{"id":51363,"date":"2010-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-10T04:49:01","modified_gmt":"2016-12-09T23:19:01","slug":"mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi<\/div>\n
                                   1\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n               Criminal Writ Petition No.55 of 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif,\n     Convict,\n     Central Prison,\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     Amravati [in Jail].                       ....            Petitioner.\n\n                               Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     1.   State of Maharashtra,\n          through Secretary,\n                   \n          Home Department,\n          Mantralaya,\n          Bombay-32.\n                  \n     2.   Superintendent,\n          Central Prison,\n          Amravati.                            ....          Respondents.\n      \n\n\n                                  *****\n   \n\n\n\n     Mr. S.A. Jaiswal, Adv., for the petitioner.\n\n     Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Additional         Public         Prosecutor           for\n\n\n\n\n\n     respondent nos. 1 and 2.\n\n                                  *****\n\n\n                                  CORAM   :     A.H. JOSHI AND\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                A.R. JOSHI,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                  Date    :      16th November, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J.]:\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:37:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
     1.         Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.                              Heard<\/p>\n
     finally by consent.\n<\/p>\n
     2.         This is a petition by the prisoner, who has been<\/p>\n
     convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian<\/p>\n
     Penal Code. The petitioner claims to have been convicted in<\/p>\n
     1993, and he is in jail since 24th October, 1991, i.e., from<\/p>\n
     the date of arrest.\n<\/p>\n
     3.
\n                As the petitioner is in prison and mostly he does<\/p>\n
     not possess the documents of punishments of forfeiture of<\/p>\n
     remission imposed on him during his jail term, the Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition     does       not    accompany       those     documents          of        two<\/p>\n
     punishments. Petitioner prays for a direction for production<\/p>\n
     of relevant documents, and upon production, the relief that<\/p>\n
     the punishment of forfeiture of remission imposed on him be<\/p>\n
     set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     4.         The respondent No.2               Superintendent of Prison has<\/p>\n
     filed reply.     In the reply, details of punishment are given,<\/p>\n
     which are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
          [1]   Petitioner was released on parole on                   20-7-1994
\n                for      7   days,      however,     he     has    reported           on
\n                8-12-94, which reporting was late by 133 days.
\n                Therefore,         he   was   punished      for   delay     of    133<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:37:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span>
\n                 days @        2    days    for      each     day    of    delay,       for<\/p>\n
                 total 266 days. The approval of Sessions Judge,
\n                 Amravati, was taken as per letter dated 3-8.96.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Similarly,         appraisal        of    Inspector       General        of
\n                 Prisons,       Pune,      was       taken    vide      letter       dated
\n                 12-12-97.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           [2]   Even for furlough, petitioner was released on
\n                 7-4-98        for 14 days, however, he has reported
\n                 on 13-7-1999, which reporting was late by 447
\n                 days. Therefore, he was punished for delay of<\/p>\n
                 447 days @ five days for each day of delay for
\n                 2235       <\/span>
\n                            days.   Appraisal         of     District
\n                 Judge, Amravati, was obtained by letter dated
\n                                                                           &     Sessions<\/p>\n
                 20-10-2000.         Similarly, appraisal of                 Inspector<\/p>\n
                 General       of   Prisons,         Pune,     was     taken      as    per
\n                 letter dated 20.11.00.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.          The petitioner was again released on furlough on 1st<\/p>\n
     December, 2000 for thirty days, with extension for thirty<\/p>\n
     days, however, has reported late by 516 days.                               It is seen<\/p>\n
     that no punishment was ordered towards the delay of 516 days<\/p>\n
     in the background that there was no remission available to<\/p>\n
     the     credit     of    the     petitioner,          however,        his     name        was<\/p>\n
     permanently removed from eligibility of remission.\n<\/p>\n
     6.          During      oral     submissions,           learned      Adv.,        for     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner       has    argued     that     both      punishments         referred         in<\/p>\n
     paragraph no.4 herein before are illegal on the grounds<\/p>\n
     that:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:37:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
                  [a]   The approval of Deputy Inspector General<\/p>\n
                        of Prisons was not taken prior to passing
\n                        of order of forfeiture, though the cut in<\/p>\n
                        remission is in excess of sixty days, as
\n                        provided by Rule 25 of Chapter-27 of the
\n                        Maharashtra Prisons Manual (1979).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  [b]   Date of approval is later to the date of
\n                        approval by the Sessions Judge.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  [c]   Similar orders are set aside by Division<\/p>\n
                        Bench of this Court by the Judgment in<\/p>\n
                        case of Raju Natthuji Dhengre Vs. State of
\n                        Maharashtra & others (2009 ALL MR (Cri)
\n                        2652].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  [d]   After    2003,      petitioner        was     released        on
\n                        five occasions either on furlough or on<\/p>\n
                        parole. On all these occasions,                        he has
\n                        returned      to    Jail     on     due     dates,       which<\/p>\n
                        exhibits that he has learnt a lesson and,
\n                        therefore, cut in remission be set aside
\n                        by taking a lenient view.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  [e]   If the cut in remission is not set aside,
\n                        his imprisonment will be prolonged further
\n                        for an indefinite period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.           Considering facts of the matter, we are of the view<\/p>\n
     that   the    failure      to   take    prior    approval         of    the     Deputy<\/p>\n
     Inspector General of Prisons is certainly an illegality.\n<\/p>\n
     However, this Court cannot connive at the fact that the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:37:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5<\/span>
\n     challenge to the order of cut in remission, which was done<\/p>\n
     in    1994   and     1999   is   agitated    in   the     year      2007,      i.e.,<\/p>\n
     belatedly by almost fourteen and nine years respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     Moreover, the said challenge is made in the background of<\/p>\n
     delayed reporting by 516 days in the year 2002.\n<\/p>\n
     8.           Thus, the approach of the petitioner towards the<\/p>\n
     law and towards his obligation as to                condition of furlough<\/p>\n
     etc., is of total disrespect and callous.                         He cares the<\/p>\n
     least towards the conditions attached to the concessions<\/p>\n
     granted to him, turns a blind eye to his conduct and habit<\/p>\n
     and raises an issue belatedly as regards the illegality in<\/p>\n
     passing the orders.\n<\/p>\n
     9.           While the petitioner wants that the Court should<\/p>\n
     interfere when an illegality as is pointed out, he cannot<\/p>\n
     expect one way traffic, namely he shall keep on violating<\/p>\n
     the law, when it comes to his obligation, yet, he shall be<\/p>\n
     entitled to argue that the Executive has not acted according<\/p>\n
     to law.\n<\/p>\n
     10.          We do not suggest that the Court is inclined to<\/p>\n
     condone the illegality committed by the Executive.                               This<\/p>\n
     Court would, however, refrain from interfering in the orders<\/p>\n
     passed       after    a     lapse   of      fourteen       and      nine       years<\/p>\n
     respectively, as the corrective action may not really result<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:37:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                           6<\/span>
\n     in    corrective    measure,   but       may   result      in    granting         an<\/p>\n
     incentive to the failure in discharge of obligation on the<\/p>\n
     part of delinquent prisoner.\n<\/p>\n
     11.       We, therefore, decline to grant any indulgence in<\/p>\n
     the    facts   of   the   matter.         Authorities         are,      however,<\/p>\n
     cautioned that they ought to maintain a strong vigil in<\/p>\n
     adopting proper procedure as regards the               prior approval.\n<\/p>\n
     12.
\n               In the result, we discharge the Rule.\n<\/p>\n
            JUDGE                                                    JUDGE\n\n                                    -0-0-0-0-\n      \n\n\n     |hedau|\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:37:13 :::<\/span>\n            7<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n               \n              \n          \n       \n      \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:37:13 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. R. Joshi 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.55 of 2007 Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif, Convict, Central Prison, Amravati [in Jail]. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. […]<\/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-51363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010 - 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\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-09T23:19:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T23:19:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":879,\"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\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T23:19:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010 - 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\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-09T23:19:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T23:19:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010"},"wordCount":879,"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\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010","name":"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T23:19:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-asif-mohd-hanif-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Asif Mohd. Hanif vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/51363","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=51363"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51363\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}