{"id":12962,"date":"2010-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-14T13:44:20","modified_gmt":"2016-04-14T08:14:20","slug":"babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/9864\/2010\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\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 9864 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1539 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBABUBHAI\nJAMNADAS PATEL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nJB PARDIWALA with MR PARTHIV B SHAH\nfor\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI  Ld. APP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nYN OZA &amp; MR BB NAIK SENIOR COUNSELS with MS ROMA I FIDELIS for\nRespondents:\n2-3. \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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 27\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\napplicant, who is booked in a Criminal Case, has filed this<br \/>\napplication to join him as a party respondent in Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication No. 1539\/2010 filed by the original complainant, which is<br \/>\npending for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIt<br \/>\nis the say of the applicant that the applicant is arraigned as one of<br \/>\nthe accused in the present FIR and hence, the outcome of the said<br \/>\npetition i.e. Special Criminal Application No. 1539\/2010 would have<br \/>\ndirect bearing on the result of criminal proceedings filed against<br \/>\nthe applicant. Hence, the present applicant is required to be joined<br \/>\nas party respondent in the said petition. It is further<br \/>\nthe say of the applicant that against the interim orders dated<br \/>\n5.12.2008 and 23.1.2009 passed by this court in Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication No. 1855\/2008, SLPs were filed being Criminal Appeal No.<br \/>\n1678 and 1679 of 2009. After the orders were passed in SLPs, the<br \/>\nSupreme Court in another proceedings viz. Special Leave to Appeal No.<br \/>\n6927-6932 of 2009 was pleased to direct the High Court to hear and<br \/>\ndecide all the Special Criminal Applications pending before this<br \/>\nCourt, including Special Criminal Application Nos. 2176 of 2009, 1811<br \/>\nof 2009, 1855 of 2009, 2259 of 2008 and in pursuance of the said<br \/>\norder, this Court was pleased to hear the matters and decided all the<br \/>\nabove referred Special Criminal Applications by order dated 13.4.2010<br \/>\nand was pleased to transfer the investigation as the investigation<br \/>\nwas not carried out on certain aspects.  It is further the say of the<br \/>\napplicant that by passing the said order, all the Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication were disposed of. It is the say of the applicant that<br \/>\nonce the final order is passed, all the interim orders passed by this<br \/>\nCourt merges in the final order dated 13.4.2010. Therefore, it is not<br \/>\nfair on the part of the opponents no. 2 and 3 to place unnecessary<br \/>\nreliance and weightage on the interim orders passed in Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application No. 1855\/2008. It is further the say of the<br \/>\napplicant that one Criminal Misc. Application No. 822\/2010 was filed<br \/>\nfor joining as party in Special Criminal Application No. 2259 of 2008<br \/>\nby one of the accused and one another Criminal Misc. Application No.<br \/>\n1240\/2010 was also filed for joining party in Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication No. 1811 of 2009,<br \/>\nwherein, it was ordered that aforesaid Criminal Misc. Applications be<br \/>\nheard with above referred Special Criminal Applications. In view of<br \/>\nthe above facts and circumstances, the applicant is also required to<br \/>\nbe heard and permitted to be joined as party respondent no. 2 in the<br \/>\nsaid Special Criminal Application NO. 1539\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tHeard<br \/>\nMr JB Pardiwala learned Counsel for Mr Parthiv B Shah learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the applicant. Mr. Pardiwala has vehemently argued that<br \/>\nthe said Special Criminal Application is not tenable in eye of law.<br \/>\nMr Pardiwala has further contended that in this matter, investigation<br \/>\nwas carried out by the investigating agency and C-Summary report is<br \/>\nfiled before the learned Magistrate. He has read the judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt dated 13.4.2010 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 1855<br \/>\nof 2008 with Special Criminal Application Nos. 2259\/2008, 1911\/2009,<br \/>\n2176\/2009 and 2239\/2009 and contended that the observation made by<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge of this Court in the said judgment is<br \/>\nrequired to be considered in the context of the original prayer made<br \/>\nby the respondents. He has also contended that judicial review is not<br \/>\nfor C-Summary report. He has vehemently argued that after completion<br \/>\nof investigation, when C-Summary report is filed, then, no cause has<br \/>\narisen for the complainant to file the said petition.  He has also<br \/>\ncontended that the said order is already challenged by the original<br \/>\naccused before the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and SLP is pending. He has<br \/>\nalso read C-Summary report filed by the Investigating<br \/>\nAgency and argued that the police has considered the case of<br \/>\nrespondent   original complainant as a case of civil nature.<br \/>\nTherefore, the remedy is available to the original complainant to<br \/>\nappear before the lower Court and to oppose the report of C-Summary.<br \/>\nMr. Pardiwala has relied upon the decisions in the case of  (1)<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/336701\/\">Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and Ors.,<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n2008(2) SCC Cri. Page 9,<br \/>\n(2)  D.\n<\/p>\n<p>Venkatasubramaniam &amp; Ors. vs. M.K.  Mohan Krishnamachari &amp;<br \/>\nAnr., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488,<br \/>\nand argued that prayer for investigation through CBI cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered. Mr. Pardiwala has also raised a question that how<br \/>\namendment can be granted for CBI investigation.  Mr. Pardiwala has<br \/>\nalso contended that when the learned Single Judge has already refused<br \/>\nto handover the investigation to CBI, then, the said application<br \/>\ncannot be entertained. Mr. Pardiwala has also read the reply and<br \/>\nargued that the presence of the applicant is required in Special<br \/>\nCriminal Application No. 1539\/2010 and, therefore, this application<br \/>\nrequires to be allowed and the applicant may be joined as party<br \/>\nrespondent in Special Criminal Application No. 1539\/2010. Learned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr JB Pardiwala has also relied upon the decision in the<br \/>\ncase of  <a href=\"\/doc\/796223\/\">Union of India &amp;<br \/>\nOrs. vs. Sushil Kumar Modi &amp; Ors.,<\/a> reported in (1998)8 SCC p. 661<br \/>\nand argued about the  powers of the Hight Court and submitted that<br \/>\nthe present application requires to be allowed. Mr Pardiwala has also<br \/>\ncontended that in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7394\/2010, this<br \/>\nCourt has also considered that issue and has raised the question that<br \/>\nso far as jurisdiction regarding C-Summary report is concerned, the<br \/>\nsame is only with the learned Magistrate and first of all the<br \/>\nrespondent has to go before the learned Magistrate and after so<br \/>\napproaching and on passing of the order by learned Magistrate, if<br \/>\nrespondent is aggrieved,  then respondent ori. Complainant can<br \/>\nchallenge the same. Therefore, first of all, he has to obtain some<br \/>\norders in connection with C-Summary report filed by the Investigating<br \/>\nAgency and, thereafter the issue of transfer of investigation can<br \/>\narise.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAs<br \/>\nagainst this, Mr YN Oza learned Senior Counsel for Ms. Roma I.<br \/>\nFidelis appearing  for respondents nos. 2 and 3, has contended that<br \/>\nthis application cannot be considered because this is a question<br \/>\nbetween the Court and the original complainant and present applicant<br \/>\nhas no locus standi to make any request to join him as party<br \/>\nrespondent in the said Special Criminal Application. Mr Oza has<br \/>\nfurther contended that the decisions relied upon by the applicant are<br \/>\nnot applicable to the facts of the present case. Mr Oza has read the<br \/>\norder of learned Single Judge of this court and also relied upon the<br \/>\nunreported decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Misc.<br \/>\nApplication No. 8210 of 2005 and argued that in the said order, the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge has observed in connection with the  question<br \/>\nwith regard to the issue of C-Summary and the accused has no right to<br \/>\nsay anything. Mr Oza has also drawn my attention to the decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in the case of<br \/>\n <a href=\"\/doc\/1147382\/\">Panatar Arvindbhai<br \/>\nRatilal vs. State of Gujarat &amp; Ors.,<\/a>  reported in  1991(1) GLR p.<br \/>\n451 and argued that<br \/>\nthe prayer of the applicant is required to be rejected. Mr. Oza has<br \/>\nalso contended that so far as the issue of locus standi is concerned,<br \/>\nhe has relied upon the decision in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1574164\/\">Central<br \/>\nBureau of Investigation and Anr., vs. Rajesh Gandhi &amp; Anr.,<\/a><br \/>\nreported in (1996) 11 SCC 253 and<br \/>\nin the case of<br \/>\nUnion of India and anr. vs. WN Chadha, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC<br \/>\n260 and submitted that<br \/>\nthe present applicant has no locus standi  and, therefore, this<br \/>\napplication filed by the applicant requires to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe parties and perused the papers. It is true that in this matter,<br \/>\nC-Summary report is already filed by the Investigating Agency in<br \/>\nconnection of the original complaint filed by the original<br \/>\ncomplainant -respondent. It is required to be considered that the<br \/>\napplicant, who is an accused of the FIR has no locus standi at this<br \/>\nstage to question the manner in which the evidence is to be collected<br \/>\nby the Investigating Agency. However, it is open for the applicant<br \/>\noriginal accused to challenge the admissibility and reliability of<br \/>\nthe evidence only at the stage of trial in  case the investigation<br \/>\nends up in filing the final report under sec. 173 of CrPC indicating<br \/>\nthat the offence appears to  have been committed.  I have also<br \/>\nconsidered the submissions made by Mr Pardiwala learned<br \/>\nSenior Counsel appearing for the applicant in this application. It<br \/>\nalso appears from the contentions raised in Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication that the right of the original accused cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered that it is prejudiced. So, first of all, from the perusal<br \/>\nof the papers produced before this Court, I am of the opinion that<br \/>\nlooking to the original prayer made in Special Criminal Application,<br \/>\nthe present applicant has no locus standi to file this application to<br \/>\njoin him as a party respondent in the said Special Criminal<br \/>\nApplication and hence, this application requires to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, this application is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED, J)<\/p>\n<p>mandora\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/9864\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9864 of 2010 In SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1539 of 2010 ========================================================= BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT [&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-12962","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>Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010 - 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\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-14T08:14:20+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\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T08:14:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1475,\"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\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-14T08:14:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 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:\/\/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":"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010 - 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\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-14T08:14:20+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\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T08:14:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"},"wordCount":1475,"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\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010","name":"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-14T08:14:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-vs-state-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babubhai vs State on 27 September, 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:\/\/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\/12962","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=12962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}