{"id":58232,"date":"2011-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-07-11T23:36:17","modified_gmt":"2015-07-11T18:06:17","slug":"bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity … on 3 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity … on 3 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                     (1)                                criap243.07\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2007\n\n    Bhanudas s\/o. Supadu Wani                            ..       Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    Age. 55 years, Occ. Agri.,\n    R\/o. Ambode, Tal. & Dist. Dhule.\n\n                                     Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    Maharashtra State Electricity Board,                 ..       Respondent\n    Through - Prakash Vasudeorao Karmarkar,\n                         \n    Age. 59 years, Occ. Dy.Executive Engineer,\n    M.S.E.B. Flying Squad, Dhule,\n    R\/o. Anand Nagar, Devpur, Dhule.\n                        \n    Mr. M.G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for the appellant.\n    Mr. H.M. Karwa, Advocate for sole respondent.\n          \n\n                                     CORAM :    S.S. SHINDE,J. \n<\/pre>\n
                                     DATED :    03.03.2011.\n       \n\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT :-\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    1.         This appeal is directed against judgment and order <\/p>\n
    dated   11.06.2007,   passed   by   the   Adhoc   Additional   Sessions <\/p>\n
    Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No. 11 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
    2.         The case of the prosecution in short is as under :-<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    .          On   15th    September,   2004,   complainant   Prakash \n\n\n\n\n                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span>\n                                         (2)                                 criap243.07\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n<\/pre>\n
    Karmarkar   along   with   Jr.   Engineer   Gyandeo   Mansaram   Dhande, <\/p>\n
    Mukti Branch, G.N. Patil – wireman, Raju Sanaf – Clerk from <\/p>\n
    flying   squad   and   panchas,   namely,   Pandit   Ananda   Gadave   and <\/p>\n
    Dilip Dada Sarag visited house of the accused.  It is case of <\/p>\n
    the complainant that the accused was not a regular consumer <\/p>\n
    of the Board.  No electric meter was installed in his house.\n<\/p>\n
    However, by putting wire on L.T. line, the accused was found <\/p>\n
    to have committed theft of electricity to which 3 bulbs of 60 <\/p>\n
    watts each, one fan of 60 watts, one T.V. of 100 watts and <\/p>\n
    electric   Shegadi   of   100   watts,   thus   total   1340   watts   were <\/p>\n
    connected   and   daily   use   of   these   electrical   equipments   was <\/p>\n
    for   five   hours.   The   complainant   and   the   staff   prepared <\/p>\n
    panchanama vide Exh.6.  It is found as per the tariff of the <\/p>\n
    Board   that   the   accused   committed   theft   of   total   2010   units <\/p>\n
    worth Rs. 14,070\/-.   Thereafter, the complaint was filed in <\/p>\n
    the Court of IIIrd Jt. J.M.F.C., Dhule, which in turn, issued <\/p>\n
    process   against   the   accused   vide   order   dated   19.10.2004, <\/p>\n
    under   Section   135   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003.     Since   the <\/p>\n
    offence   was   exclusively   triable   by   the   Special   Judge,   the <\/p>\n
    case was committed to the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         (3)                                 criap243.07<\/p>\n
    3.          The   appellant\/accused   pleaded   not   guilty   and <\/p>\n
    claimed   to   be   tried   and   therefore   after   recording   evidence <\/p>\n
    and   hearing   arguments   and   after   framing   the   points,   the <\/p>\n
    Special   Judge   convicted   the   appellant   for   the   offence <\/p>\n
    punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and <\/p>\n
    sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and <\/p>\n
    to pay a fine of Rs. 500\/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default <\/p>\n
    of   payment   of   fine,   the   appellant   is   directed   to   suffer <\/p>\n
    further   simple   imprisonment   for   15   days.     The   appellant   is <\/p>\n
    also   directed   to   pay   compensation   of   Rs.   14,100\/-   (Rupees <\/p>\n
    Fourteen   Thousand   One   Hundred)   to   the   complainant   M.S.E.B.\n<\/p>\n
    Board,   vide   Section   357   (3)   of   Cr.P.C.   and   in   default   of <\/p>\n
    payment of compensation, the appellant is directed to suffer <\/p>\n
    simple imprisonment for one month.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          The   Counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   submits <\/p>\n
    that the name of the appellant herein is Bhanudas s\/o. Supadu <\/p>\n
    Wani.   On perusal of panchanama Exh.6, name of the appellant <\/p>\n
    does   not   find   place.     According   to   him,   no   panchanama   is <\/p>\n
    carried out about the house of the present appellant Bhanudas <\/p>\n
    s\/o.   Supadu   Wani.     To   read   panchanama   of   one   Bhanudas   s\/o.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        (4)                                 criap243.07<\/p>\n
    Mahadu   Wani,   in   another   Criminal   matter   would   be   something <\/p>\n
    beyond   judicial   scope.   Therefore,   the   learned   Counsel   would <\/p>\n
    submit that when the panchanama is not prepared in respect of <\/p>\n
    the house of the appellant, there is no question of fastening <\/p>\n
    liability of fine and compensation or sending him to jail for <\/p>\n
    three   months.     He   further   submitted   that   the   learned   Adhoc <\/p>\n
    Court relied upon evidence of only two witnesses and relying <\/p>\n
    on   said   evidence,   the   learned   Judge   convicted   the <\/p>\n
    appellant\/accused.  Even if it is assumed that the panchanama <\/p>\n
    Exh.6 is in respect of the appellant herein, in that case the <\/p>\n
    very   said   panchanama   is   not   proved   by   the   prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, without having been proved the panchanama, merely <\/p>\n
    relying   on   the   evidence   of   the   prosecution   witnesses,   no <\/p>\n
    conviction could be sustained.   Therefore, the appeal may be <\/p>\n
    allowed.     The   learned   Counsel   for   the   appellant   further <\/p>\n
    submitted that out of 14 accused, 11 accused are acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
    5.         On   the   other   hand,   the   Counsel   for   the   respondent <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   evidence   of   two   witnesses   came   to   be <\/p>\n
    recorded.     There   was   no   cross-examination   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
    appellant.     Therefore,   their   evidence   went   unchallenged.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         (5)                                 criap243.07<\/p>\n
    There is no requirement of corroboration, if the evidence of <\/p>\n
    witnesses   is   found   to   be   trustworthy.     He   submits   that   the <\/p>\n
    appeal is devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          I   have   given   due   consideration   to   the   submissions <\/p>\n
    of   the   learned   Counsel   appearing   for   the   parties.     Upon <\/p>\n
    perusal of Exh.6 and the discussion in the impugned judgment <\/p>\n
    and order, I find that the learned Judge has discussed that <\/p>\n
    in spot panchanama Exh.6 specific boundaries of the house of <\/p>\n
    the  accused  have   been   given  and  electrical   equipments   which <\/p>\n
    were connected to the illegal supply of the electricity was <\/p>\n
    taken   by   putting   wire   hook   on   L.T.   line.     Except   this <\/p>\n
    observation   there   is   nothing   in   the   impugned   judgment   that <\/p>\n
    Exh.6 has been duly proved by the prosecution.   That apart, <\/p>\n
    there is observation of the learned Judge regarding witnesses <\/p>\n
    who have given statement on behalf of the prosecution that as <\/p>\n
    they   are   public   servants,   they   cannot   have   personal   grudge <\/p>\n
    against the accused.   In my opinion, in such matter, unless <\/p>\n
    sufficient   and   cogent   evidence   is   brought   on   record,   no <\/p>\n
    conviction   can   be   given.     In   the   impugned   order,   there   is <\/p>\n
    also direction to pay compensation to M.S.E.B., in absence of <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (6)                                 criap243.07<\/p>\n
    any   calculation   or   in   absence   of   having   assessment   sheet <\/p>\n
    placed   on   record.     The   Special   Court   was   in   error   in <\/p>\n
    accepting the case of the prosecution.  On careful perusal of <\/p>\n
    Exh.6, it appears that, name of one Bhanudas Mahadu Wani is <\/p>\n
    given   and   name   of   appellant   –   Bhanudas   Supadu   Wani   is   not <\/p>\n
    mentioned   in   said   panchanama.   Even   the   prosecution   has   not <\/p>\n
    examined   independent   witness   like   Gramsevak,   to   ascertain <\/p>\n
    that the house in which there is alleged illegal electrical <\/p>\n
    supply, belongs to the appellant\/accused.  As stated here-in-\n<\/p>\n
    before,  the  prosecution  has  not  proved   panchanama   at   Exh.6.\n<\/p>\n
    Except statement of P.W.1 & P.W.2, nothing has been brought <\/p>\n
    on record by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Therefore,   for   all   these   reasons,   in   my   opinion, <\/p>\n
    the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, merely relying on <\/p>\n
    two witnesses, who are from the department.  It would not be <\/p>\n
    out of place to mention that those are interested witnesses <\/p>\n
    to   see   the   result   of   the   case,   on   complaint  filed   by   their <\/p>\n
    department.   Therefore, merely relying on their evidence, no <\/p>\n
    conviction   can   be   sustained.     On   careful   perusal   of   the <\/p>\n
    original record I find that panchanama Exh.6 is not proved by <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (7)                                criap243.07<\/p>\n
    the   prosecution.     There   is   no   discussion   in   the   impugned <\/p>\n
    judgment   about   the   said   pancanama.   There   is   no   exercise   of <\/p>\n
    calculating how much units have been consumed and how figure <\/p>\n
    of Rs. 14,100\/- towards compensation has been arrived by the <\/p>\n
    learned Judge.  There is no basis to assume that, electricity <\/p>\n
    is consumed five hours in a day.\n<\/p>\n
    8.<\/p>\n
                For   all   these   reasons,   the   impugned   judgment   and <\/p>\n
    order   is   set   aside.     The   appellant   is   acquitted   from   the <\/p>\n
    offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The   fine   amount   of   Rs.500\/-   (Rupees   Five   Hundred)   which   is <\/p>\n
    deposited by the appellant should be returned to him.   As a <\/p>\n
    result,   there   is   no   question   of   paying   compensation   by   the <\/p>\n
    appellant   as   directed   by   the   1st  Adhoc   Additional   Sessions <\/p>\n
    Judge   to   the   M.S.E.B.     The   appeal   is   allowed   and   stands <\/p>\n
    disposed of.  Bail bond of the appellant stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
    .           It   is   made   clear   that   in   the   Criminal   matter, <\/p>\n
    strict   standard   of   proof   is   required   and   in   the   present <\/p>\n
    matter evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not <\/p>\n
    sufficient   to   convict   the   appellant   and   therefore   the <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (8)                                criap243.07<\/p>\n
    impugned   judgment   is   quashed   and   set   aside   and   this   has <\/p>\n
    nothing to do with the civil liability, if any.\n<\/p>\n
                                             [S.S. SHINDE,J.]<\/p>\n
    snk\/2011\/FEB11\/criap243.07<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:20 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity … on 3 March, 2011 Bench: S. S. Shinde (1) criap243.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2007 Bhanudas s\/o. Supadu Wani .. Appellant Age. 55 years, Occ. Agri., R\/o. Ambode, Tal. & Dist. Dhule. Versus Maharashtra […]<\/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-58232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 3 March, 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\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 3 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-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=\"2011-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-11T18:06:17+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity … on 3 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-11T18:06:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1245,\"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\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 3 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-11T18:06:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity … on 3 March, 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":"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 3 March, 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\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 3 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-11T18:06:17+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity … on 3 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-11T18:06:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011"},"wordCount":1245,"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\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011","name":"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 3 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-11T18:06:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-maharashtra-state-electricity-on-3-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhanudas vs Maharashtra State Electricity … on 3 March, 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\/58232","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=58232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}