{"id":224104,"date":"2010-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-09T03:04:10","modified_gmt":"2018-08-08T21:34:10","slug":"n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"N vs State on 7 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
N vs State on 7 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8483\/2010\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8483 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:\n \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n \n                                                     AND\n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \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\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\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\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\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\nN\nP MEHTA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNIRAV C THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMS KRINA P CALLA, AGP for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR JB PARDIWALA for Respondent(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\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:     07\/10\/2010  \nCAV\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)<\/p>\n
\tThis
\nwrit petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who was a member
\nof the Gujarat State Judicial Service, against the order of
\nretirement dated 26.10.2009 issued in the public interest by the
\nState under Rule 10(4)(a)(I)&(II) of the Gujarat Civil Services
\n(Pension) Rules, 2002 and Rule 21(1) and (2) of the Gujarat Judicial
\nServices Rules, 2005.  Three months’ pay and allowances
\nhad been paid to him in lieu of the notice.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nbrief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who initially
\nstarted his career as a Section Writer on 20.11.1980, was appointed
\nas a Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First
\nClass on 10.6.1996.  In his capacity, he was sent on deputation in
\nthe Labour Court and again returned back to the Judicial Service.  He
\nwas promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) &
\nJudicial Magistrate, First Class on 14.2.2005.  While he was
\nfunctioning, he has been made to retire from service on 26.10.2009 in
\nthe public interest, as noticed above.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nlearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend
\nthat the order is bad on the following counts :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe
\norder of retirement was issued without affording any hearing to the
\npetitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe
\npublic interest has not been reflected in the order.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe
\norder is penal in nature passed without initiation of a departmental
\ninquiry.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThe
\norder has been passed though no adverse remark has ever been
\ncommunicated and no departmental proceeding is pending.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tThe
\nassessment of work of the petitioner by the High Court has
\nconsistently been ‘very good’.  Even for the month of September,
\n2009, just prior to the impugned order, his assessment of work has
\nbeen found to be ‘very good’.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner
\nhaving been assessed ‘very good’ continuously and on the basis of
\nsuch character roll, having promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division)
\non 14.2.2005, the impugned order cannot be upheld.  The order is mala
\nfide, arbitrary as no reasonable person would form such opinion on
\nthe basis of existing material.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ncounsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme
\nCourt in the case of RP
\nMalhotra vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala,<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1990 SC 2055.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tMr JB
\nPardiwala, learned standing counsel for the High Court referred to
\nthe service records of the petitioner, including the character roll.
\nThe original records have also been produced.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nlearned counsel for the High Court would contend that the High Court,
\ntaking into consideration the total service record, having formed its
\nopinion, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
\nwould not re-appreciate the remarks for coming to a different
\nconclusion.  He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in
\nsupport of his contention.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tWe have
\nheard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\ncounsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme
\nCourt in RP
\nMalhotra vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala<\/a> [supra].
\n In the said case, the officer was compulsorily retired in the public
\ninterest.  The Supreme Court having noticed the ratings of the
\nofficer for the previous years as  average  and  good , held
\non consideration of the ACR, that from the order of the Screening
\nCommittee, it cannot be said that the appellant of the said case had
\nlost utility in service and thereby, decided that the said officer
\ncould not have been retired before the age of superannuation.   From
\nthe aforesaid case, it will be evident that the
\nSupreme Court gave its finding on the basis of the record of the
\nofficer, particularly character roll of the previous years.   No
\nratio was laid down by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
The issue
\nas raised in the present case practically stands determined by the
\nSupreme Court in its decision rendered from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn the
\ncase of Union
\nof India vs. VP Sheth,
\nreported in AIR 1994 SC 1261, the Supreme Court while noticed the
\nrequirement of communication of adverse remarks, held that that
\n‘un-communicated adverse remarks’ can certainly be considered for
\nexercise of power of compulsory retirement.  Aforesaid decision was
\nbased on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Baikuntha
\nNath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada,<\/a>
\nreported in 1992 (2) SCC 299 and Posts
\n& Telegraphs Board vs. CSN Murthy,
\nreported in (1992) 2 SCC 317.  Having noticed the principles laid
\ndown, the Supreme Court jotted down the same at one place in the case
\nof Union
\nof India vs. VP Sheth
\n[supra], and observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t 2.\t….,
\nthis Court evolved the following principles :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tAn
\norder of compulsory retirement is not a punishment.  It implies no
\nstigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe
\norder has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that
\nit is in the public interest to retire a government servant
\ncompulsorily.  The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of
\nthe government.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tPrinciples
\nof natural justice have no place in the context of an order of
\ncompulsory retirement.  This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is
\nexcluded altogether.  While the High Court or this Court would not
\nexamine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they
\nare satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it
\nis based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary   in the sense
\nthat no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the
\ngiven material; in short: if it is found to be a perverse order.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThe
\ngovernment (or the Review Committee, as the came may
\nbe) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking
\na decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to
\nrecord of and performance during
\nthe later years.  The record to be so considered would naturally
\ninclude the entries in the confidential records\/character rolls, both
\nfavourable and adverse, if a government servant is promoted to a
\nhigher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lost
\ntheir sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit
\n(selection) and not upon seniority.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tAn
\norder of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court
\nmerely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse
\nremarks were also taken into consideration.  That circumstance by
\nitself cannot be a basis for interference.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, it
\nwill be evident that the order of compulsory retirement is not a
\npunishment; it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour
\nand, therefore, the question of issuing any show cause notice in the
\nmatter of retirement in the public interest does not arise.
\nSimilarly, uncommunicated adverse remarks can be noticed for retiring
\nan officer in the public interest.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn the
\ncase of  Baikuntha
\nNath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada<\/a>
\n[supra], the Supreme Court considered the Fundamental Rule 56(j) and
\nRule corresponding to it and observed that the object and purposes
\nfor exercise of such powers are well stated in Union
\nof India vs. Col. JN Sinha,<\/a>
\nreported in 1970 (2) SCC 458 and other decisions referred to by the
\nSupreme Court and held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
 34.\tThe
\nfollowing principles emerge from the above discussion :\n<\/p>\n
\tAn
\n\torder of compulsory retirement is not a punishment.  It implies no
\n\tstigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\torder has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that
\n\tit is in the public interest to retire a government servant
\n\tcompulsorily.  The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of
\n\tthe government.\n<\/p>\n
\tPrinciples
\n\tof natural justice have no place in the context of
\n\tan order of compulsory retirement.  This does not mean that judicial
\n\tscrutiny is excluded altogether.  While the High Court or this Court
\n\twould not examine the matter
\n\tas an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that
\n\tthe order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no
\n\tevidence or (c) that it is arbitrary   in the sense that no
\n\treasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given
\n\tmaterial; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tgovernment (or the review committee, as the case may be) shall have
\n\tto consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in
\n\tthe matter of course attaching more importance to record of an
\n\tperformance during the later years.  The record to be so considered
\n\twould naturally include the entries in the confidential
\n\trecords\/character rolls, both favourable and adverse.  If a
\n\tgovernment servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the
\n\tadverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the
\n\tpromotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.\n<\/p>\n
\tAn
\n\torder of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a
\n\tcourt merely on the showing that while passing it uncoomunicated
\n\tadverse remarks were also taken into consideration.  That
\n\tcircumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\naforesaid decisions were reiterated in the case of Nawal
\nSingh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
\nreported in (2003) 8 SCC 117.  From the aforesaid judgment, it will
\nbe evident that the principles of natural justice have no place in
\nthe context of an order of compulsory retirement, though judicial
\nscrutiny is permissible by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
\nHowever, in such case, while the High Court would not examine the
\nmatter as an appellate Court, it may interfere if it is satisfied
\nthat the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) not based evidence or\n<\/p>\n
(c) is arbitrary   in a sense that no reasonable person would form
\nthe requisite opinion on the given material.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn the
\npresent case, the petitioner has taken a plea that in the quarter
\nending in December, 2002, the assessment by the High Court was  very
\ngood  except for two quarters of 2004 and 2005 when it was not
\nassessed.  Even recently, in each quarter ending in 2007 or December
\n2008 and March, 2008, the assessment is  very good ,
\nexcept in one quarter as  good .\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe
\nHigh Court has brought on record the ‘adverse remarks’, as on record,
\nfrom which the following facts emerge :-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tNo.\n<\/p>\n
Period<\/p>\n
Remarks<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
From
\n\t\t\t\t1.1.1999 to 13.6.1999<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tHe is not industries.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tHe rarely handled old \tmatter in \torder \tof\tseniority.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tPoor
\n\t\t\t\tassessment of \tdisposals.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tRarely
\n\t\t\t\tdisposed of heavy \tcontested \tmatters.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\tis not studious.\n<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
From
\n\t\t\t\t1.12000 to 31.12.2000<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tAssessment
\n\t\t\t\tof disposals is \tpoor \tfor quarter ending \tDecember, \t2000.\n<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tFrom
\n\t\t\t\t1.1.2001 to 10.6.2001<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tDisposal
\n\t\t\t\tof heavy \tcontested   \tmatters \tis \tpoor.\n<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
From
\n\t\t\t\t1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\thas no studious habits \tand \tnot keeping himself \tabreast of the
\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \tlaw, statutory law and \tdevelopment  of law in \tgeneral.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tThere
\n\t\t\t\tis no discussion of \tlaw.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\tdoes not reach right \tand just conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\tis not regular and \tpunctual.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHis
\n\t\t\t\tdisposal is poor.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\thas not delivered a \tsingle judgment in the \tmonth from \tJanuary
\n\t\t\t\tto \tMarch, May, \tJune \t2002 and only one \tjudgment
\n\t\t\t\thas been \tdelivered by \thim in \tApril, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
From
\n\t\t\t\t1.1.2003 to 31.12.2002<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tNo
\n\t\t\t\tinterest in office work.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\thas no studious habits \tand \tnot keeping himself \tabreast of \tthe
\n\t\t\t\t\tcase \tlaw, statutory law and \tdevelopment of law in \tgeneral.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tNo
\n\t\t\t\tdiscussion of law \tnoticed in his \tjudgments.\n<\/p>\n
6.<\/p>\n
From
\n\t\t\t\t10.9.2005 to 31.12.2005<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\tis not clear in thought.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\tis not polite with all.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tKnowledge
\n\t\t\t\tof \tadministrative rules \tis \tnot upto mark.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tTreatment
\n\t\t\t\tto members of \tthe bar is \tinconsistent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\thas no sufficient \tunderstanding \tof and \tgrounding in law.  He
\n\t\t\t\tis \texpected to prove Labour \tCases \tbeyond \treasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tDiscussion
\n\t\t\t\t& \tappreciation : \tReasoning less.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tLanguage,
\n\t\t\t\tpresentation \tand \tprecision :- Not \tprecise.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tHe
\n\t\t\t\tis not punctual and \tregular.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t–\tNo
\n\t\t\t\toverruling of the \tobjections \traised in \tcourse of recording of
\n\t\t\t\t\tevidence by him.\n<\/p>\n
–\tThere
\n\t\t\t\tis no discussion of \tlaw and \tfacts in his \tjudgments\/order.\n<\/p>\n
7.<\/p>\n
From
\n\t\t\t\t1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006<\/p>\n
–\tNo
\n\t\t\t\told case was disposed by \thim.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, from
\nthe record, it will be evident that since 1999, the petitioner was
\nnot found to be industries, was not handling old matters, assessment
\nof disposals was poor, had no studious habits, did not reach right
\nand just conclusion, he was not regular and punctual, etc.  Though
\nsuch adverse remarks were recorded since January, 1999, but he was
\ngiven promotion on 14.2.2005.  Even after such promotion, he had not
\nimproved.  After promotion, he was found to be not polite with all,
\nhe had no knowledge of administrative rules, was developing
\ninconsistent treatment with the members of the Bar, was not giving
\nproper reasoning in the judgments, was not making any discussion and
\nappreciation, precision was not precise, he was not punctual and
\nregular, etc.<\/p>\n
\tThe
\naforesaid adverse remarks speak in volume about the quality of a
\nJudge, who is not only supposed to have a clarity of thought and
\nability to write reasoned judgments, but should have the capacity of
\ndisposing of adequate cases and keeping good behaviour, etc.<\/p>\n
12.\tIt is a
\nsettled law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
\ncannot sit in appeal. It can interfere if it is satisfied that the
\norder is passed mala fide or not based on any evidence or is
\narbitrary in a sense that any reasonable person would not form the
\nrequisite opinion on the given material.  In the present case, apart
\nfrom the fact that the performance of the petitioner was poor, we
\nfind that the order of retirement has been passed on the basis of <\/p>\n
record of
\nservice, any reasonable person would form only one opinion that the
\nofficer is a burden on judiciary and not fit to be retained in
\nservice. For the reasons aforesaid, no interference is called. In
\nabsence of any merit, the writ petition is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
[S.J.\n<\/p>\n
MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]<\/p>\n
[K. M.\n<\/p>\n
THAKER, J.]<\/p>\n
Sundar\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court N vs State on 7 October, 2010 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SCA\/8483\/2010 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8483 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF […]<\/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-224104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN vs State on 7 October, 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\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-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=\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-08T21:34:10+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N vs State on 7 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T21:34:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2313,\"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\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\",\"name\":\"N vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T21:34:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N vs State on 7 October, 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":"N vs State on 7 October, 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\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-08T21:34:10+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N vs State on 7 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T21:34:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"},"wordCount":2313,"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\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010","name":"N vs State on 7 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T21:34:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-vs-state-on-7-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N vs State on 7 October, 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\/224104","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=224104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}