{"id":161002,"date":"2011-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-06T17:07:32","modified_gmt":"2017-12-06T11:37:32","slug":"abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/950\/1998\t 15\/ 15\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. 950 of 1998\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\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\nABDULMUNAF\nGULAMBHAI CHAUHAN @ MUNNABHAI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMJ BUDDHBHATTI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nOpponent(s) : 1, \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: 28\/04\/2011\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
By
\n\tway of present appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of
\n\tCriminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-original accused No.1 has
\n\tinter alia prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of
\n\tconviction and sentence dated 15th October, 1998 passed
\n\tby the learned Special Judge, Surat, in Special Case No.21 of 1995
\n\twhereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to convict the
\n\tappellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the
\n\tPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo
\n\trigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and also imposed
\n\tfine of Rs.2,000\/-, and in default of payment of fine; sentenced him
\n\tto undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
\n\tThe appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under
\n\tSection 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was
\n\tsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four
\n\tyears, and also imposed fine of Rs.20,000\/-, and in default of
\n\tpayment of fine; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
\n\tfurther period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tper the case of the prosecution, the appellant was serving as
\n\tTalati-cum-Mantri of Naren Gram Panchayat, Taluka-Mandvi,
\n\tDistrict-Surat. The complainant had filed a Suit against his mother
\n\tand therefore, wanted copies of Form No.7\/12 of Survey No.339 from
\n\t1945 to 1990. The complainant had applied for the same before the
\n\tMamlatdar. The said application of the complainant was forwarded by
\n\tthe Mamlatdar to the present appellant on 16th September,
\n\t1994 and ordered the appellant to do the needful and also ordered to
\n\tmake report to the said effect. It is the case of the prosecution
\n\tthat therefore, the complainant on 19th September, 1994
\n\tabout 10.00 hours, visited office of Areth Gram Panchayat and gave
\n\this application to the present appellant. The appellant thrown the
\n\tsaid application of the complainant and demanded Rs.450\/- from the
\n\tcomplainant as illegal gratification from the complainant.
\n\tThereafter, again on 21st September, 1994 the complainant
\n\tvisited the office of Gram Panchayat, Areth and gave application to
\n\tobtain copies of Form No.7\/12 of Survey No.339. Therefore, the
\n\tappellant told the complainant that come on 26th
\n\tSeptember, 1994 at the office of Areth Gram Panchayat between 10.00
\n\thours to 11.00 hours with Rs.450\/- and thereafter only, he will give
\n\tcopies of Form No.7\/12.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tas the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount, he
\n\tapproached office of ACB at Surat and lodged his complaint.
\n\tThereafter, services of two panchas were sought. The facts of the
\n\tcase were narrated to them and thereafter experiment was made on the
\n\tcurrency notes with the help of anthracene powder.  The basic
\n\tingredients of the anthracene powder were made understood to the
\n\tpanchas as well as the complainant. After performing the experiment,
\n\tpreliminary part of the panchnama was drawn. The currency notes were
\n\tsmeared with anthracene powder, i.e. nine notes of the denomination
\n\tof Rs.50\/- each. Thereafter, the complainant, panchas and members of
\n\tthe raiding party proceeded to trap the accused person to village
\n\tAreth. When the reached to Areth, it revealed that the appellant had
\n\tleft for Mandvi. Therefore, the raiding party proceeded to Mandvi.
\n\tThere the appellant was approached by the complainant in presence of
\n\tpanch No.1, the appellant demanded the amount of Rs.450\/- from the
\n\tcomplainant and accepted the said amount from the complainant in
\n\tpresence of panch No.1. Thereafter, as agreed, the appellant gave
\n\tsignal to the members of raiding party and raid was carried out.
\n\tThereafter, on making necessary inquiry, trap amount was received
\n\tfrom the plastic bag of the appellant. Thereafter, experiment of UV
\n\tLamp was carried out. The light blue fluorescent marks were found on
\n\tthe currency notes, on the hand of the appellant-accused and on the
\n\thand of the complainant. The number of the currency notes recovered
\n\tfrom the plastic bag of the appellant got tallied with the numbers
\n\tnoted down in the first part of panchnama. Thereafter, the currency
\n\tnotes and plastic bag were seized under the panchnama. Thereafter,
\n\tthe second part of panchnama was drawn.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tthe Investigating Officer lodged FIR, registered the offence and
\n\trecorded statements of various persons. Thereafter, after obtaining
\n\tsanction, charge-sheet came to be filed against the
\n\tappellants-accused before the learned Special Judge, Surat.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tcharge at Exhibit 4 was framed against the appellant for the
\n\toffences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d)(i), (ii) and (iii) as
\n\twell as under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
\n\t1988. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
\n\tbe tried.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\torder to bring the home charges levelled against the
\n\tappellant-accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses and
\n\talso produced four documentary evidence in support of its case.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tafter filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of
\n\tthe appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
\n\tProcedure, 1973 was recorded in which accused has denied the case of
\n\tthe prosecution and submitted that he has never demanded any amount
\n\tfrom the complainant. He has also submitted that a false case is
\n\tfiled against him. The appellant has also submitted in his further
\n\tstatement that there was hot exchange of words and the complainant
\n\tthreatened the appellant of dire consequences. The case of the
\n\tappellant is that copies were already supplied to the complainant
\n\tand to prove the case, the appellant has examined five defence
\n\twitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
After
\n\tconsidering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after
\n\thearing the parties, the learned Special Judge vide impugned
\n\tjudgment and order dated 15th October, 1998 held the
\n\tappellant-original accused guilty to the charges levelled
\n\tagainst him as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order
\n\tof conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge,
\n\tSurat, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr.M.J. Budhbhatti, leaned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.L.
\n\tJani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Bhdubhatti,
\n\tlearned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the
\n\tjudgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is illegal,
\n\tinvalid and improper. He has also contended that the learned trial
\n\tJudge has not considered the case of the defence and evidence and
\n\tmaterial produced on record. He has read the charge at Exhibit 4 and
\n\tcontended that the complainant was an accomplice and therefore, his
\n\tevidence was required to be corroborated by evidence of independent
\n\twitnesses on material evidence like first demand, agreement, fixing
\n\tdate, second demand, acceptance and recovery. He has contended that
\n\tthe prosecution evidence is totally absent on these material
\n\taspects. Mr.Budhbhatt has further contended that the trap was
\n\tarranged trap. Originally the complainant shall have to meet the
\n\tappellant at village Areth and not at Mandvi. The members of raiding
\n\tparty were in fact chasing the appellant wherever he had been. This
\n\tshows the conduct of the complainant. The learned Special Judge has
\n\tfailed to consider that this is case a of plantation. He, therefore,
\n\tcontended that in absence of any independent witnesses, case of the
\n\tcomplainant cannot be considered. He has contended that the
\n\tappellant has proved his probable defence through the evidence of
\n\tdefence witnesses. The learned Special Judge has not considered the
\n\tprobable defence of the appellant. He has also contended that
\n\tpanchas are selected panchas. Under the pressure, they were
\n\tsupported the case of the prosecution. He has further read the
\n\tcross-examination of the complainant and contended that the plastic
\n\tbag of the appellant was lying on the table and in absence of the
\n\tappellant, the trap amount was thrusted into the bag. Mr.Budhbhatti
\n\thas read the oral evidence of PW No.2 and contended that he is
\n\tpolice witness and under pressure of Trapping Officer and due to
\n\tfear, he has supported the case of the prosecution. He, therefore,
\n\tcontended that the oral evidence of PW No.2 is not trustworthy,
\n\treliable and acceptable. He has also contended that panchnama at
\n\tExhibit 32 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has read the
\n\toral evidence of defence witnesses, who are examined by the present
\n\tappellant. He has read the oral evidence of DW No.1 at Exhibit 29
\n\tand contended that he is an eye-witness of the case. He was present
\n\tat the event of trap, yet, due to bias investigation, he was not
\n\tconsidered as an eye-witness. He has contended that his statement
\n\twas forcefully recorded. He has also read the evidence of DW Nos.2,
\n\t3, 4 and 5 and contended that appellant has proved the probable
\n\tdefence, but the learned Special Judge has discarded the evidence of
\n\tdefence witnesses. He has contended that even investigation was
\n\tbiased and the Trapping Officer as well as Investigating Officer are
\n\tbiased and they have not conducted the investigation in a proper
\n\tmanner. He has also contended that when the appellant has
\n\tsuccessfully proved probable defence, benefit of doubt is required
\n\tto be given to the appellant. Mr.Budhbhatti has further contended
\n\tthat so far as offence under Section 13(2) is concerned, punishment
\n\timposed upon the appellant is very harsh. When the prosecution has
\n\tfailed to prove the story of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable
\n\tdoubt, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant.
\n\tHe has contended that four years  imprisonment under Section 13(2)
\n\tis very harsh in nature. He, therefore, contended that present
\n\tappellant is, therefore, required to be acquitted from the charges
\n\tlevelled against him.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Budhbhatti
\n\thas also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the
\n\tdemand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. He has further
\n\tcontended that copies were already given to the complainant and
\n\ttherefore, there arises no question of demanding bribe amount. He
\n\thas also contended that the present appellant is innocent and has
\n\tbeen falsely involved in the present case. He, therefore, contended
\n\tthat the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the
\n\tlearned Special Judge is required to be quashed and set aside and
\n\tthe appellant is required to be acquitted from the charges levelled
\n\tagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tagainst this, Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has
\n\tcontended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Special
\n\tJudge is absolutely just and proper. He has contended that the
\n\tprosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has
\n\tcontended that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
\n\tcase, circumstantial evidence and evidence produced on record, the
\n\tlearned Special Judge has passed absolutely just, proper and correct
\n\tand is not required to be interfered with. He has read the oral
\n\tevidence of PW No.1-complainant and contended that the first demand
\n\tmade by the appellant is proved through the oral evidence of this
\n\twitness. He has also contended that when first time demand was made
\n\tby the appellant, as the complainant was not having money, he had
\n\tnot given the money to the appellant. When again on 21st
\n\tSeptember, 1994 the complainant visited the office of the appellant,
\n\tagain the appellant demanded the bribe amount from the complainant
\n\tand told him to come on 26th September, 1994 with money
\n\tto collect the copies which the complainant was required. Thus, the
\n\tfirst demand is proved through oral evidence of PW No.1-complainant.
\n\tMr.Jani has contended that on the day of trap, the complainant along
\n\twith members of raiding party reached to the office of the appellant
\n\tround about 11.00 hours and by the time, the appellant went to the
\n\toffice of Mamlatdar at Mandvi. Mr.Jani has contended that PW No.1 in
\n\this oral evidence deposed that the appellant called him between
\n\t10.00 hours and 11.00 hours, but due to unavoidable circumstances
\n\tthe complainant could not reach to the office of the appellant on
\n\tthe time given by the appellant and went towards Mandvi for his
\n\twork. Therefore, on the say of Peon that the appellant had left for
\n\tMandvi, the complainant along with members of raiding party followed
\n\tthe appellant at Mandvi. It is the case of the complainant that he
\n\tmet the appellant at Mandvi and in presence of panch No.1-PW No.2,
\n\tthe appellant demanded the bribe amount. Mr.Jani has contended that
\n\tPW No.2 has deposed the said thing in his oral evidence. Thus,
\n\tquestion regarding demand is proved through the oral evidence of PW
\n\tNo.2 also. He has further contended that the PW No.2 is an
\n\tindependent witness. Thus, sufficient corroboration is proved
\n\tthrough the oral evidence of PW No.2-independent witness. Thus, case
\n\tof demand and acceptance is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has
\n\talso contended that if the say of the learned counsel for the
\n\tappellant that money was thrusted in the bag of the appellant in his
\n\tabsence, is believed, then anthracene powder would not have been
\n\tfound from the finger tips of the appellant. It is very clear that
\n\tanthracene powder was found from the finger tips of the appellant.
\n\tThus, that defence of the appellant cannot be believed.  Mr.Jani has
\n\tread the oral evidence of PW No.3-Trapping Officer at Exhibit 20 and
\n\tcontended that trap was carried out by him with utmost care and
\n\tcaution. It was not planned trap. The case of the appellant that the
\n\ttrap was biased is absolutely wrong. The defence has failed to prove
\n\tthat the trap was biased. He has contended that when sufficient
\n\tdocuments are produced on record to prove the case and even through
\n\toral evidence of witnesses, demand, acceptance and recovery of trap
\n\tamount is proved beyond reasonable doubt, then it is the duty of the
\n\tappellant to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. He
\n\thas also contended that the appellant has failed to explain
\n\tregarding presence of anthracene powder in his further statement
\n\trecorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
\n\tMr.Jani has also read the oral evidence of DW No.1 and contended
\n\tthat he was not an eye-witness. He was not present when the trap was
\n\tcarried out. He has also contended that the appellant has failed to
\n\trebut the presumption through the evidence of defence witnesses.  He
\n\thas contended that when the demand, acceptance and recovery is
\n\tproved beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment and order of conviction
\n\tpassed by the learned Special Judge, Surat is required to be
\n\tconfirmed and appeal is required to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
\n\tpapers produced before me. I have also perused the submissions
\n\tadvanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the
\n\toral evidence of PW No.1-complainant that demand prior to the trap
\n\tis proved beyond reasonable doubt. It appears that the appellant had
\n\tdemanded the money at the second event in presence of PW No.2-panch
\n\tNo.1. Thus, the version of complaint as well as oral evidence of
\n\tcomplainant is corroborated by the evidence of PW No.2, who is an
\n\tindependent witness. The appellant had accepted the said amount in
\n\tpresence of PW No.2 and put it in plastic bag he had with him. The
\n\tevidence of PW No.2 is in corroboration with the evidence of PW No.1
\n\twith regard to demand, acceptance and recovery of trap amount. When
\n\texperiment of UV Lamp was carried out, anthracene powder was found
\n\ton the finger tips of the appellant as well as inside the plastic
\n\tbag. The appellant has failed to explain presence of anthracene
\n\tpowder in further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code
\n\tof Criminal Procedure. I have also perused provision of Section 20
\n\tof the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As per the said
\n\tprovision, it is the duty of the appellant to rebut the presumption
\n\tand presence of anthracene powder which is found on the finger tips
\n\tas well as inside the bag. It appears that the appellant has failed
\n\tto rebut the presumption. The contention taken by the appellant that
\n\tPW No.2-panch No.1 is selected witness and under pressure and fear,
\n\the has supported the case of the prosecution, is baseless and not
\n\tacceptable. No doubt defence has tried to establish that
\n\tinvestigation is biased and it is fatal to the case of the
\n\tappellant, but when I have perused oral evidence of PW Nos.1 and 2,
\n\tI have found that each link of the chain of events is established.
\n\tI have also perused the oral evidence of PW No.3-Trapping Officer
\n\tand looking to the evidence of PW No.3, he is fair enough and proper
\n\tcare is taken by him with respect to trap carried out by him.
\n\tLooking to the oral evidence of PW Nos.1 and 2 and also the
\n\tdocumentary evidence produced on record, I have not found anything
\n\tto consider the probable defence of the appellant. So far as
\n\tacceptance is concerned, it is proved through oral evidence of PW
\n\tNos.1, 2 and 3 and so far as recovery is concerned, it is proved
\n\tthat in connection of the demand made by the present appellant, the
\n\tamount was accepted by the appellant. Thus, I am of the opinion that
\n\tin light of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
\n\tdemand is proved. I have also perused further statement of the
\n\tappellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
\n\tProcedure. The appellant has failed to rebut the said evidence of
\n\tthe prosecution witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
 \tI
\n\thave also perused defence witnesses. It appears from the evidence of
\n\tthese witnesses that they are unable to prove defence version. Even
\n\tfrom the cross-examination of these witnesses, I have not found any
\n\tsubstance to consider the defence version. The defence witnesses
\n\thave failed to establish the defence version. The probable defence
\n\ttaken by the defence witnesses is not proved beyond reasonable doubt
\n\tby the defence witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSo
\n\tfar as offence under Section 13(2) is concerned, I am of the opinion
\n\tthat it is harsh in nature. The present appeal is of the year 1998.
\n\tThus, after a long period of 13 years, present appeal is finally
\n\theard and decided by this Court. I have also perused age of the
\n\tappellant and looking to the age of the appellant, I am of the
\n\topinion that conviction imposed upon the appellant under Section
\n\t13(2) is very harsh and under such circumstances, if some lenient
\n\tview is taken, it would meet with ends of justice. Therefore, in my
\n\topinion, instead of four years, two years punishment under Section
\n\t13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sufficient. So
\n\tfar as order qua fine under Section 13(2) of the Act is concerned, I
\n\tam of the opinion that it is proper and does not require any
\n\tinterference.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tper above observation, I found that demand, acceptance and recovery
\n\tof trap amount of illegal gratification made by the
\n\tappellant-accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt through the oral
\n\tevidence of complainant and panch witness as well as through the
\n\tdocumentary evidence produced on record. As per provision of Section
\n\t20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, presumption is required to
\n\tbe drawn against the present appellant and when the appellant has
\n\tfailed to rebut the said presumption, no defence can be considered,
\n\twhich is tried to establish by the learned counsel for the
\n\tappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,
\n\tin view of the foregoing reasons, present appeal is partly allowed.
\n\tThe judgment and order of conviction dated 15th
\n\tOctober, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surat, in Special
\n\tCase No.21 of 1995, is hereby confirmed; however, the judgment and
\n\torder of sentence dated 15th
\n\tOctober, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surat, in Special
\n\tCase No.21 of 1995 is concerned, conviction under Section 13(2) of
\n\tthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby reduced and
\n\tmodified to the extent that now the appellant shall have to undergo
\n\trigorous imprisonment for a period of two years instead of four
\n\tyears. The rest of the judgment and order dated 15th
\n\tOctober, 1998 shall remain unaltered. The appellant is on bail. This
\n\tbail bond shall stand cancelled. The appellant-accused is,
\n\ttherefore, directed to surrender himself before the Jail Authority
\n\twithin a period of four weeks from today, failing which the trial
\n\tCourt concerned is directed to issue
\n\tNon-bailable warrant against the appellant-accused to effect his
\n\tarrest. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial
\n\tCourt concerned, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.\n<\/p>\n
K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n
Anup<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/950\/1998 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 950 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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-161002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011 - 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\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-06T11:37:32+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\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-06T11:37:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3327,\"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\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-06T11:37:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 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":"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011 - 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\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-06T11:37:32+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\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-06T11:37:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011"},"wordCount":3327,"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\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011","name":"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-06T11:37:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulmunaf-vs-state-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdulmunaf vs State on 28 April, 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\/161002","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=161002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}