{"id":131557,"date":"2010-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-04T11:19:27","modified_gmt":"2015-11-04T05:49:27","slug":"state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 25 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs The on 25 February, 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.A\/1136\/2003\t 6\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1136 of 2003\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAMAKANT\n@ RAJUBHAI RAMKISHOR AVASTHI &amp; 3 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR AJ\nDESAI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMS VARSHA BRAHMB HATT FOR MS KJ\nBRAHMBHATT for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMSVARSHABRAHMBHATT for Opponent(s)\n: 1, \nNOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) : 2 -\n4. \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: 25\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal, under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of<br \/>\nacquittal dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned Joint Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar, in Criminal Case No.7793 of<br \/>\n1997, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges<br \/>\nleveled against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tThe<br \/>\naccused No.1 is husband, accused No.2 is father-in-law, accused No.3<br \/>\n  mother-in-law, accused No.4 sister-in-law of the complainant. As<br \/>\nper the case of the prosecution, during the period between 8.3.1995<br \/>\nand 5.12.1996, the accused harassed the complainant and they were<br \/>\nabusing by saying that  her father is beggar . Also the accused<br \/>\npersons demanded dowry of Rs.15,000\/- to Rs.20,000\/-. The accused<br \/>\ncontinued their demand of dowry  and therefore, on 5.12.1996, the<br \/>\ncomplainant had tried to burn her by pouring kerosene on herself, but<br \/>\nsomehow, she had managed to save herself. Thereafter, she filed<br \/>\ncompliant with the Mahila Police Station but later on, the said<br \/>\ndispute was settled between the complainant and accused persons.<br \/>\nThereafter, the complainant started to live with accused persons i.e.<br \/>\nat her in-law&#8217;s house. After sometime, the demand of dowry was again<br \/>\ncontinued and physical and mental harassment was day by day<br \/>\nincreased. The accused No.1 assaulted her with a razor. Initially,<br \/>\nthe complaint was lodged before learned Metropolitan Magistrate and<br \/>\nthe said case was handed over to the Sabarmati Police Station and<br \/>\nsubsequently, the incident is pertaining to Adalaj Police Station,<br \/>\ntherefore, case was handed over to the Adalaj Police Station.<br \/>\nTherefore, the offence under Section 498(A) and 114 of the Indian<br \/>\nPenal Code was registered against the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2\tTherefore,<br \/>\n a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against<br \/>\nthe respondents with the Adalaj Police Station which was registered<br \/>\nas M. Case No.19 of 1997. Necessary investigation was carried out and<br \/>\nstatements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of<br \/>\ninvestigation and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against them<br \/>\nbefore the court of learned JMFC, Gandhinagar. The trial was<br \/>\ninitiated against the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3\tTo<br \/>\nprove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has<br \/>\nexamined, in all 11 witnesses  and also produced       documentary<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.4\tAt<br \/>\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused under<br \/>\nsection 313 of Cr.P.C.,  and hearing arguments on behalf of<br \/>\nprosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the<br \/>\nrespondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 7.3.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.5\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the trial Court the appellant State has preferred the<br \/>\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nwas contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the trial<br \/>\nCourt is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not<br \/>\nproperly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking<br \/>\nto the provisions of law itself it is established that the<br \/>\nprosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against<br \/>\nthe present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court<br \/>\nthrough the oral as well  as the entire documentary evidence. He has<br \/>\nalso contended that the learned Judge has not considered the evidence<br \/>\nof complainant in true manner. Even the letters, which were produced<br \/>\non record at Exhibit 28 and 29, have not been considered by the<br \/>\nlearned trial Court. Even other evidence of other witnesses have not<br \/>\nbeen believed by the learned trial Judge in true perspective. The<br \/>\norder passed by the learned trial Judge is erroneous and unjust,<br \/>\ntherefore, same is required to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would<br \/>\ngovern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an<br \/>\norder of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very<br \/>\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In<br \/>\nthe case of<br \/>\nM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Anr, reported in<br \/>\n(2006)6 SCC, 39,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in<br \/>\nappeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 54.<br \/>\n In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional<br \/>\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a<br \/>\njudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the<br \/>\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the<br \/>\nappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal<br \/>\nrecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tThus,<br \/>\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even<br \/>\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\nfinding  of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.2\tEven<br \/>\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\nof Goa V. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\nthe  Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.<br \/>\nIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 16.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the<br \/>\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal<br \/>\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the<br \/>\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality<br \/>\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any<br \/>\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized<br \/>\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of<br \/>\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement<br \/>\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate court has a<br \/>\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion<br \/>\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed<br \/>\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.<br \/>\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to<br \/>\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis<br \/>\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused<br \/>\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.3\tIt<br \/>\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give<br \/>\nfresh reasonigns, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are<br \/>\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the  case of State<br \/>\nof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417<br \/>\nwherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> &amp;<br \/>\nThis court<br \/>\nhas observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary<br \/>\n(1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the<br \/>\nappellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on<br \/>\nthe evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate<br \/>\nthe reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement<br \/>\nwith the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under<br \/>\nappeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\nhave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I<br \/>\nhave also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the<br \/>\ntrial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP<br \/>\nfor the appellant-State.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tOriginally<br \/>\nthe case was filed against the respondents accused for the offence<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.<br \/>\nThe complaint was file not within a period, it was filed after four<br \/>\nmonths and from the perusal of the evidence led before learned trial<br \/>\nJudge, there is no any independent witness. It is also appeared from<br \/>\nthe judgment and order that the complaint was lodged at very belated<br \/>\nstage and the complainant had any physical or mental harassment by<br \/>\nthe accused persons, then she would have filed the complaint<br \/>\nimmediately, but she had not done so and the complaint filed by her<br \/>\nafter second thought, after coming to her parental house. The<br \/>\nwitnesses, who were examined before the learned trial Court, are<br \/>\ninterested and relatives of the complainant. Therefore, they are not<br \/>\nsolely reliable and even the evidences did not inspire any<br \/>\nconfidence.  It also appears that there is vast contradiction amongst<br \/>\nthe evidence led by the witnesses before the learned trial Court.<br \/>\nToday, even the learned APP is not in a position to say that the<br \/>\nlearned Judge has committed any error in passing the order of<br \/>\nacquittal of the accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is<br \/>\nestablished that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond<br \/>\nreasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tLearned<br \/>\nAPP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view<br \/>\nof the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by<br \/>\nsome manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the<br \/>\ntrial court has ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthe above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\ntrial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of<br \/>\nthe charges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tI<br \/>\nfind that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely<br \/>\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or<br \/>\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tI<br \/>\nam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court<br \/>\nbelow and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the<br \/>\nappeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.<br \/>\nRecord and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n<p>ynvyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs The on 25 February, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1136\/2003 6\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1136 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&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-131557","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs The on 25 February, 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\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-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=\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-04T05:49:27+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 25 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T05:49:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1619,\"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\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T05:49:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 25 February, 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":"State vs The on 25 February, 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\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-04T05:49:27+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 25 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T05:49:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"},"wordCount":1619,"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\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010","name":"State vs The on 25 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T05:49:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-25-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 25 February, 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\/131557","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=131557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}