{"id":165795,"date":"2008-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-10T06:42:41","modified_gmt":"2016-06-10T01:12:41","slug":"state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/112819\/1995\t 8\/ 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. 1128 of 1995\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 6 of 1996\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJAISUKH\nVALLABH HINGU - Opponent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR KT DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR YOGESH S LAKHANI for\nOpponent(s) : 1, \n \n \n\n\n \n\n Criminal\nRevision Application No. 6 of 1996\n \n\n\nTHAKKAR\nASSOCIATES for Petitioner\n \n\n\nMR\nKT DAVE, APP, for Respondent(s): 1\n \n\n\nMR\nYS LAKHANI for Respondent(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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tBy<br \/>\nway of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973 (?Sthe Code?? for short),  the appellant-State has<br \/>\nquestioned the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 7.9.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 1170\/88 by the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nfacts of the case, briefly summarized are, that the<br \/>\nrespondent-original accused was going in his Ambassador car bearing<br \/>\nRegn. No. GJ-S-5885 near Village  Vankhia  and he drove his vehicle<br \/>\nin a rash and negligent manner with full speed and dashed with one<br \/>\npublic carrier which was a stationary truck on the road side and<br \/>\ncaused the accident. As a result thereof, the occupants of ambassador<br \/>\ncar, Tofiq Ismail Memon and Iqbal Jamal received injury and the other<br \/>\ntwo persons, Husein Abdul and Iqbal Daud succumbed to injuries.<br \/>\nTherefore, a complaint being C.R. No. I-41\/88 came to be lodged for<br \/>\nthe offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode as well as Sections 112, 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act with<br \/>\nAmreli Rural Police Station by PSI Mr. K.N. Khelda and on the basis<br \/>\nthereof the charge sheet was filed. The learned Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nFirst Class, Amreli recorded the plea wherein the accused claimed to<br \/>\nbe tried.  On the basis of the material and evidence on record<br \/>\nproduced, the learned Magistrate recorded the acquittal of the<br \/>\naccused which has been assailed by the appellant-State in the present<br \/>\nappeal on the grounds grounds narrated in detail in the memo of<br \/>\nappeal, inter alia, that the learned Magistrate has failed to<br \/>\nappreciate that the accused was driving the ambassador car which has<br \/>\ndashed from behind the stationary truck and therefore he was rash and<br \/>\nnegligent. It has also been contended that the learned Magistrate has<br \/>\nfailed to appreciate the evidence on record and the order of<br \/>\nacquittal passed by him is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\nbrother of deceased Iqbal Daud and cousin of the deceased Husein<br \/>\nAbdul, Ashraf D. Moghul, filed Criminal Revision Application No. 6\/96<br \/>\nagainst the impugned judgment and order recording acquittal under<br \/>\nSec. 401 of the Cr.P.C. for the prayer that the impugned judgment and<br \/>\norder recording acquittal may be quashed and set aside and therefore<br \/>\nit has been kept for hearing along with the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned<br \/>\nAPP Mr. K.T. Dave has referred to the impugned judgment and order as<br \/>\nwell as the material on record and emphasized that, admittedly, the<br \/>\naccident has been caused by the respondent-accused who was driving<br \/>\nhis ambassador car with full speed and in rash and negligent manner<br \/>\nwhen it dashed with the stationary truck from behind.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nlearned APP submitted that the thing speaks for itself that the<br \/>\nrespondent-accused was driving his vehicle in such a speed and in a<br \/>\nrash and negligent manner, and he has caused the accident by dashing<br \/>\nhis vehicle with the stationary truck from behind.  The truck was<br \/>\nstationary and therefore there is no question of any contributory<br \/>\nnegligence or any negligence and it was the rough driving on the part<br \/>\nof the respondent original accused which has resulted in the<br \/>\naccident.  He referred to the observations in the judgment  and tried<br \/>\nto submit that though observations have been made that as there was<br \/>\nfull light of the oncoming vehicle from the other side and when he<br \/>\nsaw the stationary truck he could not avoid the accident.  Therefore,<br \/>\nit cannot be said to be any criminal negligence or negligence and it<br \/>\nwas merely an accident.  Therefore, the observations made by the<br \/>\ntrial court that though it was  an accident it cannot be said to be<br \/>\nas a result of the negligence by the respondent original accused and<br \/>\nit cannot be said to have been established that it was only because<br \/>\nof the rash and negligent driving by the respondent-accused and the<br \/>\nfindings are given accordingly. However, learned APP Mr. Dave<br \/>\nsubmitted that this finding is erroneous and the thing speaks for<br \/>\nitself and had he been slow, the accident could have been avoided.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHowever,<br \/>\nthe learned APP fairly conceded that the stationary truck was not<br \/>\nhaving any reflector which could perhaps have avoided the accident.<br \/>\nIf there was reflector on the stationary truck, the respondent<br \/>\noriginal accused could have been aware about the stationary truck<br \/>\nbeing parked on the road side and then he  could have avoided the<br \/>\naccident.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar appearing for M\/s. Thakkar Associates for<br \/>\nthe complainant who has filed the revision application, as stated<br \/>\nabove, tried to support the submissions with regard to negligence and<br \/>\nrecklessness attributing the negligence or grave negligence of the<br \/>\nrespondent-accused and emphasised that it would attract Sec. 304-A of<br \/>\nIPC r\/w the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nview of these rival submissions and also on appreciation and scrutiny<br \/>\nof evidence which has been referred to by both the sides, it is<br \/>\nrequired to be considered as to whether it would call for any<br \/>\ninterference with the impugned judgment and order recording<br \/>\nacquittal.  From the scrutiny of evidence it transpires that it is<br \/>\nnot in dispute that the accident has occurred due to rash and<br \/>\nnegligent driving by the respondent original accused when it dashed<br \/>\nfrom behind the stationary truck. However, it is also required to be<br \/>\nappreciated that the stationary truck was not having reflectors and<br \/>\nit is also discussed and reflected in the impugned judgment that due<br \/>\nto the lights of the oncoming vehicle, the respondent accused could<br \/>\nnot see the stationary truck and by the time he could see it, it was<br \/>\ntoo late to avoid the accident.  There is a specific observation that<br \/>\neven though the vehicle would be slow, still it was so near that it<br \/>\ncould not have avoided the accident.  Therefore, the factum of<br \/>\naccident is one aspect and negligence for the purpose of Motor<br \/>\nVehicles Act is another aspect. However, for proof of offence for<br \/>\nSec. 304-A as well as Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC r\/w Sec. 112 and<br \/>\n116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the degree of negligence or<br \/>\nrecklessness has to be proved and it has to be positively established<br \/>\nby material and evidence on record that the respondent accused was<br \/>\nrash and negligent which would also establish his culpability for the<br \/>\noffence beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthe facts of the present case, as stated above, the stationary<br \/>\nvehicle was not having reflectors and it has also been explained that<br \/>\ndue to  the light of the oncoming vehicle, he could not see till he<br \/>\nreached near the stationary vehicle, which resulted in the accident.<br \/>\nTherefore, it could be an accident without any recklessness on the<br \/>\npart of the respondent-accused, which has been discussed and dealt<br \/>\nwith in the impugned judgment. Therefore, on appreciation and<br \/>\nscrutiny of the evidence on record, it is evident that the view taken<br \/>\nby the learned Magistrate recording acquittal  cannot be said to be<br \/>\nperverse but possible and this court is in agreement with the<br \/>\nultimate conclusion arrived at and recorded by the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate. Therefore, it may not be necessary to further elaborate<br \/>\non this aspect.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tMoreover,<br \/>\nit is well settled that if two views are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence and the view taken by the trial court is possible and<br \/>\nreasonable, then this court would not interfere with the acquittal.<br \/>\nThe said principle has been discussed by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in a<br \/>\njudgment in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/51359270\/\">Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana &amp;<br \/>\nAnr.<\/a> reported in AIR 2004 SC 124.  It has also been reiterated<br \/>\nsubsequently in another judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in the<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/1791370\/\">K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surendran,<\/a> reported in (2008) 1<br \/>\nSCC 258, which has again referred to this aspect and observed that<br \/>\nwhen two views are possible, the appellate court should not reverse<br \/>\nthe judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible<br \/>\nunless when the judgment of the trial court was neither perverse or<br \/>\nsuffered from any legal infirmity or non-consideration of the<br \/>\nevidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tTherefore,<br \/>\nin view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 7.9.1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 1170\/88 by the<br \/>\nlearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amreli, is possible and on<br \/>\nappreciation of the evidence, broadly, the conclusion arrived at is<br \/>\njust and proper and this court is not inclined to interfere with the<br \/>\nacquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nimpugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate<br \/>\nrecording acquittal is hereby confirmed and the present appeal is<br \/>\nrequired to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, the present appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tIn<br \/>\nview of dismissal of the appeal, Criminal Revision Application No.<br \/>\n6\/96 also does not survive and it is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Rajesh<br \/>\nH. Shukla, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(hn)<\/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 Mr on 7 October, 2008 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/112819\/1995 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1128 of 1995 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 6 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================= [&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-165795","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 Mr on 7 October, 2008 - 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-mr-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-10T01:12:41+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-mr-on-7-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-10T01:12:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1463,\"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-mr-on-7-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008\",\"name\":\"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-10T01:12:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 Mr on 7 October, 2008 - 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-mr-on-7-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-10T01:12:41+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-mr-on-7-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-10T01:12:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008"},"wordCount":1463,"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-mr-on-7-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008","name":"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-10T01:12:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mr-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Mr on 7 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/165795","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=165795"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165795\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}