{"id":17992,"date":"2011-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-21T19:08:55","modified_gmt":"2017-10-21T13:38:55","slug":"state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable 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\/32\/1990\t 15\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 32 of 1990\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI  \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\nPRAVINDAN\nJIVANDAN GADHAVI - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR.\nR.C. KODEKAR APP for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR PM THAKKAR for\nOpponent(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 KS JHAVERI\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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/08\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n
\t\tThe present appeal,
\n\tunder section 378 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
\n\tdirected against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
\n\t15-07-1989 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special
\n\tCase No. 2 of 1985 whereby the accused have been acquitted of the
\n\tcharges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe brief facts of
\n\tthe prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
 The
\n\tcomplainant Bhurabhai Chanabhai Makwana residing  at Nani Bhagedi
\n\tVillage and doing agricultural work. The accused  Pravindan Jivabhai
\n\tGadhavi was serving as Gram Sevak under District Agriculture Officer
\n\tof District Panchayat, Jamnagar. On 8-6-1984 he had supplied
\n\tgroundnut seeds  weighting 20 K.G. Free of charge  on behalf of the
\n\tGovernment  under Government policy. He had demanded Rs. 50\/- from
\n\tthe complainant for the seeds of groundnut. Therefore the
\n\tcomplainant lodged a complainant with A.C.B. Office and on
\n\t   3-9-1984  the accused was trapped during the raid of A.C.B.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Necessary
\n\tinvestigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses
\n\twere recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was
\n\tarrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against him .\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Thereafter, as the
\n\tcase was exclusively triable by the Special Court, the same was
\n\tcommitted to the Special Court, which was numbered as Special Case
\n\tNo. 2\/1985. The trial was initiated against the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.
\nTo prove the case against accused, the \tprosecution has examined
\nfollowing witnesses<\/p>\n
Bhurachana
\n\t\tComplainant\t\t\tExb. 6.<\/p>\n
\n\t  \n\nJagdish\n\tD. Trivedi\t\t\t\t\tExb. 9.\n\t  \n\nAnantray\n\tM. Dave\t\t\t\t\tExb. 11.\n\t  \n\nNanjibhai\n\tS. Dodiya\t\t\t\tExb. 17.\n\t  \n\nP.I.\n\t Mr. B.P. Sarvvaiya\t\t\t\tExb. 21.\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\t5.1\tTo prove the case\n<\/pre>\n
against accused, the \tprosecution has examine following documentary
\n\tevidence.\n<\/p>\n
Complaint\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExb.\n\t7.\n\t  \n\nAcknowledgment\n\tof the receipt of seeds\tExb.8.\n\t  \n\nPanchnama\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExb.\n\t10<\/span>\n\t  \n\nTrue\n\tcopy of the Circular\t\t\t\tExb. 12.\n\t  \n\nTrue\n<\/pre>\n
\tcopy of confidential letter for selection\tExb. 13.\n<\/p>\n
 of
\n\tGram sevak<\/p>\n
Office
\n\torder dated 2.6.1981 for Gramsevak\tExb. 14.\n<\/p>\n
True
\n\tcopy of terms and conditions of Gram\tExb.15.<\/p>\n
\n\t \n\nsevak\n\t  \n\nSanction\n\tletter \t\t\t\t\t\tExb. 16.\n\t  \n\nmemo\n\tdated 2.6.1984 \t\t\t\t\tExb. 18.\n\t  \n\nStatement\n<\/pre>\n
\tof different categories -mini kitesExb. 19.<\/p>\n
\n\t  \n\nReceipt\n\tdated 6.6.1984\t\t\t\t         Exb.20.\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t  \n\n\n\t\t\t \tAt the end of\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\ttrial, after recording the statement of the accused under section
\n\t\t\t313 of Cr. P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution
\n\t\t\tand defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent
\n\t\t\tof all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated
\n\t\t\t6.10.1989<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tBeing aggrieved
\n\t\t\tby and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed
\n\t\t\tby the Special Court the appellant State has preferred the present
\n\t\t\tappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tIt was contended
\n\t\t\tby learned APP that the judgment and order of the Special Court is
\n\t\t\tagainst the provisions of law, the Special Court has not properly
\n\t\t\tconsidered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the
\n\t\t\tprovisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution
\n\t\t\thas proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the
\n\t\t\tpresent respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through
\n\t\t\tthe oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tAt the outset it
\n\t\t\tis required to be noted that the principles which would govern and
\n\t\t\tregulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of
\n\t\t\tacquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly
\n\t\t\texplained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case
\n\t\t\tof M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr,
\n\t\t\treported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated about
\n\t\t\tthe powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of
\n\t\t\tacquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed
\n\t\t\tas under:\n<\/p>\n
 54.
\n\t\t\tIn any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be
\n\t\t\tan appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the
\n\t\t\trevisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power
\n\t\t\tagainst a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne
\n\t\t\tin mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are
\n\t\t\tpossible, the appellate court should not interfere with the
\n\t\t\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court below.\n<\/p>\n
Further,
\n\t\tin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
\n\t\t(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following
\n\t\tprinciples:\n<\/p>\n
 42. From the above
\ndecisions, in our considered view, the following general principles
\nregarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
\nagainst an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n
[1] An appellate court
\nhas full power to review, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence
\nupon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
[2] The Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition
\non exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence
\nbefore it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and
\nof law.\n<\/p>\n
[3] Various
\nexpressions, such as  substantial and compelling reasons ,  good
\nand sufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,
\n distorted conclusions ,  glaring mistakes ,etc. are not
\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an
\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature
\nof  flourishes of language  to emphasis the reluctance of an
\nappellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power
\nof the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
[4]An appellate court,
\nhowever, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double
\npresumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
\ninnocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
\ncriminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
\ninnocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
\nSecondly the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of
\nhis innocence is further reinforced,reaffirmed and strengthened by
\nthe trial court.\n<\/p>\n
[5] If two reasonable
\nconclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
\nappellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
\nby the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tThus, it is a
\n\t\t\tsettled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if
\n\t\t\ttwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\n\t\t\tevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\n\t\t\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tEven in a recent
\n\t\t\tdecision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V.
\n\t\t\tSanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the
\n\t\t\tCourt has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
\n\t\t\tIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 16. From the
\naforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers
\nin appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would
\nnot 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 has committed
\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.
\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to
\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis
\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused
\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tSimilar principle
\n\t\t\thas been laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of State of
\n\t\t\tUttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR
\n\t\t\tSCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad(Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of MP,
\n\t\t\treported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this
\n\t\t\tCourt may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tIt is also a
\n\t\t\tsettled legal provision that in acquittal appeal, the appellate
\n\t\t\tcourt is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh
\n\t\t\treasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found
\n\t\t\tto be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\n\t\t\tCourt in the case of State of Karnataka V.s Hemareddy, reported
\n\t\t\tin AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t ……This Court
\n\t\t\thas observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary
\n\t\t\t(1967) 1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
\n\t\t\tappellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on
\n\t\t\tthe evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to
\n\t\t\treiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expressions of
\n\t\t\tgeneral agreements with the reasons given by the Court the
\n\t\t\tdecision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n
\t 13.1\tThus, in case
\nthe appellate court agrees \t\twith the reasons and the opinion given
\nby\t   the lower court, then the discussion of\t        evidence is not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tWe have gone
\n\t\t\tthrough the judgment and order passed by the trial court. We have
\n\t\t\talso perused the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced
\n\t\t\tbefore the trial court and also considered the submissions made by
\n\t\t\tlearned Advocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  \tThe trial court
\n\t\t\thas clearly recorded a finding that prosecution has miserably
\n\t\t\tfailed to prove nexus between the appellant and alleged crime in
\n\t\t\tquestion.  Further the trial court had discussed the whole
\n\t\t\tevidence in details in para 42 in the judgment. Para 42 of the
\n\t\t\tjudgment reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
  \tThere is no
\ndispute that the accused  was a public servant at the relevant time
\nand  the sanction to prosecute  accorded by the District Agriculture
\nOfficer, produced at Ex. 16, also appears to be quite legal and
\nlearned advocate Mr. D.R.Joshi has also not to say  anything against
\nthis sanction to prosecute the accused, which is at Exb. 16 so, the
\ntestimony of Nanjibhai Dodiya and the testimony of one other
\nGoyernment servant, namely, Anatray M. Dave who is examined at Exb.
\n11 regarding the appointment of the accused is Gram Sevak in the year
\n1981, proves that the accused  was a public servant at the relevant
\ntime, it has not been challenged by accused that he was appointed by
\nthe order of the District panchyat Agriculture officer, having
\nheadquarters at Jamnagar, who had accorded the sanction for his
\nprosecution. So, the testimony of Mr. Anatray Dave is also not so
\nmuch useful for our purpose, as he has not been examined in
\nconnection with the proof of the trap laid. So far as the case of the
\nprosecution on the demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe by the
\naccused is concerned the prosecution case depends solely on the
\nevidence of the complainant, panch witness Jagdishbhai Trivedi and
\nP.I. Mr. Sarvaiya and as I have observed, the testimony of these
\nthree witnesses is full of discrepancies and contradictions and it is
\nalso unnatural  and they differ from each other on all the material
\nparts of the story of the prosecution and so , in my view, the
\naccused cannot be convicted on the testimony of such witnesses having
\nso many contradictions and discrepancies.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t16. \t \tThus there
\n\t\t\tare serious lacunae in  the prosecution case. The appellant in
\n\t\t\tthis appeal has not  produced any evidence to rebut the finding of
\n\t\t\tthe  Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t17. \t \tMr. Kodekar
\n\t\t\tlearned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a
\n\t\t\tcontrary view of the matter or that the approach of a trial court
\n\t\t\tis vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is
\n\t\t\tperverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence
\n\t\t\ton record.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t18. \t\tIn the above
\n\t\t\tview of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the
\n\t\t\ttrial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents
\n\t\t\tof the charges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t19. \t\tWe find that
\n\t\t\tthe findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and
\n\t\t\tproper and in recording the said finding, no illegality or
\n\t\t\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t20. \t\tWe are,
\n\t\t\ttherefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\n\t\t\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
\n\t\t\tcourt below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
\n\t\t\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(K.S.Jhaveri,J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.Saiyed,J.)<\/p>\n
*Himanshu<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/32\/1990 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 32 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-17992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Necessary on 31 March, 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\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-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=\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-21T13:38:55+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=\"11 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-necessary-on-31-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-21T13:38:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1960,\"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-necessary-on-31-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-21T13:38:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 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":"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 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\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-21T13:38:55+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-21T13:38:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011"},"wordCount":1960,"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-necessary-on-31-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011","name":"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-21T13:38:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-necessary-on-31-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Necessary on 31 March, 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\/17992","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=17992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}