{"id":181386,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-05T10:18:40","modified_gmt":"2016-11-05T04:48:40","slug":"gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/pre>\n
                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
         S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.159\/1994<\/p>\n
                              Gheesa Lal
\n                                  v.<\/p>\n
                          State of Rajasthan<\/p>\n
     Date of Order                  ::        10 th November, 2009<\/p>\n
             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR<\/p>\n
Mr. Vineet Jain, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Rajlaxmi, Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
                         ….\n<\/p>\n
            This revision petition as per provisions of<\/p>\n
Section    397    read    with        401    Cr.P.C.      is    preferred      to<\/p>\n
assail    validity,       correctness            and     propriety      of    the<\/p>\n
judgment dated 19.4.1994 passed by Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, affirming the judgment dated<\/p>\n
13.4.1989        passed        by     Chief        Judicial       Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Chittorgarh,        convicting            the      petitioner          for    the
\noffences     punishable             under       Section        7\/16     of    the<\/p>\n
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred     to    as     “the       Act      of    1954”)       and    further<\/p>\n
sentencing        him     to        undergo        six    months       rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and in default<\/p>\n
of making payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for<\/p>\n
1\u00bd months.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The facts necessary to be noticed are that a<\/p>\n
complaint     against          the       petitioner        was        filed    on<\/p>\n
18.9.1983        before        the       court      of     Chief       Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Chittorgarh alleging therein that a sample
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
of     mixed    milk     from      the       petitioner       was    taken    on<\/p>\n
29.7.1983 in presence of two witnesses and the same<\/p>\n
was sealed and sent to the Local Health Authority,<\/p>\n
Jaipur for analysis. The Local Health Authority found<\/p>\n
the     milk    adulterated,           thus,     after       examining       Shri<\/p>\n
Sardar Singh, Food Inspector, who took the sample, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was charged under Section 7\/16 of the Act<\/p>\n
of 1954. It was also stated that a copy of the report<\/p>\n
of Local Health Authority was sent to the petitioner<\/p>\n
as per provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1954.<\/p>\n
During     the       course       of     trial      an      application       was<\/p>\n
preferred       by     the    petitioner         on      23.2.1987     seeking<\/p>\n
permission to get certification of the sample of milk<\/p>\n
from    the     Central       Food     Laboratory.          The     application<\/p>\n
aforesaid was rejected on 15.1.1988, being not filed<\/p>\n
within a period of ten days as required under Section<\/p>\n
13(2) of the Act of 1954. The trial court held that a<\/p>\n
copy of the Local Health Authority report was sent to<\/p>\n
the     petitioner       by       registered        post      on    17.8.1983,<\/p>\n
therefore, he should have applied for certification of<\/p>\n
the     sample       from     Director         of     the     Central        Food<\/p>\n
Laboratory       within       a    period      of     ten    days    from    its<\/p>\n
receipt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Being convicted and sentenced by the trial<\/p>\n
court    as     said    above,         the    petitioner       preferred      an<\/p>\n
appeal and that too came to be rejected. The appellate<\/p>\n
court negatived contention of the appellant that copy<\/p>\n
of the Local Health Authority report was not received
\n                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
by him and also affirmed conclusion of the trial court<\/p>\n
that        the      accused          should          have         demanded           for<\/p>\n
certification of the sample by Director of the Central<\/p>\n
Food Laboratory within a period of ten days from the<\/p>\n
date of receipt of report by Local Health Authority.<\/p>\n
              Before this Court, while giving challenge to<\/p>\n
the judgments impugned, the contention of counsel for<\/p>\n
the    petitioner         is    that    the      courts       below      failed        to<\/p>\n
appreciate         that    neither         copy       of     the    Local       Health<\/p>\n
Authority report was received by the petitioner nor an<\/p>\n
opportunity was accorded to him to get certification<\/p>\n
of sample as per provisions of Section 13(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act    of    1954.    It       is    asserted         that    the     trial         court<\/p>\n
failed to         ascertain         that    whether        report        was    served<\/p>\n
upon the petitioner or not specially when such receipt<\/p>\n
was denied in unambiguous terms. As per counsel for<\/p>\n
the    petitioner         the       presumption        drawn       by    the        trial<\/p>\n
court regarding service of the report is erroneous. It<\/p>\n
is also stated that in view of the Division Bench<\/p>\n
judgment      of     this       Court       in    Onkarlal          v.    State        of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan,<\/a>         2003(2)      Cr.L.R.          (Raj.)       1050,      the        trial<\/p>\n
court       should    have          allowed      the       petitioner          to     get<\/p>\n
certification          from          the        Director,          Central           Food<\/p>\n
Laboratory as per provisions of Section 13(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act of 1954.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Learned          Public          Prosecutor          contested          the<\/p>\n
arguments         advanced      and    as       per    her    the     trial         court
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
rightly     presumed          as    per    Section         27    of    the     General<\/p>\n
Clauses     Act,        1897       regarding        service       of     the    report<\/p>\n
concerned. She also emphasised that the claim made by<\/p>\n
the petitioner for certification of the sample as per<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 was<\/p>\n
made beyond statutory limitation and, therefore, same<\/p>\n
was rightly turned down by the trial court.<\/p>\n
             Heard counsel for the parties and examined<\/p>\n
the record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Whether service of report given by the Local<\/p>\n
Health      Authority          upon       the       petitioner         was     rightly<\/p>\n
presumed     by        the     trial      court,         is     the    first     issue<\/p>\n
deserves consideration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             As        per    Section      27       of   the     General       Clauses<\/p>\n
Act, 1897, meaning of service by post is that “where<\/p>\n
any    Central          Act        or    Regulation             made     after       the<\/p>\n
commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any<\/p>\n
document to be served by post, whether the expression<\/p>\n
“service” or either of the expressions”give” or “send”<\/p>\n
or    any   other        expression            is    used,       then,       unless    a<\/p>\n
different     intention             appears,         the      service        shall    be<\/p>\n
deemed to         be    effected by            properly         addressing, pre-<\/p>\n
paying      and    posting          by     registered           post,     a     letter<\/p>\n
containing the document, and, unless the contrary is<\/p>\n
proved, to have been effected at the time at which the<\/p>\n
letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
post.”     Under     the       provision       aforesaid,         the     service<\/p>\n
shall be deemed to be effected if the envelope or the<\/p>\n
cover note is containing proper address, duly stamped<\/p>\n
and   is    sent    by    registered         post.    The    court        drawing<\/p>\n
presumption of service as per Section 27, thus, is<\/p>\n
required to satisfy itself about the facts aforesaid.<\/p>\n
             In the case in hand the trial court in quite<\/p>\n
vague      manner       just    by    recording       fact        relating    to<\/p>\n
availability of           postal      receipt held          the     service of<\/p>\n
Local Health Authority report sufficient. The total<\/p>\n
discussion made by the trial court reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
             \"\u0907\u0938 \u0917 \u0938       \u092a\u0936 \u0939 \u0928 \u0915 \u092c \u0926 \u092e\u0916                 \u091a \u0915\u0915\u0924\u0938       \u090f\u0935 \u0938\u0935 \u0938\n             \u0905\u091a \u0915 \u0930 \u0926 \u0930 \u091c\u0930\u0930           \u0930\u091c\u091c\u0938%\u0930' \u092a\u0924     \u0930 13(2) \u0915 \u0928 \u091f%\u0938 \u091c \u0930\n             \u0915\u0915     \u0917     \u0915\u0915 10 \u091f\u0926\u0928 \u0915 \u0905\u0928\u0926\u0930 \u092a\u0928: \u091c +            \u0915\u0930\u0935 \u0938\u0915        \u0939, \u0914\u0930\n             \u0938 \u0925 \u092e\/ \u091c          \u0930\u0930\u092a %' \u09150 \u0928\u0915\u0932 \u092d\u091c3 \u0917\u0908, \u091c\u091c\u0938\u0915 \u0915\u092e \u0915 491\n<\/pre>\n
             \u091f\u0926\u0928 \u0915 17\/8\/83 \u0907\u0938\u092e\/ \u0926\u091c’ \u09396 \u0914\u0930 \u0930\u091c\u091c\u09387 \u0930 \u0915 \u09150 \u0930\u09383\u0926 \u092a\u0926\u0936’
\n             \u092a3-8 \u092a\u0936 \u09150 \u09396 \u0964”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The         requisite           consideration           to      draw<\/p>\n
presumption of service by post were not at all taken<\/p>\n
into consideration by the appellate court also. True<\/p>\n
it is, the appellate court noticed the document Ex.P\/7<\/p>\n
(forwarding         letter      under        which    the     Local       Health<\/p>\n
Authority     report       was       sent)    and    the    postal        receipt<\/p>\n
Ex.P\/8. Both the documents aforesaid bear address of<\/p>\n
the petitioner and as per Ex.P\/7, that is “\u09183\u0938 \u0932 \u0932 S\/O<\/p>\n
\u0915 \u0932; \u091c3 \u0917\u091c\u0930, \u0938 0 \u092c\u0921            \u092c\u0926     \u0939 0 \u092c\u0917; (\u091a \u0924>\u0921\u0917\u0922)”, and as per
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex.P\/8     it    is,       “\u09183\u0938 \u0932 \u0932 S\/O         \u0915 \u0932; \u091c3 \u0917\u091c\u0930,          \u092c\u0921 \u0926\u0921       ;\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               (\u092c\u0917),<\/p>\n
\u091a \u0924>\u0930\u0917\u0922”. The material available on record about proper<\/p>\n
addressing as required under Section 27 is not at all<\/p>\n
satisfactory and the discrepancy in address in the two<\/p>\n
documents       aforesaid        is    quite         apparent.      In    both   the<\/p>\n
addresses name of the village is given differently.<\/p>\n
The court, therefore, should have satisfied itself by<\/p>\n
adequate evidence relating to proper addressing and<\/p>\n
sufficient        stamping.          Without         availability         of     such<\/p>\n
evidence,        to    satisfy        on       the    counts       aforesaid,      no<\/p>\n
presumption of service by post could have been made.<\/p>\n
                Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v.<\/p>\n
Gouranga Sahu,<\/a> reported in (2006)1 SCC (Cri) 286, held<\/p>\n
that “forwarding a copy of the report is not only a<\/p>\n
ritual, but a statutory requirement to be mandatorily<\/p>\n
observed in all the cases. Dispatch of such a report<\/p>\n
is   intended         to    inform    the       accused       of    his    valuable<\/p>\n
right    to      get       the   other         sample       analysed      from   the<\/p>\n
Central Food Laboratory”. In the case in hand service<\/p>\n
of   such     report        is   highly         doubtful       and,      therefore,<\/p>\n
adherence of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act of 1954 is also not satisfactorily established. In<\/p>\n
such circumstances the trial court certainly committed<\/p>\n
an error that amounts to miscarriage of justice by<\/p>\n
denying for getting the sample analysed and certified<\/p>\n
by   the        Director,        Central             Food     Laboratory.        The<\/p>\n
limitation of ten days for making demand to send the<\/p>\n
samples for their analysis and certification within a
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
period of ten days from the date of receipt of Local<\/p>\n
Health Authority report in present case was not at all<\/p>\n
applicable and for the sake of argument, even if it is<\/p>\n
assumed that the limitation was applicable, then too<\/p>\n
the   trial    court       should    have    considered       the    request<\/p>\n
made by the accused as per law laid down by Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in the case of Onkarlal (supra),<\/p>\n
wherein the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act of<\/p>\n
1954 to submit the application for sending one of the<\/p>\n
samples to Central Food Laboratory for analysis within<\/p>\n
a period of ten days was found directory in nature.<\/p>\n
              For    the    reasons       aforesaid,       this     revision<\/p>\n
petition      is    allowed.    The       judgment    dated       13.4.1989,<\/p>\n
passed by the trial court and 19.4.1994, passed by the<\/p>\n
appellate      court    are    quashed       and    the    petitioner     is<\/p>\n
acquitted from the charge of committing any offence<\/p>\n
punishable     under       Section    7\/16    of     the   Prevention    of<\/p>\n
Food Adulteration Act, 1954.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.\n<\/p>\n
kkm\/ps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009 1 S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.159\/1994 Gheesa Lal v. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 10 th November, 2009 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Vineet Jain, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajlaxmi, Public Prosecutor. …. This revision petition as per provisions of Section […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nGheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009 - 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\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-05T04:48:40+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T04:48:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1376,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-05T04:48:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009 - 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\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-05T04:48:40+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T04:48:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":1376,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009","name":"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-05T04:48:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gheesa-lal-vs-state-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gheesa Lal vs State on 10 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/181386","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=181386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}