section 167(2)<\/a> of the Code.                       shall<\/p>\n
    be    construed as 30 days and 90 days respectively.                        The<\/p>\n
    amendment further adds additional proviso to sub-section<\/p>\n
    (2) which provides further that if it is not possible to<\/p>\n
    complete      the investigation within the said period of 90<\/p>\n
    days,    the    Special Court shall extend the              said       period<\/p>\n
    (i.e.    period of detention in judicial custody) upto 180<\/p>\n
    days on the report of a public prosecutor indicating the<\/p>\n
    progress      of investigation and the specific reasons                     for<\/p>\n
    the    detention      of accused beyond the said period of                    90<\/p>\n
    days.       Thus,   in respect of an offence under                the     MCOC<\/p>\n
    Act,    a    Judicial    Magistrate     is   empowered          to       allow<\/p>\n
    detention      of the person accused in police custody                    upto<\/p>\n
    30 days and in judicial custody (inclusive of the period<\/p>\n
    of    police custody) for a total period not exceeding                        90<\/p>\n
    days.       Power   has been conferred on the            Special         Court<\/p>\n
    appointed      under    the MCOC Act to extend the              period        of<\/p>\n
    custody      beyond the period of 90 days but not                 exceeding<\/p>\n
    180    days.     The power to extend the period of                 judicial<\/p>\n
    custody      beyond    90   days and upto     180      days,       however,<\/p>\n
    cannot      be exercised by a judicial magistrate but can be<\/p>\n
    exercised      only by the Special Court appointed under the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
    MCOC Act.\n<\/p>\n
    8.         In    Central     Bureau of Investigation v.                   Anupam<\/p>\n
    Kulkarni<\/a>     –    (1992)     3    SCC    141,    the      Supreme           Court<\/p>\n
    reiterated       that    a   judicial      magistrate         cannot        order<\/p>\n
    detention       of an arrested accused in the police                    custody<\/p>\n
    for    a   period      exceeding 15 days and          judicial          custody<\/p>\n
    (inclusive       of    the   period     of police       custody         if     any<\/p>\n
    earlier     ordered)      for     a period exceeding           90     days       as<\/p>\n
    provided     under section 167<\/a> of the Code.                 In view of the<\/p>\n
    amendment       to section 167<\/a> of the Code by section 21                       the<\/p>\n
    MCOC    Act,<\/p>\n
                     a judicial magistrate is entitled                   to     order<\/p>\n
    detention of a person in police custody for a period not<\/p>\n
    exceeding       30 days in the whole and in judicial                    custody<\/p>\n
    (inclusive       of police custody, if any, earlier                   ordered)<\/p>\n
    for    a   period      not exceeding 90 days.           It is        only      the<\/p>\n
    Special     Court which can order further detention of                         the<\/p>\n
    accused     in    judicial       custody     (inclusive          of       police<\/p>\n
    custody, if any, ordered earlier) for a total period not<\/p>\n
    exceeding 180 days.          During this period of 180 days, the<\/p>\n
    investigation         in respect of any offence under the                    MCOC<\/p>\n
    Act,    howsoever       serious the offence may be, has                   to     be<\/p>\n
    completed       and a charge sheet\/challan has to be filed in<\/p>\n
    the    Special Court failing which the accused is required<\/p>\n
    to    be   released      on bail if he is prepared               to     furnish<\/p>\n
    bail.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
    9.          Article      21<\/a> of the Constitution of India confers<\/p>\n
    right       to    life    and    liberty.      Article          22<\/a>     of       the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India and section 57<\/a> of the Code mandate<\/p>\n
    that    no police officer shall detain in custody a person<\/p>\n
    arrested      for a period longer than 24 hours exclusive of<\/p>\n
    time    necessary for the journey from the place of arrest<\/p>\n
    to    the    magistrate’s        court.     The       Courts          generally<\/p>\n
    disfavour         police    custody     except        where       it     is       so<\/p>\n
    specifically        by law to ensure liberty guaranteed by the<\/p>\n
    Constitution.           Of course, the liberty can be                 curtailed<\/p>\n
    during<\/p>\n
                the period of trial for an offence, but that too<\/p>\n
    in    accordance with law.          The law requires not only                   the<\/p>\n
    investigation        to    be completed within 60 or 90 days                      as<\/p>\n
    the    case may be in respect of offences under the Indian<\/p>\n
    Penal Code<\/a> and within a period of 180 days in respect of<\/p>\n
    offences      under      the    MCOC Act, but       also       requires         the<\/p>\n
    charge sheet\/challan to be filed within such period.                              In<\/p>\n
    the    event      the    investigation is not          completed           and\/or<\/p>\n
    charge      sheet\/challan is not filed within the                     aforesaid<\/p>\n
    period, the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167<\/a> of<\/p>\n
    the Code comes into play and requires the accused person<\/p>\n
    to    be    released      on    bail   if he   is      prepared          to     and<\/p>\n
    furnishes        bail.    It is in this background that one must<\/p>\n
    look to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
    10.       In    the present case, the charge sheet was filed<\/p>\n
    before    the JMFC, Thane on 20th March 2007.             Long before<\/p>\n
    that,    the    provisions   of   the   MCOC     Act      were        made<\/p>\n
    applicable.      Approval under section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC<\/p>\n
    Act    was    accorded   by the   Additional     Commissioner             of<\/p>\n
    Police    on 21st December 2006 and sanction under section<\/p>\n
    23(2)    of    the   MCOC Act was also accorded with             by     the<\/p>\n
    Additional      Director   General of Police       and      Additional<\/p>\n
    Commissioner      of Police on 20th March 2007.           Only       after<\/p>\n
    such    sanctions were obtained, the charge            sheet\/challan<\/p>\n
    was    filed    before the JMFC, Thane on 20th          March        2007.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus    the\n                         \n                   police authorities were very well aware                that\n\n    the    applicants were being prosecuted for offences under\n                        \n    the MCOC Act.        In fact, if the applicants were not being\n\n    prosecuted      under the MCOC Act, and as they were willing\n\n    to    furnish    bail, they could not have been detained                  in\n      \n\n\n    custody      without filing of a charge sheet\/challan beyond\n   \n\n\n\n    24th    December 2006 when the period of 90 days from                   the\n\n    date    of the arrest\/first remand order dated 25th                  March\n\n\n\n\n\n    2007    expired.      In the circumstances, by no stretch                 of\n\n    imagination,      it can be said that the police committed a\n\n    bona    fide    mistake in filing the    challan\/charge              sheet\n\n\n\n\n\n    before the JMFC, Thane.       Admittedly, the JMFC, Thane had\n\n<\/pre>\n
    no jurisdiction to try the applicants under the MCOC Act<\/p>\n
    and    the jurisdiction vested only in the Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
    Thane    who was appointed as the Special Court under                   the<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                          – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
    MCOC    Act.       The finding of the Special Judge                   that      the<\/p>\n
    police committed a bona fide mistake in filing of charge<\/p>\n
    sheet    before        the    JMFC, Thane,      therefore,          cannot        be<\/p>\n
    sustained.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         The    learned      Special      Judge in      his      order       has<\/p>\n
    referred      to and relied upon a decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
    Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan – 2007 (4) LJSOFT (URC) 8.                              In<\/p>\n
    my    view,    the said decision has no application                      to     the<\/p>\n
    facts and circumstances of the present case.                        That was a<\/p>\n
    case    arising out of offence under section 302<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
    34    of the I.P.C<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
                            ig   and the Arms Act<\/a>.        Investigation             was<\/p>\n
    taken    over      by the Crime Branch, Thane and                 was      handed<\/p>\n
    over    to    DCB, CID, Mumbai.          The    investigating            officer<\/p>\n
    filed    a charge sheet in the 37th Court of                    Metropolitan<\/p>\n
    Magistrate        on    15th November 1993 which was                within        90<\/p>\n
    days    from      the    date of arrest.         The     magistrate           then<\/p>\n
    committed      the case to the Sessions Court, Mumbai                        which<\/p>\n
    set    aside      the    order      of committal      and      directed         the<\/p>\n
    Metropolitan        Magistrate, Bhiwandi to return the                     charge<\/p>\n
    sheet    to    the I.O.        to file it with the           JMFC,       Mumbai,<\/p>\n
    holding      that      he had jurisdiction to try the case.                       It<\/p>\n
    was    in    these      circumstances held that            filing        of     the<\/p>\n
    charge      sheet      before one magistrate instead of                  another<\/p>\n
    was    held to be merely an irregularity.                  That was not             a<\/p>\n
    case     under      the      MCOC     Act.     Therein       admittedly             a<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
    Magistrate     had the jurisdiction to try the offence                       and<\/p>\n
    the    question     was    which   of   the    Magistrate           had      the<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction      to pass the committal order.               Sections 190<\/a><\/p>\n
    192<\/a>    of the Code provide for transfer of a case from one<\/p>\n
    magistrate     to another.      However, under the MCOC Act,                     a<\/p>\n
    Magistrate     has no jurisdiction to try an accused for an<\/p>\n
    offence    punishable       uner MCOC Act and trial as well                    as<\/p>\n
    filing    of the charge sheet\/challan must be done                      before<\/p>\n
    the    Special    Court.      Further more, second             proviso         to<\/p>\n
    section 167<\/a> of the Code, added by section 21 of the MCOC<\/p>\n
    Act,    confers     the jurisdiction to extend the period                      of<\/p>\n
    custody<\/p>\n
               beyond 90 days and upto 180 days only with                        the<\/p>\n
    Special    Court.     The JMFC is devoid of any jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    In the circumstances, the observations made in that case<\/p>\n
    can be of no assistance to the State.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       In   my    view,    therefore,       the      applicants           are<\/p>\n
    entitled    to    bail as the challan\/charge sheet                  was      not<\/p>\n
    filed    before     the    Special Court within           the      statutory<\/p>\n
    period    of   180    days of the arrest and first                 order       of<\/p>\n
    remand    to   police custody.       Accordingly, I direct                 that<\/p>\n
    the    applicants     be    released    on    bail      on       furnishing<\/p>\n
    personal    bond of Rs.50,000\/- each with two sureties                         in<\/p>\n
    the like amount.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (D.G. KARNIK, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:31:43 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008 Bench: D.G. Karnik abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3850 OF 2007 1. Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari 2. Rafik Moddin Shaikh .. Applicants V\/s The State […]<\/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-267147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 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\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-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=\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-22T21:13:45+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T21:13:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1884,\"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\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-22T21:13:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 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\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-22T21:13:45+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T21:13:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008"},"wordCount":1884,"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\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008","name":"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-22T21:13:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-raju-narayan-amin-poojari-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh @ Raju Narayan Amin Poojari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 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:\/\/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\/267147","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=267147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}