{"id":189504,"date":"2010-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-25T07:08:49","modified_gmt":"2018-04-25T01:38:49","slug":"bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred … on 25 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred … on 25 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/148\/1997\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. 148 of 1997\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \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\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\n \n\nBHARWAD\nKUKA KHENGAR & 2 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nYOGESH S LAKHANI for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR AJ DESAI ADDITIONAL\nPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.
\nThe appellants have preferred this appeal u\/s 374(2) of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for
\nbrevity) challenging the order of conviction passed by the learned
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar on 21st January,
\n1997 in Sessions Case No.59 of 1992 convicting the appellants –
\noriginal accused of the charges of commission of offence punishable
\nunder Sections 447, 333, 325, 323, 114, 504, 506(2) of the Indian
\nPenal Code and under Sections 161 and 162 of the Gujarat Panchayat
\nAct as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.
\nThe facts in brief leading to filing of the present appeal deserves
\nto be set out as under:\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nIt is the case of the prosecution that the complainant was working in
\nForest Department of State of Gujarat as a Beat Guard. On 1.8.1988 at
\nabout 5:00 p.m., he along with other co-employees were on duty in the
\narea, where they found that the accused persons were grazing their
\ncattle and therefore, the complainant told them to attach the cattle.
\nTherefore, the accused persons assaulted upon the complainant and
\nother persons with sticks and Dhariya. Therefore, the complaint was
\nregistered against the accused persons under Sections 333, 325, 323,
\n114, 504 and 506(2) and under Sections 161 and 162 of the Gujarat
\nPanchayat Act as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\nThe accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried the case.
\nFurther statement of the accused recorded under the provisions of
\nSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of
\ntrial, following witnesses from the prosecution side, have been
\nexamined before the learned Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.1
\n\t   Khimjibhai Gelabhai   Complainant at Exhibit 9.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.2
\n\t   Jivan Raymal Exhibit 11.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.3
\n\t   Kuka Laghabhai  Exhibit 12.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.4
\n\t   Medical Officer, Anjanaben Narendrabhai Exhibit 14.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.5
\n\t   Jivraj Karsanbhai   Exhibit 19<\/p>\n
P.W.6
\n\t  Dilubhai Gandabhai Exhibit 20<\/p>\n
P.W.7
\n\t  PSI S.J. Malek  Exhibit 22.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.8
\n\t  P.S.I., Mahendrasinh M. Rathod Exhibit 26.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ndocumentary evidence produced before the learned Sessions Judge, are
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit
\n\t4   : Charge-sheet.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit
\n\t10 :  Complaint.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit
\n\t16 :  Medical Certificate of Khimjibhai.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\nExhibit 18 :  Medical Certificate of Jivanbhai Raybhan.\n<\/p>\n
5. Exhibit 21 :\n<\/p>\n
 Panchnama.\n<\/p>\n
6. Exhibit 27 :\n<\/p>\n
 Panchnama.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\nAfter hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions
\nJudge, Surendranagar vide judgment and order dated 21st
\nJanuary, 1997 in Sessions Case No.59 of 1992, was pleased to held
\nguilty the accused and imposed sentence upon them as under :\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe appellants
\naccused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 161 of
\nGujarat Panchayat Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 days and to
\npay a fine of Rs.250\/- each i\/d to further undergo R.I. for 7 days.
\nAlso, the appellants   accused are convicted for the offence
\npunishable under Section 162 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and
\nsentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs.250\/-
\neach, i\/d further R.I. of 7 days. The appellants   accused are
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian
\nPenal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month, and to pay fine
\nof Rs.100\/- each, i\/d further R.I. of 7 days. The appellants –
\naccused are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section
\n332 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of
\nRs.100\/- each, i\/d further R.I. of 7 days.\tThe appellants No.1 and 2
\n  accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section
\n333 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
\nundergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.250\/- each, i\/d
\nfurther R.I. of 7 days. The appellant No.3 – accused is convicted for
\nthe offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and
\nsentenced to undergo sentence R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of
\nRs.250\/-, i\/d further R.I. of 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
7.
\nBeing aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellants
\npreferred present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7.
\n\tHeard Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned senior counsel appearing on of the
\nappellants and learned APP Mr. A.J. Desai appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent   State.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tLearned
\nsenior counsel Mr. Yogesh Lakhani has submitted that the impugned
\norder of conviction being erroneous and contrary to the record of the
\ncase, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the
\nlearned Sessions Judge has not considered the defence of the present
\nappellants, while passing the judgment and order. He has also
\ncontended that as per the complainant’s case, the complainant has
\nbeen assaulted by the appellants but the medical evidence does not
\nsupport the case of  prosecution. The complainant tried to drive out
\nthe cattle of the accused and at that time, the complainant jumped
\nthe wall of Vidi to save himself from cattle and fell down and
\nsustained injuries. He has also contended that there is material
\ncontradiction in the deposition of the witnesses. There is no any
\nindependent witness and learned Sessions Judge relied upon the
\ndeposition of the interested witness though there is no corroborative
\nevidence on record to hold the conviction. Lastly, he has also
\nsubmitted that he is arguing this matter only on the point of quantum
\nof punishment and has prayed for lesser punishment. He has contended
\nthat the present appellants may be imposed lesser punishment by
\nreducing the sentence, which is imposed by the learned Sessions
\nJudge.\n<\/p>\n
9.
\nShri A.J. Desai, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has
\nsupported the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions
\nJudge. But he submitted that the State has no objection, if the
\nsubmission of the learned senior counsel Mr. Lakhani  appearing on
\nbehalf of the appellants   accused for lesser punishment is
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
10.
\nThis Court has perused the records and proceedings of the Trial Court
\nand heard the learned counsel of the respective parties at length. On
\nperusal of the record and the submission made by both the learned
\ncounsel, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Trial Court
\ndoes not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. The appellants have
\nfailed in establishing that the decision of the Trial Court suffers
\nfrom any perversity. On the contrary the decision of the Trial Court
\nis just and proper and it is based upon the evidence and it is after
\nproper appreciation. The Trial Court has rightly come to the
\nconclusion that the appellants has failed in establishing its case
\nbeyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the order of acquittal dated
\n21.1.1997
\npassed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
\nSurendranagar in Sessions Case No.59 of 1992 deserves to be
\nconfirmed. But considering the submissions made by the learned senior
\ncounsel Mr. Lakhani appearing on behalf of the appellants   accused
\nthat the Sessions Judge convicted the accused and he has also
\nadmitted that there is no reason to say regarding the reasons
\nassigned in the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions
\nJudge, but he has prayed to reduce the sentence. So in that
\ncircumstances, I am of the opinion that the submissions made by the
\nlearned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
\naccused is required to be considered and the submissions are
\nsupported by the learned APP Mr. Desai and I am
\ninclined to modify the order of the learned Sessions Judge by partly
\nallowing this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThis
\nAppeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 21.1.1997
\npassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in
\nSessions Case No.59 of 1992, is hereby confirmed. However, the
\nsentence awarded by the learned Judge is modified to the following
\nextent :\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants   accused
\nare convicted for the offence punishable under Section 161 of Gujarat
\nPanchayat Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 days and to pay a
\nfine of Rs.250\/- each i\/d to further undergo R.I. for 7 days. Also,
\nthe appellants   accused are convicted for the offence punishable
\nunder Section 162 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and sentenced to
\nundergo R.I. for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs.250\/- each, i\/d
\nfurther R.I. of 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants   accused
\nare convicted for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the
\nIndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month, and to
\npay fine of Rs.100\/- each, i\/d further R.I. of 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants No.1 and  2<\/span><\/p>\n
– accused are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section
\n332 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 months and to pay a fine of
\nRs.100\/- each, i\/d further R.I. of 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants No.1 and 2  <\/span><\/p>\n
accused are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 333
\nread with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code  and sentenced to
\nundergo R.I. for 4 months and to pay fine of Rs.250\/- each, i\/d
\nfurther R.I. of 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant No.3 –\n<\/p>\n
accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 333 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo sentence R.I. for 1
\nyear and to pay fine of Rs.250\/-, i\/d further R.I. of 7 days.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe substantive sentence
\nshall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\tRest of the judgment and
\norder of the trial Court is hereby confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants   original
\naccused are directed to surrender themselves before the Jail
\nAuthority within a period of six weeks from the date of this order,
\nfailing which the concerned Sessions Court shall issue non-bailable
\nwarrant to effect the arrest of the appellants   original accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tBail
\nbonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to
\nthe trial Court, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.SAIYED,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
ynvyas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred … on 25 March, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/148\/1997 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 148 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/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-189504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-25T01:38:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred … on 25 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T01:38:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1581,\"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\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T01:38:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred … on 25 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-25T01:38:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred … on 25 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T01:38:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010"},"wordCount":1581,"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\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010","name":"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred ... on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T01:38:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharwad-vs-the-appellants-have-preferred-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharwad vs The Appellants Have Preferred … on 25 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/189504","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=189504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}