{"id":128254,"date":"2010-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-27T19:28:52","modified_gmt":"2017-09-27T13:58:52","slug":"sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/19\/1995\t 18\/ 18\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. 19 of 1995\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\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\nSITARAM\nCHHOTALAL NAYAK - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKB ANANDJIWALA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR LR PUJARI, APP for Opponent(s) :\n1, \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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/08\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tThe present appeal is directed against
\nthe judgment and order in Special Case No. 31 of 1991 passed by the
\nlearned Special Judge, City Sessions Court
\nNo.2, Ahmedabad, dated 20.12.1994, recording the conviction of the
\nappellant – accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 7,
\n13(1)(d)(i)(ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and
\nimposing rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500\/-,
\nin default rigorous imprisonment for three months and also further
\nimposing rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500\/-, in
\ndefault, rigorous imprisonment for three months.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe facts of the case, briefly
\nsummarised, are that the complainant is working as a Booking Clerk
\nwith a travel agent making travel arrangements and was giving
\nvehicles on hire.  The complainant’s car met with an accident and it
\nwas brought by the break down service with the crane from Gandhinagar
\nto Ahmedabad.   At that time, the accused No.1 was serving at the
\nToll Naka and is said to have stopped the vehicle for verification
\nand on inquiry, he is said to have stated that the vehicle was being
\ntaken for destroying as a scrap vehicle and the octroi was required
\nto be paid.  It is also alleged that the accused No.1 is said to have
\nstated to the driver that as per the valuation of the vehicle, the
\namount of octroi would be more. However, if some Tea expenses is
\npaid, the vehicle may be released. It is also stated that the
\nRegistration Book was collected by stating that it may be returned on
\npayment of the amount.  Thereupon, when the driver was having only
\nRs.50\/-, he offered the same which was accepted by the accused and he
\nwas asked to bring the further amount of Rs.150\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tThereupon the complainant lodged the
\ncomplaint with ACB, Ahmedabad, on the basis of which, a trap was
\narranged.  After the trap, it was registered as Special Case No. 31
\nof 1991.  The learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad,
\nafter framing the charge, proceeded with the trial.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAfter recording of the evidence of
\nthe prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Special Judge also
\nrecorded the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of th
\nCode of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAfter hearing the learned APP and
\nthe learned advocate for the defence, the learned Special Judge
\nrecorded the conviction of the accused as stated hereinabove for the
\noffences with which he is charged under the provisions of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIt is this judgment and order which
\nhas been assailed on the ground  inter alia set out in detail in the
\nmemo of the appeal contending that the learned Judge has failed to
\nappreciate the material evidence on record with regard to the demand
\nand acceptance.  It is also contended that the version of the
\nprosecution has not been corroborated by the panch witnesses and the
\npanchnama would not be admissible as the panchas have not supported
\nthe prosecution case fully.  It has also been contended that the
\nlearned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the material
\ncontradictions and omissions brought out from the evidence of the
\npanch witnesses and the Police Inspector Solaria.  It has also been
\ncontended that there was no meeting between the complainant and
\nappellant accused at time prior to the raid and therefore, the
\nprosecution has failed to establish the demand which is the essential
\ningredients for recording conviction for the offence under Prevention
\nof Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tLearned counsel Mr. Anandjiwala
\nreferred to the testimony of the witnesses including the testimony of
\nPW.1 complainant at Eh.13 and submitted that as can be seen from the
\nevidence, there is no initial demand by the accused. For that
\npurpose, he pointedly referred to the testimony of PW.1 and submitted
\nthat in his cross examination, the complainant has  denied the
\nsuggestion that any demand for Rs.200\/- was made by the accused No.1.
\n It is clearly stated that he had only asked for the RTO book. It is
\ndenied that the accused has demanded Rs.50\/- and to bring the
\nremaining amount. He has strenuously submitted that the witness has
\nstated in his cross examination that the printed currency notes
\nsmeared with Anthracite powder were accepted by accused No.2. Learned
\ncounsel, therefore, submitted that there is no evidence suggesting
\nthe demand by the accused. He has also referred to the testimony of
\nPW.2 at Eh.16 and submitted that the panch witness who has
\naccompanied the complainant to observe as to what has transpired.
\nLearned counsel Mr. Anandjiwala submitted that his evidence has not
\ncorroborated fully the prosecution case.  He has referred to the
\ntestimony of PW.2 at Eh.16-panch witness  and submitted that no
\npanchnama was drawn after inquiring from them.  Therefore, learned
\ncounsel Mr.Anandjiwala  submitted that he has not supported the
\nprosecution case with regard to demand for which, he pointedly
\nreferred to the cross examination and submitted emphasizing that he
\nhas stated that the complainant had asked the Officer (A1) in the
\nlobby  that he has brought the money. He specifically stated that
\nbefore that the accused had not made any demand. He has also stated
\nthat accused officer (A1) had not stated that the money may be
\ndelivered to him. He has also stated that inside the office, the
\nofficer who was sitting on the table, there was no conversation took
\nplace. He has also stated that there was no talk of any kind in the
\nroom and whatever the talk has taken place in the lobby.  Learned
\ncounsel Mr. Anandjiwala therefore, strenuously submitted that one of
\nthe aspects to be considered as per the prosecution case is that the
\ninitial demand was for Rs.50\/- which was accepted by Accused No.1 and
\nthereafter Rs.150\/- is accepted by accused No.2. Learned counsel Mr.
\nAnandjiwala submitted that if the demand is not established, the
\nwhole case of the prosecution would fall to ground.  He again
\nreferred to PW.1 complainant at Eh.13 and PW.2 at Eh.16 and submitted
\nthat none of them have corroborated on  the material aspect.  Learned
\ncounsel Mr. Anandjiwala, therefore submitted that as per the
\nprosecution  the initial demand is made by accused No.1 and when the
\ndriver had only Rs.50\/- which he offered, he was asked to bring
\nfurther Rs.150\/- and therefore, he had brought Rs.150\/- which is
\noffered at the time of trap.  However, the fact remains that the
\ninitial demand and the payment of Rs.50\/- to the accused and whatever
\nthe conversation taken place between the complainant and the accused
\nNo.1, there is no evidence and the complainant turned hostile and has
\nnot supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, for the amount
\nof Rs.150\/- which was tendered at the time of trap is concerned, it
\nwas accepted by accused No.2 and it has been admittedly recovered
\nfrom him.\n<\/p>\n
6.1\tTherefore, learned counsel Mr.
\nAnandjiwala submitted that the demand which precedes the acceptance
\nand again there is no evidence as to any initial demand inasmuch as
\nany only the complainant can say on this aspect, who has not
\nsupported the case of the prosecution. He submitted that PW.2 panch
\nwitness in his testimony at Eh.16 does not say about any demand
\nhaving been made by accused No.1. He submitted that the prosecution
\nhas failed to establish the demand and that the acceptance is by
\nAccused No.2.\n<\/p>\n
6.2\tLearned counsel Mr. Anandjiwala
\nsubmitted that the prosecution has not established that Accused No.2
\nhad accepted the illicit money or the bribe at the instance of
\naccused No.1. It is submitted that the panch witnesses have also not
\ntotally corroborated and if the evidence of the panch witnesses at
\nEh.16 is relied upon, accused No.2 who is said to have accepted the
\nbribe money is acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
6.3\tLearned counsel Mr. Anandjiwala
\ntherefore, referred to the panchnama also and submitted that the
\npanchnama also cannot be said to be true as the panchnama cannot be
\nsaid to be established by the panch witness PW.2 at Eh.16.\n<\/p>\n
6.4\tLearned counsel Mr. Anandjiwala
\ntherefore, submitted that none of the three ingredients for the
\noffence is established by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned APP Mr. Pujari referred to
\nthe testimony of the witnesses including PW.1 complainant at Eh.13,
\nPW.2 panch witness at Eh.16 and the FIR and also the testimony of the
\ncomplainant at Eh.13 and submitted that the complainant has not
\nsupported the prosecution case and the testimony of PW.2 at Eh.16
\nalso does not corroborate.  Again he referred to the testimony of
\nboth the witnesses and referring to the testimony of the panch
\nwitness, he emphasized that it is clearly stated that at the time of
\ntrap, the complainant had gone to the accused who was sitting there
\nin the office and he has voluntarily stated to have suggested that
\nthe accused has brought the money and to return the Registration
\nbook. Thereupon, the accused No.1 is said to have stated that his
\nofficer is sitting inside and when the complainant insisted that he
\nis getting late and is required to go out, the accused came out and
\nasked accused No.2 to accept the amount of Rs.150\/- and accused No.1
\nis said to have given the registration book.  Therefore, learned
\ncounsel Mr.Anandjiwala submitted that this evidence does not disclose
\nthe demand by the present appellant accused No.1 not acceptance. He
\nfurther emphasized that it is not even stated in his panchnana at
\nExh.16  that accused No.2 had accepted the amount\/printed currency
\nnotes at the instance of the present accused No.1. He referred to the
\ntestimony of PW.2 panch witness Exh.16 and the panchnama at Exh.17
\nand submitted that he has admitted that some of the relevant aspects
\nare not mentioned in the panchnama which he has admitted like whether
\nthe amount was in the handkerchief, had any stains or not, meaning
\nthereby the currency notes were smeared with Anthracin powder  has
\nnot been clearly stated.  He, also referred to the testimony of PW.2
\npanch witness and submitted that he admitted that the panchnama was
\ntaken down by writer of the Police Inspector.  Learned counsel Mr.
\nAnandjiwala referred to the FIR at Exh.14 as well as the testimony of
\nthe witnesses and again emphasised that none of the three ingredients
\nas were required to be established by the prosecution has not been
\nestablished.  Referring to the panchnama, learned counsel
\nMr.Anandjiwala submitted that it should be re-exhibited  so that the
\ncontents said to have been proved.  In support of his submission, he
\nhas relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (1) GLR 428
\n(Kalahari Danubian Patel v. State of Gujarat).  Similarly, he
\nsubmitted that the initial demand or the demand or the acceptance by
\nthe accused is not established  and therefore, the judgment and order
\nof conviction recorded against the accused No.1 is erroneous.  He
\nsubmitted that more particularly when accused No.2  has been
\nacquitted of all the charges, the learned Judge has failed to
\nconsider the material evidence properly and therefore, the impugned
\njudgment recording conviction of the present appellant –
\naccused No.1 is erroneous.  He also submitted that the marks of
\nAnthracin powder  which is alleged to be found  has not been properly
\ndescribed by the panch or other witnesses and they have not supported
\nor corroborated on this aspect. He referred to and relied upon the
\njudgment reported in 1960 GLR 113 and emphasized with regard to the
\nuse of Anthracin powder and its characteristics have not been
\nreflected or stated by the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned APP Mr.Pujari referred to the
\ntestimony of the complainant at Exh.13 and the complaint being FIR at
\nExh.14.   He submitted that the testimony  of the complainant PW.1 at
\nExh.13 is fully corroborated by PW.2 panch witness at Exh.19 on the
\nrelevant aspects.  He submitted that merely because the complainant
\nmay have stated a different version, the incident is established and
\nthe recovery of the money from Accused No.2 is also established
\nsuggesting the fact that the money has been passed on to accused
\npersons. Learned APP submitted that though accused No.2 may not have
\nthe power or authority to do any favour as regards octroi duty, but
\nhe was also on duty at the relevant time and at the instance of
\naccused No.1, he is said to have accepted the money.  Learned APP
\nsubmitted that it is required to be noted as stated by PW.2 panch
\nwitness in his testimony at Exh.16 also, accused No.1 had come out
\nfrom the office accompanied by the complainant and then he has said
\nto have stated that the amount may be handed over to accused No.2and
\naccused No.2 was asked to take the money from the complainant. This
\nwould suggest that there was an arrangement and thereby both have
\njoined together for such illicit demand of bribe.  Learned APP relied
\nupon the testimony of PW.3-Jayeshkumar, Police Inspector, at Exh.21
\nand submitted that though he is the trapping Officer, he has stated
\nabout the FIR as well as the panchnama and how the trap was arranged.
\nHe was present and if there was a prior intimation, then only the
\npresent complainant would go to offer. He, therefore, submitted that
\nmuch emphasis is given that there is no demand and the complainant is
\nsaid to have voluntarily stated that he has brought the money.
\nConsidering the entire circumstances as well as the fact that the
\ncomplainant was not a person having such nature, would not certainly
\ngo for making any payment without any demand. Learned APP submitted
\nthat the FIR, panchnama and other testimony of the witnesses have
\nalso been corroborated by the testimony by the Officer at Exh.21 and
\nhis evidence cannot be discarded merely because he is an employee or
\nPolice.  Learned APP submitted that in such cases, the evidence of
\nsuch Officer can be relied upon. He further submitted that the FIR
\nmay not be a substantial piece of evidence which is corroborated by
\nthe evidence of  the witnesses.  In support of his submission, he has
\nreferred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
\nreported in 2008 (11) SCC 722 (Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao and ors.
\nv. State) – page 55 and 56.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn view of the rival submissions, it
\nis required to be considered whether the impugned judgment and order
\ncalls for any interference  or not.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the testimony witnesses and the
\nmaterial evidence on record, the main emphasis given by learned
\ncounsel Mr.Anandjiwala on the aspect of demand is required to be
\nconsidered.  There is no doubt that demand and acceptance are
\nrequired to be proved. However, the demand with regard to the money
\nas bribe has to  be established that the amount was demanded as and
\nby way of bribe. In close scrutiny of the evidence which has been
\nreferred to and relied upon by both the sides, the same required to
\nbe appreciated. The complainant in his testimony at Exh.12 has stated
\na different version what is not found in his complaint FIR at
\nExh.14.He though stated about the break-down service and the vehicle
\nbeing brought, at that time during the checking, one officer made a
\ndemand for octroi duty stating that octroi is to be paid whether it
\nis being sent for repairs etc.  Thereafter, the said person is said
\nto have taken the Registration book.  He does not say as regards the
\ndemand. Similarly, at the time of the trap, he has stated that when
\nhe entered the Octroi Naka office, one person is said to have asked
\nhim to sit and for a cup of Tea. However, when he refused by stating
\nthat he is in a hurry to go to a hospital, he has stated that at that
\ntime, one person with brown pant and shift had come whom he had met
\non the previous day and stated that Rs.150\/-  may be paid and his
\nwork will be done.  He has stated that the said person with brown
\npant and shirt (accused No.2) had asked him go pay Rs.150\/- so that
\nthe RTO book can be returned. Therefore, the complainant paid
\nRs.150\/- smeared with Anthracin powder to him which he had accepted
\nand he had arranged for pre-arranged signal.  He has categorically
\nstated  that no person\/officer can make any demand of money in the
\n Octroi Office (emphasis supplied). Further, he has identified
\naccused No.2 as the same person who had accepted the currency notes.
\nHe has stated that the person who had returned the Book is identified
\nas accused No.1.  He has denied the suggestion that there was any
\nconversation with regard to the demand of Rs.200\/- by the officer and
\nhe has specifically stated that he had only taken the RTO book from
\nhim.  He has denied that on the previous day Rs.50\/- was paid and at
\nthat time, the RTO book was collected stating that if the remaining
\namount of Rs.150\/- may be brought, the book will be returned.  He has
\nalso denied  the suggestion that Rs.150\/-  was accepted by accused
\nNo.2 (person with brown clothes) at the instance of accused No.1. He
\nhas further stated that at the time of collecting the RTO Book, the
\nreceipt was given which is at Exh.15. As against tis, a close
\nscrutiny of the testimony panch witness PW.2 at Exh.16 is required to
\nbe made on the aspect of corroboration and this witness has also
\nremained silent on the aspect of the issue. This witness could not
\nhave stated or clarified anything with regard to the prior demand or
\nsettlement arrived at between the complainant and accused No.1 that
\nremaining amount of Rs.150\/- may be paid  and thereafter the
\nregistration book may be returned in view of the release of the
\nvehicle or levying the octroi duty. The subsequent part of the
\ntransaction as to what transpired during the trap, the panch witness,
\nin his testimony at Exh.16 stated that when they entered the office,
\nthe accused was sitting and when the complainant made a gesture
\ntowards him, he had taken one booklet from the drawer of the table
\nand thereafter the complainant is said to have stated as is suggested
\n that he has brought the money and the registration book may be
\nreturned. Thereupon accused No.1 is said to have stated that as
\nofficers are sitting inside and when the complainant suggested that
\nhe is in a hurry, the accused came out and asked a person who looked
\nlike a watchman to collect Rs.150\/- which was accepted by him. Parts
\nof Anthracin powder were therefore, found on the hand’s finger tips
\nof Accused No.2.  In other words, he has stated that when he entered
\nthe office, he had no conversation with the officer in the room and
\nthe person with the brown uniform, watchman like person, present
\naccused No.2 was not there inside the room. He has also stated that
\nhe has therefore, come outside the lobby and the conversation took
\nplace.  He has stated that whether any instruction was given to the
\ncomplainant as regards the payment of octroi, he does not remember
\nabout such conversation had taken place in the lobby.  The reference
\nwas only to the book. He has specifically stated that when the
\ncomplainant had stated that he has arrived and had brought the money
\nto the accused, the accused had not made any demand for money nor he
\nhad stated that money should be given to him.  This will again to go
\nestablish that neither there is any evidence as regards about any
\ndemand or settlement or there is any evidence with regard to payment
\nof Rs.50\/- and the remaining amount of Rs.150\/- to be paid after two
\nhours and for that purpose the registration book was seized by
\naccused No.1.  Similarly, there is no evidence with regard to the
\ndemand by Accused No.1 even during the trap when the complainant is
\nsaid to have made  improvement stating that he has brought the money.
\n The accused has not made any demand   at that time or accepted the
\nmoney at that time. One another aspect which is required is to be
\nnoted that is if the registration book  was seized only for the
\npurpose that if the remaining amount of Rs.150\/- is paid, then the
\nofficial receipt for such seizure of the registration book would have
\nnot have been given. One further aspect which again arises in the
\nface is that even according to the complainant himself, he had met a
\nperson on the previous day who was wearing a brown clothes, a
\nwatchman like person. Accused No.2 is said to have informed he may
\npay Rs.50\/- and the remaining amount of Rs.150\/-  when the work is
\ndone.  This would further raise a doubt as regards the prosecution
\ncase qua the demand or even initial demand by accused No.1.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is well accepted that the demand
\nand acceptance and recovery are integral parts of such cases which
\nare required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.   Even if the
\nacceptance is proved, it is expected that it would imply that there
\nwas a demand and in response to such payment is made by the
\ncomplainant and such acceptance coupled with the presumption under
\nSection of the Prevention of Corruption Act would establish the guilt
\nof the accused and even then the acceptance has to be there by the
\naccused.  In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the
\nacceptance of the smeared currency notes by Accused No.2  is there.
\nTherefore, there is a case that accused No.2 had accepted such
\ncurrency notes smeared with Anthracin powder at the instance of
\naccused No.1, there is no corroboration on this aspect by the
\ncomplainant who had initially made and settled for such deal with the
\naccused or panch witness who had accompanied the complainant at the
\ntime of the trap even remotely suggests as regards such kind of
\narrangement. Therefore, even if it is accepted or assumed for the
\nsake of argument it is quite possible that the person like the
\naccused may not himself accept the money  and it could have suggested
\nthat it should be made to somebody else who would accept the same on
\nhis behalf and then also the  demand to have been accepted by the
\naccused.  Further, for that purpose, there has to be material
\nevidence to suggest the nexus or an arrangement which is not to be
\nfound in the facts of the present case.  Therefore, as the
\nprosecution has failed to establish the demand, it cannot be said
\nthat the impugned judgment and order recording the conviction is just
\nand proper and it cannot be sustained and it deserves to be quashed
\nand set aside more particularly when accused No.2 who is said to have
\naccepted the bribe.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, the present appeal
\nstands allowed.  The impugned judgment and order passed in Special
\nCase No.31 of 1991 by the learned Special Judge, City Sessions Court,
\nAhmedabad, dated 20.12.1994 recording the conviction of the present
\nappellant – accused under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is
\nacquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is
\non bail. Therefore, the bail bond shall stand cancelled. Fine paid,
\nif any, shall be refunded the appelant-accused. Muddamal is ordered
\nto be returned to the complainant in terms of the order.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.)<\/p>\n
Sreeram.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/19\/1995 18\/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 19 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be […]<\/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-128254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 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\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-27T13:58:52+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T13:58:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3905,\"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\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T13:58:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 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":"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 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\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-27T13:58:52+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T13:58:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"},"wordCount":3905,"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\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010","name":"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T13:58:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sitaram-vs-unknown-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sitaram vs Unknown on 5 August, 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\/128254","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=128254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}