{"id":122585,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3"},"modified":"2015-06-06T03:31:01","modified_gmt":"2015-06-05T22:01:01","slug":"the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3","title":{"rendered":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
The vs The on 25 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/2044\/2004\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. 2044 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nLALCHAND\nLAXMINARAYAN AGRAWAL & 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAJ DESAI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY for Opponent(s) :\n1, \nUNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) 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: 25\/01\/2010\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellant-State of Gujarat, has preferred this Appeal under Section
\n\t378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
\n\tjudgment and order of acquittal dated 31st August 2004
\n\tpassed by the learned Chief Magistrate, Palanpur, Banaskantha, in
\n\tCriminal Case No. 11258 of 1988, whereby the learned Magistrate has
\n\tacquitted the respondent-accused of the charges levelled against
\n\thim.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant-Food
\n\tInspector had visited the business place of accused no.1 at about
\n\t10:15 hours on 16th May 1988 and purchased Peppermint as
\n\tsample in presence of two panchas.  After following the necessary
\n\tprocedure, the complainant had sent the said sample for analysis to
\n\tthe Public Analysis, Vadodara. On examination, the Public Analyst
\n\tdeclared that the colour used in preparation of the said peppermint
\n\tis prohibited colour.   Thereafter, after obtaining necessary
\n\tpermission from the Local Health Authority, Mehsana, filed a
\n\tcomplaint on 08th September 1988 in the Court of the
\n\tlearned Chief Magistrate, Palanpur, Banaskantha.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tthe trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the
\n\tcase of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the
\n\trespondent-accused from the charges alleged against him by the
\n\tjudgment and order dated 31st August 2004.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated
\n\t31st August 2004 passed by the learned Magistrate in
\n\tCriminal Case No. 11258 of 1988, the appellant-State of Gujarat, has
\n\tpreferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave heard Mr. A.J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n\tappearing on behalf of the appellant-State and learned advocate,
\n\tappearing on behalf of respondent-accused. I have also gone through
\n\tthe papers and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tA.J. Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant,
\n\thas taken me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the
\n\tdocumentary evidence and submitted that from the above evidence it
\n\tis established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case
\n\tbeyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the witnesses have
\n\tsupported the case of the prosecution and the learned Magistrate has
\n\tcommitted grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of
\n\twitnesses. He also contended that the learned Magistrate has not
\n\tconsidered the fact that the Food Inspector has followed the proper
\n\tprocedure while collecting the sample. He, therefore, contended that
\n\tthe judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is without
\n\tappreciating the facts and evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate for the respondent-accused has supported the judgment and
\n\torder of the Trial Court and contended that the Food Inspector has
\n\tnot followed the mandatory rules and the prosecution has failed to
\n\testablish prima-facie case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through the judgment of the Trial Court. I have also
\n\tperused the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which
\n\twould govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court
\n\tagainst an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court have been
\n\tvery succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of
\n\tdecisions. In the case of
\n\tM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported
\n\tin (2006)6 SCC, 39,
\n\tthe Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in
\n\tappeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision,
\n\tthe Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 54.
\n\tIn any event, the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be
\n\tan appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the
\n\trevisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power
\n\tagainst a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in
\n\tmind the well-settled principles of law that where two view
\n\tare possible, the appellate court should not interfere with
\n\tthe finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power,
\n\teven if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\n\tevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\n\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\tin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State
\n\tof Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,
\n\tthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
\n\tIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 16.\t\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the
\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal
\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized
\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of
\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment
\ndelivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a
\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed
\na manifest error of law and ignored the material  on record.
\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to
\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision
\non the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of
\nthe accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is
\ncharged with.\n<\/p>\n
Similar
\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State
\n\tof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR
\n\tSCW 5553 and
\n\tin Girja
\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.
\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of
\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\n\tappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give
\n\tfresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
\n\tfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\n\tCourt in the case of State
\n\tof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tin case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through
\n\tthe judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. I have also
\n\tperused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the
\n\tTrial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned
\n\tAdvocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tTrial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary
\n\tevidence, found that the Food Inspector has committed breach of
\n\tmandatory provisions of the Rules while taking the sample. It is
\n\talso observed that the prosecution has failed to follow Rule 17 of
\n\tthe Rules.  The prosecution has not served notice under section
\n\t13(2) to the respondent-accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe complainant has sent two samples of two different cases to the
\n\tPublic Analyst, but the complainant has not filed the case with
\n\tregard to the second sample. Thus, the oral evidence of the
\n\tcomplainant is contradictory with the documents produced at Exh. 45
\n\tto 48. The Trial Court has observed that there are serious lacunae
\n\tin the oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing
\n\tis produced on record of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings
\n\tof the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charges against the
\n\trespondent-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has
\n\tmiserably failed to prove the case against the respondent-accused.
\n\tThus, from the evidence itself it is established that the
\n\tprosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdditional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any
\n\tevidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach
\n\tof the Trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that
\n\tthe decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the
\n\tmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
\n\tTrial Court was completely justified in acquitting the
\n\trespondent-accused of the charges levelled against him. I find that
\n\tthe findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just and
\n\tproper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\n\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
\n\tcourt below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be
\n\tsent back to the Trial Court, forthwith.  Bail bonds, if any, shall
\n\tstands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.\n<\/p>\n
K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n
Anup<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court The vs The on 25 January, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2044\/2004 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2044 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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-122585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe vs The on 25 January, 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\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-05T22:01:01+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=\"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\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs The on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T22:01:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3\"},\"wordCount\":1478,\"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\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3\",\"name\":\"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-05T22:01:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs The on 25 January, 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":"The vs The on 25 January, 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\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-05T22:01:01+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T22:01:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3"},"wordCount":1478,"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\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3","name":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-05T22:01:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs The on 25 January, 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\/122585","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=122585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}