{"id":243193,"date":"2010-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-27T01:43:11","modified_gmt":"2017-09-26T20:13:11","slug":"state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/958\/2003\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 958 of 2003\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo 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\nKARSHANBHAI\nBHAGVANBHAI DETROJA - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPK JANI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR KARANJIT VADODARIA, MR NITIN M AMIN for\nOpponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellant – State of Gujarat has filed this Appeal under Section
\n\t378(1)(3) of Cr. P.C. against the Judgment and order of acquittal
\n\tdated 31.03.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n\tAhmedabad (Rural), in Criminal Case No. 2335 of 1998, whereby the
\n\trespondent   accused has been acquitted from the charges levelled
\n\tagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbrief facts of the prosecution case is that the respondent
\n\taccused was serving as Accountant in Viramgam Taluka Sales &
\n\tPurchase Sangh (herein after referred to as  the Sangh).  It is
\n\talleged that under the instruction of the District Registrar, the
\n\taudit of the said Sangh was made and the Auditor has found that
\n\tduring the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1994 the accused, by forging
\n\tand tampering the official records and documents, has
\n\tmisappropriated the amount of Rs.4,30,339\/-  and has also
\n\tmisappropriated to the tune of Rs. 9,91,208\/- by making wrong entry
\n\tin the record. Therefore, the complainant was instructed to file
\n\tcomplaint against the accused for the alleged breach and illegality
\n\tcommitted by the accused, and thereby the complaint has been filed
\n\tagainst the accused   respondent herein for the offences
\n\tpunishable under Sections 406, 408, 409 and 477-A of I.P. Code,
\n\twhich came to be numbered as Criminal Case No. 2335 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tthe trial was proceeded against the respondent   accused in the
\n\tCourt of learned Magistrate. To prove the case against the
\n\trespondent   accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses
\n\tand also produced documentary evidence. And at the end of trial,
\n\tafter recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
\n\tand after hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate has acquitted
\n\tthe respondent   accused from the charges levelled against him,
\n\tvide judgment under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order
\n\tpassed by the learned Magistrate, the appellant   State has filed
\n\tpresent Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tPublic Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has
\n\tcontended that the Judgment and order of trial Court is against the
\n\tprovisions of law. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the
\n\tfacts and evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the
\n\tprovisions of law itself it is clearly established that the
\n\tprosecution has proved the whole ingredients of offence against the
\n\trespondent. Learned PP has also contended that the accused has also
\n\tmade a confessional statement before the Auditor about the alleged
\n\tbreach committed by him. He has also contended that from the charge
\n\titself, it is established that the respondent   accused was
\n\tserving in the firm and he was entrusted and was having dominion
\n\tover the property and he has confessed before the Auditor that he
\n\thas committed criminal breach of trust. Learned PP has also taken
\n\tthis Court through the oral as well as documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tKaranjit Vadodaria, appearing for Mr. Amin, learned Counsel for the
\n\trespondent   accused has vehemently contended that the prosecution
\n\thas failed to prove the ingredients of criminal breach of trust as
\n\tstipulated in Section 405 of I.P. Code and when the ingredient of
\n\tsection 405 od I.P. Code is not proved, then the prosecution has
\n\tfailed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave perused the oral as well as documentary evidence. I have also
\n\tconsidered the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor as
\n\twell as the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent
\n\taccused. It is true that the accused has made a statement before the
\n\tAuditor, but, it cannot be said that by said statement the accused
\n\thimself has confessed the alleged breach committed by him. In the
\n\tsaid statement it was also not mentioned by the accused that the
\n\talleged amount was used by him or by some others. When this Court
\n\thas put a specific query to the learned PP as to under which
\n\tprovisions of Law the Auditor has any power to record the so called
\n\tconfessional statement of the accused and whether the Auditor is
\n\tempowered to record the said so called confessional statement, the
\n\tlearned PP is unable to give answer to the query raised by this
\n\tCourt. I have also gone through the ingredient of Section 405 of
\n\tI.P. Code. The said Section 405 of I.P. Code is reproduced, as under
\n\t:\n<\/p>\n
 405.
\nCriminal breach of trust   Whoever, being in any manner entrusted
\nwith property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly
\nmisappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or
\ndishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
\ndirection of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
\ndischarged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he
\nhas made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers
\nany other person so to do, commits  criminal breach of trust .\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\nPublic Prosecutor is unable to show as to under which provision of
\nlaw the statement of the accused was recorded by the Auditor. Even he
\nis unable to show as to under which provision of Evidence Act the
\nsaid statement can be considered as  confessional statement .
\nWhen the main ingredient of Section 405 of I.P. Code is  not proved
\nby the prosecution, then the whole charge can be washed out by the
\noral as well as documentary evidence which is produced on the record.\n<\/p>\n
So
\n\tfar as so called confessional statement which is read over by the
\n\tlearned Public Prosecutor is concerned, it is established law by the
\n\tHon’ble Apex Court that the evidence of confessional statement is a
\n\tweakest evidence and it cannot be considered without any
\n\tcorroboration. From the oral as well as documentary evidence which
\n\tis produced on record the learned PP is unable to say that the said
\n\tstatement is fully corroborated by other evidence and the same is a
\n\treliable piece of evidence. Learned PP has also relied upon a
\n\tdecision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of  SHIVA KARAM
\n\tPAYASWAMI TEWAR v\/s. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , reported in AIR
\n\t2009 SC 1692. The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Apex
\n\tCourt are different than the facts in the present case. In the
\n\tpresent case when the prosecution is unable to prove the ingredient
\n\tof Section 405 of I.P. Code, then in that case the accused cannot be
\n\theld guilty for the offences alleged against him. Therefore, the
\n\tdecision cited above, would be of no avail in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court
\n\tand have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence
\n\tproduced before me and also considered the submissions made by the
\n\tlearned Advocates. The trial Court has clearly observed that looking
\n\tto the evidence of complainant (Exh.8), he is a formal complainant.
\n\tHe has no personal knowledge about the alleged breach of trust
\n\tcommitted by the accused. The evidence of other witnesses also do
\n\tnot support the case of the prosecution. The trial Court has also
\n\tfound that the evidence of Auditor is not helpful to the case of
\n\tprosecution. The trial Court has also observed that the Auditor is
\n\tnot empowered to record the statement of the witnesses. Thus the
\n\tprosecution has failed to establish the main foundation or base of
\n\tthe offence alleged against the respondent. The prosecution has
\n\tfailed to establish entrustment or dominion over the property by the
\n\trespondent   accused nor the fact of dishonest misappropriation
\n\tnor the conversion of the property for his own use. Further, the so
\n\tcalled confessional statement has no evidentiary value in the eyes
\n\tof law and the same is not supported by independent, legal and
\n\ttrustworthy evidence.  On going through the Judgment and order
\n\tpassed by the trial Court and the papers placed before me, I am of
\n\tthe opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in not
\n\tbelieving the case of the prosecution. I find that the findings
\n\trecorded by the trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in
\n\trecording the said findings no illegality or infirmity has been
\n\tcommitted by it. The learned Judge has rightly come to the
\n\tconclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
\n\tcase against the respondent   accused.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tin my opinion, looking to the evidence on record, from the evidence
\n\titself it is it clearly established that the prosecution has not
\n\tproved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe out-set it is required to be noted that the principles which
\n\twould govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court
\n\tagainst an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been
\n\tvery succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
\n\tdecisions. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an
\n\torder of acquittal are well settled. Thus, in case the appellate
\n\tCourt agrees with the reasons and the findings given by the lower
\n\tCourt, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
\n\tCourt below and hence find no reason to interfere with the same.
\n\tHence, the Appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of above the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated
\n\t31.3.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in
\n\tCriminal Case No. 2335 of 1998 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if
\n\tany, shall stands cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.SAIYED,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
sas<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/958\/2003 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 958 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/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-243193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 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-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-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=\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-26T20:13:11+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=\"8 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-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T20:13:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1559,\"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-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-26T20:13:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 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 Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 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-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-26T20:13:11+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T20:13:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010"},"wordCount":1559,"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-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010","name":"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-26T20:13:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ahmedabad-rural-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Ahmedabad (Rural) on 10 February, 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\/243193","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=243193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}