{"id":252406,"date":"2009-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-17T23:41:15","modified_gmt":"2018-03-17T18:11:15","slug":"state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable 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\/1258\/1999\t 12\/ 12\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. 1258 of 1999\n \n\nFor Approval\nand Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI  \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\nASHWINKUMAR\nDITABHAI DAMOR - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR.\nR.C.KODEKAR APP for Appellant(s) : 1, \nLD. ADVOCATE MR. KHARADI 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 KS JHAVERI\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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/07\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n
\t\tThe present appeal,
\n\tunder section 378<\/a> of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
\n\tdirected against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
\n\t31-08-1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.K. At Himatnagar
\n\tin Special Case No. 7 of 1994 whereby the accused has been acquitted
\n\tof the charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n
2.0
\n\t \tThe brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1
\n\t\tThe complainant Vasantbhai Dhulabhai Patel is residing at Badoli,
\n\thaving farm in Village Kukadiya in the name of his father. He had
\n\ttaken loan of Rs. 1,90,000\/-  for Tractor against the said land from
\n\tState Bank of India. For the said loan he had applied  for record of
\n\tthe land from Revenue Department. The accused was working as Talati
\n\tcum Mantri in the said Revenue Department.  He had demanded for Rs.
\n\t500\/- as bribe for the record  but the complainant was not in a
\n\tposition to pay him, and hence he informed the accused that he will
\n\tpay  the same on 15-01-1994. The complainant  therefore lodged a
\n\tcomplaint with A.C.B. Office, Himatnagar and the accused was trapped
\n\tduring the raid of A.C.B.\n<\/p>\n
3.
\n\t\tNecessary investigation was carried out and statements of several
\n\twitnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation,
\n\trespondent was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed
\n\tagainst him .\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n\t\tThereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Special
\n\tCourt, the same was committed to the Special Court, which was
\n\tnumbered as Special Case No. 7\/1994. The trial was initiated against
\n\tthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.
\n\tTo prove the case against accused, the prosecution \thas  \texamined
\nfollowing documentary evidence<\/p>\n
1.
\n\t\t  Complaint Exb. 21<\/p>\n
2.
\n\t\t Complainant’s acceptance towardsd Bank Exb. 22.\n<\/p>\n
3.
\n\t\t  Complainant’s loan details noted in Form 6 Exb. 23.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n\t\t  Revenue Record of the complainant Exb. 24.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\n\t\t  Form 7\/12 of Complainant’s block no. 132 Exb. 25.\n<\/p>\n
6.
\n\t\t Yadi for the Panch Exb. 34<\/p>\n
7.
\n\t\t Panchnama Exb.36<\/p>\n
8.
\n\t\tMudamal received from Accused  Exb. 37.\n<\/p>\n
9.
\n\t\t Service book record of the Accused Exb. 42-44<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tTo prove the case
\n\t\tagainst accused, the prosecution has examine following witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tVasantbhai D. Patel
\n\t\t\t\t\tExb. 20   Complainant <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t PW  Manuprasad A.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tBhattExb. 33.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tInvestigation
\n\t\t\t\t\tOfficer Jamasa Exb. 40.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tAt the end of trial,
\n\t\t\tafter recording the statement of the accused under section 313<\/a> of
\n\t\t\tCr. P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and
\n\t\t\tdefence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of
\n\t\t\tall the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated
\n\t\t\t31-08-1999.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tBeing aggrieved by
\n\t\t\tand dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by
\n\t\t\tthe Special Court the appellant State has preferred the present
\n\t\t\tappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tIt was contended by
\n\t\t\tlearned APP that the judgment and order of the Special Court is
\n\t\t\tagainst the provisions of law, the Special Court has not properly
\n\t\t\tconsidered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the
\n\t\t\tprovisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution
\n\t\t\thas proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the
\n\t\t\tpresent respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through
\n\t\t\tthe oral as well as the entire documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tAt the outset it is
\n\t\t\trequired to be noted that the principles which would govern and
\n\t\t\tregulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of
\n\t\t\tacquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly
\n\t\t\texplained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case
\n\t\t\tof M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr,
\n\t\t\treported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated about
\n\t\t\tthe powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of
\n\t\t\tacquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed
\n\t\t\tas under:\n<\/p>\n
 54.
\n\t\t\tIn any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be
\n\t\t\tan appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the
\n\t\t\trevisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power
\n\t\t\tagainst a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne
\n\t\t\tin mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are
\n\t\t\tpossible, the appellate court should not interfere with the
\n\t\t\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court below.\n<\/p>\n
Further,
\n\t\tin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
\n\t\t(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following
\n\t\tprinciples:\n<\/p>\n
 42. From the above
\ndecisions, in our considered view, the following general principles
\nregarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
\nagainst an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n
[1] An appellate court
\nhas full power to review, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence
\nupon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
[2] The Code<\/a> of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on
\nexercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before
\nit may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
[3] Various expressions,
\nsuch as  substantial and compelling reasons ,  good and
\nsufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,  distorted
\nconclusions ,  glaring mistakes ,etc. are not intended to
\ncurtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against
\nacquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of  flourishes
\nof language  to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to
\ninterfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to
\nreview the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
[4]An appellate court,
\nhowever, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double
\npresumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
\ninnocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
\ncriminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
\ninnocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
\nSecondly the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of
\nhis innocence is further reinforced,reaffirmed and strengthened by
\nthe trial court.\n<\/p>\n
[5] If two reasonable
\nconclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
\nappellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
\nby the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tThus, it is a
\n\t\t\tsettled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if
\n\t\t\ttwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\n\t\t\tevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\n\t\t\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tEven in a recent
\n\t\t\tdecision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V.
\n\t\t\tSanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported<\/a> in (2007)3 SCC 75, the
\n\t\t\tCourt has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
\n\t\t\tIn para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 16. From the
\naforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers
\nin appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would
\nnot ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized
\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of
\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment
\ndelivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a
\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the court has committed
\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.
\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to
\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis
\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused
\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tSimilar principle
\n\t\t\thas been laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of State of
\n\t\t\tUttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR
\n\t\t\tSCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad(Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of MP,
\n\t\t\treported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this
\n\t\t\tCourt may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tIt is also a settled
\n\t\t\tlegal provision that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is
\n\t\t\tnot required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings,
\n\t\t\twhen the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just
\n\t\t\tand proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the
\n\t\t\tcase of State of Karnataka V.s Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981
\n\t\t\tSC 1417 wherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t ……This Court
\n\t\t\thas observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary
\n\t\t\t(1967) 1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
\n\t\t\tappellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on
\n\t\t\tthe evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to
\n\t\t\treiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expressions of
\n\t\t\tgeneral agreements with the reasons given by the Court the
\n\t\t\tdecision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t \tThus, in case the
\n\t\tappellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by
\n\t\tthe lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tWe have gone through
\n\t\t\tthe judgment and order passed by the trial court. We have also
\n\t\t\tperused the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced before
\n\t\t\tthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by
\n\t\t\tlearned Advocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tThe trial court has
\n\t\t\tclearly recorded a finding that prosecution has miserably failed
\n\t\t\tto prove nexus between the appellant and alleged crime in
\n\t\t\tquestion.  There are no evidence to show that any demand was made
\n\t\t\tfor bribe. There were major contradictions in the statement of
\n\t\t\twitnesses. Trial court had observed that  prosecution is failed to
\n\t\t\tprove that  the accused had demanded Rs. 500\/- as bribe from the
\n\t\t\tcomplainant’s father. Further  the trial court had discussed the
\n\t\t\twhole evidence in details in para 24,25 and 26 in the judgment.
\n\t\t\tThus the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, acceptance
\n\t\t\tand recovery, the three pillars of the prosecution case. Thus,
\n\t\t\tfrom the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution
\n\t\t\thas not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  \tMr. Kodekar learned
\n\t\t\tAPP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary
\n\t\t\tview of the matter or that the approach of a trial court is
\n\t\t\tvitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is
\n\t\t\tperverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence
\n\t\t\ton record.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tIn the above view of
\n\t\t\tthe matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court
\n\t\t\twas completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the
\n\t\t\tcharges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tWe find that the
\n\t\t\tfindings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and
\n\t\t\tproper and in recording the said finding, no illegality or
\n\t\t\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \tWe are, therefore,
\n\t\t\tin complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and
\n\t\t\tthe resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and
\n\t\t\thence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal
\n\t\t\tis hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(K.S.Jhaveri,J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.Saiyed,J.)<\/p>\n
*Himanshu<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1258\/1999 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1258 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 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-252406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009 - 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-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-17T18:11:15+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=\"10 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-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T18:11:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1815,\"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-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009\",\"name\":\"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-17T18:11:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009 - 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-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-17T18:11:15+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T18:11:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009"},"wordCount":1815,"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-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009","name":"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-17T18:11:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ashwinkumar-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Ashwinkumar on 23 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/252406","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=252406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}