{"id":45022,"date":"2009-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-12T02:34:43","modified_gmt":"2016-02-11T21:04:43","slug":"rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                             APPELLATE SIDE\n\n              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1663 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed                                  : Petitioner\n                                                      (Orig.Accused No.11)\n            V\/s.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n    The State of Maharashtra                                 : Respondent\n                                                       (Orig.Complainant)\n                                ....\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    Mr.A.R. Shaikh for the petitioner.\n                          \n    Mr.S.N.Gawade, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.\n                             ....\n                         \n                                         CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                         DATE    : OCTOBER 05, 2009.\n      \n\n\n    ORAL ORDER:\n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    1.          By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated<\/p>\n
    22.5.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Malegaon, declining to<\/p>\n
    determine the age of the petitioner on the ground that the issue of age can<\/p>\n
    be resolved only after evidence is led at the trial. Offences under sections<\/p>\n
    143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 452 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
    Code and sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act have been registered against<\/p>\n
    the petitioner and others. The petitioner was arrested on 20.5.2008.\n<\/p>\n
    2.       In the remand report, the petitioner’s age was mentioned as 19<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
    years. The petitioner made an application to the Court stating that his<\/p>\n
    date of birth is 12.01.1992 and that he was a juvenile below the age of 18<\/p>\n
    years at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The petitioner,<\/p>\n
    therefore, prayed in his application for being tried under the provisions of<\/p>\n
    the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000,<\/p>\n
    hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. For proof of his age, he placed<\/p>\n
    reliance on the birth certificate and extracts of birth register.\n<\/p>\n
    3.<\/p>\n
             The application was opposed by the prosecution on the ground<\/p>\n
    that the remand report shows the petitioner’s age to be 19 years and that<\/p>\n
    his bail application also describes him as a major.             Apparently, the<\/p>\n
    petitioner stated in his memorandum statement recorded in the presence<\/p>\n
    of panchas that he was a major. The trial Court considered several aspects<\/p>\n
    of the matter such as the date of the trial, commencement of the trial or<\/p>\n
    the date of occurrence of the offence for determining the age. However,<\/p>\n
    while concluding, the trial Court relied on the age mentioned by the<\/p>\n
    petitioner in the bail application and the remand papers and observed that<\/p>\n
    the A.P.P. has disputed the correctness of the birth certificate as unreliable.\n<\/p>\n
    Accordingly, the trial Court has observed that the age of the petitioner has<\/p>\n
    not been authentically proved and, therefore, proceeded to reject the<\/p>\n
    application.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.      Mr.Shaikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the<\/p>\n
    Act requires the Magistrate before whom a person is produced to<\/p>\n
    determine the age of the person. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “7. Procedure to be followed by a Magistrate<\/p>\n
                not empowered under the Act.–(1) When any<\/p>\n
                Magistrate not empowered to exercise the powers<\/p>\n
                of a Board under this Act is of the opinion that a<\/p>\n
                person brought before him under any of the<\/p>\n
                provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of<\/p>\n
                giving evidence), is a juvenile or the child, he shall<\/p>\n
                without any delay record such opinion and forward<\/p>\n
                the juvenile or the child and the record of the<\/p>\n
                proceeding to the competent authority having<\/p>\n
                jurisdiction over the proceeding.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (2) The competent authority to which the<\/p>\n
                proceeding is forwarded under sub-section (1) shall<\/p>\n
                hold the inquiry as if the juvenile or the child had<\/p>\n
                originally been brought before it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Section 7A reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “7-A. Procedure to be followed when claim of<\/p>\n
                juvenility   is     raised       before   any    Court.–(1)<\/p>\n
                Whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any<\/p>\n
                Court or a Court is of the opinion that an accused<\/p>\n
                person was a juvenile on the date of commission<\/p>\n
                of the offence, the Court shall make an inquiry,<\/p>\n
                take such evidence as may be necessary (but not<\/p>\n
                an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such<\/p>\n
                person, and shall record a finding whether the<\/p>\n
                person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his<\/p>\n
                age as nearly as may be:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       Provided that a claim of juvenility may be<\/p>\n
                raised before any Court and it shall be recognised<\/p>\n
                at any stage, even after final disposal of the case,<\/p>\n
                and such claim shall be determined in terms of the<\/p>\n
                provisions contained in this Act and the rules made<\/p>\n
                thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so<\/p>\n
                on or before the date of commencement of this<\/p>\n
                Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (2) If the Court finds a person to be a juvenile<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 on the date of commission of the offence under<\/p>\n
                 sub-section (1), it shall forward the juvenile to the<\/p>\n
                 Board for passing appropriate order, and the<\/p>\n
                 sentence, if any, passed by a Court shall be<\/p>\n
                 deemed to have no effect.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5.      Mr.Shaikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, then relied on<\/p>\n
    rule 12 and submitted that the order of the learned trial Judge is not<\/p>\n
    sustainable in law since the rule requires the trial Court to determine the<\/p>\n
    age of a juvenile in conflict with the law within 30 days from the date of<\/p>\n
    making an application for such purpose i.e. an application for determining<\/p>\n
    the age. The learned counsel further submitted that the rule requires the<\/p>\n
    Court to determine the age of the alleged juvenile based on evidence<\/p>\n
    referred to in sub-rule (3) of that rule. According to the learned counsel,<\/p>\n
    in the present case, the trial Court has not followed the mandate of the law<\/p>\n
    and, therefore, the order is illegal. Rule 12 reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “12. Procedure to be followed in determination<\/p>\n
                 of age.–(1) In every case concerning a child or a<\/p>\n
                 juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the<\/p>\n
                 Board, as the case may be, the Committee referred<\/p>\n
                 to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
      of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict<\/p>\n
      with law within a period of thirty days from the<\/p>\n
      date of making of the application for that purpose.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (2) The Court or the Board or, as the case may<\/p>\n
      be, the Committee shall decide the juvenility or<\/p>\n
      otherwise of the juvenile of the child or, as the case<\/p>\n
      may be, the juvenile in conflict with law, prima<\/p>\n
      facie on the basis of physical appearances or<\/p>\n
      documents, if available, and send him to the<\/p>\n
      observation home or in jail.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile<\/p>\n
      in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry<\/p>\n
      shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as<\/p>\n
      the case may be, the Committee by seeking<\/p>\n
      evidence by obtaining–\n<\/p>\n
        (a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates,<\/p>\n
      if available; and in the absence whereof;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school<\/p>\n
      (other than a play school) first attended; and in the<\/p>\n
      absence whereof;\n<\/p>\n
       (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or<\/p>\n
      a municipal authority or a panchayat;\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
        (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or<\/p>\n
      (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will<\/p>\n
      be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board,<\/p>\n
      which will declare the age of the juvenile or child.\n<\/p>\n
      In case exact assessment of the age cannot be<\/p>\n
      done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may<\/p>\n
      be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded<\/p>\n
      by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit<\/p>\n
      to the child or juvenile by considering his\/her age<\/p>\n
      on lower side within the margin of one year,<\/p>\n
      and, while passing orders in such case shall, after<\/p>\n
      taking into consideration such evidence as may be<\/p>\n
      available, or the medical opinion, as the case may<\/p>\n
      be, record a finding in respect of his age and either<\/p>\n
      of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)<\/p>\n
      (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b)<\/p>\n
      shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards<\/p>\n
      such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.\n<\/p>\n
       (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile<\/p>\n
      in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years<\/p>\n
      on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
      conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the<\/p>\n
      Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the<\/p>\n
      Committee shall in writing pass an order stating<\/p>\n
      the age and declaring the status of juvenility or<\/p>\n
      otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these<\/p>\n
      rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such<\/p>\n
      juvenile or the person concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or<\/p>\n
      otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section<\/p>\n
      7-A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no<\/p>\n
      further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or<\/p>\n
      the Board after examining and obtaining the<\/p>\n
      certificate or any other documentary proof referred<\/p>\n
      to in sub-rule (3) of this rule.\n<\/p>\n
         (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall<\/p>\n
      also apply to those disposed off cases, where the<\/p>\n
      status of juvenility has not been determined in<\/p>\n
      accordance with the provisions contained in sub-\n<\/p>\n
      rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the<\/p>\n
      sentence under the Act for passing appropriate<\/p>\n
      order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with<\/p>\n
      law.”\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
    6.     It is clear from the provisions of the rule, in particular sub-rule (3)<\/p>\n
    that the trial Court on the basis of matriculation or equivalent certificates<\/p>\n
    and in the absence whereof, the date of birth certificate from the school<\/p>\n
    first attended; and in the absence whereof, the birth certificate given by a<\/p>\n
    corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat, in that behalf. Where<\/p>\n
    and only where the aforesaid certificates are absent, the trial Court has to<\/p>\n
    decide on the basis of medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical<\/p>\n
    Board. The rule further makes it clear that where it is not possible for the<\/p>\n
    Court to exactly assess the age, the Court is bound to give the benefit of<\/p>\n
    doubt to the child or the juvenile by considering his age to be on the<\/p>\n
    lower side within the margin of one year. In any case, it is incumbent on<\/p>\n
    the trial Court to record a finding based on section 7 and 7A of the Act<\/p>\n
    and rule 12 of the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of rule 12 states that while passing<\/p>\n
    orders in such a case, the trial Court shall record a finding in respect of<\/p>\n
    the age of the juvenile which is then treated as conclusive proof of the age<\/p>\n
    as regards such child. From the impugned order, it appears that the only<\/p>\n
    finding recorded by the trial Court is in paragraph 9 by observing as<\/p>\n
    follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “……. because in the present case the age of the<\/p>\n
                 accused have not been authentically proved and the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
                 prosecution has disputed the contents of the birth<\/p>\n
                 certificate and the contents of extract of the birth<\/p>\n
                 register.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.      The above finding results in a clear mis-carriage of justice. The<\/p>\n
    trial Court has not given any reasons why it is of the opinion that the age<\/p>\n
    has not been authentically proved. It appears that the trial Court formed<\/p>\n
    its opinion because the prosecution disputed the contents of the birth<\/p>\n
    certificate and the contents of the extract of the birth register. This is not<\/p>\n
    permissible. The trial Court must decide on the basis of evidence in the<\/p>\n
    order in which it is referred to in sub-rule (3) and determine the age<\/p>\n
    conclusively. In case the trial Court did not believe the certificate, it<\/p>\n
    ought to have sought the opinion of the Medical Board for determining<\/p>\n
    the age of the accused. The Court has completely ignored the requirement<\/p>\n
    of rule 12 which has not been referred to by it. In doing so, the order has<\/p>\n
    resulted in defeating the purpose of the Act, which was enacted to<\/p>\n
    consolidate the law relating to juvenile in conflict with law and children<\/p>\n
    in need of care and protection by adopting a child friendly approach in the<\/p>\n
    adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interests of children and<\/p>\n
    for their ultimate rehabilitation. This law has been enacted, inter alia, in<\/p>\n
    discharge of the primary responsibility of the State for ensuring that all<\/p>\n
    the needs of the children are met and their basic rights are fully protected<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                          11<\/span><\/p>\n
    vide clause (3) of Article 15, clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles<\/p>\n
    45 and 47 of the Constitution of India and in pursuance of the Convention<\/p>\n
    on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United<\/p>\n
    Nations and ratified by the Government of India. If a person is found to<\/p>\n
    be a juvenile, the Court is bound to ensure that the trial is in accordance<\/p>\n
    with the Act. This is obviously not possible if the trial Court fails to<\/p>\n
    determine the age of the juvenile when raised before it.              It was not<\/p>\n
    permissible for the trial court to reject the application without sufficient<\/p>\n
    reasons and because the prosecution has disputed the contents of the birth<\/p>\n
    certificate and the contents of the extract of birth register, the trial Court<\/p>\n
    was duty bound in law to exhaust the modes of determining the age<\/p>\n
    provided by the law and render a clear finding about the age of the<\/p>\n
    petitioner. This not having been done, the impugned order is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh decision, in<\/p>\n
    accordance with law. The trial Court shall decide the application within<\/p>\n
    six weeks from the date the petitioner appears before it. The petitioner is<\/p>\n
    directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.10.2009.                     Order<\/p>\n
    accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    8.     The Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:09:17 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009 Bench: S.A. Bobde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1663 OF 2009 Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : Petitioner (Orig.Accused No.11) V\/s. The State of Maharashtra : Respondent (Orig.Complainant) …. […]<\/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-45022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 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\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-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=\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-11T21:04:43+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\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T21:04:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2192,\"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\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-11T21:04:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 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":"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 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\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-11T21:04:43+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\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T21:04:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009"},"wordCount":2192,"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\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009","name":"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-11T21:04:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rafiq-ahmed-saeed-ahmed-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rafiq Ahmed Saeed Ahmed : vs The State Of Maharashtra : on 5 October, 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\/45022","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=45022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}