{"id":46784,"date":"2011-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-14T18:01:48","modified_gmt":"2015-05-14T12:31:48","slug":"shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                               1                       CRI. CP NO.1\/2009\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n           CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 of 2009 \n          (With Crimial Application Nos.4066\/2011, \n                   1912\/2011 and 3146\/2011)    \n\n\n\n\n                                     \n          Shri V.S.Deshpande, 5th \n          Joint Civil Judge,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n          (S.D.), Ahmednagar.\n                                          ...PETITIONER\n          VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                          \n     1.   The State of Maharashtra.\n      \n     2.\n\n      \n                   \n          Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin, Age 42  yrs., Occ. \n          Fitter;\n\n     3.   Sau.Rahematbee Sayyad Amin, Age 60 yrs. Occ. \n                  \n          Household;\n\n     4.   Sau.Shaikh Julekha alias Nasim, age 45 yrs. \n          Occ. Household;\n      \n\n\n     5.   Sayyad Khalik Sayyad Amin, Age 40 yrs. Occ. \n   \n\n\n\n          Fitter;\n\n     6.   Sayyad Ainul Sayyad Amin, Age 37 yrs. Occ. \n          Plumber.\n\n\n\n\n\n          Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 r\/o Nangre Galli, House No.\n          7344, Ahmednagar.\n\n          No.4 r\/o  Zendi Gate, Ahmednagar.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   ...RESPONDENTS\n\n                            ...\n     Shri V.N.Damle, Adv.( appointed) for petitioner.\n     Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1 State.\n     Mr.J.H.Deshmukh, Adv., for respondent no.2.\n     Mr.M.D.Shinde, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 to 6.\n                            ...\n\n\n\n\n                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::\n                                          2                    CRI. CP NO.1\/2009\n\n\n\n                       CORAM:  A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ.     \n<\/pre>\n
                                  ***
\n                              Date of reserving the <\/p>\n
                              judgment: 29\/9\/2011<\/p>\n
                              Date of pronouncing
\n                              judgment: 5\/10\/2011<\/p>\n
                                   ***<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT :    (Per A.H.Joshi, J.)<\/p>\n
     1.          Rule.  Rule is made returnable forthwith.
\n     Heard by Consent.\n<\/p>\n
     2.          This   Contempt   proceedings   are   initiated <\/p>\n
     on the Reference made to this Court by   5th Joint
\n     Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar.\n<\/p>\n
     3.          In   the   proceedings   for   grant   of <\/p>\n
     succession   certificate,   present   contemnors   have
\n     made   a   statement   on   record   that   the   Hon’ble   High
\n     Court   had   demanded   succession   certificate   in   the <\/p>\n
     appeal pending before High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                 The   contemnors   were   not   able   to   prove
\n     that any such order was passed.\n<\/p>\n
     4.          The   trial   Court,   by   passing   order   below
\n     Exh.1,  called the explanation from the applicants
\n     therein   as   to   why   action   should   not   be   taken
\n     against   them   for   making   such   false   and
\n     irresponsible statement.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     3                    CRI. CP NO.1\/2009<\/p>\n
     5.          The   applicants   therein   filed   written <\/p>\n
     explanation   in   which   objectionable   matter   was
\n     incorporated.   The   statements,   which   were <\/p>\n
     objectionable, are quoted in the reference.\n<\/p>\n
     6.          This   Court   had   taken   cognizance   and <\/p>\n
     ordered   that   notice   of   show   cause   be   issued
\n     against the contemnors.\n<\/p>\n
     7.          The   contemnors   remained   present, <\/p>\n
     intermittently.       Sayyad     Yunus   Sayyad   Amin,   one
\n     amongst   them,   was   absent   inspite   of   execution   of <\/p>\n
     bond   and   even   failed   to   apply   for   exemption   of
\n     personal   attendance.   Therefore,   non   bailable
\n     warrant   of   arrest   was   issued.     However,   he <\/p>\n
     appeared on the returnable date.  Thereafter,  the
\n     contemnor   Sayyad   Yunus   Sayyad   Amin   was   committed <\/p>\n
     to jail.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     Advocate   Mr.J.H.Deshmukh   appeared,   applied
\n     for   his   release   on   bail   and   also     expressed
\n     willingness on  behalf of said contemnor to tender
\n     unconditional   apology,   which   is   accordingly <\/p>\n
     tendered.\n<\/p>\n
     9.          Other   contemnors   represented   by   Advocate
\n     Mr.M.D.Shinde,   have   pleaded   ignorance   as   regards
\n     their act of contempt on the ground that the power
\n     of attorney holder had   dealt with the matter and <\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                      4                     CRI. CP NO.1\/2009<\/p>\n
     they   had   no   knowledge,   in   fact,   of   whatever   had
\n     transpired.     They   pleaded   that   they     had   already <\/p>\n
     tendered   apology   and   pleaded   for   leniency,   apart
\n     from being excused.\n<\/p>\n
     10.        We   would   like   to   refer   to   the   text
\n     contained  in reply to the notice of show cause of <\/p>\n
     contempt   given   by   the   trial   Court,   wherein   the
\n     contemnors had written objectionable matter.\n<\/p>\n
            Relevant portion appearing in Reference order <\/p>\n
     reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “1. A.   In   collusion   with   Rodga   Masjid
\n                Trust and with biased mind the court has <\/p>\n
                issued show cause notice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                B.   Said   show   cause   notice   defamed
\n                applicants.  The applicants are intending <\/p>\n
                to   initiate   proceedings   against   this
\n                court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                C.   The   show   cause   notice   is   illegal.
\n                Court   is   called   upon   to   prove   as   to   how
\n                any   court   can   pass   written   order <\/p>\n
                demanding Succession Certificate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                D)   Court   (this   Court)   doesn’t   know   the
\n                procedure for issuance of certificate”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The contemnors have also made contemptuous and <\/p>\n
     intimidating statements as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “2. A.     The Court shall not initiate any
\n                action   against   the   applicants   i.e.   other
\n                heirs and power of attorney holder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     5                     CRI. CP NO.1\/2009<\/p>\n
                B.   Take the note that immediately after
\n                receipt   of   permission   a   case   for
\n                defamation   will   be   lodged   against   this <\/p>\n
                Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                C.   …If it is so, then this Court shall <\/p>\n
                prove it strictly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.        Upon perusal of language used in reply we
\n     notice   that   from   any   point   of   view   and
\n     perspective,   the   language   consists   of   a   threat <\/p>\n
     which is a contempt on the face of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
     12.<\/p>\n
                Considering   the   apology   now   tendered
\n     before   this   Court   by   all   the   contemnors,   we   are <\/p>\n
     satisfied that the Respondent nos.:-\n<\/p>\n
                (3)  Sau.Rahematbee Sayyad Amin,<\/p>\n
                (4)  Sau.Shaikh Julekha alias Nasim,<\/p>\n
                (5)  Sayyad Khalik Sayyad Amin, and
\n                (6)  Sayyad Ainul Sayyad Amin,<\/p>\n
     have   expressed   contemptuous   text.   However,     they
\n     are   rustic   and   are   ignorant   of   consequences   of
\n     whatever they have expressed and signed.     Though <\/p>\n
     they are liable for being convicted for their act,
\n     the   act   is   not   proved   to   be   “wilful   act   of
\n     contempt”.   These   contemnors     can,   therefore,   be
\n     cautioned and the notice can be dropped.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       6                     CRI. CP NO.1\/2009<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     13.        Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin turns out to be
\n     main contemnor. He has   now exhibited repentance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.        Upon   due   consideration   of   the   manner   in <\/p>\n
     which     Sayyad   Yunus   has   behaved,   his   apology
\n     cannot be accepted as heart felt repentance.   His
\n     explanation does not consist of any explanation or <\/p>\n
     justification   for   what   he   has   behaved.   He   is
\n     content   with   simple   plea   of   error   and   apology.
\n     Whenever he had appeared in past, his conduct was <\/p>\n
     seen to be stiff,   stubborn and unmindful towards <\/p>\n
     whatever   he   had   done.     He   does   not   deny   that   he
\n     was power of attorney and does not plead that he <\/p>\n
     was   under   any   mistaken   belief   for   what   he   had
\n     done.   He seems to use the device of “apology” as
\n     a   ladder   for   rescue,   from   being   committed   to <\/p>\n
     prison.\n<\/p>\n
     15.        Act   of   contempt   by   Sayyad   Yunus   Sayyad
\n     Amin   thus   reveals   and   is   proved   to   be   act   of <\/p>\n
     wilful   contempt   and   any   expression,     heartfelt
\n     remorse   or   apology   has   not   emerged.     An   apology
\n     tendered to evade or repell consequence has to be
\n     looked upon as a pretence.\n<\/p>\n
     16.        Therefore,   Sayyad   Yunus   Sayyad   Amin   is
\n     liable   to   be   convicted   for   contempt,   of   trial
\n     Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     7                     CRI. CP NO.1\/2009<\/p>\n
     17.       We   had   also   heard   learned   Advocate
\n     Mr.J.H.Deshmukh   for   Sayyad   Yunus   Sayyad   Amin   on <\/p>\n
     the point of sentence, if Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin
\n     is convicted eventually.\n<\/p>\n
     18.       Learned   Advocate   had   urged   for   leniency
\n     on the ground that :-\n<\/p>\n
               (a)  Sayyad Yunus  Sayyad  Amin  being a
\n               rustic   person   and   that   he   may   have  <\/p>\n
               behaved  what   he     has,     due    to    being  <\/p>\n
               misguided and intimidated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (b) Behaviour   of     Sayyad   Yunus   Sayyad
\n               Amin   states   that   no   sane   person   can
\n               behave     what     Sayyad   Yunus   Sayyad   Amin <\/p>\n
               has done. His expressions are those of an
\n               intemperate   and   an   intimidated   or <\/p>\n
               misguided soul.  He must be and is rustic
\n               and   even   below   the   level   of   idiocy   of   a <\/p>\n
               simpleton.   Even   lay   persons   know   the
\n               fall-outs of contempt of authority.  Lack
\n               of sane behaviour alone can lead to such
\n               behaviour. True it is that the  intention <\/p>\n
               will have to be inferred, but                  the rustic
\n               background of Sayyad Yunus  Sayyad                         Amin
\n               will have to be borne in              mind.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       8                      CRI. CP NO.1\/2009<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (c) He, therefore, deserves leniency.
\n                Whatever he has undergone is far more a <\/p>\n
                punishment and chastisement-than what a
\n                guilty person would deserve.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19.        We partly   accept the plea in defence to
\n     sentence, since patience, wisdom and prudence are <\/p>\n
     becoming   a   rare   specie   of   human   mind,   as   we
\n     experience in day-today life.   We are, therefore,
\n     satisfied   that   the   rustic   background   of    Sayyad <\/p>\n
     Yunus Sayyad Amin, which was the cause of extreme <\/p>\n
     behaviour, is the cause of leniency as well.\n<\/p>\n
     20.         We   direct   that   sentence   to   Sayyad   Yunus
\n     Sayyad Amin-respondent no.2 be equal to his period
\n     of actual imprisonment.  He be released forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
           Criminal   Application   Nos.4066\/2011,   1912\/2011 <\/p>\n
     and 3146\/2011  are disposed.\n<\/p>\n
           (A.R.JOSHI, J.)                     (A.H.JOSHI,J.) <\/p>\n
                                …\n<\/p>\n
     AGP\/1-09cp             <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:49:13 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi 1 CRI. CP NO.1\/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 of 2009 (With Crimial Application Nos.4066\/2011, 1912\/2011 and 3146\/2011) Shri V.S.Deshpande, 5th Joint Civil Judge, […]<\/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-46784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-14T12:31:48+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-14T12:31:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1137,\"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\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-14T12:31:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-14T12:31:48+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-14T12:31:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011"},"wordCount":1137,"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\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011","name":"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-14T12:31:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-v-s-deshpande-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-5-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri V.S.Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46784","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=46784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}