{"id":38133,"date":"2003-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003"},"modified":"2015-07-03T23:43:33","modified_gmt":"2015-07-03T18:13:33","slug":"laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mathur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  11 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nKaramjit Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState (Delhi Administration)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nS. Rajendra Babu &amp; G.P. Mathur\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>G.P. Mathur, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tKaramjit Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 2.2.1996 of the Designated Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case<br \/>\nNo.140 of 1991, by which he was convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the<br \/>\nExplosive Substances Act and was sentenced to 5 years R.I. thereunder and<br \/>\nwas further convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive<br \/>\nActivities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the TADA&#8221;) and was<br \/>\nsentenced to 5 years R.I. and 5 years and six months R.I. respectively under<br \/>\nthe two counts.\t  The sentences awarded to him were ordered to run<br \/>\nconcurrently.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant Karamjit<br \/>\nSingh  at the relevant time was working as driver in Delhi Police and was<br \/>\nresiding with his wife in quarter no.B-12 in Police Station Mehrauli, which<br \/>\nhad been allotted to his father-in-law, Didar Singh, who was also a<br \/>\nconstable.   A secret information was received that the appellant was<br \/>\ninvolved in terrorist activities and that he was allowing the terrorists to stay<br \/>\nin his residence and had also in his possession some explosive material.   It<br \/>\nwas accordingly decided to conduct a search of his residential premises and<br \/>\nin that connection a raiding party was organised by ACP, Shakti Singh of the<br \/>\nCSS Branch, Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.  Shakti Singh, ACP<br \/>\nalong with number of police personnel including R.D. Pandey, Inspector,<br \/>\nPratap Singh, Inspector and Rajinder Prasad, Sub-inspector proceeded from<br \/>\ntheir office at Lodhi Colony for appellant&#8217;s quarter in P.S. Mehrauli at 8.30<br \/>\na.m. on 8.11.1990.   The quarter was locked from outside and, therefore,<br \/>\nthey kept a secret watch.  At about 11.30 a.m., the appellant along with his<br \/>\nwife arrived there on a scooter.   The raiding party disclosed their identity to<br \/>\nthe appellant, who tried to run away but he was overpowered and was asked<br \/>\nto open the door of the house.\t The appellant then opened the lock and the<br \/>\nmembers of the raiding party entered the same.\t A steel box was found kept<br \/>\nin the north side of the bedroom, which was also locked.   The box was<br \/>\nopened by the appellant and a number of incriminating articles like<br \/>\nexplosive material in two separate containers weighing 1.60 kg. and 1.80<br \/>\nkg., four detonators fitted with electric wires, time piece fitted with electrical<br \/>\nwires in the shape of a fixed timer, one pocket watch having electrical\t wires<br \/>\nwhich was also a timer, one ampere meter tester, one  pair of magnets,<br \/>\nsoldering wire, splinters weighing 1.150 kgs., nut and bolts, wrenches and<br \/>\nscrew drivers, etc. were found stored therein.\t The recovered articles were<br \/>\nsealed on the spot.  Thereafter a Rukka was sent to the Police Station,<br \/>\nMehrauli through PW2 Naresh and on the basis thereof  PW1 Shashi Bala,<br \/>\nwho was on duty, registered a case against the appellant being FIR No.298<br \/>\nof 1990 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and<br \/>\nSections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA.\tThe appellant was produced in Court on the<br \/>\nnext day, where he was taken on police remand.\t The appellant also give a<br \/>\ndisclosure statement.\tAfter investigation of the case, charge sheet was<br \/>\nsubmitted against the appellant on the basis of\t which cognizance was taken<br \/>\nby the Designated Court.   The learned Additional Sessions Judge<br \/>\n(Designated Court No.1), New Delhi, framed charges under Sections 4 and 5<br \/>\nof the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 3 and 5 of TADA on<br \/>\n12.5.1993.   The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses<br \/>\nand filed some documentary evidence.   The appellant in his statement under<br \/>\nSection 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.   He stated that the quarter<br \/>\nwas not in his possession and he was not residing there nor any<br \/>\nincriminating articles were recovered from his possession.   He also denied<br \/>\nto have made any disclosure statement.\tHe further submitted that he had no<br \/>\nassociation with any terrorist and  had a clean service record while working<br \/>\nas a driver with Delhi Police.\t He  examined one witness, namely, DW1,<br \/>\nMukhtiar Singh in his defence.\t The Designated Court, after appraisal of<br \/>\nevidence on record, believed the case of the prosecution and convicted and<br \/>\nsentenced the appellant as mentioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBefore examining the contentions raised by Shri K.B. Sinha, learned<br \/>\nsenior counsel for the appellant, it will be proper to briefly notice the<br \/>\nevidence which has been adduced by the prosecution to sustain the charge<br \/>\nlevelled against the appellant.\t  PW 11 Pratap Singh has deposed that he was<br \/>\nposted as Inspector in CSS Branch, Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New<br \/>\nDelhi, on 8.11.1990.   On that day, a raid was organised by ACP, Shakti<br \/>\nSingh, at the residence of the appellant Karamjit Singh, who was living in<br \/>\nquarter no.B-12 of P.S. Mehrauli, as a secret information had been received<br \/>\nthat he was having explosives in his possession and was helping the<br \/>\nterrorists by allowing them to stay at this residence.\t At about 8.30 a.m., the<br \/>\npolice party headed by ACP, Shakti Singh, started from Lodhi Colony office<br \/>\nand went to Mehrauli.\tThey kept a secret watch at the house of the<br \/>\nappellant, which was locked.   At about 11.30 a.m., the appellant came there<br \/>\nalong with his wife on a scooter.   He was stopped and the raiding party<br \/>\ndisclosed their identity on which he tried to run away but he was<br \/>\noverpowered.   The appellant was asked to open the lock of his house, which<br \/>\nhe did and thereafter all of them went inside the house and found that a box<br \/>\nwas kept in the bedroom which was also locked.\t On the asking of ACP<br \/>\nShakti Singh, the appellant opened the lock of the box and it was found that<br \/>\na number of articles like explosives, detonators fitted with electric wires,<br \/>\ntime piece, pocket watch, wrenches, wires, soldering material, splinters, etc.,<br \/>\ndetails of have been given earlier were found there.  The articles were sealed<br \/>\non the spot and a site plan was prepared.   The witness has further deposed<br \/>\nthat  thereafter he prepared a Rukka and after signing the same sent it to P.S.<br \/>\nMehrauli through PW2 Naresh, Constable, for registration of the case. The<br \/>\nappellant also made  disclosure statements on 9.11.1990 and 10.11.1990.<br \/>\nAfter completing investigation, he sent papers for obtaining sanction from<br \/>\nthe concerned officers and after the same had been granted charge sheet was<br \/>\nsubmitted  against the appellant in Court.   PW9  R.D. Pandey, Inspector,<br \/>\nand PW10 Rajinder Prasad, Sub-Inspector were also posed in CSS Branch,<br \/>\nOperation Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi on 8.11.1990 and they were<br \/>\nmembers of the raiding party headed by ACP Shakti Singh and they had also<br \/>\ngone to the  residence of the appellant.   These two persons have given<br \/>\nexactly similar statements as that of PW11 Pratap Singh and have deposed<br \/>\nabout the opening of the lock of the house and the opening of the lock of the<br \/>\nbox by the appellant and also recovery of the incriminating articles from<br \/>\nthere.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPW12 Ashok Kumar, Head Constable, Quarter Allotment Cell, Police<br \/>\nHeadquarters, New Delhi, produced before the Court the original file<br \/>\nregarding allotment of quarter no.B-12, Type II, P.S. Mehrauli to Constable<br \/>\nDidar Singh.  PW7 Didar Singh has deposed that he had married his<br \/>\ndaughter Harinder Jeet Kaur to the appellant on 1.9.1990 and at that time he<br \/>\nwas posted in PCR Anand Parbat.\t  The appellant at the time of his marriage<br \/>\nwas living in village Naharpur near Rohini and he was having only one<br \/>\nroom.\tSince his daughter was facing difficulty there, he asked the appellant<br \/>\nto live in the quarter allotted to him (quarter no. B-12, PS Mehrauli) and<br \/>\naccordingly the appellant started living there about a month prior to the date<br \/>\non which search of his quarter was made.    PW2 Naresh, Constable driver<br \/>\nhas deposed that he had driven the Gypsy on 8.11.1990 on which the raiding<br \/>\nparty headed by ACP Shakti Singh had proceeded from Lodhi Colony to<br \/>\nP.S. Mehrauli.\t PW 11 Pratap Singh, Inspector, had given him the Rukka for<br \/>\nbeing handed over to the Duty Officer at P.S. Mehrauli, which he did.\tThe<br \/>\nDuty Officer after registering the case gave him a copy of the FIR which he<br \/>\nhanded over to Pratap Singh.   PW1 Shashi Bala has deposed that she  was<br \/>\nDuty Officer at P.S. Mehrauli on 8.11.1990 and\ton the basis of the Rukka<br \/>\nbrought by Naresh, Constable,  at 1.30 p.m., she registered a case against the<br \/>\nappellant under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and<br \/>\nSections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA as FIR no.298 of 1990.\t PW3 Babu Khan,<br \/>\nHead Constable deposed that PW11 Pratap Singh, Inspector deposited the<br \/>\ncase property at P.S. Mehrauli on 8.11.1990 as per the recovery memo and<br \/>\nfiled the photocopy of the entry made  regarding the same in the register.<br \/>\n\tPW4 Om Prakash Khatri, Inspector, Operation Cell, deposed that the<br \/>\nappellant made a disclosure statement on 9.11.1990 that he could get<br \/>\nrecovery of arms, ammunitions and explosives made from some places in<br \/>\nDelhi and Punjab.   Similar statements about disclosure statement having<br \/>\nbeen made by the appellant have been given by PW5 Kartar Singh, S.I. of<br \/>\nOperation Cell.\t  He also deposed that the appellant had further stated that he<br \/>\ncould get Jarnail Singh @ Jilla who was Lt. General of BTFK, Sukhvinder<br \/>\nSingh Chadha, Vikram Jit Singh Bittu and some others arrested.\t PW13,<br \/>\nSukhdev Singh, who was Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell,<br \/>\nproved the sanction accorded by him on 12.9.1991 and PW14 M.V. Siddiqui<br \/>\nDeputy Secretary, Home also proved the sanction given by him.\tBoth the<br \/>\nwitnesses have stated that the sanction was granted by them after perusal of<br \/>\nthe documents of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant examined one witness in his defence, namely, DW1,<br \/>\nMukhtiar Singh, who is Surpanch of village Guddar Tadi, District<br \/>\nFerozepur.   He deposed that Karamjit Singh belongs to his village and he<br \/>\nknew him and also his family members for the last 40 years.   The appellant<br \/>\nhad clean antecedents and he was never involved in any criminal case.<br \/>\n\tWe have given above the gist of the evidence which is available on<br \/>\nthe record.   The fact that quarter no.B-12 in P.S. Mehrauli had been allotted<br \/>\nto PW7 Didar Singh is proved by the statement of PW12 Ashok Kumar,<br \/>\nHead Constable.\t Didar Singh has deposed that he had given the said quarter<br \/>\nto the appellant and the appellant along with his wife was living there for<br \/>\nabout a month before the occurrence.   It is important to note that Didar<br \/>\nSingh is the father-in-law of the appellant and there is absolutely no reason<br \/>\nwhy he would depose falsely to implicate his own son-in-law.   It is,<br \/>\ntherefore, fully established that the appellant was residing in quarter no.B-<br \/>\n12, from where the recovery had been made.   There is direct testimony of<br \/>\nthree witnesses, namely, PW9 R.D. Pandey, PW10 Rajinder Prasad and<br \/>\nPW11 Pratap Singh that it was the appellant who opened the lock of his<br \/>\nresidential quarter and thereafter he opened the lock of the box, which was<br \/>\nkept in the bedroom and from the said box considerable amount of<br \/>\nincriminating articles which could be used for making bombs etc. were<br \/>\nrecovered.   The testimony of  these three witnesses is corroborated by the<br \/>\nstatement of PW2 Naresh, the driver of the vehicle on which they went from<br \/>\nOperation Cell, Lodhi Colony to the quarter of the appellant in PS Mehrauli.<br \/>\nNo doubt he is not a witness of the recovery itself as he remained sitting in<br \/>\nthe vehicle but he does corroborate the testimony of the aforesaid three<br \/>\nwitnesses regarding the fact that some police personnel including the<br \/>\naforesaid three witnesses had gone to the quarter of the appellant in the<br \/>\nmorning of 8.11.1990.\tThe testimony of PW3 Babu Khan, establishes the<br \/>\nfact that the recovered articles were deposited as  case property at Police<br \/>\nStation Mehrauli by PW11 Pratap Singh.\t The testimony of these witnesses<br \/>\nconclusively establishes the charge levelled against the appellant that he was<br \/>\nkeeping in his possession  considerable amount of explosives and other<br \/>\nmaterials  which could be used for making a bomb.   The defence witness<br \/>\nexamined by the appellant belongs to  a village in District Ferozepur and he<br \/>\nhas merely deposed about the good character of the appellant.\tHis<br \/>\ntestimony has no bearing on the factum of recovery made from the<br \/>\npossession of the appellant and is thus of no assistance to him.   The<br \/>\nevidence on record, therefore, establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond<br \/>\nany shadow of doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has vehemently<br \/>\nurged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are<br \/>\npolice personnel and in absence of any public witness, their testimony alone<br \/>\nshould not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant.<br \/>\nIn our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be<br \/>\naccepted.   The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same<br \/>\nmanner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law<br \/>\nthat without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot<br \/>\nbe relied upon.\t  The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as<br \/>\nmuch in favour of  police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper<br \/>\njudicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds.   It will<br \/>\nall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of<br \/>\ngeneral application can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated<br \/>\nin the opening part of his examination-in-chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked<br \/>\nsome public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their<br \/>\nunwillingness.\t PW10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement and<br \/>\nhas deposed that despite their best efforts no one from public was willing to<br \/>\njoin the raiding party due to the fear of the terrorists.   Exactly similar<br \/>\nstatement has been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey.   We should not forget that<br \/>\nthe incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in<br \/>\nPunjab and neighbouring areas.\tThe ground realities cannot be lost sight of<br \/>\nthat even in normal circumstances members of public are very reluctant to<br \/>\naccompany a police party which is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking<br \/>\nupon search of some premises.\tAt the time when the terrorism was at its<br \/>\npeak, it is quite natural for members of public to have avoided getting<br \/>\ninvolved in a police operation for search or arrest of a person having links<br \/>\nwith terrorists.   It is noteworthy that during the course of the cross-<br \/>\nexamination of the witness the defence did not even give any suggestion\t as<br \/>\nto why they were falsely deposing against the appellant.   There is absolutely<br \/>\nno material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had<br \/>\nany reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a<br \/>\ncolleague of theirs being a  member of the same police force.\t Therefore,<br \/>\nthe contention raised by  Shri Sinha that on account of non-examination of a<br \/>\npublic witness, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police<br \/>\npersonnel, should not be relied upon has hardly any substance and cannot be<br \/>\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri Sinha has next urged that PW5 Kartar Singh, SI of Operation<br \/>\nCell had admitted in his cross-examination that he had gone to P.S. Mehrauli<br \/>\nin connection with some official work at about 10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1990 and<br \/>\nhad seen  PW9, PW10 and PW11 and ACP Shakti Singh interrogating the<br \/>\nappellant Karamjit Singh in the room of I.O. and this clearly contradicted the<br \/>\ntestimony of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant came at 11.30 a.m.,<br \/>\nopened the lock of the quarter and thereafter the recovery was made.<br \/>\nAccording to learned counsel, the testimony of this witness completely<br \/>\nshatters the prosecution case that the raiding party kept  a watch on the<br \/>\nlocked premises and the appellant arrived at the scene only at 11.30 a.m.   In<br \/>\nour opinion the learned counsel has tried to make a mountain of a mole hill<br \/>\nfrom a stray sentence in the cross-examination of the witness.\t In his<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief which was recorded on 21.5.1994  PW5 has not stated<br \/>\nanything regarding the time when he saw the appellant being interrogated.<br \/>\nHe was cross-examined on 23.7.1994 i.e. nearly three years and 9 months<br \/>\nafter the incident. After such a long gap he may not be remembering the<br \/>\nexact time when he reached the police station.\tPW11 Pratap Singh has<br \/>\nclearly stated in his cross-examination that SI Kartar Singh had come to the<br \/>\nPolice Station in pursuance of\ta wireless message sent to the Operation Cell<br \/>\nby ACP Shakti Singh and that he came after 3.30\t 4.00 p.m.   Therefore, it<br \/>\nis not at all possible to discard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses<br \/>\nmerely on account of a stray sentence appearing in the cross-examination of<br \/>\nPW5.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri Sinha has also urged that the quarter was not in exclusive<br \/>\npossession of the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be held that the<br \/>\nincriminating articles were recovered from his possession.   As mentioned<br \/>\nearlier, PW7 Didar Singh who is none else but the father-in-law of the<br \/>\nappellant, has deposed that he had given the quarter to the appellant and he<br \/>\nwas residing therein for about a month prior to the occurrence.\t  The<br \/>\ntestimony of PW9, PW10 and PW11 clearly establishes that it was the<br \/>\nappellant who had opened the lock which was put on the front door of the<br \/>\nquarter and he had also opened the lock which was put on the box from<br \/>\nwhere the incriminating articles had been recovered.  The box  having been<br \/>\nfound in the quarter which was in possession of the appellant and the fact<br \/>\nthat he was keeping the key of the lock of the box can lead to the only<br \/>\nconclusion that articles found in the box were in his possession.<br \/>\n\tHaving given our careful consideration to the submissions made by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the<br \/>\nprosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond any shadow<br \/>\nof doubt and there is absolutely no ground which may warrant interference<br \/>\nwith the impugned judgment and order of the Designated Court.\tThe appeal<br \/>\nis accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003 Author: G Mathur Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 11 of 2000 PETITIONER: Karamjit Singh RESPONDENT: State (Delhi Administration) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/03\/2003 BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu &amp; G.P. Mathur JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-03T18:13:33+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T18:13:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T18:13:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-03T18:13:33+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T18:13:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003"},"wordCount":3024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003","name":"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T18:13:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/laxminarayan-r-bhattad-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-4-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Laxminarayan R. Bhattad &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/38133","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=38133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}