{"id":214644,"date":"2010-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-09-10T13:41:20","modified_gmt":"2016-09-10T08:11:20","slug":"hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Hiralal vs The on 4 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\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/947\/1994\t 10\/ 11\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. 947 of 1994\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHIRALAL\nBABULAL DHOBI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJ - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDM AHUJA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR AJ DESAI Ld. APP 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: 04\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tThe
\npresent appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence  dated 25.8.1994 passed by the learned Addl.
\nSessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Sessions
\nCase No. 268\/1990, whereby, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
\nAhmedabad has convicted the appellant under sec. 363 of IPC and
\nsentenced to undergo imprisonment of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
\n200\/-, in default, to underfor further R\/I for two months. The
\nappellant is also convicted under sec. 366 of IPC and sentenced to
\nundergo R\/I for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500\/-,
\nin default, to undergo further R\/i for three months, which is
\nimpugned in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case is as under:\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAs
\nper the case of the prosecution, on 28.8.1988, the appellant-accused
\ntook minor girl Binaben from the lawful custody of her grand-mother
\nby giving allurement with a view to marry the girl against her will
\nand thereafter committed rape on her. The accused took minor Binaben
\nfrom the residence of her grand mother Subhadraben situated in
\nDariapur Kadvapole to Jay Vijay Guest House by giving inducement and
\nthereafter committed rape on her.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tTherefore
\na complaint came to be filed by the  grand mother of prosecutrix
\nBinaben before Dariyapur Police Station on the same day, which was
\nregistered vide CR No. 12\/1988 and thereafter the police started
\ninvestigation. The panchnama of the clothes put on by the victim on
\n2.9.1988 was prepared in the presence of panch witness and statements
\nof Binaben and other witnesses were recorded and on completion of the
\ninvestigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned
\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, as the case was
\nexclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Metrpolitan
\nMagistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was
\ngiven number as Sessions Case No. 268\/1990.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThereafter,
\nthe charge was framed at Ex. 1 against the appellant. The appellant
\naccused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\norder to bring the home the charge levelled against the appellant-
\naccused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced
\ndocumentary evidence before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThereafter,
\nafter examining the witnesses, further statement of the
\nappellant-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the
\nappellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAfter
\nconsidering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after
\nhearing the parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City
\nvide impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.1994 held the appellant
\naccused guilty to the charge levelled against him under sec. 363 and
\n366 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant accused, as
\nstated above.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tBeing
\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
\nAhmedabad City, the present appellant has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tHeard
\nMr. DM Ahuja learned advocate for the appellant and Mr AJ Desai
\nlearned APP for the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Ahuja learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that
\nthe prosecution has examined the PW-1 complainant   grand mother of
\nthe prosecutrix at Ex. 7. From the evidence of complainant, it
\nappears that she is not the witness to prove the ingredients of sec.
\n363 and 366 of IPC and she has no personal knowledge but due to some
\nsuspicious reasons the complaint was filed. Mr Ahuja has further
\nargued that the prosecution has not proved that the prosecutrix was
\ntaken away by the accused from the lawful custody of her parents. He
\nhas also contended that the grand mother is not a real and legal
\ncustodian of the prosecutrix. Mr Ahuja after reading the
\ncross-examination of PW-1 complainant argued that birth date of the
\nprosecutrix is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.  He has also
\ncontended that from the ossification test, it could be considered two
\nyears margin either this side or that side. After going through the
\nbirth certificate, he submitted that the birth date of prosecutrix is
\n24.9.1970 and the date of offence is 28.8.1988, and after
\ncalculation, it comes to more than 17 years of age of prosecutrix
\nand, therefore, the prosecution is not right in saying that she was
\nminor at the time of offence and therefore, the ingredients of sec.
\n363 of IPC, are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. After reading
\noral evidence of PW-2 prosecutrix Ex.16, Mr Ahuja has submitted that
\nthere was a consent and due to the consent, she had gone with the
\nappellant and there was love affair between them and there was no
\ntemptation for the illicit relation. He, therefore, submitted that
\nthe ingredients of sec. 366 of IPC are not proved and, therefore, the
\nlearned Judge has committed an error in convicting the
\nappellant-accused for the offence punishable under sec. 366 of IPC.
\nAfter going through the cross-examination of PW-2, Mr Ahuja has
\nsubmitted that looking to the admission on the part of the
\nprosecutrix in her cross-examination, the ingredients of sec. 366 of
\nIPC are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He
\nfurther submitted that birth certificate of the prosecutrix cannot be
\nconsidered because it is not admissible in the eye of law. He has
\nfurther submitted that the prosecution has not examined any person of
\nthe school to prove the birth certificate Ex. 23. Mr. Ahuja,
\nsubmitted that considering the over all facts and circumstances of
\nthe case and the oral as well documentary evidence produced on
\nrecord, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
\npassed by the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tOn
\nthe other hand, learned APP Mr AJ Desai has submitted that the grand
\nmother is a legal guardian of minor and defence has no right to say
\nthat her guardianship cannot be considered. Mr Desai after going
\nthrough the oral evidence of complainant has further submitted that
\nit is established before the trial Court that without her permission
\nminor prosecutrix was taken away by the appellant and he also
\nsubmitted from the oral evidence of prosecutrix PW-2 that it is
\nadmitted by the defence that she was with accused. Mr Desai has
\nfurther submitted that it is not denied by the defence that she was
\nnot with him and she was not taken away by appellant from the lawful
\nguardianship of  grand mother. Mr Desai also submitted that she was
\ntempted by the present appellant and some illegal physical relation
\nwas established by the present appellant- accused. Mr Desai has
\nfairly admitted that the learned Judge has not considered the charge
\nunder sec. 376 of IPC, but Mr Desai has drawn my attention to the
\noral evidence of PW-2 prosecutrix which establishes that the
\ningredients of sec. 375 of IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
\nMr. Desai has also drawn my attention to the Rule- 130 of the Bombay
\nPrimary Education Rules, 1949 and sec. 35 of the Evidence Act and
\nsubmitted that maker of Ex. 23 birth certificate is a public servant
\nand entry regarding birth date has been made by a public servant and
\nit is made as per rule 130 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules,
\n1949. Mr Desai has further submitted that at the time of incident,
\nshe was minor and ingredients of sec. 361 of IPC are already proved
\nbefore the trial court beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Mr
\nDesai has also submitted that nowadays, some strict view is required
\nto be taken in such type of offence as minor girls are not safe in
\nthe society and they do not know their future. Mr Desai has also
\nsubmitted that sentence of 4 years imposed upon the appellant by the
\ntrial court is not sufficient and the same is required to be enhanced
\nand offence under sec. 376 of IPC is also proved before the trial
\nCourt by the prosecution, therefore,  suo motu this issue may be
\ntaken up by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tI
\nhave gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced
\non the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecutrix and
\ncomplainant and also perused the charge framed against the appellant.
\nIt is true that against the present appellant, the charge was framed
\nfor the offence punishable under sec. 363 and 366 of IPC. I have gone
\nthrough the oral evidence of PW-1 complainant Ex. 7 and found that no
\nsense was taken by the appellant-accused  when prosecutrix was taken
\naway from the lawful guardianship of the grand mother   PW-1.  I am
\nnot agree with the submission of learned advocate Mr Ahuja for the
\nappellant that the grand mother is not a legal guardian. It is
\nestablished law that in absence of mother and father, the grand
\nmother is the real guardian. I have also perused the oral evidence of
\nPW-2 prosecutrix and it is established before the trial Court that
\nshe was taken away by the appellant from the lawful and legal
\nguardianship of the complainant and at that time prosecutrix was
\nminor. Sec. 361 of IPC reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tKidnapping
\nfrom lawful guardianship.\n<\/p>\n
 361.
\nWhoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a
\nmale, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of
\nunsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor
\nor person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian of
\nsuch guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful
\nguardianship.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe
\nwords ‘lawful guardian’ in this section include any person lawfully
\nentrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. It
\nis also proved beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court that
\nshe was in the lawful custody of PW-1 complainant and she was the
\nlegal guardian of the prosecutrix.  I have also considered the oral
\nevidence of  prosecutrix. It appears from the record that the defence
\nhas not denied that the prosecutrix has not been taken away by the
\nappellant from the lawful custody of the complainant   PW-1. It is
\nan admitted fact that prosecutrix was with the appellant and at that
\ntime, she was minor and ingredients of sec. 366 of IPC are satisfied.
\nMain ingredient of sec. 366 of IPC is that  any woman with intent
\nthat she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will
\nbe compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that
\nshe may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to
\nbe likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.
\nFrom the oral evidence of prosecutrix PW-2, it is also established
\nthat some sexual relation was established and the present appellant
\nhas made intercourse with her. The conduct and intention of the
\nappellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was an
\nintention of the appellant to force the prosecutrix for illicit
\nsexual intercourse also. No doubt, the learned Judge has not
\nconsidered that there was a rape. In view of the  provision of sec.
\n375 of IPC, it is not established that at that time, she was below 16
\nyears of the age. I have perused  Rule-130 of the Bombay Primary
\nEducation Rules, 1949 and sec. 35 of the Evidence Act. The Birth
\nCertificate Ex. 23  is proved by the prosecution before the trial
\nCourt beyond reasonable doubt as the birth certificate was already
\nexhibited and admitted by the learned advocate for the
\nappellant-accused before the trial court and there was an endorsement
\n at List of the documents at Ex. 4 produced by the prosecution. Mr AJ
\nDesai learned APP has also relied upon the decision in the case of
\n State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan Hemant Janardhan Wankhede,
\nreported in (2009)8 SCC 38. Mr Desai has also submitted that
\nin the case of  Harpal Singh and Anr. vs. State of Himachal
\nPradesh,<\/a> reported in 1981 Cri. L.J. p. 1,  wherein, the Apex
\nCourt has observed that school leaving certificate  is sufficient
\nevidence to prove the case of the prosecution. Today, learned
\nadvocate Mr Ahuja is not in a position to convince this Court  that
\nthe learned Judge has committed any error while convicting and
\nsentencing the appellant-accused for the said offence. Considering
\nthe overall facts and circumstances of the case and the oral as well
\nas documentary evidence produced on record and the judgment of the
\ntrial court, I am of the opinion that punishment imposed upon the
\nappellant-accused for the offence punishable under sec. 363 and 366
\nof IPC is sufficient in the eye of law. Looking to the oral evidence
\nof prosecutrix and particularly the age of prosecutrix which is
\nadmittedly about 17 years and 11 months, it cannot be said that the
\nsexual intercourse from the appellant-accused with the prosecutrix
\nwas against her will or without her consent. It is pertinent to note
\nthat as deposed by her in her deposition, she has admitted that
\nearlier also the appellant has done intercourse with her. The
\nprosecutrix has every opportunity to return back to her home. She has
\nalso deposed that for one night she has stayed alone in the house of
\nher friend and on the next day, she again went and met the
\nappellant-accused at the place as instructed by the
\nappellant-accused. Therefore, in view of provisions of sec. 375 of
\nIPC, it cannot be said that the appellant-accused has committed rape
\non the prosecutrix punishable under sec. 376 of IPC. In this view of
\nthe matter, the submission of Mr AJ Desai learned APP to take
\ncognizance of offence under sec. 376 of IPC suo motu is not tenable
\nin law.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tI
\nam in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and
\nresultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
\nand I am of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached
\nby the trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on
\nrecord stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable
\nground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of
\nconviction and sentence.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn
\nthe result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order
\nof conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions
\nJudge, Ahmedabad City, Court no. 13, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.
\n268\/1990 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. R & P
\nto be sent back to the trial court forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe
\nappellant   ori. Accused is directed to surrender before the Jail
\nAuthority within a period of three weeks from the date of this order,
\n failing which, the  concerned Sessions Court shall issue
\nnon-bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the appellant-ori.
\nAccused.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.SAIYED,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
mandora\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/947\/1994 10\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 947 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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-214644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHiralal vs The on 4 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\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-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=\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-10T08:11:20+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T08:11:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2413,\"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\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-10T08:11:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hiralal vs The on 4 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Hiralal vs The on 4 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\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-10T08:11:20+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T08:11:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010"},"wordCount":2413,"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\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010","name":"Hiralal vs The on 4 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-10T08:11:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiralal-vs-the-on-4-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hiralal vs The on 4 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:\/\/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\/214644","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=214644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}