{"id":170835,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-19T00:26:25","modified_gmt":"2017-10-18T18:56:25","slug":"kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: D.H.Waghela, Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/66\/2009\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. 66 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\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\nKORI\nDHIRUBHAI POPATBHAI SOLANKI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nSADHANA SAGAR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMS CM SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nOpponent(s) : 1, \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 D.H.WAGHELA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 27\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tchallenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated
\n\t15.12.2007 rendered by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
\n\tNo.4, Bhavnagar camp at Botad in Special (NDPS) Case No.2 of 2006
\n\twhereby the appellant herein, who was original accused in the
\n\taforementioned special case came to be convicted for the offence
\n\tpunishable under Sections 20(b)(i), 22 r\/w.Section 8 of the Narcotic
\n\tDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’, for short)
\n\tand was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and
\n\tto pay fine of Rs.25000\/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple
\n\timprisonment for one year.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tprosecution case in nutshell is that Mr.G.B.Bambhaniya, PSI, Special
\n\tOperation Group, Bhavnagar on 19.10.2005, received a secret
\n\tinformation that the appellant – accused herein, who has a
\n\tresidential house at Village Chiroda, Taluka Gadhda, District
\n\tBhavnagar, used to cultivate ‘Ganja’ plants in his residential
\n\tpremises. The secret information which was received was reduced into
\n\twriting and Mr.Bambhaniya informed his higher officer regarding the
\n\tinformation. Mr.Bambhaniya thereafter called two panchas and
\n\tinformed both the panchas and the police personnel, who were present
\n\tin his office, about the secret information and about the proposed
\n\traid. After completing first part of the raid panchnama,
\n\tMr.Bambhaniya along with two panchas and police personnel, went to
\n\tthe place of information and when they reached near the house of the
\n\taccused at Village Chiroda, the accused was found present in the
\n\thouse. The accused was informed about the secret information
\n\tregarding the ‘Ganja’ and was further informed that search was
\n\trequired to be conducted in his house and in that process, if he
\n\tdesired to keep either a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer present,
\n\tthen he has a right to claim it, but, the accused did not opt for
\n\tthe same and permitted the PSI, Mr.Bambhaniya and the panchas and
\n\tthe members of the raiding party to conduct the search. At the time
\n\tof conducting search, it was found that the house consisted of two
\n\trooms. In one room, nothing objectionable came to be found, but when
\n\tthey entered into the second room, which was admeasuring 11 ft. x 12
\n\tft., having no roof and there was no floor tiles in the room, and
\n\tthey found a standing ‘Ganja’ plant approximately 10 ft. in height.
\n\tFSL Officer was called at the place, and upon spot analysis, the
\n\tplant was reported to be of ‘Ganja’. The plant was thereafter
\n\tuprooted and the same was weighing about 1 kg and 800 gms. Necessary
\n\tsamples were prepared and the same were packed and sealed, as
\n\trequired. Certain documents showing the ownership and possession of
\n\tthe premises of the accused came to be collected. Detailed seizure
\n\tpanchnama came to be prepared. In connection with this offence,
\n\tMr.G.B.Bambhaniya, PSI, lodged FIR, which came to be registered.
\n\tDuring the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses
\n\tcame to be recorded. Muddamal sample came to be forwarded to FSL and
\n\tthe report of the FSL was collected. After collecting required
\n\tmaterial for the purpose of lodgment of chargesheet, chargesheet
\n\tcame to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.),
\n\tGadhda. Since the offence is exclusively triable by the Special
\n\tCourt, the learned JMFC transmitted the case to the Court of learned
\n\tAddl.Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar camp at Botad, which was registered
\n\tas Special (NDPS) Case No.2 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\ttrial Court framed charge against the accused at Exh.5 to which he
\n\tdid not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the
\n\tprosecution adduced its oral evidence and examined 9 witnesses,
\n\tdetailed in paragraph 4 in the impugned judgment. The prosecution
\n\trelied upon 22 documents, detailed in paragraph 5 in the impugned
\n\tjudgment. After the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, the
\n\ttrial Court recorded further statement of the accused u\/s.313 of the
\n\tCode of Criminal Procedure, and the accused in his further statement
\n\tdenied generally all the incriminating circumstances emerged from
\n\tthe evidence adduced by the prosecution and put to him by the trial
\n\tCourt and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. The
\n\ttrial Court after examining and appreciating the evidence adduced by
\n\tthe prosecution and considering the submissions advanced on behalf
\n\tof both the sides, came to the conclusion that the prosecution
\n\tsuccessfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and,
\n\tultimately, recorded the conviction of the accused for the offences
\n\tpunishable 20(b)(i), 22 r\/w. Section 8 of the NDPS Act and awarded
\n\tthe sentenced as herein above referred to in this appeal. Hence, the
\n\toriginal accused has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Ms.Sadhna
\n\tSagar, learned advocate, for the appellant – accused at the
\n\toutset submitted that considering the oral and documentary evidence
\n\tadduced by the prosecution, the conviction of the appellant –
\n\taccused recorded by the trial Court is not assailed. However, she
\n\tsubmitted that so far as the sentence awarded by the trial Court is
\n\tconcerned, it is unduly harsh and so far as the sentence of
\n\timprisonment is concerned, the trial Court has awarded the maximum
\n\tsentence of imprisonment without recording any reason for the same.
\n\tMs.Sagar submitted that the prosecution case, as established against
\n\tthe appellant – accused, is regarding cultivation of ‘Ganja’
\n\tplant in his property and the same is punishable u\/s.20(b)(i) of the
\n\tNDPS Act. She submitted that as per the punishment prescribed for
\n\tthe said offence, the punishment is R.I for a term, which may extend
\n\tto 10 years and shall also be liable to fine, which may extend to
\n\tRs.1 Lac. Ms.Sagar, therefore, submitted that no minimum sentence is
\n\tprescribed, but, the maximum sentence is R.I for 10 years and fine
\n\tof Rs.1 Lac. Ms.Sagar further submitted that  the plant as a whole,
\n\tweighed 1 kg and 800 gms, and as per the prosecution case, had this
\n\tbeen a case of possession of ‘Ganja’, then as per Sr.No.55 in the
\n\tSchedule attached to the NDPS Act, the possession of ‘Ganja’ upto 1
\n\tkg is considered to be small quantity and the possession of ‘Ganja’
\n\tof 20 kg and more is considered to be commercial quantity, but, in
\n\tthe instant case, since the same is though lesser than commercial
\n\tquantity, but greater than small quanity, R.I for 10 years is not a
\n\tminimum sentence. Ms.Sagar further submitted that the appellant –
\n\taccused hails from socially and economically poor strata of society
\n\tand there is nothing that the accused was ever involved in such
\n\toffence in past. Ms.Sagar further submitted that the sentence of S.I
\n\tfor one year on account of non-payment of fine of Rs.25000\/- is also
\n\tharsh, considering the poor financial condition of the accused. She,
\n\ttherefore, submitted that the sentence of imprisonment together with
\n\tfine may be reduced.\n<\/p>\n
Ms.C.M.Shah,
\n\tlearned APP, for the respondent – State vehemently opposed
\n\tthis appeal and submitted that the trial Court examining the overall
\n\tevidence on record and considering the seriousness of the crime
\n\tcommitted by the accused, rightly fixed the quantum of sentence and,
\n\ttherefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of
\n\tsentence passed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tsubmitted by Ms.Sagar, learned advocate for the appellant –
\n\taccused, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is not assailed
\n\tin this appeal, but, the submission is confined only regarding the
\n\treduction of sentence. Before the trial Court, the prosecution
\n\texamined 9 witnesses and relied upon 22 documents, and as observed
\n\tby the trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
\n\tevidence on record, the complicity of the accused in the offence is
\n\theld to be duly established. Thus, the appellant – accused is
\n\tproved to have committed the offence punishable u\/ss.20(b)(i), 22
\n\tr\/w.Section 8 of the NDPS Act. There is no dispute that the instant
\n\tcase is regarding the cultivation of ‘Ganja’ plant. The plant was
\n\tfound in standing condition in the premises of the accused. In the
\n\tseizure panchnama, Exh.16, detailed description is given regarding
\n\tthe ‘Ganja’ plant. FSL report, Exh.43 revealed that the plant was of
\n\t‘Ganja’.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\ttrial Court awarded the sentence of imprisonment of R.I for 10 years
\n\tto the appellant – accused. In this connection, considering
\n\tthe sentence prescribed u\/s.20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act, the offence is
\n\tmade punishable with R.I for a term which may extend to 10 years.
\n\tThus, the maximum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed to be of 10
\n\tyears. No minimum sentence is prescribed. In the instant case,
\n\t‘Ganja’ plant, which came to be seized, was weighing 1 kg and 800
\n\tgms. It is admitted fact that during the course of search and
\n\tseizure, only one standing ‘Ganja’ plant came to be found from the
\n\tpremises of the accused. Ms.Sagar, learned advocate for the
\n\tappellant – accused relying upon the jail remarks sheet
\n\tsubmitted that the appellant – accused has undergone by now
\n\tabout 5 years and 11 months in jail and his conduct in the jail is
\n\treported to be good. She further submitted that there is nothing on
\n\trecord to come to the conclusion that the appellant – accused
\n\tis habitual offender indulging in such activities. She, therefore,
\n\tsubmitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
\n\tthe period undergone by the accused in jail may be considered to be
\n\tthe sufficient sentence of imprisonment. Considering the facts and
\n\tcircumstances of the case, and in light of the above discussions, we
\n\tare of the considered opinion that the period undergone by now in
\n\tjail by the accused should be considered as his adequate sentence of
\n\timprisonment for this offence. Moreover, the maximum amount of fine
\n\tprescribed is Rs.1 Lac. No minimum amount of fine is prescribed. The
\n\ttrial Court ordered the accused to pay fine of Rs.25000\/- and in
\n\tdefault of payment of fine, the accused is ordered to undergo S.I
\n\tfor one year. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
\n\tthe amount of fine fixed by the trial Court is not required to be
\n\tdisturbed, but the further sentence of S.I for one year, in default
\n\tof payment of fine, is required to be modified to S.I for six
\n\tmonths.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds in part and accordingly,
\n\tit is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant –
\n\taccused recorded by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
\n\tNo.4, Bhavnagar camp at Botad in Special (NDPS) Case No.2 of 2006 by
\n\timpugned judgment and order dated 15.2.2007 for the offence
\n\tpunishable u\/ss.20(b)(i), 22 r\/w.Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and
\n\tPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is confirmed and upheld. However,
\n\tthe sentence of R.I for 10 years and fine of Rs.25000\/- and in
\n\tdefault of payment of fine, S.I for one year awarded to the
\n\tappellant – accused by the trial Court is modified and reduced
\n\tto the period already undergone by the appellant – accused by
\n\tnow in jail and to pay fine of Rs.25000\/-, and in default of payment
\n\tof fine, S.I for six months.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(D.H.WAGHELA,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
(binoy)\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011 Author: D.H.Waghela, Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/66\/2009 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 66 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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-170835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKori vs State on 11 November, 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\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-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=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-18T18:56:25+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-18T18:56:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1862,\"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\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-18T18:56:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kori vs State on 11 November, 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":"Kori vs State on 11 November, 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\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-18T18:56:25+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-18T18:56:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":1862,"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\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011","name":"Kori vs State on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-18T18:56:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kori-vs-state-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kori vs State on 11 November, 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\/170835","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=170835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}