{"id":268528,"date":"2010-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-01T05:59:40","modified_gmt":"2016-11-01T00:29:40","slug":"sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&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\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/9273\/2009\t 2\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 9273 of\n2009 \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSURESHBHAI\nK CHAUHAN &amp; 1 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMPSHAH for\nApplicant(s) : 1 - 2.MS. KRUTI M SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR\nKARTIK PANDYA, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, \nMR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for\nRespondent(s) :\n2, \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 AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.0\t\tPetitioners<br \/>\nare the original accused in Criminal Case No. 1491 of 2001, pending<br \/>\nbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Botad.  The<br \/>\ncomplaint pertains to dishonour of a cheque, punishable under<br \/>\nSection-138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(&#8216;The Act&#8217; for<br \/>\nshort).  Petitioners want the said complaint to be quashed on the<br \/>\nground that they are neither signatories to the cheque in question<br \/>\nnor was the said cheque issued on behalf of the Company, wherein the<br \/>\npetitioners were responsible for the functioning of such Company.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">2.0\t\tUndisputed<br \/>\nfacts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.1\t\tThe<br \/>\noriginal complainant, respondent No.2 herein, has lodged the<br \/>\nabove-mentioned complaint for dishonour of a cheque dated 22.09.2001,<br \/>\nfor an amount of Rs.1,51,448\/-. The cheque in question is,<br \/>\nadmittedly, singed by the original accused No.1, since deceased, and<br \/>\nnot by the present petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">2.2\t\tThe<br \/>\ncase of the complainant, however, is that the accused had jointly<br \/>\ntaken loan from him, for repayment of which the said cheque was<br \/>\nissued by accused No.1.  Present petitioners are being involved on<br \/>\nthe ground that they had given a &#8216;Promissory Note&#8217; and had also given<br \/>\nit in writing that if the cheque in question is not honoured, they<br \/>\nshall be liable to pay the sum.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">2.3\t\tUpon<br \/>\npresentation of the said cheque before the Bank, same was returned as<br \/>\nunpaid, for &#8216;Insufficient Funds&#8217;.  Thereupon, the complainant issued<br \/>\nnotice for the offence punishable under Section-138 of the Act.  No<br \/>\nreply was given to the said notice, by the petitioners. Thus, when<br \/>\nthe statutory period was over, the complainant filed the impugned<br \/>\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">3.0\t\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the<br \/>\npetitioners were not the signatories to the cheque and the cheque was<br \/>\nissued by accused No.1 in his personal capacity, the<br \/>\nquestion of vicarious liability would not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">4.0\t\tOn<br \/>\nthe other hand, the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted<br \/>\nthat the loan was taken by all the accused, jointly. The present<br \/>\npetitioners had agreed in writing to repay the amount, in case the<br \/>\ncheque is not honoured.  He relied on the provisions of Sections-26<br \/>\nand 141 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">4.1\t\tIn<br \/>\nsupport of the above contentions, he relied on a decision of the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the case of  I.C.D.S.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Ltd. Vs. Beena Shabeer &amp; Another<br \/>\nreported in 2002(3) GLH 241.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">4.2\t\tHe<br \/>\nfurther contended that in any case, such defence can be raised by the<br \/>\npetitioners before the trial Court and this quashing petition should<br \/>\nnot be entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">5.0\t\tI<br \/>\nhave also heard learned APP, on behalf of respondent No.1-State.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">6.0\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the admitted facts that the petitioners<br \/>\nwere not signatories to the cheque in question and that the cheque<br \/>\nwas issued by accused<br \/>\nNo.1 in his personal capacity, the question of vicarious liability of<br \/>\nthe petitioners need to be examined.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">6.1\t\tSection-138<br \/>\nof the Act pertains to the offence of dishonour of cheque, issued for<br \/>\ndischarging any debt or liability, for &#8216;Insufficient Funds&#8217;. This<br \/>\nsection provides for punishment, in case the offence is proved.<br \/>\nSection-139 of the Act provides for rebutable presumption that,<br \/>\nunless the contrary is proved, the holder of a cheque received the<br \/>\nsame in discharge of a debt or liability.  Section-141 of the Act<br \/>\npertains to the offence by companies and reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\"> 141.<br \/>\nOffences by<br \/>\nCompanies.-(1)<br \/>\nIf the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company,<br \/>\nevery person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in<br \/>\ncharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the<br \/>\nbusiness of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to<br \/>\nbe guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against<br \/>\nand punished accordingly:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">Provided<br \/>\nthat nothing contained in this sub-section<br \/>\nender any person liable to punishment<br \/>\nif he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or<br \/>\nthat he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of<br \/>\nsuch offence:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">[Provided<br \/>\nfurther that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company<br \/>\nby virtue of his holding any officer or employment in the Central<br \/>\nGovernment or State Government or a financial corporation owned or<br \/>\ncontrolled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the<br \/>\ncase may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this<br \/>\nChapter.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">(2)<\/span><br \/>\nNotwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any<br \/>\noffence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is<br \/>\nproved that the offence has been committed with the consent or<br \/>\nconnivance of, or is attributable, to any, neglect on the part of,<br \/>\nany director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company,<br \/>\nsuch director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be<br \/>\ndeemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be<br \/>\nproceeded against and punished accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">6.2\t\tSince,<br \/>\nthe cheque in question was issued by accused No.1 in his personal<br \/>\ncapacity, the question is, can it be stated that the offence is<br \/>\ncommitted by the Company, as defined under Section-141 of the Act.<br \/>\nThe explanation to the said Section provides that the &#8216;Company&#8217;, for<br \/>\nthe said purpose, means any &#8216;body corporate&#8217; and includes<br \/>\na &#8216;firm&#8217; or &#8216;association&#8217; of individuals.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">6.3\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe present case, admittedly, the cheque was not issued or signed on<br \/>\nbehalf of any body<br \/>\ncorporate or a firm.  There is no allegation that the present<br \/>\npetitioners along with original accused No.1, formed an association<br \/>\nof individuals.  Simply because, as alleged by the complainant, loan<br \/>\nwas taken by all and the present petitioners also assured that the<br \/>\ncheque, upon presentation, will be cleared, that per<br \/>\nse<br \/>\nwould not meant that the cheque was issued on behalf of association<br \/>\nof individuals.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">6.4\t\tIn<br \/>\nthat view of the matter, present case would not be covered under<br \/>\nSection 141 of the Act and the vicarious liability cannot be fastened<br \/>\non the present petitioners.  Section-26 of the Act pertains to a<br \/>\nsituation, where a person capable of contracting, according to the<br \/>\nlaw to which he is subject, may bind himself and be bound by the<br \/>\nmaking, drawing, acceptance, indorsement, delivery and negotiation of<br \/>\na promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">6.5\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe absence of any signature, by the petitioners on the cheque, it is<br \/>\ndoubtful whether Section-26<br \/>\nof the Act, would have any application. Even if, the petitioners had<br \/>\nsubsequently<br \/>\nentered into a writing with the complainant, that by itself, by<br \/>\nvirtue of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Act, would<br \/>\nnot bring them within the purview of Section<br \/>\n138 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">6.6\t\tThe<br \/>\ndecision of the Apex Court in  I.C.D.S.<br \/>\nLtd. (Supra) was rendered in the background of the<br \/>\nfacts, where the guarantors had themselves issued cheques, which were<br \/>\ndishonoured and for which they were being proceeded under Section-138<br \/>\nof the Act.  In such a background, the Apex Court observed that the<br \/>\nHigh Court got carried away by the issue of liability of guarantors<br \/>\nand overlooked the true intent and purport of Section 138 of the Act.<br \/>\nThe facts being entirely different, that decision would not apply in<br \/>\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">7.0\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, I find that permitting further trial in such a criminal<br \/>\ncase would result into unnecessary prolonging the litigation.<br \/>\nCriminal Case No. 149 of 2010, pending before the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, First Class, Botad, is therefore, QUASHED.\tRule<br \/>\nis made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">(AKIL<br \/>\nKURESHI, J.)<\/p>\n<p>Umesh\/\t<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/9273\/2009 2\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 9273 of 2009 ========================================================= SURESHBHAI K CHAUHAN &amp; 1 &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= [&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-268528","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>Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 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\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-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=\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-01T00:29:40+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T00:29:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1215,\"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\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T00:29:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 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":"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 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\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-01T00:29:40+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T00:29:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010"},"wordCount":1215,"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\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010","name":"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T00:29:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sureshbhai-vs-state-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sureshbhai vs State on 20 October, 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\/268528","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=268528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}