{"id":111361,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-26T17:26:42","modified_gmt":"2015-11-26T11:56:42","slug":"rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Anant S. Dave,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/55120\/2008\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 551 of 2008\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n============================================\n \n\nRAJESH\nJAGDISHCHANDRA VAISHNAV - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n============================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nBD KARIA for Applicant(s) : 1, \nMR KT DAVE\nADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR MEHUL S SHAH for\nRespondent(s) : 2, \nMR SURESH M SHAH for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p> Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties waives<br \/>\nservice of rule on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThis<br \/>\nSpecial Criminal Application is filed by the petitioner under Article<br \/>\n226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 451 of<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for issuance of writ of certiorari,<br \/>\nor any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and<br \/>\nsetting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2008 passed<br \/>\nby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra in Criminal Revision<br \/>\nApplication No. 2 of 2008 (at Annexure-L) and further order to<br \/>\nrestore the Order passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate (First<br \/>\nClass), Halvad, dated 21.1.2008, below Application filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner for handing over the Muddamal Tractor Trolley No.<br \/>\nGJ-12-U-220 in C.R.No.I-36\/2003 lying in custody of Halvad Police<br \/>\nStation, Sub-District: Dhrangadhra, District: Surendranagar.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\nshort facts of the case are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1.\tThat,<br \/>\non 2.4.2003, the petitioner herein filed FIR against one Pravinbhai<br \/>\nKarsanbhai Patel in the Halvad Police Station under Sections 406, 420<br \/>\nof Indian Penal Code alleging that the said Pravinbhai had sold a<br \/>\nTractor Trolley No.GJ-13-U-220 to the petitioner which was registered<br \/>\nin R.T.O. in the name of the petitioner but did not hand over the<br \/>\npossession of the same.  The said F.I.R. is registered as<br \/>\nC.R.No.I-36\/2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.2.\tUpon<br \/>\npreferring an application on 5.7.2003 under Section 451 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal procedure in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.Halvad, for<br \/>\ncustody of Muddamal Tractor Trolley.  By order dated 21.7.2003, the<br \/>\nlearned JMFC, Halvad, directed to hand over interim custody of the<br \/>\nMuddamal Tractor Trolley to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.3.\tHowever,<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 herein being aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2003<br \/>\npassed by learned JMFC, Halvad, preferred Criminal Revision<br \/>\nApplication No. 19\/2003 in the Court of 2nd Fast Track<br \/>\nJudge, (Addl. Sessions Judge) Dhrangadhra, which came to be dismissed<br \/>\nand, therefore, respondent No.2 preferred Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication No.1286\/2004 before this Court and in the above case,<br \/>\nthis Court passed an order on 15.12.2006 (Coram: Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice<br \/>\nK.S.Jhaveri) directing the learned JMFC to expedite the hearing of<br \/>\nthe proceedings being complaint registered as C.R.No.I-36\/2003 within<br \/>\na period of 1 year from the receipt of the writ of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.4.\tMeanwhile,<br \/>\nthe police had already filed  A  summary on 18.11.2003 in the<br \/>\nabove C.R.No. I-36\/2003 as the accused person  i.e. Pravinbhai<br \/>\nKarnsanbhai Patel was not found by the police and the learned JMFC,<br \/>\nHalvad, on 5.1.2004, was pleased to sanction the said  A  summary<br \/>\nfiled by the police.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.5.\tHowever,<br \/>\nthe above aspect was not brought to the notice of this Court on<br \/>\n15.12.2006, when the order was passed.  It also happened that the<br \/>\npetitioner preferred an application on 1.5.2006 for handing over the<br \/>\npossession of the Muddamal Tractor Trolley during the pendency of the<br \/>\ntrial and once again, the learned JMFC, Halvad, passed an order on<br \/>\n21.1.2008 of handing over the muddamal Tractor Trolley to the<br \/>\npetitioner on the ground that the trial was not likely to proceed in<br \/>\nview of filing of  A  summary since the accused was not<br \/>\ntraceable.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.6.\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2008, respondent No.2 again<br \/>\npreferred Criminal Revision Application No.2\/2008 in the Court of<br \/>\nlearned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, which came to be<br \/>\nallowed vide order dated 6.2.2008, on the ground that it was not just<br \/>\nand proper by learned JMFC, Halvad to pass the order on 21.1.2008, by<br \/>\nwhich, custody of Muddamal Tractor Trolley was directed to be handed<br \/>\nover to the petitioner since  A  summary was already filed and<br \/>\ndirections was given by this Court in earlier order dated 15.12.2006<br \/>\nto dispose of the criminal case pursuant to the above FIR.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.7.\tIt<br \/>\nis to be noted that on earlier occasion when Criminal Misc.<br \/>\nApplication No.7109\/2006 was preferred by the petitioner herein, by<br \/>\noral order dated 5.7.2006 (Coram: Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice J.R.Vora) also<br \/>\ndirected that with regard to pending Criminal Case without being<br \/>\ninfluenced by the pendency of Special Criminal Application No.1286 of<br \/>\n2004, the learned Magistrate can pass appropriate order.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tShri<br \/>\nKaria, learned advocate, for the petitioner submits that so far as<br \/>\nlawful ownership of the Muddamal Tractor Trolley is concerned, as<br \/>\nearly as in the year 2003, when the learned JMFC passed the first<br \/>\norder on 21.7.2003, it was specifically found that the Tractor<br \/>\nTrolley No.  GJ-12-U-220 was registered in RTO in the name of the<br \/>\npetitioner and by imposing certain conditions passed the order to<br \/>\nhand over the custody of the said Tractor Trolley.   The above order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Magistrate was rightly confirmed in the<br \/>\nRevision Application No.19\/2003 by order dated 19.11.2004 by which,<br \/>\nthe learned Revisional Court rejected that Revision Application filed<br \/>\nby respondent No.2.   Even according to Shri Karia, learned advocate,<br \/>\nfor the petitioner, earlier the revisional court found that the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Magistrate was just and proper and in the<br \/>\nR.C.Book name of the petitioner herein was found as a registered<br \/>\nowner and, therefore, now no interference was called for by the<br \/>\nrevisional court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1.\tShri<br \/>\nKaria, learned advocate, for the petitioner further submits that even<br \/>\nafter the order dated 15.12.2006 came to be passed in Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application No. 1286\/2004, certain factual aspects with<br \/>\nregard to filing of  A  summary was not brought to the notice<br \/>\nand, therefore, once again the petitioner preferred an application<br \/>\nfor handing over the possession of the Tractor Trolley.  By order<br \/>\ndated 21\/1\/2008, learned Magistrate ordered for handing over the<br \/>\nMuddamal Tractor Trolley to the petitioner on the ground that the<br \/>\npolice has filed  A  summary and as the trial is not likely to<br \/>\nproceed further as the accused is not found.   The interference by<br \/>\nthe revisional court by setting aside the order dated 21.1.2008, by<br \/>\nan order dated 6.2.2008, on the ground that the learned JMFC ought to<br \/>\nhave taken into consideration direction of this Court that the trial<br \/>\nwas to be disposed of within a period of one year.  Learned advocate<br \/>\nfor the petitioner contends that above premise of the revisional<br \/>\ncourt is improper and contrary to the evidence on record, inasmuch<br \/>\nas, due to filing of  A  summary and non-traceability of the<br \/>\naccused, trial was not likely to proceed the matter, in that event<br \/>\nthe only course which was open to the learned Magistrate was to hand<br \/>\nover the muddamal as per the order passed dated 21.7.2003, keeping<br \/>\nthe muddamal article in custody of police in the year 2003 was not<br \/>\ngermane,  in view of the decision in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/25703131\/\">Sunderbhai Ambala<br \/>\nDesai v. State of Gujarat<\/a> reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tShri<br \/>\nMehul Shah, learned advocate, appearing for respondent No.2 submits<br \/>\nthat so far as ownership and lawful possession of the Muddamal<br \/>\nTractor Trolley is concerned, civil suit is pending between the<br \/>\nparties.  Not only that but respondent No.2 is in lawful possession<br \/>\nof Tractor Trolley pursuant to the said Tractor Trolley which was<br \/>\nsold by him to the accused and just because name of the petitioner is<br \/>\nfound in the R.C.Book as an owner, respondent NO.2 who is an original<br \/>\nclaimant of the muddamal Tractor Trolley, cannot be deprived of the<br \/>\nsame.  Learned advocate however contended that since directions were<br \/>\nissued by this Court on both the occasion by order dated 15.12.2006<br \/>\nin Special Criminal Application No.1286\/2004 and order dated 5.7.2006<br \/>\nin Criminal Misc. Application No. 7109\/2006, the only course which<br \/>\nwas open for the concerned Magistrate was to see that the case is<br \/>\nfinally disposed of.  Therefore, according to learned advocate for<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 order passed by the revisional court on 6.2.2008<br \/>\nimpugned in this petition needs no interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard learned advocates appearing for the parties, considering the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case, admittedly the name of the<br \/>\npetitioner is registered in the R.C.Book as owner of the Muddamal<br \/>\nTractor Trolley.  Not only that but, as early as on 21.7.2003,<br \/>\nlearned JMFC, Halvad has admittedly ordered to release the Muddamal<br \/>\nTractor Trolley.  Thereafter,  A  summary was filed as the<br \/>\naccused was not traceable and, therefore, there was no possibility<br \/>\nthat trial was likely to take place.  In such event handing over<br \/>\nMuddamal Tractor Trolley to the petitioner, a registered owner of the<br \/>\nvehicle by the trial court ought not to have been reversed by the<br \/>\nrevisional court on the ground of some directions given by this<br \/>\nCourt, in absence of relevant material before it, deserves to be<br \/>\nquashed and set aside and the same is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the finding of<br \/>\nthe learned JMFC when the petitioner being registered owner of the<br \/>\nTractor Trolley No. GJ-13-U-220, I hereby quash and set aside the<br \/>\norder passed by the revisional court dated 6.2.2008 passed in<br \/>\nCriminal Misc. Application No.2\/2008 by restoring the order of<br \/>\nlearned JMFC, Halvad, dated 21.1.2008 and order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tHowever,<br \/>\nany finding or observation made by the Magistrate or even by this<br \/>\nCourt will not come in way in the pending civil proceedings between<br \/>\nthe respondent No.2 and petitioner before the concerned court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tRule<br \/>\nis made absolute in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tDirect<br \/>\nservice is permitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>[ANANT<br \/>\nS. DAVE, J.]<\/p>\n<p>\/\/smita\/\/\t<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011 Author: Anant S. Dave, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/55120\/2008 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 551 of 2008 ============================================ RAJESH JAGDISHCHANDRA VAISHNAV &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) ============================================ [&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-111361","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 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\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-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=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-26T11:56:42+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-26T11:56:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1512,\"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\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-26T11:56:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 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\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-26T11:56:42+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-26T11:56:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":1512,"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\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","name":"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-26T11:56:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh vs State on 11 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/111361","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=111361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111361\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}