{"id":2744,"date":"2009-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-07T04:13:48","modified_gmt":"2016-05-06T22:43:48","slug":"shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n              AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3288 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    1     Shivaji s\/o Dnyanoba Sable,\n          age 23 years, occ. Driver,\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n          r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n          Dist. Parbhani                         ...Applicant\n                       ig                   (Orig.complainant)\n\n\n          VERSUS\n                     \n    1     The State of Maharashtra,\n          \n\n    2     Mahadu s\/o Ramchandra Dongre,\n          age 37 years,occ. Agril.,\n       \n\n\n\n          r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n          District Parbhani,\n\n    3     Munjaji s\/o Pandurang Dongre,\n          age 35 years,occ. Agril.,\n\n\n\n\n\n          r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n          District Parbhani,...Respondent\n\n    4     Ram s\/o Sadhu Dongre,\n          age 25 years,occ. Agril.,\n\n\n\n\n\n          r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n          District Parbhani,\n\n    5     Rangnath s\/o Marotrao Dongre,\n          age 70 years,occ. Agril.,\n          r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n          District Parbhani,\n\n    6     Waman s\/o Rangnath Dongre,\n          age 35 years,occ. Agril.,\n          r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n          District Parbhani,\n\n\n\n                                            ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:50:27 :::\n                                         2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n    7         Prabhu s\/o Nivrutti Dongre,\n              age 40 years,occ. Agril.,\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n              r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n              District Parbhani,\n\n\n    8         Gunaji s\/o Gangaram Dongre,\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n              age 30 years,occ. Agril.,\n              r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam,\n              District Parbhani,                    ...Respondents\n                                         (Orig.accused nos. 2 to 8)\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                            ig         .....\n                          \n    Shri P.N.Kalani, advocate for the applicant\n    Shri B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P.for respondent no.1\n    Nobody for respondent nos. 2 to 8, since they have\n    refused to accept the notices\n          \n\n                                      .....\n       \n\n\n\n                         CORAM :          SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                         DATED    :       28th JULY, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n\n\n\n\n    1         Perused.\n\n\n\n    2         Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of\n\n<\/pre>\n
    the learned respective counsel for the parties, this application is<\/p>\n
    taken up for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    3           The applicant (original complainant) has preferred the<\/p>\n
    present application requesting that Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005<\/p>\n
    pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar,<\/p>\n
    District Nanded be transferred to any other court for disposal in<\/p>\n
    accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    4           The applicant is the original complainant in the offence<\/p>\n
    registered with police station, Mukhed, District Nanded bearing<\/p>\n
    No. 45 of 2005 on 19.4.2005. The charge sheet came to be filed<\/p>\n
    before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mukhed, District<\/p>\n
    Nanded after the completion of investigation under Sections 302,<\/p>\n
    201 r\/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code therein against respondent<\/p>\n
    nos. 2 to 8. Thereafter the said case was committed to the court<\/p>\n
    of Sessions, Kandhar, District Nanded and it was numbered as<\/p>\n
    Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005. Accordingly, charge was framed<\/p>\n
    against respondent nos. 2 to 8 and matter was posted for<\/p>\n
    evidence.\n<\/p>\n
    5           The   applicant      (original   complainant)          sought<\/p>\n
    adjournment as he was not feeling well, but the learned<\/p>\n
    Additional Sessions Judge imposed heavy costs upon him on two<\/p>\n
    occasions. The applicant submits that he is a poor person and was<\/p>\n
    unable to pay the said costs. The applicant further submits that<\/p>\n
    the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
    proper and, therefore, the applicant lost             his confidence in the<\/p>\n
    Additional    Sessions     Judge.     Hence,    he     filed   Miscellaneous<\/p>\n
    Application No. 14 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
    Nanded for transfer of Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005, contending<\/p>\n
    that there was no possibility of impartial inquiry, since the<\/p>\n
    applicant has lost confidence in the Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
    and also contended that the court at Kandhar is not convenient<\/p>\n
    for the witnesses and the accused persons. It is further submitted<\/p>\n
    that the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed is<\/p>\n
    convenient for all. However, said Miscellaneous Application No. 14<\/p>\n
    of 2008      came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
    Nanded on 28.8.2008. Hence, the applicant has preferred the<\/p>\n
    present application challenging the validity and legality of the<\/p>\n
    said order, with a prayer that Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005<\/p>\n
    pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar,<\/p>\n
    District Nanded be tranferred to any other court for disposal in<\/p>\n
    accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    6            Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
    7            At the out set, considering the rival submissions, it is<\/p>\n
    pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who<\/p>\n
    imposed      the   costs   upon     the   applicant    has     been      already<\/p>\n
    transferred and, therefore, there is no substance in the present<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
    application.    Besides that, the learned counsel for the applicant<\/p>\n
    submitted that he has no grievance against the present Additional<\/p>\n
    Sessions Judge, Kandhar and, therefore, also nothing survives in<\/p>\n
    the present application.\n<\/p>\n
    8              Apart from that, even considering the factor of<\/p>\n
    convenience, it is for the accused persons to prefer application for<\/p>\n
    transfer, if any inconvenience is caused to them, and the<\/p>\n
    applicant (original complainant), in fact, has no basis therefor.\n<\/p>\n
    9         Besides that, the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded has<\/p>\n
    rejected the application of the applicant vide order passed in<\/p>\n
    Miscellaneous Application NO. 14 of 2008 on 28.8.2008 by way of<\/p>\n
    reasoned order and on perusal of the contents of the said order, I<\/p>\n
    am of the view that there is no necessity to interfere therein in<\/p>\n
    the present application.\n<\/p>\n
    10        It appears that since the earlier Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
    Judge imposed the heavy costs upon the applicant herein, the<\/p>\n
    applicant herein preferred the application for transfer, but now<\/p>\n
    the said cause does not subsist since the said Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
    Judge has already been transferred as afore said.\n<\/p>\n
    11        It is the contention   of the applicant that the court of<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar is not convenient for the<\/p>\n
    witnesses, but it is for the prosecution to consider the said aspect<\/p>\n
    and to take suitable steps, if required, and not for the applicant<\/p>\n
    (original complainant) herein.\n<\/p>\n
    12        In the circumstances, the present application bears no<\/p>\n
    substance and same is devoid of any merits and same is required<\/p>\n
    to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    13        In the result, the present application fails and same<\/p>\n
    stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (Shrihari P.Davare J.)<\/p>\n
    dbm\/crap3288.08<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:50:27 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009 Bench: Shrihari P. Davare 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3288 OF 2008 1 Shivaji s\/o Dnyanoba Sable, age 23 years, occ. Driver, r\/o Dhanewadi, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani …Applicant ig (Orig.complainant) VERSUS […]<\/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-2744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009 - 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\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-06T22:43:48+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-06T22:43:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":698,\"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\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-06T22:43:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009 - 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\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-06T22:43:48+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-06T22:43:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009"},"wordCount":698,"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\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009","name":"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-06T22:43:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shivaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/2744","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=2744"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2744\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2744"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2744"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2744"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}