{"id":238316,"date":"2010-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-28T06:27:58","modified_gmt":"2018-03-28T00:57:58","slug":"state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/896\/1996\t 3\/ 6\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. 896 of 1996\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHANTILAL\nNATHALAL THAKKAR &amp; 3 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR.\nMAULIK NANAVATY, ADDL.PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR DK MODI\nfor Opponent(s) : 2 - 4. \nMR MD MODI for Opponent(s) : 2 -\n4. \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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(1)\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocate for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe<br \/>\nappellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section<br \/>\n378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging acquittal order<br \/>\ndated 29.6.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad<br \/>\n(Rural), Mirzapur. in Criminal Case No.1307 of 2005 acquitting the<br \/>\naccused of the charge of committing offense under Section 16(1-A)sub<br \/>\nsection (I) (II) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tIt<br \/>\nwas a case of the prosecution  before the Court that the concerned<br \/>\nfood inspector in  discharge of his duties visited the place of the<br \/>\naccused no.1 vendor on 2nd December, 1994 at about 11:30<br \/>\nhours, where he found that the owner of the shop was present.  After<br \/>\nintroducing himself as food inspector and after notifying his<br \/>\nintention to collect the sample of food article i.e. Full Cream Milk,<br \/>\n he purchased two pouches of Royal Dairy Milk, Pasteurized Full Cream<br \/>\nMilk and after pouring the same in three equal  portion, completed<br \/>\nformalities of sealing, signing etc. and sent for examination to<br \/>\npublic analyst on 2nd December, 1994 itself and remaining<br \/>\ntwo samples were sent to the local heath authority as per the law.<br \/>\nThe public analyst in its report dated 22.12.1994 opined that the<br \/>\nsample was not inconformity with the standard laid down under the law<br \/>\nand, therefore, it was treated as adulterated and, therefore, the<br \/>\ncomplaint was lodged  after obtaining due sanction  from the<br \/>\ncompetent authority.  The Court after recording evidence and<br \/>\nappreciating the same, come to the conclusion that the prosecution<br \/>\ncould not bring on the charge against the accused acquitted the<br \/>\naccused of the charge of committing offense under Section 16 of the<br \/>\nPrevention of Food Adulteration Act.  This appeal is preferred<br \/>\nassailing the said order of acquittal under Section 378 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)\tShri<br \/>\nNanavaty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the<br \/>\norder of acquittal is not sustainable as the same is containing<br \/>\nfindings  which are not in accordance with law. He however, could not<br \/>\ncontrovert the fact that there were serious lacuna pointed out in the<br \/>\ncase of the prosecution in respect of the very identification of the<br \/>\nsample, which deal a blow to the<br \/>\nlodging of the proseuciotn itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5).\tShri<br \/>\nModi learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the<br \/>\nTrial Court has recorded acquittal on account of noncompliance of<br \/>\nmandatory provisions of rule 14 of the Prevention of Food<br \/>\nAdulteration Act.  The Panchnama shows that the public analyst ins<br \/>\nhis report Exh.34 as under the heading, details of the sample has<br \/>\nnarrated it to be S.M. lead correct is M.S. Lead.  This being a<br \/>\nserious  discrepancy going to the route of lodging of any<br \/>\nprosecution, the acquittal order did not be disturbed under Section<br \/>\n378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>(6)\tThe<br \/>\nCourt has heard the parties and perused the record and proceedings.<br \/>\nThe Trial Court has in fact recorded on three ground namely much<br \/>\ndifference between the findings of the public analyst as well as that<br \/>\nof CFL and the discrepancy in respect of lead of the container, which<br \/>\ncontains the sample and noncompliance with rule 14.  This Court is of<br \/>\nthe view that the acquittal deserves to be sustained at least on two<br \/>\ngrounds as the first ground with regard to difference in findings of<br \/>\nthe authorities namely public analyst as well as that of CFL would be<br \/>\nnot of much help to the defense as once the CFL findings are being<br \/>\nbrought on record, the public analyst report would pale into<br \/>\ninsignificance, would be of no avail for whatsoever reason. However,<br \/>\nit is required to be noted that the findings with regard to<br \/>\nnoncompliance of mandatory provisions of rule 14 is required to be<br \/>\nappreciated in view of the fact that the complainant has deposed that<br \/>\nthe vessels for collecting sample were cleaned by the helper on the<br \/>\nspot, but helper in his examination in chief has not stated the same<br \/>\nand this being only an evidence with regard to compliance with Rule<br \/>\n14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.  The Court was<br \/>\njustified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution could not<br \/>\nestablished positively compliance with Rule 14 of the Prevention of<br \/>\nFood Adulteration Rules.  Now this bring the Court to consider the<br \/>\nthird aspect on which the acquittal is recorded namely serious<br \/>\ndiscrepancy in the Panchnama which is describes the container lead<br \/>\nand the public analyst report which describes it to be S.M. Lead<br \/>\n(M.S.Lead).  This discrepancy in the public analyst report goes to<br \/>\nthe route of the matter as the public analyst report is the basis on<br \/>\nwhich the local health authority  is required to be accord his<br \/>\nsanction for lodging prosecution.  When this discrepancy has not has<br \/>\nnot been noticed or explained by the local health authority in any<br \/>\nway, it would amount to non application of mind for according the<br \/>\nsanction and on that basis, it can be said that the entire<br \/>\nprosecution was misconceived and founded on a basis of the sanction,<br \/>\nwhich let proper application<br \/>\nof mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.   The Court,<br \/>\ntherefore, is of the view that the appeal against the order of<br \/>\nacquittal is required to be rejected and the order of acquittal is<br \/>\nrequired to be confirmed at least on two grounds namely lack of<br \/>\napplication of mind while giving sanction and noncompliance of<br \/>\nPrevention of Food Adulteration Rule.  Accordingly, the appeal is<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vahid<\/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 Shantilal on 11 March, 2010 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/896\/1996 3\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 896 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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-238316","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 Shantilal on 11 March, 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-shantilal-on-11-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-28T00:57:58+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=\"5 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-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-28T00:57:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":915,\"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-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-28T00:57:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 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-shantilal-on-11-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-28T00:57:58+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-28T00:57:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010"},"wordCount":915,"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-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010","name":"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-28T00:57:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-shantilal-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Shantilal on 11 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238316","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=238316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}