{"id":131000,"date":"2000-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000"},"modified":"2016-05-12T17:08:15","modified_gmt":"2016-05-12T11:38:15","slug":"abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. A.S. Cj, K.T. Thomas, S. Rajendra Babu<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  78 of 1992\n\nPETITIONER:\nABDUL RASHID IBRAHIM MANSURl\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/02\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nDR. A.S. ANAND CJ & K.T. THOMAS & S. RAJENDRA BABU\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2000 (1) SCR 542<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
THOMAS, J. Appellant was an auto-rickshaw driver. On the evening of
\n12.1.1988 an auto-rickshaw was intercepted by a posse of police person-nel
\nwhile it was proceeding to Shahpur (Gujarat). Four gunny bags were found
\nstacked in the vehicle. They contained ‘Charas’ (Cannabis hemp). Appellant
\nwas arrested and prosecuted for offences under Section 20(b)(ii) of the
\nNarcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’)
\nbesides Section 66(l)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court acquitted the appellant, but on appeal by the State of
\nGujarat a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat set aside the order
\nof acquittal and convicted him of the offences under the above sections. He
\nwas sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rupees
\none lakh for the first count while no separate sentence was im-posed for
\nthe second count.\n<\/p>\n
Facts are not seriously disputed by the appellant. More details about the
\nfacts are the following :\n<\/p>\n
PW-2 Premsingh M. Vishen, Inspector of Police at Dariapur Police Station,
\ngot information on 12.1.1988 that one Iqbal Syed Husen was trying to
\ntransport Charas upto Shahpur in an auto-rickshaw bearing No. GTH 3003.
\nPW-2 collected some more policemen and proceeded to the main road in quest
\nfor the contraband movement. At about 4.00 PM they sighted the auto-
\nrickshaw which was then driven by the appellant. They stopped it and
\nchecked it and found four gunny bags placed inside the vehicle. Police took
\nthe vehicle to the Police Station and when the gunny bags were opened ten
\npackets of Charas were found concealed therein. The value of the said
\ncontraband was estimated to be Rs. 5.29 lakhs. When investigation was
\nconducted it was revealed that the said consignment was loaded in the auto
\nrickshaw by two persons – Iqbal Syed Husen and Mahaboob Rasal Khan. The
\npolice made a search to trace them out but failed. And unceremoniously
\ndropping them, a charge sheet was laid against the appellant only before
\nthe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the above mentioned offences and the
\ncase was later committed to the Court of Sessions.\n<\/p>\n
Prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-1 is a panch witness and PW-2
\nPremsingh M. Vishen, the Inspector of Police, who headed the raiding party
\nwhich intercepted the vehicle, PW-3 PSO of Dariapur Police Station was
\nexamined to prove the FIR. PW-4 Baldev Singh Vaghela was the Sub-Inspector
\nof Police, Dariapur, Forensic Science Laboratory which conducted tests on
\nthe samples of contraband reported that it contained Charas.\n<\/p>\n
When the appellant was questioned by the trial court under Section 313 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure he did not dispute the fact the he rode the
\nauto-rickshaw and that the same was intercepted by the police party and
\nthat gunny bags kept in the vehicle were taken out and examined by them at
\nthe Police Station. His defence was that those four gunny bags were brought
\nin a truck at Chokha Bazar by two persons who unloaded them into his
\nvehicle and directed him to transport the same to the destination mentioned
\nby them. He carried out the assignment without knowing what were the
\ncontents of the load in the gunny bags.\n<\/p>\n
The Division Bench of the High Court found that the appellant failed to
\nprove that he did not know the contents of the load and hence the
\npresumption in Section 35 of the Act remained un- rebutted. It was mainly
\non the said premise that the Division Bench held the appellant guilty of
\nthe offence for which he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
As the appellant did not engage any advocate for himself Mr. Sudhir
\nNandrajog, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to argue for him.
\nLearned counsel contended first that there was total non-compliance with
\nthe requirements of Section 50 of the Act which had vitiated the seizure of
\nthe contraband. Section 50 contains the conditions under which search of a
\nperson shall be conducted. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh,<\/a> [1999] 6 SCC
\n172, a Constitution Bench of this Court, while interpreting Section 50 of
\nthe Act, has held, inter alia, thus :\n<\/p>\n
“(1) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on
\nprior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to
\ninform the person concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section
\n50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate
\nfor making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in
\nwriting.\n<\/p>\n
(2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his
\nright to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would course
\nprejudice to an accused.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  That a search made by an empowered officer, on prior infor-mation,
\nwithout informing the person of his right that if he so requires, he shall
\nbe taken before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for search and in case
\nhe so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a
\nMagistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the
\nillicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence on accused,
\nwhere the convic-tion has been recorded only on the basis of the possession
\nof the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search
\nconducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Sri Vashank P. Adhyaru, learned counsel for the State of Gujarat contended
\nthat there was no question of complying with the conditions stipulated in
\nSection 50 of the Act as no search of the person was con-ducted in this
\ncase. According to the learned counsel, the search conducted was of the
\nconveyance and the mere fact that appellant was them driving the vehicle
\nwould not make it a search of his person. Learned counsel cited the
\ndecisions in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra,<\/a> [1999] 8 SCC 257 and
\nSarjudas v. State of Gujarat,<\/a> [1999] 8 SCC 508.\n<\/p>\n
In the former case, accused was a person who arrived at Sabar International
\nAirport (Mumbai) and when the intelligence officer of Nar-cotic Central
\nBureau checked one of his baggage he detected 2 Kgs. of Heroin therefrom.
\nBefore the baggage was opened the accused was asked to identify it and when
\nhe did so the officer again checked it up with the Baggage Tag affixed on
\nthe Air Ticket in the possession of the accused. The contention that the
\nconditions under Section 50 of the Act were not complied with before the
\nbaggage was searched, has been repelled by this Court on the premise that
\nit was not a search of the “person” of the accused. In the second mentioned
\ncase, the contention based on Section 50 was negative on the factual
\npremise that “Charas” was found kept in a bag which was hanging on the
\nscooter ridden by the accused. Learned Judges held that opening and
\nchecking the said bag did not amount to search of the “person” of the
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, the appellant has no case that he was searched by the
\npolice party. The place where the gunny bags found stacked in the vehicle
\nwas not inextricably connected with the person of the appellant. Hence it
\nis an idle exercise in this case, on the fact situation, to consider
\nwhether there was non- compliance with the conditions stipulated in Sec-
\ntion 50 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
But the more important contention advanced by Shri Sudhir Nandrajog,
\nlearned amicus curiae was that there was non- compliance with Section 42 of
\nthe Act which was enough to vitiate the search as a whole. Section 42 reads
\nthus :\n<\/p>\n
42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or
\nauthorisation, – (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to
\na peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise,
\nnarcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the
\nCentral Government or of the Border Security Force as is empowered in this
\nbehalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such
\nofficer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable)
\nof the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a
\nState Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order
\nof the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal
\nknowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing,
\nthat any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an
\noffence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or
\nother article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence
\nis kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may,
\nbetween sunrise and sunset –\n<\/p>\n
(a)    enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;\n<\/p>\n
(b)    in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle
\nto such entry;\n<\/p>\n
(c)    seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the
\nmanufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance
\nwhich he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act
\nand any document or other article which he has reason to believe may
\nfurnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter
\nIV relating to such drug or substance; and<\/p>\n
(d)   detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom
\nhe has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under
\nChapter IV relating to such drug or sub-stance :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant
\nor authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the
\nconcealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may
\nenter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time
\nbetween sun set and sun rise after recording the grounds of his belief.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-
\nsection (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto he
\nshall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.”\n<\/p>\n
For the purposes of this case, PW-2 being a police officer much above the
\nrank of a constable, would be “any such officer” as envisaged b the
\nSection, If he had reason to believe from information given by any person
\nthat narcotic drug was kept or concealed in any building, con-veyance or
\nenclosed place the requirements to be complied with by him before he
\nproceeded to search any such building or conveyance or enclosed place were
\ntwo-fold. First is that he should have taken down the informa-tion in
\nwriting. Second is that he should have sent forthwith a copy thereof to his
\nimmediate official superior. In this case PW-2 admitted that he proceeded
\nto the spot only on getting the information that somebody was trying to
\ntransport narcotic substances. When he was asked in cross-examination
\nwhether he had taken down the information in writing he had answered in
\nnegative. Nor did he even apprise his superior officer of any such
\ninformation either then or later, much less sending a copy of the
\ninformation to the superior officer. However, learned counsel for the
\nrespondent – State of Gujarat contended that the action was taken by him
\nnot under Section 42 of the Act but it was under Section 43 as per which he
\nwas not obliged to take down the information. We are unable to appreciate
\nthe argument because, in this case, PW-2 admitted that he proceeded on
\ngetting prior information from a constable and the information was
\nprecisely one falling within the purview of Section 42(1) of the Act. Hence
\nPW-2 cannot wriggle out of the conditions stipulated in the said sub-
\nsection. We therefore, unhesitatingly hold that there was non-compliance
\nwith Section 42 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the State next contended that such non- com-pliance
\nwith Section 42 of the Act cannot be visited with greater conse-quences
\nthan what has been held by the Constitution Bench of this Court regarding
\nnon-compliance of the conditions in Section 50 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
A two Judge Bench of this Court has considered the said question along with
\nother questions in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh,<\/a> [1994] 3 SCC 299. In
\nparagraph 25 of that judgment the conclusions were laid down, of which what
\nis relevant for this case regarding Section 42(1) is the following:\n<\/p>\n
“(2-C) Under Section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information
\ngiven by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But
\nif he has reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under
\nChapter IV have been committed or materials which may furnish evidence of
\ncommission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry
\nout the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and
\nthis provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of
\nbelief. But under the proviso to Section 42(1) if such officer has to carry
\nout such search between sunset and sunrise, he must record the grounds of
\nhis belief.\n<\/p>\n
To this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same
\nwould affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Under Section 42(2) such empowered officer who takes down any
\ninformation in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section
\n42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official
\nsuperior. If there is total non-compliance of this provision the same
\naffects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there
\nis delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or
\nnot, will be a question of fact in each case.”\n<\/p>\n
When the same decision considered the impact of non-compliance of Section
\n50 it was held that !!it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the
\ntrial”. But the Constitution Bench has settled the legal position
\nconcerning that aspect in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh<\/a> (supra), the
\nrelevant portion of which has been extracted by us earlier. We do not think
\nthat a different approach is warranted regarding non-compliance of Sec-tion
\n42 also. If that be so, the position must be the following :\n<\/p>\n
If the officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or prior
\ninformation received from any person that any narcotic drug or psychotropic
\nsubstance (in respect of which an offence has been com-mitted) is kept or
\nconcealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, it is imperative
\nthat the officer should take it down in writing and he shall forthwith send
\na copy thereof to his immediate official superior. The action of the
\nofficer, who claims to have exercised it on the strength of such unrecorded
\ninformation would become suspect, though the trial may not vitiate on that
\nscore alone. Nonetheless the resultant position would be one of causing
\nprejudice to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the State of Gujarat thereupon contended that as the
\nappellant did not dispute the factom of recovery of the “charas” from the
\nvehicle it does not matter that the information was not recorded at the
\nfirst instance by the police officer. We cannot approve the contention
\nbecause non-recording of information has in fact deprived the appellant as
\nwell as the court of the material to ascertain what was the precise infor-
\nmation, which PW-2 got before proceeding to stop the vehicle. Value of such
\nan information, which was the earliest in point of time, for ascertain-ing
\nthe extent of the involvement of the appellant in the offence, was of a
\nhigh degree. A criminal court cannot normally afford to be ignorant of such
\na valuable information. It is not enough that PW-2 was able to recollect
\nfrom memory, when he was examined in court after the lapse of a long time,
\nas to what information he got before he proceeded to the scene. Even
\notherwise, the information which PW- 2, in this case, recollected itself
\ntends to exculpate the appellant rather than inculpate him.\n<\/p>\n
In the above context, learned counsel for State sought to rely on the legal
\npresumption envisaged in Section 35 of the Act, In fact the Division Bench
\nof the High Court also mainly rested on that legal premise. Section 35
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“35. Presumption of culpable mental state. – (1) In any prosecution for an
\noffence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state of the
\naccused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it
\nshall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such
\nmental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation – In this section ‘culpable mental state’ includes inten-tion,
\nmotive, knowledge, of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.\n<\/p>\n
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when
\nthe court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely
\nwhen its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.”\n<\/p>\n
No doubt, when the appellant admitted that narcotic drug was recovered from
\nthe gunny bags stacked in the auto-rickshaw, the burden of proof is on him
\nto prove that he had ao knowledge about the fact that those gunny bags
\ncontained such a substance. The standard of such proof is delineated in
\nsub-section (2) as “beyond a reasonable doubt*. If the court, on an
\nappraisal of the entire evidence does not entertain doubt of a reasonable
\ndegree that he had real knowledge of the nature of substance concealed in
\nthe gunny bags then the appellant is not entitled to acquittal. However, if
\nthe court entertains strong doubt regarding the accused’s awareness about
\nthe nature of the substance in the gunny bags, it would be a miscarriage of
\ncriminal justice to convict him of the offence keeping such strung doubt
\nun-dispelled. Even so, it is for the accused to dispel any doubt in that
\nregard. The burden of proof cast on the accused under Section 35 can be
\ndischarged through different modes. One is that, he can rely on the
\nmaterials available in the prosecution evidence. Next is, in addition to
\nthat be can elicit answers from prosecution witnesses through cross-
\nexamination to dispel any such doubt. He may also adduce other evidence
\nwhen he is called upon to enter on his defence. In other words, if
\ncircumstances appearing in prosecution case or in the prosecution evidence
\nare such as to give reasonable assurance to the court that appellant could
\nnot have had the knowledge or the required intention, the burden cast on
\nhim under Section 35 of the Act would stand discharged even if he has not
\nadduced any other evidence of his own when he is called upon to enter on
\nhis defence.\n<\/p>\n
In this case non-recording of the vital information collected by the police
\nat the first instance can be counted as a circumstance in favour of the
\nappellant. Next is that even the information which PW-2 recollected from
\nmemory is capable of helping the accused because it indicates that the real
\nculprits would have utilized the services of an auto-rickshaw driver to
\ntransport the gunny bags and it is not necessary that the auto-rickshaw
\ndriver should have been told in advance that the gunny bags contained such
\noffensive substance. The possibility is just the other way around that the
\nsaid culprits would not have disclosed that information to the auto-rick-
\nshaw driver unless it is shown that he had entered into a criminal con-
\nspiracy with the other main culprits to transport the contraband.
\nProsecution did not adduce any evidence to show any such connivance between
\nthe appellant and the real culprits. There is nothing even to suggest that
\nthose culprits and the appellant were close to each other, or even known to
\neach other earlier. Yet another circumstance discernible from the evidence
\nin this case is that the police had actually arrayed two other persons as
\nthe real culprits and made all endeavour to arrest them, but they absconded
\nthemselves and escaped from the reach of the police.\n<\/p>\n
From the above circumstances we hold that the accused had dis-charged the
\nburden of proof in such a manner as to rebut the presumption envisaged in
\nSection 35 of the Act. He is therefore, not liable to be convicted for the
\noffences pitted against him.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and
\nsentence passed on the appellant by the High Court in the impugned judgment
\nWe restore the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court
\nWe direct him to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any
\nother case,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000 Bench: Dr. A.S. Cj, K.T. Thomas, S. Rajendra Babu CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 78 of 1992 PETITIONER: ABDUL RASHID IBRAHIM MANSURl RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/02\/2000 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND CJ & K.T. THOMAS & S. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000 - 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\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-12T11:38:15+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T11:38:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3441,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000\",\"name\":\"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T11:38:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000 - 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\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-12T11:38:15+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000","datePublished":"2000-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T11:38:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000"},"wordCount":3441,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000","name":"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T11:38:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rashid-ibrahim-mansurl-vs-state-of-gujarat-on-1-february-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansurl vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2000"}]},{"@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\/131000","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=131000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}