{"id":169230,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-02T23:41:43","modified_gmt":"2018-04-02T18:11:43","slug":"state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Dipak on 25 January, 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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/540\/2003\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. 540 of 2003\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDIPAK\nSERVICE (FARM) IOC DEALERS (INDANE DISTRIBUTO & 2 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR PANKAJ R DESAI for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n2. \nNOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) :\n3, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/01\/2010\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellant-State of Gujarat, has preferred this Appeal under Section
\n\t378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
\n\tjudgment and order of acquittal dated 31st  December 2002
\n\tpassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot in
\n\tCriminal Case No. 4271 of 1999, whereby the learned Magistrate has
\n\tacquitted the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against
\n\tthem.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that on 24th March
\n\t1999 the District Supply Officer doubted that the Gas-cylinders
\n\tbeing delivered through the delivery men\/drivers of the accused no.1
\n\tFirm are of less quantity than what is subscribed on the cylinders.
\n\tIt is also the case of the complainant
\n\tthat therefore, on instructions received from the District Supply
\n\tOfficer, the cylinders were brought to the compound of the Collector
\n\tOfficer, where the same were weighed by the Assistant Controller of
\n\tWeights and Measures in the presence of Panchas and it was found
\n\tthat on examination of Rickshaw No.GRV 1564, 3 cylinders out of 15
\n\tcylinders were of less weight.  Therefore, for the said offences,
\n\tthe complainant had filed the complainant against the accused.  The
\n\taccused were charge-sheeted in the court of learned Judicial
\n\tMagistrate, Rajkot.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tthe trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the
\n\tcase of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the
\n\trespondents-accused from the charges alleged against them by the
\n\tjudgment and order dated 31st December 2002.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated
\n\t31st December 2002 passed by the learned Magistrate in
\n\tCriminal Case No. 4271 of 1999, the appellant-State of Gujarat, has
\n\tpreferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave heard Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n\tappearing on behalf of the appellant-State and learned advocate,
\n\tappearing on behalf of respondents-accused. I have also gone through
\n\tthe papers and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tH.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant,
\n\thas taken me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the
\n\tdocumentary evidence and submitted that from the above evidence it
\n\tis established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case
\n\tbeyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the witnesses have
\n\tsupported the case of the prosecution and the learned Magistrate has
\n\tcommitted grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of
\n\twitnesses. He, therefore, contended that the judgment and order
\n\tpassed by the learned Magistrate is without appreciating the facts
\n\tand evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate for the respondents-accused has supported the judgment and
\n\torder of the Trial Court and contended that the prosecution has
\n\tfailed to establish prima-facie case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through the judgment of the Trial Court. I have also
\n\tperused the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which
\n\twould govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court
\n\tagainst an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court have been
\n\tvery succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of
\n\tdecisions. In the case of
\n\tM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported
\n\tin (2006)6 SCC, 39,
\n\tthe Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in
\n\tappeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision,
\n\tthe Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 54.
\n\tIn any event, the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be
\n\tan appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the
\n\trevisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate
\n\tpower against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have
\n\tborne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view
\n\tare possible, the appellate court should not interfere with
\n\tthe finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power,
\n\teven if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\n\tevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\n\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\tin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State
\n\tof Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,
\n\tthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
\n\tIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 16.\t\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the
\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal
\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized
\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of
\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment
\ndelivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a
\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court
\nhas committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material  on
\nrecord. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such
\ncircumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
\ndecision on the basis of material placed on record to find out
\nwhether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the
\ncrime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n
Similar
\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State
\n\tof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR
\n\tSCW 5553 and
\n\tin Girja
\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.
\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of
\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\n\tappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give
\n\tfresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
\n\tfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\n\tCourt in the case of State
\n\tof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tin case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through
\n\tthe judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. I have also
\n\tperused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the
\n\tTrial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned
\n\tAdvocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tTrial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary
\n\tevidence, found that only some of the cylinders are of less weight
\n\tand that are seized. It is also observed by the learned Judge that
\n\tcylinders are not tempered with and are sealed.  It is also observed
\n\tthat prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.
\n\tIt is true that some of the cylinders are of less weight, but
\n\tprosecution has failed to prove the alleged act was done by the
\n\taccused.  When the complainant
\n\thad stated that the cylinders are sealed and no leakage was found,
\n\tthen there is no reason to believe that misappropriation have been
\n\tdone by the respondents-accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Trial Court has also observed that there are serious lacuna in
\n\tthe oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing is
\n\tproduced on record of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of
\n\tthe Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charges against the
\n\trespondents-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has
\n\tmiserably failed to prove the case against the respondents-accused.
\n\tThus, from the evidence itself it is established that the
\n\tprosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdditional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any
\n\tevidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach
\n\tof the Trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that
\n\tthe decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the
\n\tmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
\n\tTrial Court was completely justified in acquitting the
\n\trespondents-accused of the charges levelled against them. I find
\n\tthat the findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just
\n\tand proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\n\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
\n\tcourt below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be
\n\tsent back to the Trial Court, forthwith.  Bail bonds, if any, shall
\n\tstands cancelled.\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 State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/540\/2003 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 540 of 2003 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-169230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Dipak on 25 January, 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\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-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=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-02T18:11:43+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-dipak-on-25-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T18:11:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1494,\"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-dipak-on-25-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-02T18:11:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 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\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-02T18:11:43+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-dipak-on-25-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T18:11:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010"},"wordCount":1494,"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-dipak-on-25-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010","name":"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-02T18:11:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Dipak on 25 January, 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\/169230","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=169230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}