{"id":192720,"date":"2010-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-07T02:49:09","modified_gmt":"2016-02-06T21:19:09","slug":"state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/746\/2004\t 6\/ 7\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. 746 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\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\nRATILAL\nBHANJIBHAI BHATTI &amp; 3 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR.\nR.C. KODEKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n4. \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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(1)\tHeard<br \/>\nShri R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the<br \/>\nappellant.  Though served, none has appeared for the<br \/>\naccsued-respondents.  Shri Bhargav Bhatt, learned counsel was<br \/>\nrequested to appear as amicus<br \/>\ncuriae  on behalf of the respondents so as to assist<br \/>\nthe Court.  He willingly accepted the same and made submissions<br \/>\nextensively on behalf of the respondents hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe<br \/>\nappellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure, challenging the order of acquittal dated<br \/>\n13.2.2004 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nMorbi in Criminal Case No.70 of 2002, whereby the accused respondents<br \/>\nhereinabove were acquitted of the charge of committing offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 394 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tThe<br \/>\noriginal complainant happened to be the  driver of a Tanker, who<br \/>\nalong with his brother, who was also working as a cleaner of the<br \/>\nTanker bearing Tanker No. GJ-12-T-5507 while going towards Kandala on<br \/>\nthe Tanker on 28.11.2001 near the railway crossing at about 8:30 to<br \/>\n9:00 was intercepted by accused, who drove<br \/>\nthe vehicle and demanded papers of<br \/>\nthe vehicle and slapped<br \/>\ndriver and took Rs.5,000\/- from the pocket of the driver-complainant<br \/>\nand the papers of the vehicle.  The driver, thereafter, followed the<br \/>\nsaid vehicle of the accused with his Tanker,  however, could not<br \/>\noverreached them and hence came back and reported the incident to his<br \/>\nemployer, who in turn took him to the police station for registering<br \/>\nthe offence, which came to be registered as CR No. 281 of 2001.  The<br \/>\ninvestigation was conducted, the accused were arrested and police<br \/>\nreport came to be filed indicating that the accused by their act of<br \/>\nintercepting the Tanker, taking the money of Rs.5,000\/- and papers<br \/>\ncommitted offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 114<br \/>\nof Indian Penal Code.  The Trial Court after appreciating the<br \/>\nevidence on record, came to the  conclusion that the prosecution<br \/>\nfailed in establishing its case and hence  acquitted the respondents<br \/>\nhereinabove of the charge of committing offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 394 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code vide its order<br \/>\ndated 13.2.2004 in Criminal Case No.70 of 2002, which is  assailed in<br \/>\nthis appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)\tShri<br \/>\nR.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that<br \/>\nthere is an ample evidence available on record, which would convinced<br \/>\nany Court of law with regard to happening of the incident between the<br \/>\naccused and the victim.  He submitted that the TI parade and the<br \/>\nstatement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure would go to show that the happening of the<br \/>\nincident cannot be denied by anyone.  However, Shri Kodekar could not<br \/>\nindicate as to in what manner, the reasoning given by the Court for<br \/>\nrecording acquittal is perverse, nor could he point out any<br \/>\ndiscrepancy in the finding recorded by the Court and the material<br \/>\navailable on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)\tShri<br \/>\nBhargav Bhatt, who assist the Court as amicus curiae<br \/>\nelaborately submitted that the glaring lapses in the case of the<br \/>\nprosecution has rightly persuaded the Trial Court for recording the<br \/>\nacquittal as could be seen from the reasoning of the Court in<br \/>\nParagraph No.11,13 and 14 of the judgment impugned.  Shri Bhargav<br \/>\nBhatt took this Court extensively through the testimony of the<br \/>\ncomplainant, the complaint, testimony of the owner  and the medical<br \/>\nofficer who is said to have<br \/>\nbeen examined the complainant and indicated that the version of the<br \/>\naccused came in the explanation under Section 313 of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure was found to be plausible and, therefore, the<br \/>\nCourt may not interfere with the order of acquittal under Section 378<br \/>\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>(6)\tThe<br \/>\nfact remains to be noted that the incident is said to have been<br \/>\noccurred on highway and as complainant himself has admitted that the<br \/>\nplace of incident is near by the highway restaurant namely<br \/>\nVashundhara Restaurant and the said restaurant was within the visible<br \/>\ndistance from the occurring of the incident.  The complainant, in the<br \/>\ncomplaint has narrated that he was given slaps, whereas while he was<br \/>\nexamined by the Doctor, the history given was that of fist blow and<br \/>\nkicks blow.\n<\/p>\n<p>(7)\tThe<br \/>\nCourt has also noticed that the complainant has stated that his<br \/>\nemployer happened to be a brother of police personnel namely<br \/>\nKanjibhai Rambhai, who is serving in the police.  Though complainant<br \/>\nsaid that he did not know whether at that time he was posted at Morbi<br \/>\nor not. Shri Bhargav Bhatt invited this Court&#8217;s attention to the<br \/>\nmedical certificate at Exh.36, wherein it is clearly mentioned that<br \/>\nthe victim-complainant was brought to the hospital by Kanjibhai<br \/>\nRamabhai, who happened to be brother of the employer and who is the<br \/>\npolice personnel.  It has come out in the cross-examination of the<br \/>\nDoctor, who examined the victim-complainant that there was no<br \/>\nexternal injury noticed on the body of the complainant.  Shri Bhargav<br \/>\nBhatt, learned counsel was correct in contending that the essential<br \/>\ningredients embedded under<br \/>\nSection 378  and 390 were conspicuously found to be absent in the<br \/>\nentire proceedings, which would justify the reasoning adopted by the<br \/>\nCourt for acquitting the accused-respondents hereinabove.  The<br \/>\ncross-examination of the complainant indicate that when the incident<br \/>\nhappened, the complainant did say that the traffic  was going on and<br \/>\ndespite that, he did not informed anyone nor anyone&#8217;s attention was<br \/>\nattracted to it.    He admitted that he did not shouted for help when<br \/>\nthe incident occurred, nor did he approached anyone sitting there,<br \/>\nwhich was visible distance from the place of so called occurrence.<br \/>\nShri Bhatt also invited this Court&#8217;s attention to the<br \/>\ncross-examination of the<br \/>\nowner, PW No.9 in whose cross-examination, it has come out clearly<br \/>\nthat the incident he had narrated with the police, which was recorded<br \/>\nas per his say by the police, at the relevant time, though in the<br \/>\nnext statement he disputes that the complaint was taken as he<br \/>\ndictated it.\n<\/p>\n<p>(8)\tIn<br \/>\nview of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court<br \/>\nis of the view that , even, if the second view is plausible, than the<br \/>\nsame need not be resorted to<br \/>\nas the acquittal order is sustained unless and until, it is<br \/>\nestablished by the appellant that sustaining the same, would resulted<br \/>\ninto miscarriage of justice.  Looking to the scope of jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder Section 378, this Court is of the view that the order of<br \/>\nacquittal needs no interference.  The appeal fails and is required to<br \/>\nbe dismissed and accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vahid<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/746\/2004 6\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 746 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&hellip;]<\/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-192720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-ratilal-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-06T21:19:09+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=\"6 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-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T21:19:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1092,\"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-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-06T21:19:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-ratilal-on-20-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-06T21:19:09+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T21:19:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010"},"wordCount":1092,"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-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010","name":"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-06T21:19:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ratilal-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Ratilal on 20 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192720","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=192720"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192720\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}