{"id":106764,"date":"2011-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-08-10T19:25:17","modified_gmt":"2016-08-10T13:55:17","slug":"rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1043\/1999\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1043 of 1999\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================\n \n\nRAMESHBHAI\nSHANABHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSURESHCHADNRA\nSHANKARLAL PAREKH &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nAS PANESAR FOR MR SS PANESAR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR PV HATHI for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI,\nLD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/01\/2011\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal<br \/>\n\tunder Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against<br \/>\n\tthe Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February<br \/>\n\t1999 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (JD) and<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra, in Criminal Case No.2026 of<br \/>\n\t1999 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable<br \/>\n\tInstruments Act by which the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-accused of the charges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that the present appellant<br \/>\n\tand the respondent No.1-accused knew each other and therefore, at<br \/>\n\tthe request of the respondent No.1-accused, the appellant advanced<br \/>\n\tloan of Rs.60,000\/- to the respondent No.1-accused. It is also the<br \/>\n\tcase of the prosecution that in this connection the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused issued an Account Payee cheque bearing No.748965 dated<br \/>\n\t16th September 1996 of Rs.30,000\/- drawn on Bank of<br \/>\n\tBaroda, Station Road, Godhra in favour of the present appellant<br \/>\n\ttowards part payment. It is the case of the present appellant that<br \/>\n\thowever, upon presenting the said cheque for clearing, the same was<br \/>\n\tdishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-accused. It is the case of the prosecution that<br \/>\n\ttherefore the appellant issued statutory notice dated 26th<br \/>\n\tSeptember 1996 to the respondent No.1-accused which returned with an<br \/>\n\tendorsement &#8220;unclaimed&#8221;. Therefore, the appellant filed<br \/>\n\ta criminal complaint bearing No.2026 of 1996 against the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter<br \/>\n\tsummons was issued against the respondent No.1-accused and as the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-accused has not pleaded guilty, evidence on behalf<br \/>\n\tof the appellant-complainant was exhibited. The prosecution has<br \/>\n\tproduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the<br \/>\n\tcase. After filing closing pursis, further statement of the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code<br \/>\n\tof Criminal Procedure, 1973. In his statement, the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused has denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to<br \/>\n\tbe tried.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter,<br \/>\n\ttrial was conducted before the learned Judge. To prove the case of<br \/>\n\tthe prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-accused from the charges alleged against him by the<br \/>\n\tJudgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal dated 26th February 1996 passed by the learned<br \/>\n\t4th Joint Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First<br \/>\n\tClass, Godhra in Criminal Case No.2026 of 1996, the<br \/>\n\tappellant-original complainant, has preferred the above mentioned<br \/>\n\tCriminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr.A.S. Panesar, learned counsel for Mr.S.S. Panesar, learned<br \/>\n\tcounsel for the appellant, Mr.P.V. Hathi, learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public<br \/>\n\tProsecutor appearing for the respondent No.2-State. I have also gone<br \/>\n\tthrough the papers produced before me and the Judgment and Order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Panesar,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Judgment<br \/>\n\tand Order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is not proper,<br \/>\n\tlegal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Judge<br \/>\n\thas not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has contended<br \/>\n\tthat the learned Judge has grossly erred in arriving at the<br \/>\n\tconclusion of non-production of original cheque in question, which<br \/>\n\twas produced on record later on during the cross-examination of the<br \/>\n\tappellant. He has also contended that the learned Judge has failed<br \/>\n\tto consider the deposition of the officer of the Bank, who has<br \/>\n\tcategorically stated that the cheque in question was dishonoured<br \/>\n\tbecause of insufficient funds in the account of the respondent No.1.<br \/>\n\tHe has contended that the prosecution has proved its case against<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.1-accused beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore,<br \/>\n\tcontended that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is<br \/>\n\twithout appreciating the facts and evidence on record and is<br \/>\n\trequired to be quashed and set aside by this Hon&#8217;ble Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Hathi,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel for the respondent No.1-accused has contended that<br \/>\n\tabsolutely false case is filed against the respondent No.1. He has<br \/>\n\talso contended that this is a offence of 138 of the Act and without<br \/>\n\tany documentary evidence, prosecution cannot prove the case. He has<br \/>\n\talso read the cross-examination of the complainant as well as<br \/>\n\tofficer of the Bank and argued that prosecution has failed to prove<br \/>\n\tits case beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, contended that the<br \/>\n\tpresent appeal is required to be quashed and set aside in the<br \/>\n\tinterest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate<br \/>\n\tCourt is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh<br \/>\n\treasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons<br \/>\n\tassigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant<br \/>\n\tcase, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and<br \/>\n\tfindings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the<br \/>\n\treasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal<br \/>\n\tand proper and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, this<br \/>\n\tappeal requires to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Even<br \/>\n\tin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\n\tof Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\n\tthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similar<br \/>\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State<br \/>\n\tof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR<br \/>\n\tSCW 5553<br \/>\n\tand in Girja<br \/>\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\n\tappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give<br \/>\n\tfresh reasoning, when the reasons<br \/>\n\tassigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such<br \/>\n\tprinciple is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\n\tof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tin case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion<br \/>\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not<br \/>\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave gone through<br \/>\n\tthe order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also<br \/>\n\tperused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\n\tadvocates for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\ttrial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary<br \/>\n\tevidence, observed that the appellant and the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused knew each other. It is also observed by the learned<br \/>\n\tJudge that the complainant was failed to produce on record cheque<br \/>\n\treturn memo or notice. Even original cheque was also not produced on<br \/>\n\trecord though it was with him. The learned Judge has also observed<br \/>\n\tthat even officer of the Bank had also not produced any documentary<br \/>\n\tevidence on record. Even the appellant-original complainant has not<br \/>\n\tproved that the statutory notice was served upon the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused. It transpires from the papers that the notice was not<br \/>\n\tserved upon the respondent No.1-accused and returned unserved. It is<br \/>\n\talso observed by the learned Judge that the prosecution has failed<br \/>\n\tto prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 138 of<br \/>\n\tthe Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court has observed that<br \/>\n\tthere are serious lacuna in the oral as well as documentary evidence<br \/>\n\tof prosecution. Nothing is produced on record of this appeal to<br \/>\n\trebut the concrete findings of the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charges against the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has<br \/>\n\tmiserably failed to prove the case against the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that<br \/>\n\tthe prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Panesar,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel for the appellant, is not in a position to show any<br \/>\n\tevidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach<br \/>\n\tof the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that<br \/>\n\tthe decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the<br \/>\n\tmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused of the charges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tfind that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely<br \/>\n\tjust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or<br \/>\n\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.<br \/>\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed. The<br \/>\n\tJudgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th<br \/>\n\tFebruary 1996 passed by the learned 4th<br \/>\n\tJoint Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra,<br \/>\n\tin Criminal Case No.2026 of 1996 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if<br \/>\n\tany, shall stands discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be<br \/>\n\tsent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n<p>Anup<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1043\/1999 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1043 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011 - 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\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-10T13:55:17+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T13:55:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1561,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-10T13:55:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 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":"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011 - 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\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-10T13:55:17+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T13:55:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011"},"wordCount":1561,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011","name":"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-10T13:55:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-the-on-17-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshbhai vs The on 17 January, 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\/106764","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=106764"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106764\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106764"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106764"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106764"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}