{"id":153692,"date":"2011-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-25T01:40:23","modified_gmt":"2016-07-24T20:10:23","slug":"ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/133\/2011\t 5\/ 5\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 133 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nAHMEDABAD\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJITENDRA\nVASUDEV JETHANI &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nJIRGA D JHAVERI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI, LD.\nADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :\n2, \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: 25\/02\/2011\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation through Food Inspector has<br \/>\n\tpreferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of<br \/>\n\tCriminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order dated 14th<br \/>\n\tMay 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad, in Criminal Case No.24 of 2002 for the offences<br \/>\n\tpunishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,<br \/>\n\twhereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-original accused till the Court rise and also imposed fine of<br \/>\n\tRs.2,500\/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo<br \/>\n\tsimple imprisonment for a period of seven days.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that on 27th<br \/>\n\tFebruary 2002 the complainant-Food Inspector along with his Peon has<br \/>\n\tvisited AIRIS CLICK BEVEREGIS PVT. LTD., Ahmedabad. It is the case<br \/>\n\tof the complainant that at that time the respondent No.1-accused was<br \/>\n\tpresent and was doing business. It is the case of the complainant<br \/>\n\tthat after giving his identity as Food Inspector, the complainant<br \/>\n\tpurchased 45 pouches of Natural Mineral Water of Cool Brand in<br \/>\n\tpresence of panch witness as sample and also paid consideration for<br \/>\n\tthe same. On asking about the ownership of the shop, the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1 had replied that he is the owner of the shop, but did not<br \/>\n\tproduce any documentary evidence. It is also the case of the<br \/>\n\tcomplainant that after following due procedure of sealing, the<br \/>\n\tsample was sent for analysis. On examination, the Public Analyst<br \/>\n\tfound that the said sample was adulterated. Therefore, after<br \/>\n\tfollowing the due procedure, complaint was filed against the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1-accused in the Court of learned Metropolitan<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under<br \/>\n\tSection 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter,<br \/>\n\tupon service of summons, the respondent No.1-accused appeared before<br \/>\n\tthe Court and as the accused not pleaded guilty, the trial<br \/>\n\tcommenced. Thereafter the trial was conducted before the learned<br \/>\n\tMagistrate. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has<br \/>\n\tproduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Thereafter, further<br \/>\n\tstatement of respondent No.1-accused was recorded under Section 313<br \/>\n\tof the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the accused had denied the<br \/>\n\tcase of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter,<br \/>\n\tafter considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate by his order dated 14th May 2010<br \/>\n\tconvicted the respondent No.1-original accused till the Court rise<br \/>\n\tand also imposed fine of Rs.2,500\/-, and in default of payment of<br \/>\n\tfine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven<br \/>\n\tdays.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order dated<br \/>\n\t14th<br \/>\n\tMay 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad, in Criminal Case No.24 of 2002, the complainant-Food<br \/>\n\tInspector has preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMs.Jirga Jhaveri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.L.<br \/>\n\tJani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.2-State.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ms.Jhaveri,<br \/>\n\tlearned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Judgment<br \/>\n\tand Order passed by the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and<br \/>\n\tit is erroneous. She has also argued that the learned Magistrate has<br \/>\n\tnot considered the evidence of the witnesses. She has argued that<br \/>\n\tthe learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that the Food<br \/>\n\tInspector has followed the proper procedure while collecting the<br \/>\n\tsample, etc. are just and proper. The sample was seized and sealed<br \/>\n\tproperly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the<br \/>\n\tevidence of prosecution. He, therefore, contended that the order<br \/>\n\tpassed by the learned Magistrate is without appreciating the facts<br \/>\n\tand evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside<br \/>\n\tby this Hon&#8217;ble Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave<br \/>\n\tgone through the order of passed by the learned Magistrate. I have<br \/>\n\talso perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\n\tadvocates for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\ttrial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary<br \/>\n\tevidence, observed that the sample was misbranded to the extent that<br \/>\n\tthe pouch of Natural Mineral Water (Cool Brand) was not having ISI<br \/>\n\tMark, which is necessary. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case<br \/>\n\tagainst the respondent No.1-accused. The learned Magistrate has also<br \/>\n\tobserved the judgment referred by the respondent No.1-accused. In<br \/>\n\tthat judgment, the High Court has observed that if it is the only<br \/>\n\tguilt of the respondent No.1-accused, then the conviction imposed<br \/>\n\tupon the accused, i.e. the accused was convicted till the Court rise<br \/>\n\tand also imposition of fine, is not required to be altered. The<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate has observed that in the present case also, the<br \/>\n\tonly guilt of the respondent No.1-accused is that he has sold<br \/>\n\tpouches of Natural Mineral Water (Cool Brand), which were<br \/>\n\tmisbranded. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that<br \/>\n\tlooking to overall situation and the accused has family<br \/>\n\tresponsibility, minimum sentence to be imposed upon the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1-accused. Hence, the<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate convicted the respondent No.1-accused and<br \/>\n\tsentenced him till the Court rise and also imposed fine of<br \/>\n\tRs.2,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\n\tjudgment and order passed by the trial Court is just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tfind that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely<br \/>\n\tjust and proper 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 recorded by the trial Court and<br \/>\n\thence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal<br \/>\n\tis hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Judgment and Order dated 14th<br \/>\n\tMay 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad, in Criminal Case No.24 of 2002 is hereby confirmed. Bail<br \/>\n\tbond, if any, shall stands discharged. Record and Proceedings, if<br \/>\n\tany, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.\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 Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011 Author: Z.K.Saiyed, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/133\/2011 5\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 133 of 2011 ========================================= AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus JITENDRA VASUDEV JETHANI &amp; 1 &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================= Appearance : [&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-153692","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>Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011 - 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\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-24T20:10:23+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-24T20:10:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":995,\"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\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-24T20:10:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011 - 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\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-24T20:10:23+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-24T20:10:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011"},"wordCount":995,"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\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011","name":"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-24T20:10:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-the-on-27-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ahmedabad vs The on 27 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/153692","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=153692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}