{"id":49467,"date":"1998-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998"},"modified":"2018-05-09T23:37:28","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T18:07:28","slug":"suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998","title":{"rendered":"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.K.Mumherjee.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.K.Mukherjee, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSURESH BUDHARMAL KALANI @ {A[[I LA;AMO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/09\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nM.K.MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p> JUDGMENT<br \/>\nM.K.Mumherjee. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted in both the petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Puppu Kalani and Dr.  Aken<br \/>\nKumar  Gajendra\t Rai  Desai,  the  appellants  in  these two<br \/>\nappeals, figure as accused (besides others) in TADA  Special<br \/>\nCase  No.  31  of 1993, pending before the Designated Court,<br \/>\nBrihan\tMumbai\tconstituted   under   The   Terrorists\t and<br \/>\nDisruptive  Activities\t(P)  Act, 1987 (TADA for short). The<br \/>\ncase arises out of an incident of rioting, murder and  other<br \/>\ncognate\t offences  that\t took place on September 12, 1992 at<br \/>\nJ.J. Hospital, Bombay. According to the prosecution case, on<br \/>\nthat day at or about 3.45 P.M. a group of persons armed with<br \/>\nautomatic fire arms, such as pistols, AK 47 assault  rifles,<br \/>\nstormed into  Ward  No.\t  18 of the hospital and opened fire<br \/>\nupon Shailesh Haldankar, who was an  accused  in  Crime\t No.<br \/>\n542\/92\tof V.P.Road Police Station and admitted there due to<br \/>\ninjuries earlier sustained. The indiscriminate firing by the<br \/>\nmiscreants resulted  in\t the  death  of\t Haldankar  and\t two<br \/>\npolicemen  on  guard  duty and injuries to five others. Shri<br \/>\nK.G.Thakur, Sub-Inspector of  police  attached\tto  V.P.Road<br \/>\nPolice\tStation,  who  was  then  on  duty  at\tthe hospital<br \/>\nreturned the fire causing injuries to some of the miscreants<br \/>\nincluding  one\tShrikant  Rai  @  Pradhan.  The\t miscreants,<br \/>\nhowever,  managed  to  escape carrying with them the injured<br \/>\nassociates in a car. It is the further prosecution case that<br \/>\nthe incident was the outcome  of  a  conspiracy\t hatched  by<br \/>\nDawood\tIbrahim, a notorious gangster, and his men to avenge<br \/>\nthe murder of his brother-in-law, Ibrahim Ismail Parkar, who<br \/>\nwas eliminated by the members of his rival gang led by\tArun<br \/>\nGowli of which Haldankar was a member.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.Over the incident, a case was registered on a report<br \/>\nlodged\tby  Shri  Thakur and on completion of investigation,<br \/>\ncharge sheet was submitted by  the  police  after  obtaining<br \/>\nrequisite sanction under Section 20A(2) of TADA to prosecute<br \/>\nthe  appellants\t and others. On that charge sheet cognizance<br \/>\nwas taken by the Designated Court; and on  consideration  of<br \/>\nthe documents referred to under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and,<br \/>\nafter  hearing\tthe  parties,  it  passed orders for framing<br \/>\ncharges under Section 3 (3) of TADA and 120B I&gt;P&gt;C&gt;  against<br \/>\nKalani\tand  under  Section  3\t(4)  of\t TADA and 212 I.P.C.<br \/>\nagainst\t Dr.  Desai.  Assailing\t the   above   orders,\t the<br \/>\nappellants have filed these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The gravamen of the charges  to  be  framed  against<br \/>\nKalani\tis  that  he hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder<br \/>\nHaldankar and thereby abetted the commission of his  murder.<br \/>\nThe  above  accusation\tis  based on the following facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances :-\n<\/p>\n<p>i)a meeting was held on September 2, 1992 in a holiday<br \/>\nresort belonging  to  Kalani  where  the  decision  to\tkill<br \/>\nHaldankar was taken;\n<\/p>\n<p>ii)soon\t after the murder, Kalani had a telephonic talk<br \/>\nwith one of the accused persons regarding the arrangement to<br \/>\nbe made to remove injured Shrikant Rai in his car; and\n<\/p>\n<p>iii)on September 13, 1992,  Kalani  threatened\tJayawant<br \/>\nSuryarao, (one of the accused) that in case he disclosed the<br \/>\nremoval\t of  Shrikant  Rai  in his (Kalani&#8217;s) car he and his<br \/>\nfamily members would be liquidated.\n<\/p>\n<p>To prove the  above  facts  and\t circumstances,\t the<br \/>\nprosecution seeks to rely upon:-\n<\/p>\n<p>i)the evidence of Smt. Priti, wife of accused Jayawant<br \/>\nSuryarao, and Shri Himmat Rawal;\n<\/p>\n<p>ii)confessional statement of Dr. Bansal; and\n<\/p>\n<p>iii)confessional statement of Jayawant Suryarao;<br \/>\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.On perusal of the statements of the above  mentioned<br \/>\ntwo witnesses recorded\tunder Section 161 Cr.  P.C.  we find<br \/>\nthat they did not speak of any conspiracy, much\t less  of  a<br \/>\nconspiracy to\tcommit\t the  murder  in  question.    Their<br \/>\nstatements only disclose that on September  2,\t1992  Kalani<br \/>\nhad  a meeting with accused Jayawant Suryarao, the President<br \/>\nof Bhiwandi Nizampura Municipal Council, and others  in\t his<br \/>\nholiday\t resort\t over  a no confidence motion that was to be<br \/>\nbrought against the latter.  It is pertinent to mention here<br \/>\nthat it is not the  prosecution\t case  that  the  murder  of<br \/>\nHaldankar  was\teven  remotely\tconnected  with the above no<br \/>\nconfidence motion.  On the contrary, as noticed earlier,  it<br \/>\nis  its\t positive  case that the murder was the outcome of a<br \/>\ngang rivalry.  From the impugned  order\t we  find  that\t the<br \/>\nDesignated  Court,  after having held that the discussion in<br \/>\nthe meeting was only over the no confidence motion  observed<br \/>\n&#8216;that  there  is  every possibility that they also must have<br \/>\ndiscussed  the\tplanning  above\t the  killing  of   Shailesh<br \/>\nHaldankar&#8217;.   The  above  observation  is  to say the least,<br \/>\nwholly unjustified.  A presumption can be  drawn  only\tfrom<br \/>\nfacts  &#8211;  and  not from other presumptions &#8211; by a process of<br \/>\nprobable and logical reasoning.\t The Designated Court  could<br \/>\nnot  have,  there ore, drawn the presumption of a conspiracy<br \/>\nto kill Haldankar as the statements of the two witnesses  do<br \/>\nnot  afford,  by  any stretch of imagination, any foundation<br \/>\nfor the same.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.Thus\t said,\twe  may\t turn  our  attention  to   the<br \/>\nconfession  made  by Dr. Bansal and Jayawant Suryarao. Under<br \/>\nSection 30 of the Evidence Act a confession of an accused is<br \/>\nrelevant and admissible against a  co-accused  if  both\t are<br \/>\njointly facing trial for the same offence. Since, admittedly<br \/>\nDr.  Bansal  has been discharged from the case and would not<br \/>\nbe facing trial with Kalani his confession  cannot  be\tused<br \/>\nagainst Kalani. The impugned order shows that the Designated<br \/>\nCourt  was  fully  aware  of  the  above legal position but,<br \/>\nsurprisingly enough, it\t still\tdecided\t to  rely  upon\t the<br \/>\nconfession  on\tthe specious ground that the prosecution was<br \/>\nnot in any way precluded from  examining  Dr.  Bansal  as  a<br \/>\nwitness in the trial for establishing the facts disclosed in<br \/>\nhis  confession.  This again, was a perverse approach of the<br \/>\nDesignated Court while dealing with the question of  farming<br \/>\ncharges.  At that stage the court is required to confine its<br \/>\nattention  to  only   those   materials\t  collected   during<br \/>\ninvestigation  which can be legally translated into evidence<br \/>\nand not upon further evidence (dehors those materials)\tthat<br \/>\nthe  prosecution  may,\tadduce\tin  the\t trial,\t which would<br \/>\ncommence only after the charges are framed and\tthe  accused<br \/>\ndenies\tthe charges. The Designated Court was, therefore not<br \/>\nat  all\t justified  in\t taking\t  into\t consideration\t the<br \/>\nconfessional  statement\t of  Dr.  Bansal for framing charges<br \/>\nagainst Kalani.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.So far as the confession  of\tJayawant  Suryarao  is<br \/>\nconcerned,  the same (if voluntary and true) can undoubtedly<br \/>\nbe brought on record under Section 30 of the Evidence Act to<br \/>\nuse it also against Kalani but then  the  question  is\twhat<br \/>\nwould  be  its\tevidentiary  value  against  the latter. The<br \/>\nquestion was succinctly answered by this Court\tin  <a href=\"\/doc\/1924452\/\">Kashmira<br \/>\nSingh  V.  State  of  Madhya Pradesh<\/a> (1952 SCR 526) with the<br \/>\nfollowing words :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t   &#8220;The proper way to approach a case of this kind is<br \/>\n\t   first, to marshal the evidence against the accused<br \/>\n\t   excluding   the   confession\t   altogether\t from<br \/>\n\t   consideration  and see whether, if it is believed,<br \/>\n\t   a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is<br \/>\n\t   capable of belief independently of the confession,<br \/>\n\t   then of course it is not  necessary\tto  call  the<br \/>\n\t   confession  in  aid. But cases may arise where the<br \/>\n\t   judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence<br \/>\n\t   as it sands even though if believed, it  would  be<br \/>\n\t   sufficient  to  sustain  a  conviction. In aid the<br \/>\n\t   confession and use it to  lend  assurance  to  the<br \/>\n\t   other   evidence   and  thus\t fortify  himself  in<br \/>\n\t   believing what without the aid of  the  confession<br \/>\n\t   he would not be prepared to accept.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  view so expressed has been consistently followed by this<br \/>\nCourt. Judged  in  the\tlight  of  the\tabove  principle  the<br \/>\nconfession  of Suryarao cannot called in aid to frame charges<br \/>\nagainst Kalani in absence of any other evidence to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.That brings  us  to the case of Dr.  Desai, the other<br \/>\nappellant.  According to the  prosecution  case\t the  injured<br \/>\naccused Shrikant  Rai was taken to the house of Dr.  Desai by<br \/>\nShanti Lal Patil, Jagdish Chand and Hasmukh  Bhai,  three  of<br \/>\nthe accused persons,  for  treatment.\t They told Dr.\tDesai<br \/>\nthat he (Shrikant) had sustained bullet injury in the stomach<br \/>\ndue to accidental firing from the licensed revolver of Shanti<br \/>\nLal.  Dr.  Desai told them that\t the  injured  could  not  be<br \/>\nadmitted  in  a\t Government hospital as it was a medico-legal<br \/>\ncase.  They however, insisted that Shrikant should be treated<br \/>\nin a private hospital and all expenses thereof would be\t paid<br \/>\nby them.  Dr.\t Desai\tthen  contacted\t one Dr.  Kamble over<br \/>\nphone  and  requested  him  to\toperate\t upon  the   patient.<br \/>\nAccordingly,  Shrikant\twas  taken by the above three accused<br \/>\npersons to Dr.\t  Kamble  who  operated\t upon\thim.\t  The<br \/>\nprosecution  alleges  that  knowing  full  well that it was a<br \/>\nmedicolegal case Dr.  Desai entertained Shrikant and arranged<br \/>\nfor his operation by Dr.  Kamble at his private hospital  and<br \/>\nthereby helped Shrikant to abscond after he recuperated.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9.To  prove  the above accusation and, for that matter,<br \/>\nto substantiate the charges under Sections 3(4) of  TADA  and<br \/>\n212  I.P.C.  to\t be framed against Dr. Desai, the prosecution<br \/>\nintends to rely lupon the alleged confessional\tstatement  of<br \/>\nDr.  Desai  himself  and  three of the co-accused, namely Dr.<br \/>\nKamble, Jagdish Chand and Hasmukh Bhai. The relevant  portion<br \/>\nof the statement of Dr. Desai reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t   &#8220;On 12.9.1992  at about II p.m.  Jagdish along with<br \/>\n\t   one person, whom he introduced  to  me  as  Hasmukh<br \/>\n\t   Patel,  Sarpanch  of Dumas, called at my residence.<br \/>\n\t   Jagdish informed me that  Hasmukh&#8217;s\telder  brother<br \/>\n\t   owns\t a  from  at Silvasa and he is also a building<br \/>\n\t   contractor.\tJagdish further informed  me  that  on<br \/>\n\t   the\tsame  evening  they  had  a  party on the farm<br \/>\n\t   house, when accidently a shot was  fired  from  the<br \/>\n\t   weapon  and\tone  of\t them  was  injured and he may<br \/>\n\t   require an operation.  He further told me that they<br \/>\n\t   tried to contract a surgeon at Silvasa, but he  was<br \/>\n\t   not\tavailable and they are bringing the injured to<br \/>\n\t   Surat for treatment and requested me to help\t them.<br \/>\n\t   I  suggested to them to get the injured admitted in<br \/>\n\t   Govt.  Hospital, Surat, when Jagdish told  me  that<br \/>\n\t   those  people wanted the injured to be treated in a<br \/>\n\t   private  hospital  and  were\t willing  to  pay  any<br \/>\n\t   charges for\tthe  treatment.\t  Jagdish also told me<br \/>\n\t   that they were prepared for the worst.  I also came<br \/>\n\t   to know through Jagdish that\t the  injured  had  an<br \/>\n\t   jinury over\tthe  abdomen.  At about 12 midnight on<br \/>\n\t   12.9.92, I contacted Dr.  Kamble that the party was<br \/>\n\t   ready to pay any charges, as he  thought  fit,  for<br \/>\n\t   the operation.   I  also  told Dr.  Kamble that the<br \/>\n\t   patient was not before me and enquired  whether  he<br \/>\n\t   was ready  to operate such a case.  For a while Dr.<br \/>\n\t   Kamble thought about it and asked me\t to  send  the<br \/>\n\t   patient to his  hospital  at Gopipura.  Dr.\tKamble<br \/>\n\t   then informed me that he would intimate  his\t staff<br \/>\n\t   at  the  hospital  about the arrival of the injured<br \/>\n\t   and ask them to be ready.  I then informed  Jagdish<br \/>\n\t   to take  the\t injured  to  Dr.   Kamble&#8217;s hospital.<br \/>\n\t   Thereafter, Jagdish and Hasmukh went away.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>10A  bare  perusal  of\tthe  above  statement  makes  it<br \/>\nabundantly  clear  that\t it  is\t self  exculpatory  and\t hence<br \/>\ninadmissible in evidence as &#8216; confession&#8217;.  Once  it  is  left<br \/>\nout  of\t consideration\t&#8211;  as  it should be &#8211; the confessional<br \/>\nstatements of the other\t three\taccused,  for  what  they  are<br \/>\nworth,\tcannot\tbe  made &#8211; in absence of any other material to<br \/>\nconnect Dr.  Desai with the accusation levelled against him  a<br \/>\nbasis  for  impugned  charges  in view of the law laid down in<br \/>\nKashmira singh (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>11.On the conclusion as above, we allow these appeals and<br \/>\nquash  the charges framed against the two appellants. They are<br \/>\ndischarged from their respective bail bonds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998 Author: M.K.Mumherjee. Bench: M.K.Mukherjee, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: SURESH BUDHARMAL KALANI @ {A[[I LA;AMO Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1998 BENCH: M.K.MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT M.K.Mumherjee. J. Leave granted [&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-49467","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>Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998 - 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\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T18:07:28+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T18:07:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1961,\"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\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998\",\"name\":\"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T18:07:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998 - 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\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T18:07:28+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998","datePublished":"1998-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T18:07:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998"},"wordCount":1961,"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\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998","name":"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T18:07:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-budharmal-kalani-ai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-15-september-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ {A[[I &#8230; vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1998"}]},{"@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\/49467","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=49467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}