{"id":206592,"date":"2010-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2"},"modified":"2016-06-30T17:35:29","modified_gmt":"2016-06-30T12:05:29","slug":"shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Shyam vs The on 3 February, 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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/2338\/2009\t 9\/ 9\tORDER \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. 2338 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSHYAM\nANANDRAM HEMRAJANI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPRAKASH\nCHANDULAL MULVANI & 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPRAFUL J BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR RS PANJWANI for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nOpponent(s) : 1, \nMR AJ DESAI, APP for Opponent(s) :\n2, \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: 03\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellant   original complainant has preferred this Appeal under
\n\tSection 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment
\n\tand order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
\n\tJudge, Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2008, whereby the
\n\tlearned Judge has set aside the Judgment and order dated 23.05.2008
\n\tpassed by the learned 13th Additional Senior Civil Judge,
\n\tVadodara, in Criminal Case No. 1655 of 2002 and acquitted the
\n\trespondent   original accused from the charges levelled against
\n\thim.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant was
\n\trunning the business in the name and style of  Tirupati
\n\tEnterprises  and also doing the business giving advance amount to
\n\tthe people. It is alleged that on 19.2.2002, as per the demand made
\n\tby the accused (respondent herein) the complainant gave Rs.70,000\/-
\n\tas an advance to the accused in cash, after recovering Rs.1680\/- as
\n\tcash discount. It is alleged that for the said amount of Rs.70,000\/-
\n\tthe accused gave a cheque to the complainant in favour of  Shri
\n\tCo-Operative Bank Ltd.,  Raopura Branch, Vadodara. The said cheque
\n\twas deposited in the Bank on 20.5.2002 which was returned with an
\n\tendorsement  referred to the drawer . Thereafter, the
\n\tcomplainant issued registered Notice to the accused on 22.5.2002,
\n\twhich was returned on 24.5.2002 with an endorsement  refused .
\n\tThereafter the appellant   complainant filed complaint against the
\n\taccused.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tthe trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. The
\n\tprosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the
\n\tdocumentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence the learned Magistrate has held the respondent
\n\t  accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 138 of
\n\tthe Negotiable Instrument Act and awarded sentence of one year
\n\tSimple with fine of Rs.5,000\/- i\/d to under-go SI for three months.\n<\/p>\n
Against
\n\tthe said Judgment the respondent   accused had preferred Criminal
\n\tAppeal No. 36 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Vadodara. The said
\n\tAppeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara,
\n\t and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge has set aside the
\n\tJudgment and order passed by the trial Court, vide Judgment and
\n\torder dated 30.6.2009.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated
\n\t30.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
\n\tVadodara, in above Criminal Appeal, the appellant   original
\n\tcomplainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave heard learned Advocate Mr. Praful J. Bhatt, appearing on behalf
\n\tof the appellant   original complainant and learned APP Mr. A.J.
\n\tDesai, appearing on behalf of the respondent   State. I  have also
\n\tgone through the papers and the Judgment and order passed by the
\n\tCourt below.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdvocate for the appellant has taken me through the oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence and contended that from the above evidence it
\n\tis established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case
\n\tbeyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the trial Court has
\n\trightly held the respondent   accused guilty for the offences
\n\talleged against him and, therefore, the Sessions Court, in Appeal,
\n\tshould not have interfered with the said findings of the trial
\n\tCourt. He has contended that at the time of taking money the accused
\n\tgave the cheque and also signed the discount voucher and the
\n\tappellant had also received Rs. 1736\/- as commission for the said
\n\tamount. Therefore, the learned lower Appellate Judge has committed
\n\tgrave error in not believing the case of the complainant. He,
\n\ttherefore, contended that the Judgment and order passed by the
\n\tlearned Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the Judgment of the
\n\ttrial Court, is without appreciating the facts and evidence on
\n\trecord.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through the Judgment of the trial Court as well as of the
\n\tSessions Court. I have also perused the reasons assigned by both the
\n\tCourts.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which
\n\twould govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court
\n\tagainst an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been
\n\tvery succinctly explained by the Apex
\n\tCourt in a catena of decisions. In the case of
\n\tM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported
\n\tin (2006)6 SCC, 39,
\n\tthe Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in
\n\tappeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision,
\n\tthe Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 54.
\n\t In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an
\n\tappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional
\n\tjurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a
\n\tjudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the
\n\twell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the
\n\tappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal
\n\trecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
Further,
\n\tin the case of Chandrappa
\n\tVs. State of Karnataka,
\n\treported in (2007)4 SCC 415
\n\tthe Apex Court laid down the following principles:\n<\/p>\n
 42.\tFrom
\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general
\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tAn
\nappellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider
\nthe evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
[2]\tThe
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
\ncondition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the
\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of
\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n
[3]\tVarious
\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]\tAn
\nappellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
\nthere is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
\npresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
\npresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
\ncourt of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
\nstrengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
[5]\tIf
\ntwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence
\non record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of
\nacquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThus,
\n\tit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power,
\n\teven if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\n\tevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\n\tfinding  of acquittal recorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\tin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State
\n\tof Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007)3 SCC 75,
\n\tthe  Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such
\n\tcases, more particularly, Para – 16 of the said decision.\n<\/p>\n
Similar
\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court in the cases of
\n\tState of
\n\tUttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW
\n\t5553 and
\n\tin Girja
\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.
\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of
\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tin case the  appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court
\n\tas well as of the Sessions Court. I have also perused the oral as
\n\twell as documentary evidence led
\n\tbefore the court below and also considered the submissions made by
\n\tlearned Advocate for the appellant. On going through the record it
\n\tis clearly established that the complainant is not having any money
\n\tlending licence. On being asked, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt is
\n\tunable to produce the said licence and whether the complainant is
\n\thaving any money lending licence or not is also not known to the
\n\tlearned Advocate. When the person is not having money lending
\n\tlicence then he cannot deal with money transaction. The so called
\n\talleged amount of cash discount cannot be said that the complainant
\n\tis doing the business of money lending and it was a legal debt and
\n\tit is legal liability of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tSessions court has, after appreciating the oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence, has clearly found that when the transaction
\n\titself creates doubt then certainly the benefit will goes in favour
\n\tof accused. The trial court has also observed that the important
\n\tdocument  Cheque , which shows some malpractice done by holder
\n\tof the cheque. The learned Judge has observed that moreover, the
\n\tservice of notice which is the basis of the complaint is also not
\n\tduly proved.  The learned Judge has also observed that the trial
\n\tCourt has ignored all the aspects of the matter. Nothing is produced
\n\ton record of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of the
\n\tSessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondent
\n\t  accused in the present Appeal. The prosecution has miserably
\n\tfailed to prove the case against
\n\tthe appellant   accused.  Thus, from the evidence itself it is
\n\testablished that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond
\n\treasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tAdvocate for the appellant is not in a position to show any evidence
\n\tto take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the
\n\tSessions court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the
\n\tdecision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the
\n\tmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
\n\tSessions court was completely justified in setting aside the
\n\tJudgment of the trial Court and acquitting the respondent
\n\taccused of the charges leveled against him. I find that the findings
\n\trecorded by the Sessions court are absolutely just and proper and in
\n\trecording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been
\n\tcommitted by it.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
\n\tcourt below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of above the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated
\n\t30.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
\n\tVadodara,  in  Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2008 setting aside the
\n\tJudgment and order dated 23.05.2008 passed by the learned 13th
\n\tAdditional
\n\tSenior Civil Judge & JMFC, Vadodara, in Criminal Case No. 1655
\n\tof 2002 holding the respondent    accused guilty of the charges
\n\tlevelled against him,  is hereby confirmed.  Bail bonds, if any,
\n\tshall stand cancelled.\tR & P may be sent back to the trial
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.SAIYED,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
sas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2338\/2009 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2338 of 2009 ========================================================= SHYAM ANANDRAM HEMRAJANI – Appellant(s) Versus PRAKASH CHANDULAL MULVANI & 1 – Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR […]<\/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-206592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShyam vs The on 3 February, 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\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-30T12:05:29+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\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T12:05:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1829,\"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\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T12:05:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 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":"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 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\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-30T12:05:29+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\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T12:05:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2"},"wordCount":1829,"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\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2","name":"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T12:05:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-vs-the-on-3-february-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shyam vs The on 3 February, 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\/206592","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=206592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}