{"id":165835,"date":"2010-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-06T17:46:31","modified_gmt":"2018-05-06T12:16:31","slug":"gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010<\/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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1035\/1994\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. 1035 of 1994\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\nGUJARAT\nSULPHATE CHEMICALS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nD.C.PATEL\n- Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRUSHABH SHAH for MR KB ANANDJIWALA\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR RC KODEKAR, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED 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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellants   original accused have filed this Appeal under Section
\n\t374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment and order of conviction
\n\tdated 14.10.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
\n\tValsad, Camp at Valsad in Essential Commodities Case No. 3 of 1990,
\n\twhereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the
\n\tappellants   accused guilty for the offences charged against them.\n<\/p>\n
Brief
\n\tfacts of the prosecution case is that on 23.6.1989 the respondent
\n\tNo.1 visited the office of Pardi Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh
\n\tand checked the register and record of the said Sangh and found the
\n\tstock of Zinc sulphate chemicals fertilizer of 370 kgs. (total 37
\n\tbags of 10 kgs. Each) On the said bags there was symbol of  Gulab
\n\tBrand Zinc Sulphate  and marked as 21 % minimum zinc and also
\n\tmentioned Batch number and the date of manufacturing was shown as
\n\t8.5.1989. It is alleged that the complainant selected two bags and
\n\ttook samples from the said bags on random basis and after completing
\n\tnecessary procedure, he sent one sample to the Laboratory at
\n\tGandhinagar on 26.6.1989, and another sample was submitted to the
\n\tCourt whereas the third sample was given to the Manager of the said
\n\tfirm. The Laboratory, after analysing the sample, prepared the
\n\treport in which it was found that the sample contains the percentage
\n\tof zinc of 18.36 % instead of 21 % and thereby the said fertilizer
\n\tis of a sub-standard quality by 2.64 % of zinc. It is alleged that
\n\tduring the course of inquiry it was found that the said Sangh was
\n\tnot selling the zinc sulphate to the customers but the same was
\n\treceived by the sangh under subsidy as Rice crop in Valsad district
\n\twas covered under the scheme of National Food-grain Products and the
\n\tsame was delivered to the sangh through the Gujarat Co-Op. Marketing
\n\tFederation, Ahmedabad, on 3.6.1980. Thereafter, the complainant
\n\tissued notices to the accused on 23.8.1989 and thereafter on
\n\treceiving the reply, the papers were sent to the Director of
\n\tAgriculture, for according sanction and after obtaining the sanction
\n\tthe complaint came to be lodged against the accused in the Court.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tcompletion of investigation the charge-sheet against the accused
\n\tcame to be submitted before the concerned Court. Thereafter, the
\n\tcharge was framed against the accused under Section 19(1)(A) of the
\n\tChemical Fertilizer Control (Order), 1985, which is punishable under
\n\tSection 3 r\/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The
\n\tprosecution has examined 2 witnesses and also produced documentary
\n\tevidence, and at the end, recorded the statement of accused under
\n\tSection 313 of Cr.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial, after
\n\tconsidering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
\n\tparties and the arguments advanced, the learned Additional Sessions
\n\tJudge, vide impugned Judgment and order dated 14.10.1994, held the
\n\taccused   appellants guilty of the offence under Section 7(1)(2)
\n\tof E.C. Act and imposed fine of Rs.2000\/- upon the accused No. 1
\n\tcompany and also held the accused No.2 guilty of the said offence
\n\tand  awarded sentence to suffer simple imprisonment of 3 months and
\n\tto pay fine of Rs.1,000\/-   and i\/d to under-go SI for 1 month.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order dated
\n\t14.10.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Camp at
\n\tValsad, in Essential Commodities Case No. 3 of 1990, the appellants
\n\t(original accused) have preferred this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Advocate Shri Rushabh Shah for Shri Anandjiwala, on behalf
\n\tof the appellant   original accused and learned A.P.P. Shri R.C.
\n\tKodekar for the respondent   State. I have gone through the
\n\tJudgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge and also gone
\n\tthrough the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before me.
\n\tI have also gone through the papers produced before me.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdvocate Mr. Rushabh Shah for the appellants has contended that
\n\twhile taking the sample by the complainant no procedure, in
\n\taccordance with law, was followed. He has contended that office of
\n\tthe Sangh is situated in a thickly populated area and the godown is
\n\talso situated nearby, however no panchas were called by the
\n\tcomplainant though the panchas were easily available. He has also
\n\tcontended that complainant has failed to produce any independent
\n\tevidence on the record. He has contended that as per the evidence,
\n\tthe complainant was holding the additional charge of Pardi region
\n\tand, therefore, he was not authorized to take the sample. He has
\n\tcontended that the sanction is without application of mind and,
\n\ttherefore, the court cannot presume the facts in favour of the
\n\tprosecution and the benefit would go to the accused. He has
\n\tcontended that the sample was not taken in a proper manner. He has
\n\talso contended that the accused were never informed about taking of
\n\tsample nor about the report till 23.8.1989, i.e. 2 months of taking
\n\tthe sample, however, the rules provide that the report must be sent
\n\tto the accused within 30 days and, therefore, the said Rule was not
\n\tcomplied with by the prosecution. He has contended that because of
\n\tthe moisture the zinc sulphate would become lumpy and that may
\n\taffect the percentage of zinc and, therefore, the defence of the
\n\taccused is more probable than the case put forward by the
\n\tcomplainant and, therefore, the benefit would go in favour of the
\n\taccused. He has also contended that neither the Director of
\n\tAgriculture, who has accorded the sanction nor any other persons
\n\tfrom the office of Director of Agriculture is examined. He,
\n\ttherefore, contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate
\n\tthe material evidence on record and wrongly believed the case of the
\n\tprosecution and held the appellant   accused guilty for the
\n\toffences charged against them. Therefore, the conviction and
\n\tsentence imposed by  the learned Judge requires to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tA.P.P. Shri Kodekar has supported the Judgment and order of the
\n\tlearned Special Judge. He has contended that from the oral as well
\n\tas documentary evidence it is established that the prosecution has
\n\tproved its case beyond reasonable doubt.  He, therefore, contended
\n\tthat the trial Court has not committed any error in holding the
\n\tappellants   accused guilty for the charges levelled against them
\n\tand, therefore, no interference is required to be called for.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through the Judgment and order of the trial Court. I have
\n\talso perused the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The
\n\tdefence of the accused is that they have manufactured the fertilizer
\n\tas per the specification and at that time the percentage of zinc was
\n\texactly as per the specification. It is also evident that the
\n\tfertilizer can be affected because of moisture in the atmosphere and
\n\tpercentage is also affected due to the manner and method in which
\n\tthe sample has been taken. It is also the defence of the accused
\n\tthat the sample was not taken in his presence. The complainant in
\n\this evidence (Exh.34) during cross examination has admitted that the
\n\tplace in question was thickly populated area and the panchas can be
\n\teasily made available. He has also admitted in his cross examination
\n\tthat the fertilizer can be affected because of moisture in the
\n\tatmosphere. He has also admitted that at the time of taking sample
\n\the had not informed the accused and he informed the accused about
\n\ttaking of sample on 23.8.1989.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave also gone through the provisions of the Fertilizer Control
\n\tOrder, 1985.  Section 30, reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
SECTION
\n  30   TIME LIMIT FOR ANALYSIS AND COMMUNICATION OF RESULT :\n<\/p>\n
SECTION
\n  30(3)    The authority to whom the analysis report is sent
\nunder sub-clause (2) shall communicate the result of the analysis to
\nthe dealer\/manufacturer\/ pool handling agency from whom the sample
\nwas drawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of the analysis
\nreport of the Laboratory.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\thas come in evidence that the complainant has taken the sample on
\n\t23.6.1989 and sent the said sample to the Laboratory on 26.6.1989.
\n\tIt appears that the Report was received on 3.7.1989, however, the
\n\taccused were not informed about taking of sample nor about the
\n\treport till 23.8.1989. The Rule provides that the Report  must be
\n\tsent to the accused within 30 days. Under sub-clause (3) of Section
\n\t30 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, it is mentioned that  the
\n\tauthority to whom the analysis report is sent under sub-clause (2)
\n\tshall communicate the result of the analysis to the
\n\tdealer\/ manufacturer\/pool handling agency from whom the sample was
\n\tdrawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of the analysis
\n\treport of the Laboratory.  The word  shall  means it
\n\tis a mandatory provision. I am, therefore, of the opinion that when
\n\tthe mandatory rule is not followed by the authority then the
\n\tappellant has right to say that the prosecution has committed breach
\n\tof mandatory provision and the benefit would go in favour of the
\n\taccused. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Judge has committed
\n\tgrave error in holding the appellant   accused for the charges
\n\tlevelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
Further,
\n\tthe appellants were not informed about taking of samples nor the
\n\tsame were taken in presence of the appellants. It is not brought on
\n\trecord that while taking the samples, proper procedure was followed.\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe oral as well as documentary evidence, in my view, the learned
\n\ttrial Judge has erred in holding the appellant   accused guilty
\n\tfor the offences charged against them.  Hence, the story put forward
\n\tby the prosecution is not trustworthy and is doubtful and the
\n\tprosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused
\n\tand hence, there is error apparent of appreciation of fact and law
\n\tresulting into miscarriage of justice. Hence, impugned Judgment
\n\trequires to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of above, this Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order dated
\n\t14.10.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Camp at
\n\tValsad, in Essential Commodities Case No. 3 of 1990, holding the
\n\tappellant   accused guilty for the offence charged against them,
\n\tis hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant   accused is
\n\tacquitted from the charges levelled against them. Fine, if paid, be
\n\trefunded to the appellant   accused. Bail Bond, if any, shall
\n\tstand cancelled. Record & Proceedings be sent to the trial Court
\n\timmediately.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.SAIYED,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
sas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1035\/1994 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1035 of 1994 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-165835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010 - 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\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-06T12:16:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T12:16:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1683,\"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\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T12:16:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 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":"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010 - 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\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-06T12:16:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T12:16:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010"},"wordCount":1683,"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\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010","name":"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T12:16:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-brief-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat vs Brief on 10 March, 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\/165835","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=165835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}