{"id":251279,"date":"2010-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2"},"modified":"2016-03-02T00:54:31","modified_gmt":"2016-03-01T19:24:31","slug":"state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 18 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs The on 18 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/837\/2009\t 4\/ 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. 837 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \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\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBHARATBHAI\nDEVRAJBHAI SOJITRA (VENDOR &amp; NOMINEE) &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR HL JANI\nADDITIONAL PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR YN RAVANI for Opponent(s) : 1\n- 2. \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: 18\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\tThe<br \/>\npresent appeal, under <a href=\"\/doc\/1856707\/\" id=\"a_1\">section 378(4)<\/a> of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of<br \/>\nacquittal dated 26.12.2008 passed by the learned 2nd<br \/>\nAdditional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad,<br \/>\nin Criminal Case No.3 of 2005, whereby the accused have been<br \/>\nacquitted from the charges leveled against them.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">2.\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.1\tThe<br \/>\nFood Inspector visited on 26.7.2005 shop of the respondent<br \/>\naccused No.1 running in the name of M\/s. Damini Oil Industries,<br \/>\nPipalata, Dist. Kheda along with panch. The Food Inspector after<br \/>\nissuing oral as well as notice in Form No.VI  to respondent No.1<br \/>\npurchased refined cottonseed oil. The procedure of taking sealing and<br \/>\nsending the sample was meticulously followed as per the mandatory<br \/>\nprovisions of the <a href=\"\/doc\/32969400\/\" id=\"a_1\">Prevention of Food Adulteration Act<\/a>. The sample was<br \/>\nfor analysis to the Public Analyst and report of the Public Analyst<br \/>\nwas sent to the respondents. After verifying the report of analysis,<br \/>\nthe sample was not found as per the standard. Therefore, complaint<br \/>\nwas filed for the offences under <a href=\"\/doc\/27875011\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 2<\/a>(1-a) (m),  7(1) (5) and 16<br \/>\nof the <a href=\"\/doc\/32969400\/\" id=\"a_3\">Prevention of Food Adulteration Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">2.2\tTherefore,<br \/>\nCriminal Case No.3 of 2005 with respect to the aforesaid offence was<br \/>\nfiled against the respondents before the learned 2nd<br \/>\nAdditional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad.<br \/>\nDuring the course of investigation, chargesheet was filed against<br \/>\nthem before the court of learned trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">2.3\tTo<br \/>\nprove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has also<br \/>\nproduced documentary evidence and examined two witnesses. After<br \/>\nhearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned trial Court<br \/>\nwas pleased to acquit the accused vide his judgment dated 26.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">3.\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the learned trial Court the appellant has preferred the<br \/>\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">4.\tIt<br \/>\nwas contended by learned APP Mr.  Jani that the judgment and order of<br \/>\nthe trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has<br \/>\nnot properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and<br \/>\nlooking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the<br \/>\nprosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against<br \/>\nthe present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court<br \/>\nthrough the oral as well  as the entire documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">4.1\tThus,<br \/>\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even<br \/>\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\nfinding  of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">4.2\tEven<br \/>\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/585040\/\" id=\"a_4\">State<br \/>\nof Goa V. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\nthe  Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.<br \/>\nIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\"> 16.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the<br \/>\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal<br \/>\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the<br \/>\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality<br \/>\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any<br \/>\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized<br \/>\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of<br \/>\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgement<br \/>\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate court has a<br \/>\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion<br \/>\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed<br \/>\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.<br \/>\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to<br \/>\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis<br \/>\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused<br \/>\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">4.3\tSimilar<br \/>\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court  in the cases of<br \/>\nState<br \/>\nof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR<br \/>\nSCW 5553<br \/>\nand in Girja<br \/>\nPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\nThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\nacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">4.4\tIt<br \/>\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give<br \/>\nfresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are<br \/>\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the  case of State<br \/>\nof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417<br \/>\nwherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\"> &amp;<br \/>\nThis court<br \/>\nhas observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary<br \/>\n(1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the<br \/>\nappellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on<br \/>\nthe evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate<br \/>\nthe reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement<br \/>\nwith the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under<br \/>\nappeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">5.\tI<br \/>\nhave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I<br \/>\nhave also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the<br \/>\ntrial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP<br \/>\nfor the appellant. It appears from the judgment that panch witness &#8211;<br \/>\nBhanubhai Melabhai Bhoi at Exhibit 44, who is turned  hostile before<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court. The complainant has failed to prove his<br \/>\ncontention stated in the panchanama and even by cogent documentary<br \/>\nevidence. The complainant has to failed to prove to follow the<br \/>\nmandatory provisions Rule 14 and <a href=\"\/doc\/172356374\/\" id=\"a_5\">Section 20(1)<\/a> of the Act. Thus, from<br \/>\nthe evidence itself it is established that the complainant has not<br \/>\nproved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">6.\tLearned<br \/>\nAPP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view<br \/>\nof the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by<br \/>\nsome manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the<br \/>\ntrial court has ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">7.\tIn<br \/>\nthe above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\ntrial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of<br \/>\nthe charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">8.\tI<br \/>\nfind that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely<br \/>\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or<br \/>\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">9.\tI<br \/>\nam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court<br \/>\nbelow and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the<br \/>\nappeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.<br \/>\nRecord and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n<p>ynvyas<\/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 18 January, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/837\/2009 4\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 837 of 2009 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-251279","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 18 January, 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-18-january-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 18 January, 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-18-january-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=\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-01T19:24:31+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-18-january-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 18 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T19:24:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1171,\"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-18-january-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T19:24:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-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 18 January, 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 18 January, 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-18-january-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-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":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-01T19:24:31+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-18-january-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 18 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T19:24:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2"},"wordCount":1171,"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-18-january-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2","name":"State vs The on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T19:24:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-18-january-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 18 January, 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\/251279","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=251279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251279\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}