{"id":220203,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4"},"modified":"2018-04-16T20:23:22","modified_gmt":"2018-04-16T14:53:22","slug":"the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4","title":{"rendered":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The vs The on 25 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/2134\/2004\t 2\/ 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. 2134 of 2004\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\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\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nOMPRAKASH\nMALURAM JAT CHAUDHARI - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nMINI NAIR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED 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\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal, under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of<br \/>\nacquittal dated 21.9.2004 in Criminal Case No.564 of 2000 passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Naliya-Kutch, whereby<br \/>\nthe accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts of the prosecution are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tThe<br \/>\naccused person was found in drunken condition, therefore, he was<br \/>\ntaken into custody by the police. That the smell of alcohol was<br \/>\ncoming out from the mouth of the accused person. He was not in a<br \/>\nposition to control over and was stumbling. Even he was not having<br \/>\nany pass or permit to consume liquor. Therefore, after following due<br \/>\nprocedure, his blood was collected and sent the same to the Forensic<br \/>\nScience Laboratory, Ahmedabad. The Forensic Science Laboratory<br \/>\nreported that the blood of the accused person contained alcohol.<br \/>\nTherefore, the offence was registered against all the accused person<br \/>\nunder Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1) (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2\tTherefore,<br \/>\nabove referred Criminal Case with respect to the aforesaid offence<br \/>\nwas filed against the respondent   original accused person before<br \/>\nthe learned Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naliya-Kutch.<br \/>\nNecessary investigation was carried out and statements of several<br \/>\nwitnesses were recorded. Ultimately, chargesheet was filed against<br \/>\nhim before the court of learned JMFC.  The trial was initiated<br \/>\nagainst the respondent   accused person.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3\tTo<br \/>\nprove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has<br \/>\nexamined witnesses  and also produced       documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.4\tAt<br \/>\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused under<br \/>\nsection 313 of Cr.P.C.,  and hearing arguments on behalf of<br \/>\nprosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the<br \/>\nrespondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 21.9.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.5\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the trial Court the appellant State has preferred the<br \/>\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nwas contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the trial<br \/>\nCourt is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not<br \/>\nproperly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking<br \/>\nto the provisions of law itself it is established that the<br \/>\nprosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against<br \/>\nthe present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court<br \/>\nthrough the oral as well  as the entire documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would<br \/>\ngovern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an<br \/>\norder of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very<br \/>\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In<br \/>\nthe case of<br \/>\nM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Anr, reported in<br \/>\n(2006)6 SCC, 39,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has<br \/>\nnarrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the<br \/>\norder of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has<br \/>\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 54.<br \/>\n In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional<br \/>\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a<br \/>\njudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the<br \/>\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the<br \/>\nappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal<br \/>\nrecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tFurther,<br \/>\nin the case of Chandrappa<br \/>\nVs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415<br \/>\nthe Apex Court laid down the following principles:\n<\/p>\n<p> 42.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general<br \/>\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with<br \/>\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n<p>[1]\tAn<br \/>\nappellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider<br \/>\nthe evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n<p>[2]\tThe<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or<br \/>\ncondition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the<br \/>\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of<br \/>\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>[3]\tVarious<br \/>\nexpressions, such as,  substantial and compelling reasons ,  good<br \/>\nand sufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,<br \/>\n distorted conclusions ,  glaring mistakes , etc. are not<br \/>\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature<br \/>\nof  flourishes of language  to emphasis the reluctance of an<br \/>\nappellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power<br \/>\nof the court to review the evidence and to come to its own<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>[4]\tAn<br \/>\nappellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal<br \/>\nthere is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the<br \/>\npresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental<br \/>\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be<br \/>\npresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent<br \/>\ncourt of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the<br \/>\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and<br \/>\nstrengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>[5]\tIf<br \/>\ntwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence<br \/>\non record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of<br \/>\nacquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.2\tThus,<br \/>\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even<br \/>\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\nfinding  of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.3\tEven<br \/>\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/585040\/\">State<br \/>\nof Goa V. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\nthe  Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.<br \/>\nIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 16.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the<br \/>\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal<br \/>\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the<br \/>\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality<br \/>\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any<br \/>\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized<br \/>\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of<br \/>\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement<br \/>\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate court has a<br \/>\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion<br \/>\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed<br \/>\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.<br \/>\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to<br \/>\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis<br \/>\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused<br \/>\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.4\tSimilar<br \/>\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court  in the cases of<br \/>\nState<br \/>\nof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR<br \/>\nSCW 5553<br \/>\nand in Girja<br \/>\nPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\nThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\nacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.5\tIt<br \/>\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give<br \/>\nfresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are<br \/>\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the  case of State<br \/>\nof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported<br \/>\nin AIR 1981 SC 1417<br \/>\nwherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> &amp;<br \/>\nThis court<br \/>\nhas observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary<br \/>\n(1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the<br \/>\nappellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on<br \/>\nthe evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate<br \/>\nthe reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement<br \/>\nwith the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under<br \/>\nappeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.6\tThus,<br \/>\nin case the  appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion<br \/>\ngiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not<br \/>\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\nhave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I<br \/>\nhave also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before<br \/>\nthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\nAPP for the appellant-State. Just to prove the case of the<br \/>\nprohibition against the accused, expert opinion regarding blood is<br \/>\nrequired to be produced on record. The witness turned hostile before<br \/>\nthe learned and therefore, the panchnama and oral evidence of<br \/>\nwitnesses, if it is not proved in favour of the prosecution on record<br \/>\nthen the prosecution is unable to show that the respondent<br \/>\naccused person was found under the influence of alcohol. There is no<br \/>\nany evidence of Medical Officer or the evidence, which shows that the<br \/>\nalcohol was found in the blood of the accused person. Even the<br \/>\ningredients of sections for alleged offence against the accused<br \/>\nperson were not established before the learned trial Court by the<br \/>\nprosecution.  I do not find any substance in present appeal. Thus,<br \/>\nfrom the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has<br \/>\nnot proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned<br \/>\nAPP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view<br \/>\nof the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by<br \/>\nsome manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the<br \/>\ntrial court has ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nthe above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\ntrial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of<br \/>\nthe charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tI<br \/>\nfind that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely<br \/>\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or<br \/>\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tI<br \/>\nam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\nconclusion and the resultant orders of acquittal recorded by the<br \/>\ncourt below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.<br \/>\nHence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands<br \/>\ncancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court,<br \/>\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n<p>ynvyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court The vs The on 25 January, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2134\/2004 2\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2134 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 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-220203","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>The vs The on 25 January, 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\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-16T14:53:22+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\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs The on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T14:53:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4\"},\"wordCount\":1740,\"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\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4\",\"name\":\"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-16T14:53:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs The on 25 January, 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":"The vs The on 25 January, 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\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-16T14:53:22+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\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T14:53:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4"},"wordCount":1740,"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\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4","name":"The vs The on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-16T14:53:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-the-on-25-january-2010-4#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs The on 25 January, 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\/220203","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=220203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220203\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}