{"id":144595,"date":"2010-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-12T05:56:00","modified_gmt":"2018-08-12T00:26:00","slug":"state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 22 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs The on 22 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\/2110\/2004\t 1\/ 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. 2110 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBABUBHAI\nAAPABHAI VARU KATHI - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDC SEJPAL, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/02\/2010\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant-State of Gujarat, has preferred this Appeal under Section<br \/>\n\t378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the<br \/>\n\tjudgment and order of acquittal dated 20th September 2004<br \/>\n\tpassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajula,<br \/>\n\tDistrict-Amreli, in Criminal Case No.1366 of 2002, whereby the<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent-accused of the<br \/>\n\tcharges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that the on 14th<br \/>\n\tSeptember 2002 at about 15:50 hours in village Balani Vav, the<br \/>\n\toriginal complainant had visited the residence of the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused and during his visit, the complainant found that<br \/>\n\tthe respondent-accused had illegally taken direct connection from<br \/>\n\tthe low voltage transmission line of Gujarat Electricity Board and<br \/>\n\tthereby committed electricity theft of Rs.08,730.51 paisa.  The said<br \/>\n\tcalculation has been arrived at on the basis of average bill of last<br \/>\n\tsix months prior to the date of checking. Therefore, complaint was<br \/>\n\tfiled against the respondent-accused before the Nageshri Police<br \/>\n\tStation. The Investigating Officer after thoroughly investigating<br \/>\n\tthe case and after recording statements of several witnesses, filed<br \/>\n\tcharge-sheet against the respondent-accused in the Court of learned<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate First Class, Rajula.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter<br \/>\n\tthe trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the<br \/>\n\tcase of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused from the charges alleged against him by the<br \/>\n\tjudgment and order dated 20th September 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated<br \/>\n\t20th September 2004 passed by the learned Judicial<br \/>\n\tMagistrate First Class, Rajula, Amreli, in Criminal Case No.1366 of<br \/>\n\t2002, the appellant-State of Gujarat, has preferred the above<br \/>\n\tmentioned Criminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave heard Mr. D.C. Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n\tappearing on behalf of the appellant-State. I have also gone through<br \/>\n\tthe papers and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tD.C. Sejpal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant,<br \/>\n\thas taken me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence and submitted that from the above evidence it<br \/>\n\tis established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case<br \/>\n\tbeyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the witnesses have<br \/>\n\tsupported the case of the prosecution and the learned Magistrate has<br \/>\n\tcommitted grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of<br \/>\n\twitnesses. He has also contended that the Magistrate has not<br \/>\n\tproperly appreciated the evidence on record. He, therefore,<br \/>\n\tcontended that the judgment and order passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tMagistrate is without appreciating the facts and evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave gone through the judgment of the Trial Court. I have also<br \/>\n\tperused the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>At<br \/>\n\tthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which<br \/>\n\twould govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court<br \/>\n\tagainst an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court have been<br \/>\n\tvery succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of<br \/>\n\tdecisions. In the case of<br \/>\n\tM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Anr, reported<br \/>\n\tin (2006)6 SCC, 39,<br \/>\n\tthe Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in<br \/>\n\tappeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision,<br \/>\n\tthe Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 54.<br \/>\n\tIn any<br \/>\n\tevent, the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal<br \/>\n\tagainst acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional<br \/>\n\tjurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a<br \/>\n\tjudgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the<br \/>\n\twell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the<br \/>\n\tappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal<br \/>\n\trecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power,<br \/>\n\teven if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\n\tevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\n\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Even<br \/>\n\tin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\n\tof Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\n\tthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.<br \/>\n\tIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 16.\t\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 judgment<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  on record. A duty<br \/>\nis 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>Similar<br \/>\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State<br \/>\n\tof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR<br \/>\n\tSCW 5553 and<br \/>\n\tin Girja<br \/>\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\n\tappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give<br \/>\n\tfresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are<br \/>\n\tfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex<br \/>\n\tCourt in the case of State<br \/>\n\tof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tin case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion<br \/>\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not<br \/>\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave gone through<br \/>\n\tthe judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. I have also<br \/>\n\tperused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the<br \/>\n\tTrial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tTrial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary<br \/>\n\tevidence, found that by filling gaps in cyclostyle complaint, the<br \/>\n\tpresent complainant had filed more than one complaint.  It is also<br \/>\n\tobserved that the complainant had failed to recover or discover any<br \/>\n\tobject or instrument or machine used in electricity theft. It is<br \/>\n\talso observed that prosecution has failed to explain the delay in<br \/>\n\tfiling complaint. The prosecution has failed to prove the case<br \/>\n\tagainst the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial<br \/>\n\tCourt has also observed that there are serious lacuna in the oral as<br \/>\n\twell as documentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing is produced on<br \/>\n\trecord of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of the Trial<br \/>\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charges against the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has<br \/>\n\tmiserably failed to prove the case against the respondent-accused.<br \/>\n\tThus, from the evidence itself it is established that the<br \/>\n\tprosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAdditional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any<br \/>\n\tevidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach<br \/>\n\tof the Trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that<br \/>\n\tthe decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the<br \/>\n\tmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\n\tTrial Court was completely justified in acquitting the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused of the charges levelled against him. I find that<br \/>\n\tthe findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just and<br \/>\n\tproper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or<br \/>\n\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the<br \/>\n\tcourt below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.<br \/>\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be<br \/>\n\tsent back to the Trial Court, forthwith.  Bail bonds, if any, shall<br \/>\n\tstands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n<p>Anup<\/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 22 February, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2110\/2004 1\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2110 of 2004 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-144595","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 22 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-22-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 22 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-22-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=\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-12T00:26:00+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\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 22 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T00:26:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1437,\"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-22-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-12T00:26:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-22-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 22 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 22 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-22-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-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":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-12T00:26:00+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\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 22 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T00:26:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010"},"wordCount":1437,"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-22-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010","name":"State vs The on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-12T00:26:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-22-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 22 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\/144595","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=144595"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144595\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}