{"id":267585,"date":"2011-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011"},"modified":"2016-06-21T02:49:41","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T21:19:41","slug":"sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A. V. Potdar<\/div>\n
                                    1           Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n               Criminal Writ Petition No.731 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     *     Sangram s\/o Janardhan Tupe,\n           Age 42 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n           Occupation : Legal Practitioner,\n           R\/o Sant Namdeonagar, Beed,\n           Taluka and District Beed.                 ..    Petitioner.\n\n                Versus\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     1)    The State of Maharashtra\n                   \n           Through the Secretary\n           Home Department,\n           Maharashtra State,\n                  \n           Mantralaya, Mumbai.32.\n\n     2)    The Sub Divisional Police\n           Officer, Beed,\n      \n\n           Taluka and District Beed.\n   \n\n\n\n     3)    The Sub Divisional Magistrate,\n           Beed,\n           Taluka and District Beed.\n\n\n\n\n\n     4)    Mahendra s\/o Uttamrao Harpalkar,\n           Age 39 years,\n           Occupation : Service,\n           working as Deputy Collector,\n           Employment Guarantee Scheme,\n           and R.D.C. Beed,\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          .. Respondents.\n                                 --------\n\n     Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner.\n\n     Shri. K.G. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor, for\n     respondent Nos.1 to 3.\n\n                                 --------\n\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::\n                                    2            Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                CORAM: NARESH H PATIL &\n                                       A.V. POTDAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
           Judgment reserved on         :    17th March 2011\n\n           Judgment pronounced on :          24th March 2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     JUDGMENT : (Per Naresh H Patil, J.):\n\n\n     1)        The    petitioner       challenges         notice          dated\n\n\n\n\n                               \n<\/pre>\n
     26-7-2010 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beed,<\/p>\n
     under sedition 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for<\/p>\n
     short, “the Act of 1951′). The notice was issued asking him<\/p>\n
     as to why he should not be externed from Districts of Beed,<\/p>\n
     Osmanabad, Jalna, Ahmednagar and Aurangabad for a<\/p>\n
     period of two years.\n<\/p>\n
     2)        The petitioner contends that he is residing in<\/p>\n
     Beed town since last 25 years. He is a reputed Advocate<\/p>\n
     practicing in District Court Beed since last 9 years. The<\/p>\n
     petitioner submits that,      his father was elected as a<\/p>\n
     Member of the State Legislative Assembly and is a social<\/p>\n
     worker. The petitioner is Chairman of Vividh Karyakari<\/p>\n
     Seva Sahakari Society, Pimpalwadi and is working as<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3           Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010<\/span><\/p>\n
     Secretary of Beed Zilla Rashtrawadi Congress Party. The<\/p>\n
     petitioner further contends that, respondent No.4 – Deputy<\/p>\n
     Collector (Employment Guarantee Scheme) and Resident<\/p>\n
     Deputy Collector Beed lodged a complaint against                           the<\/p>\n
     petitioner    and pressurized police to register an offence<\/p>\n
     under sections 354<\/a>, 323<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code. The<\/p>\n
     respondent No.4 is a relative of the Superintendent of<\/p>\n
     Police Beed and with the help of close relative the<\/p>\n
     respondent No.4 started pressuring respondent Nos.2 and<\/p>\n
     3 to harass the        petitioner     by initiating externment<\/p>\n
     proceedings. It is the petitioner’s contention that, due to<\/p>\n
     pressure     of   respondent      No.4,     without        any       reason,<\/p>\n
     respondent No.3      misused powers conferred under the Act<\/p>\n
     of 1951 and initiated action against the                   petitioner by<\/p>\n
     issuance of a show cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
     3)           The complaint       filed by     the Resident Deputy<\/p>\n
     Collector    reads   that   on    29-4-2010         at     14.30       hours<\/p>\n
     petitioner abused him and called him a thief and asked as<\/p>\n
     to why he was        distributing amount in night time. It is<\/p>\n
     alleged that the petitioner had threatened him to kill<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4           Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010<\/span><\/p>\n
     through      naxalites.   The   petitioner     submits        that      the<\/p>\n
     allegations made in the complaint are totally false. No such<\/p>\n
     incident took place. The petitioner tried to settle the issue<\/p>\n
     but respondent No.4 was bent upon to harass the<\/p>\n
     petitioner. The police registered            crime No.91\/10 on<\/p>\n
     12-5-2010. The Summary Criminal Case Number is 1332 of<\/p>\n
     2010.\n<\/p>\n
     4)           The petitioner’s objection is that, a show cause<\/p>\n
     notice was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Beed,<\/p>\n
     respondent No.3 herein, on 26-7-2010 under the provisions<\/p>\n
     of Section 56(b) of the Act, 1951. The             petitioner          filed<\/p>\n
     reply to the said show cause notice on 4-8-2010.\n<\/p>\n
     5)           Consequent to the notice issued, respondent No.<\/p>\n
     3 filed affidavit-in-reply on 13-10-2010. Respondent No.2<\/p>\n
     filed his affidavit-in-rely on 14th October 2010. The<\/p>\n
     respondents – State authorities had alleged against the<\/p>\n
     petitioner    in respect of his conduct and had referred to<\/p>\n
     criminal case registered by police.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                    5         Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010<\/span><\/p>\n
     6)           Learned counsel Shri. V.D. Salunke, appearing<\/p>\n
     for the petitioner, submitted that, respondent No.3 was not<\/p>\n
     entitled to issue show cause notice under section 56(b) of<\/p>\n
     the Act, 1951 merely on the ground of registration of one<\/p>\n
     criminal case against the petitioner. The respondents have<\/p>\n
     misused their powers in issuing the notice. The notice was<\/p>\n
     issued under pressure from respondent No.4. The notice is<\/p>\n
     not tenable and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and<\/p>\n
     set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     7)           The counsel further submitted that, the notice<\/p>\n
     to extern the petitioner from five districts also suffers from<\/p>\n
     non application of mind. There is no power with the<\/p>\n
     authority to issue such notice.\n<\/p>\n
     8)           The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri.<\/p>\n
     K.G. Patil, submitted that the petition is premature. It is<\/p>\n
     filed against a show cause notice to which the petitioner<\/p>\n
     had already filed reply. In case the petitioner suffers<\/p>\n
     adverse order then under the provisions of the Act of 1951<\/p>\n
     right of appeal is provided to the petitioner. The petitioner<\/p>\n
     has   failed to point out that the respondent No.3 has no<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                       6          Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010<\/span><\/p>\n
     jurisdiction to issue such notice. The petitioner’s conduct<\/p>\n
     was objectionable,       and therefore,       the authorities had<\/p>\n
     issued notice.\n<\/p>\n
     9)            The learned counsel Shri. V.D. Salunke, for the<\/p>\n
     petitioner,     in support of his contentions, has placed<\/p>\n
     reliance on the following reported judgments.\n<\/p>\n
           (1)    Gunwanta Gajanan Khandekar v. Sub-\n<\/p>\n
                  Divisional Magistrate, 2008 (1) Bom.C.R.
\n                  (Cri.) 329.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2)    Vilas Siddharth   Sirsat  v.  State   of
\n                  Maharashtra, 2010(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.37.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (3)    Chandar Dayaldas Sindhi v. M.W. Chitale,
\n                  Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone II,
\n                  Kalyan<\/a>, 1984(2) Bom.C.r. 682.\n<\/p>\n
           (4)     Chhotu Siddinath Kunwar v. State               of<\/p>\n
                   Maharashtra, 1989 Mh.L.J. 1021.\n<\/p>\n
           (5)     Arun Narayanrao Mande v. State                of
\n                   Maharashtra, 2003 Bom.C.r. (Cri.) 24.\n<\/p>\n
            (6)    Balu Shivling Dombe v. The Divisional
\n                   Magistrate<\/a>, 1969 Cri.L.J. 1341.\n<\/p>\n
     10)           We have perused the judgments cited supra and<\/p>\n
     the relevant provisions of the Act of 1951. We find that the<\/p>\n
     petitioner     has already filed     reply on 12-7-2010 to the<\/p>\n
     notice dated 1-7-2010 issued by the Sub Divisional Police<\/p>\n
     Officer to the petitioner under section 56(b) of the Act of<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                     7          Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010<\/span><\/p>\n
     1951.   This petition was      filed on 4-8-2010. Under the<\/p>\n
     provisions of Section 60 of the Act of 1951 the petitioner is<\/p>\n
     entitled to file appeal to the State       Government in case<\/p>\n
     adverse order is passed against the petitioner. At this<\/p>\n
     stage, in the facts of the case, it would not be proper to<\/p>\n
     discuss the merits of the allegations made against each<\/p>\n
     other   by     the   respective    parties      and       to      decide<\/p>\n
     maintainability of the show cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
     11)          The law in respect       of entertaining a writ<\/p>\n
     petition in the light of existence of alternate remedy is well<\/p>\n
     settled. The petitioner is not coming with a case that<\/p>\n
     respondent No.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, who issued<\/p>\n
     the show cause notice, had no jurisdiction to issue said<\/p>\n
     notice. No doubt, alternate remedy is not an absolute bar,<\/p>\n
     but ordinarily writ petition should not be entertained when<\/p>\n
     there is alternate remedy.\n<\/p>\n
     12)          In the light of the fact that there is efficacious<\/p>\n
     statutory alternate remedy available to the petitioner, we<\/p>\n
     are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. All the<\/p>\n
     issues raised by the contesting parties are kept open. We<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                    8             Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010<\/span><\/p>\n
     expect the respondents – authorities to deal with the issue<\/p>\n
     strictly in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
     13)        The   writ   petition   is      dismissed.           Rule        is<\/p>\n
     discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
           Sd\/-                                  Sd\/-\n\n\n\n\n                               \n     (A.V. POTDAR, J.)                   (NARESH H PATIL, J.)\n                  \n                 \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n     rsl\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:08:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court * Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011 Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A. V. Potdar 1 Cri. W.P.No. 731 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.731 Of 2010 * Sangram s\/o Janardhan Tupe, Age 42 years, Occupation : Legal […]<\/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-267585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-20T21:19:41+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T21:19:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1036,\"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\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011\",\"name\":\"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T21:19:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-20T21:19:41+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T21:19:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011"},"wordCount":1036,"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\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011","name":"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T21:19:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sangram-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"* Sangram vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267585","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=267585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}