{"id":235297,"date":"2010-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-25T16:13:57","modified_gmt":"2015-10-25T10:43:57","slug":"state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: J.M.Panchal,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.B.Antani,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/190\/1997\t 17\/ 17\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.190 of 1997\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL \n\n \n\nAND\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.B. ANTANI\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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJAGDISH\nRAVJIBHAI GONDALIA - Respondent\n \n\n============================================================\nAppearance\n: \nMR\nND GOHIL, APP for Appellant. \nNOTICE SERVED for\nRespondent. \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 J.M.PANCHAL\n\t\t\n\t\n\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 \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B. ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/09\/2005 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)<\/p>\n
\t\tInstant
\nappeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973, is directed against judgment dated October 9, 1996 rendered by
\nthe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No.4
\nof 1995, by which the respondent is acquitted of the offence
\npunishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
\nSubstances Act, 1985 (?Sthe Act?? for short).\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nfacts emerging from the record of the case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nor about  October 94, Mr.M.R.Gohil was discharging duties as Police
\nSub Inspector of Gundavadi Police Chawki. When he was present in ?SC??
\nDivision Police Station, Rajkot,  on October 7, 1994, he received an
\ninformation that the respondent, who was residing in upper portion of
\nhouse situated in Mill Para Sheri No.4, Rajkot, was in possession of
\npsychotropic substance namely, Diazepam Tablets, and was selling the
\nsame. On receipt of information, PSI Mr.Gohil requisitioned  services
\nof two panch-witnesses and informed them about  the information
\nreceived by him. He reduced into writing the information  received by
\nhim and sent necessary  report under Section 42(2) of the Act to his
\nimmediate official superior. After drawing  first part of panchnama
\nin the Police Station itself, he in the company of  panch-witnesses
\nand other police personnel, went to the place indicated in the
\ninformation for carrying out raid. The raiding party went to Mill
\nPara Sheri No.4 and entered ‘della’
\nin which four houses in a row are constructed. The members of the
\nraiding party climbed staircase and found that there were two rooms.
\nOn entering one of the rooms, the respondent was found present
\ntherein. On interrogation, he disclosed his name to be Jagdish
\nRavjibhai (the respondent). He was apprised of the information
\nreceived by PSI Mr.Gohil and also about the intention of the members
\nof raiding party to search the room. Before conducting the search,
\nthe respondent was offered that room could be searched in presence of
\na magistrate or a gazetted officer, but the offer was declined by the
\nrespondent.  Thereupon, the room in possession of the respondent was
\nsearched. The search resulted into find of nine bottles out of which
\neight bottles were white coloured with
\nyellow lid  thereon whereas one bottle was painted blue coloured and
\nwas having black lid. Out of nine bottles, seven bottles were found
\nhaving wrapper of paper with  English writing to the effect that ‘it
\ncontains 1000 tablets of Diazepam I.P.’.\n<\/p>\n
The fact that tablets were Diazepam Tablets was also mentioned in
\nHindi language. Below the said writing, it was mentioned that each
\ntablet contained Diazepam I.P. 5 mg., etc. The bottles were opened
\nand in eight bottles small plastic bags containing small tablets were
\nfound. It may be stated that  on other two bottles, no wrapper as
\nindicated above was found. As it was decided to have scientific
\ninvestigation in the matter, Mr.Ashra, who was  Scientific Officer,
\nwas summoned at the place of raid. He carried out scientific
\nexamination of the tablets  found on the spot.  He gave his opinion
\nthat the tablets were  basic drugs. It was further found that out of
\nnine bottles, eight bottles were each containing 1000 tablets,
\nwhereas one bottle, which was without wrapper, was containing 280
\ntablets. PSI Mr.Gohil demanded pass or permit from the respondent
\nauthorizing him to possess Diazepam Tablets. No pass or permit could
\nbe produced by the respondent. Therefore, quantity of Diazepam
\nTablets was seized. The quantity seized was packed and on each bottle
\nseal bearing impression  of ?SPolice  Inspector, Rajkot City?? was
\napplied.  Thereafter, drawing of second
\npart of panchnama was completed. PSI Mr.Gohil reduced into writing
\nhis complaint against the respondent. He handed over muddamal,
\npanchnama, his complaint, cash
\nrecovered, etc. to Constable Ratabhai to be handed over to  Chandulal
\nJivabhai, who was then PSO of ?SC?? Division Police Station. PSO of
\nPolice Station handed over muddamal
\netc. to Writer Head  Mahendrabhai Pathak for safe custody. Writer
\nHead Mahendrabhai Pathak, in turn,  made necessary entry in the
\nRegister maintained at the Police Station for having received
\nmuddamal  etc. and
\nkept the same in a cupboard maintained in the Police Station  for the
\npurpose of safe custody of muddamal.  On
\nOctober 10, 1994, he handed over muddamal to
\nPolice Constable Mr.Shantilal Govindbhai with instructions to deliver
\nthe same to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) for analysis.  The
\nmuddamal was analyzed
\nby the Chemical Examiner. The report of the analysis indicated that
\nthe tablets contained Diazepam. PSO
\nof the Police Station handed over investigation of the complaint
\nlodged by Mr.Gohil to Mr.Gohil himself. Mr.Gohil recorded  statements
\nof those persons who were found to be conversant with the facts of
\nthe case. On completion of the investigation, the respondent was
\nchargesheeted in  the Court of learned Special Judge, Rajkot, for
\ncommission of offence punishable under Section 22 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe learned Additional
\nSessions Judge, Rajkot, to whom the case was made over for trial,
\nframed necessary charge against the respondent at Exh.1. It was read
\nover and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty to the same and
\nclaimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined: (1)
\nChemist Mr.Sanjay Vinodray Kamdar as P.W.-1 at Exh.6 to prove that
\nthe respondent purchased Diazepam  tablet from his shop; (2) Dr.Anil
\nChhotalal Suchak as P.W.-2 at Exh.15 to prove that he had not issued
\nany prescription to the respondent authorizing him to purchase
\nDiazepam Tablet though such prescription was produced by the
\nrespondent before Chemist Mr.Sanjay Kamdar;\n<\/p>\n
(3) PSO Mr.Chandulal Jivabhai as P.W.-3 at Exh.16; (4) Writer Head
\nMahendrabhai Ravishanker as P.W.-4 at Exh.19; (5) Police Constable
\nRatabhai Dhanabhai as P.W.-5 at Exh.22; (6) Pradeepbhai Viththalbhai
\nLakhtariya as P.W.-6 at Exh.25;  (7) Police Constable Shantilal
\nGonvindbhai as P.W.-7 at Exh.26; (8) Panch Manoj Pranlal  as P.W.-8
\nat Exh.27; (9) Scientific Officer discharging
\nduties in Commissioner’s Officer Talsukh Nathalal Ashra as P.W.-9 at
\nExh.31; (10) Panch Mahesh Mavjibhai as P.W.-10 at Exh.33; (11) Panch
\nShailesh Shivlal Solanki as P.W.-11 at Exh.37; and (12) Investigating
\nOfficer PSI Mr.Mahavirsinh Raghuvirsinh Gohil as P.W.-12 at Exh.38,
\nto prove  its case against the respondent. The prosecution also
\nproduced documentary evidence such as bills issued by Chemist
\nMr.Kamdar to the respondent for having purchased Diazepam Tablets at
\nExhs.7 to 10; necessary entry made in the Register maintained at ?SC??
\nDivision Police Station, Rajkot, indicating  that muddamal,
\ncomplaint lodged by Mr.Gohil, Cash Rs.46=00, panchnama, etc. were
\nhanded over to PSO Mr.Chandulal Jivabhai at Exh.17; report by PSI
\nMr.Gohil to PI ?SC?? Division Police Station to register the
\noffence at Exh.18; entry from the Register maintained at ?SC??
\nDivision Police Station indicating that muddamal, etc. was
\nhanded over to Writer Head Mahendrabhai for safe custody at Exh.20;
\npanchnama indicating search of shop of Chemist Mr.Sanjay Kamdar and
\nseizure of one bottle containing Diazepam Tablets at Exh.28;
\nintimation from PSI ?SA?? Division Police Station to Scientific
\nOfficer Mr.Ashra to come to the spot for the purpose of analyzing
\nDiazepam Tablets seized at Exh.32, panchnama indicating  search of
\nroom occupied by the respondent and seizure of Diazepam Tablets at
\nExh.34; rojkam prepared by PSI Mr.Gohil
\nregarding search and seizure of Diazepam Tablets at Exh.35; complaint
\nlodged by Mr.Gohil at Exh.39; memorandum prepared by Mr.Gohil
\nindicating  that secret information  received by him was reduced into
\nwriting as required  by Section 42(3) of the Act at Exh.40; report
\nunder Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 made by PSI
\nMr.Gohil to the learned Magistrate at Exh.41; extract of entry  made
\nin the Register indicating that the information received by PSI
\nMr.Gohil was reported to his immediate higher official superior at
\nExh.42; report to higher official superior at Exh.47; receipt issued
\nby F.S.L. for having received muddamal for analysis  at
\nExh.51; report of analysis at Exh.52, etc. in support of its case
\nagainst the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tAfter recording of
\nevidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Judge
\nexplained to the  respondent the circumstances appearing against him
\nin the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and recorded his further
\nstatement as required by Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973. In his further statement, the respondent mentioned
\nthat the room occupied by him was neither raided nor he was arrested
\nand that he was picked up and taken to Police Station. It was
\nmaintained by him that no bottle containing Diazepam Tablets was
\nseized in his presence from Sanjay Chemist Store of Mr.Kamdar nor the
\nsame was sealed in his presence. He asserted that bills produced by
\nthe prosecution at Exhs.8, 9 and 10 were not bearing his signature.
\nHowever, he did not lead any evidence.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tOn appreciation of
\nevidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge held that  it
\nwas proved by the prosecution  that Chemist Mr.Sanjay Kamdar had sold
\nDiazepam Tablets to the respondent  under the bills produced at
\nExhs.7 to 10 and that those bills were bearing signatures of the
\nrespondent. The learned Judge concluded  that testimony of Dr.Suchak
\nrecorded at Exh.15, established that  he had not issued prescription
\nmarked A, B, C, D to the respondent and that  false prescriptions
\nwere produced by the respondent before the Medical Store to obtain
\nDiazepam Tablets on the basis of which,  Diazepam  Tablets were sold
\nby the Chemist to the respondent. The learned Judge further found
\nthat  it was proved  by the prosecution that in presence of panch
\nManoj Pranlal  and Panch Shailesh Shivlal, the Police Officer had
\nseized one bottle containing Diazepam Tablets from the shop of the
\nChemist. The learned Judge noticed that no satisfactory evidence was
\nadduced by the prosecution to establish that muddamal bottles
\nwere sealed at the place of the raid. According to the learned Judge,
\nit was satisfactorily proved that the room, which was raided, was in
\npossession of the respondent and that  the respondent was  in
\noccupation of the same. The learned Judge, however, noticed that PSI
\nMr.Gohil, who had carried out raid, had also lodged the complaint and
\ninvestigated the same, which was contrary to the law laid down by the
\nSupreme Court in  (1) Bhagwan Sinh vs. State of Rajsthan, A.I.R.
\n1976 SC 985; and (2)
\nMegha Sinh vs. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1995 SC 2339, and
\nheld that this course adopted by the Investigating Officer had caused
\nbias to the respondent. The learned Judge held that  provisions of
\nSections 42, 50 and 57 of the Act were complied with and that the
\nrespondent was not entitled to  possess Diazepam  Tablets in view of
\nprohibition contained in Section 8 of the Act. According to the
\nlearned Judge, no reliable evidence was adduced by the prosecution to
\nshow that muddamal was sealed  on the spot whereas evidence of
\nWriter Head Constable Mahendrabhai, examined at Exh.19, indicated
\nthat muddamal bottles were containing two seals, i.e. one of
\n‘PSI’ and second of ‘PI’ and as this discrepancy was not explained
\nby any of the prosecution witnesses, the respondent was entitled to
\nreasonable benefit of doubt arising from the facts of the case. In
\nview of abovereferredto conclusions, the learned Judge  has acquitted
\n the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Act
\nby judgment dated October 9, 1996, giving rise to instant appeal.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tThis
\nCourt has heard Mr.N.D.Gohil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
\nfor the State, at length and in great detail. This Court has also
\nundertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital
\nfeatures of the case and the entire evidence  on record with
\nreference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case.\tThough
\nthe respondent is duly served, he has neither appeared in person nor
\nthrough his advocate.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tFrom the record of the case, it
\nis evident that  the raid was carried out in the room occupied  by
\nthe respondent on October 7, 1994 whereas  one bottle containing
\nDiazepam Tablets was seized from the shop of Chemist Mr.Sanjay Kamdar
\non October 10, 1994 and, thereafter, ten bottles  were sent to F.S.L.
\nfor analysis on October 10, 1994. Though Writer Head Mr.Mahendrabhai
\nRavishanker  examined at Exh.19 has stated in his evidence that
\nsealed muddamal was kept by him in a safe maintained at the
\nPolice Station, he has not mentioned  whether the safe was locked or
\nnot nor has he stated that it was locked,  and that he had maintained
\nthe key of the safe with him for three days. Though  the muddamal
\nwas received at the Police Station on October 7, 1994, no
\nevidence is adduced by the prosecution to satisfactorily prove that
\nit was kept in safe custody at the Police Station till October 10,
\n1994 before it reached the Laboratory for analysis. Delay in dispatch
\nof muddamal to F.S.L. for analysis  is not explained by any of
\nthe prosecution witnesses. This becomes evident if one refers to
\nparagraph 3 of the testimony of Writer Head Mr.Mahendrabhai
\nRavishanker recorded at Exh.19. A close scrutiny of the evidence on
\nrecord does not indicate at all that bottles seized were sealed at
\nthe spot. This fact is neither mentioned by PSI Mr.Gohil in his
\ntestimony nor borne out from the testimony of panch-witness nor even
\nfrom the contents of panchnama. Therefore, the learned Judge of the
\ntrial Court, who had advantage of observing demeanour of the
\nwitnesses was justified in coming to the conclusion that the case
\nagainst the  respondent was not  proved beyond doubt. What is
\nrelevant to notice from the testimony of Writer Head Mr.Mahendrabhai
\nis that, according to him, when he was handed over muddamal, etc.,
\nall the muddamal bottles (dabbies) were bearing two
\nseals, i.e. one bearing the impression of ‘PSI’ and another of ‘PI’.
\nThis fact is stated  by the witness in paragraph 4 of his testimony
\nduring the cross-examination by the defence. No attempt worth the
\nname is made by the prosecution to explain this discrepancy. Once the
\nevidence of this witness is accepted as true, the case of the
\nprosecution  that nine bottles  were seized  and sealed with
\nimpression of ‘PI’ becomes highly doubtful because neither it is
\nmentioned by PSI Mr.Gohil nor it is mentioned  in the panchnama  that
\ntwo different seals having different impressions were used while
\nsealing the nine bottles.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tFurther, what is mentioned  in
\nthe panchnama is that seal bearing impression ‘Police Inspector,
\nRajkot Shaher’ was used whereas the report of the analysis
\nindicates that  samples were having seal  of ?SPolice Inspector,
\nRajkot Saheb??. It means that it could not be satisfactorily
\nestablished  by the prosecution that the samples were properly sealed
\nby Head of the raiding party.  In these circumstances, the defect in
\nthe prosecution case that PSI Mr.Gohil, who had raided the room
\noccupied by the respondent, had lodged the complaint and investigated
\nthe same, becomes relevant. It is true that as explained in State
\nrepresented by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
\nTiruchirapalli, T.N. vs. V. Jayapaul, (2004) 5 SCC 223, investigation
\n by the same Police Officer, who had lodged the First Information
\nReport, is not barred by law. However, there is no manner of doubt
\nthat such investigation can be assailed on the ground of bias or real
\nlikelihood of bias on the part of the Investigating Officer. The
\nquestion of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
\ncase and no broad or unqualified proposition that such investigation
\nby the Police Officer, who had lodged the First Information Report,
\nwould be unfair or bias, can be laid down. However, there is  no
\nmanner of doubt that  absence of evidence by the prosecution to
\nestablish that a particular seal  was applied on muddamal bottles
\n or  that muddamal  bottles were promptly sent to F.S.L. for
\nanalysis, leads this Court to conclude that investigation  by
\nMr.Gohil of his own complaint has resulted into bias and prejudiced
\nthe defence of the respondent. As observed earlier, one of the
\nbottles  containing Diazepam Tablets was seized  from the shop of
\nChemist Mr.Sanjay Kamdar on October 10, 1994. Panchnama indicating
\nthe same is produced by the prosecution at Exh.28. In the said
\npanchnama, it is specifically mentioned that bottle seized was white
\ncoloured having yellow lid. However, Writer Head Mr.Mahendra
\nRavishanker, whose testimony is recorded at Exh.19, has mentioned  in
\nparagraph 3 of his testimony  that on October 10, 1994, he had
\nreceived  another bottle (dabbi) having black lid. Thus, the
\nprosecution could not even satisfactorily
\nestablish before the Court that a particular dabbi containing
\nDiazepam Tablets was seized from the shop of the Chemist.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tOn overall view of the matter,
\nthis Court is of the opinion that defects which go to the root of the
\nmatter, have persuaded the learned Judge of the trial Court to record
\nacquittal of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThis
\nis an acquittal appeal in which Court would be slow to interfere with
\nthe order of acquittal. Infirmities in the prosecution case go to the
\nroot of the matter and strike a vital blow on the prosecution case.
\nIn such a case, it would not be safe to set aside the order of
\nacquittal, more particularly when the evidence has not inspired
\nconfidence of the learned Judge who had opportunity to observe
\ndemeanour of the witnesses. As this Court is in general agreement
\nwith the view expressed by the learned Judge, the Court does not
\nthink it necessary either to reiterate the evidence of prosecution
\nwitnesses or to restate the reasons for acquittal given by the
\nlearned Judge and this Court is of the opinion that expression of
\ngeneral agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge would be
\nsufficient in the facts of the case. This is so, in view of the
\ndecisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Girija
\nNandini Devi & Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Chaudhari, AIR<\/a> 1967 SC
\n1124, and (2) State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy and<\/a> another, AIR 1981
\nSC 1417. On overall appreciation of evidence, this Court is
\nsatisfied that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the
\nlearned Judge for acquitting the respondent. Suffice it to say that
\nthe learned Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for
\nacquitting the respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
\nhas failed to convince this Court to take a view contrary to the one
\nalready taken by the learned Judge and, therefore, the appeal is
\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Muddamal to
\nbe disposed of in terms of directions given by the learned Judge in
\nthe judgment impugned in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[J.M.PANCHAL,J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[
\nH.B.ANTANI,J.]<\/p>\n
Rajendra<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010 Author: J.M.Panchal,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.B.Antani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/190\/1997 17\/ 17 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.190 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B. ANTANI ============================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-235297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Jagdish on 23 August, 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\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-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=\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-25T10:43:57+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=\"16 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-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T10:43:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3105,\"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-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T10:43:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 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 Jagdish on 23 August, 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\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-25T10:43:57+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T10:43:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010"},"wordCount":3105,"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-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010","name":"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T10:43:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-jagdish-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Jagdish on 23 August, 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\/235297","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=235297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}