{"id":227819,"date":"2010-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-11-23T03:16:12","modified_gmt":"2017-11-22T21:46:12","slug":"state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 26 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs The on 26 November, 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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/630\/1993\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 630 of 1993\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBASHIR\nAHMAD MIYA AHMAD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR HH\nPARIKH, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR\nJV JAPEE for Opponent(s) :\n1, \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\nDate\n: 26\/11\/2010\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 378 of the<br \/>\n\tCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal dated 24th February 1993 passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tChief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar, in Criminal Case No.915 of<br \/>\n\t1992 for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food<br \/>\n\tAdulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted<br \/>\n\tthe respondent-accused of the charges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant is serving<br \/>\n\tas Food Inspector. It is the case of the complainant that on 25th<br \/>\n\tFebruary 1992 at about 14:00 hours, the complainant visited the shop<br \/>\n\tof the respondent along with his assistant and had taken 900 gms. of<br \/>\n\tcolour biscuits as sample after paying consideration. It is also the<br \/>\n\tcase of the complainant that sample was taken in presence of panch<br \/>\n\twitness. It is also the case of the prosecution that after following<br \/>\n\tdue procedure of sealing, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst,<br \/>\n\tRajkot for analysis. On examination, the Public Analyst found that<br \/>\n\tthe said sample was adulterated and is not as per the standard<br \/>\n\tprescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore,<br \/>\n\tafter following the due procedure, complaint was filed against the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, Himmatnagar for violation of Prevention of Food<br \/>\n\tAdulteration Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter,<br \/>\n\tstatement of complainant was recorded. Considering the statement<br \/>\n\tgiven by the complainant as the prima-facie case was established,<br \/>\n\tcharge-sheet came to be issued against the respondent-accused.<br \/>\n\tThereafter, trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To<br \/>\n\tprove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as<br \/>\n\twell as documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused from the charges alleged against him by his<br \/>\n\tJudgment and Order of acquittal dated 24th February 1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal dated 24th February 1993 passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tChief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar, in Criminal Case No.915 of<br \/>\n\t1992, the appellant-State of Gujarat, has preferred the above<br \/>\n\tmentioned Criminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr. H.H. Parikh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the<br \/>\n\tappellant-State. I have also gone through the papers and the<br \/>\n\tJudgment and Order passed by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Parikh,<br \/>\n\tlearned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the<br \/>\n\tJudgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is<br \/>\n\tnot proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses.<br \/>\n\tHe has argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the<br \/>\n\tfact that the Food Inspector has followed the proper procedure while<br \/>\n\tcollecting the sample, etc. are just and proper. The sample was<br \/>\n\tseized and sealed properly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not<br \/>\n\tconsidered the evidence of prosecution. He, therefore, contended<br \/>\n\tthat the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is<br \/>\n\twithout appreciating the facts and evidence on record and is,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate<br \/>\n\tCourt is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh<br \/>\n\treasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons<br \/>\n\tassigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant<br \/>\n\tcase, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and<br \/>\n\tfindings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons<br \/>\n\taforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and<br \/>\n\tproper and requires no interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Even<br \/>\n\tin a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\n\tof Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\n\tthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similar<br \/>\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State<br \/>\n\tof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR<br \/>\n\tSCW 5553<br \/>\n\tand in Girja<br \/>\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\n\tappellate court is not required to re-write the<br \/>\n\tjudgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by<br \/>\n\tthe Court below are found to be just<br \/>\n\tand proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the<br \/>\n\tcase of State<br \/>\n\tof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tin case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion<br \/>\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not<br \/>\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave gone through<br \/>\n\tthe order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also<br \/>\n\tperused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\n\tadvocates for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\ttrial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary<br \/>\n\tevidence, found that though it is the case of the complainant that<br \/>\n\tall the procedure of sampling has been done in the presence of his<br \/>\n\tassistant, prosecution has not examined the assistant of the<br \/>\n\tcomplainant. Therefore, only evidence of complainant cannot be<br \/>\n\tconsidered. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that the<br \/>\n\tsample was taken on 26th February 1992, analysis was done<br \/>\n\ton 11th March 1992 and complaint was filed on 19th<br \/>\n\tMay 1992. Thus, there is a delay of more than three months in filing<br \/>\n\tthe delay after the sample was taken. The complainant had not<br \/>\n\texplained the delay of more than three months in filing the<br \/>\n\tcomplaint. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that report<br \/>\n\tof the Central Food Laboratory is contrary to the report of the<br \/>\n\tPublic Analyst and the report of the Central Food Laboratory<br \/>\n\tsupersedes the report of the public analyst and therefore, report of<br \/>\n\tthe public analyst have no importance. The report of the Central<br \/>\n\tFood Laboratory do not suggest that any prohibited colour was used<br \/>\n\tin preparation of biscuit. It is also observed by the learned<br \/>\n\tMagistrate that the prosecution has not proved the case against the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has also<br \/>\n\tobserved that there are serious lacuna in the oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing is produced on record<br \/>\n\tof this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charges against the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has<br \/>\n\tmiserably failed to prove the case against the respondent-accused.<br \/>\n\tThus, from the evidence itself it is established that the<br \/>\n\tprosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.H.H.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tParikh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is not in a position<br \/>\n\tto show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that<br \/>\n\tthe approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest<br \/>\n\tillegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court<br \/>\n\thas ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court was completely justified in acquitting the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused of the charges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tfind that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely<br \/>\n\tjust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or<br \/>\n\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.<br \/>\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed. The<br \/>\n\tJudgment and Order of acquittal dated 24th<br \/>\n\tFebruary 1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\n\tHimmatnagar, in Criminal Case No.915 of 1992 is hereby confirmed.<br \/>\n\tBail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings,<br \/>\n\tif any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n<p>Anup<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs The on 26 November, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/630\/1993 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 of 1993 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-227819","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs The on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs The on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-22T21:46:12+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 26 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T21:46:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1337,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T21:46:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 26 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs The on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-22T21:46:12+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 26 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T21:46:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2"},"wordCount":1337,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2","name":"State vs The on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T21:46:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-26-november-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 26 November, 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\/227819","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=227819"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227819\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227819"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227819"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}