{"id":269745,"date":"2010-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-04T16:56:52","modified_gmt":"2017-04-04T11:26:52","slug":"state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/768\/1996\t 11\/ 11\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. 768 of 1996\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\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\nMAVJI\nPANCHA SUTHAR - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS CM SHAH,\nADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) :\n1, \nMR.DEVANG D DAVE for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n========================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned advocates for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nappellant State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section
\n378<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order of
\nacquittal passed by the Sessions Court, Bhuj on 15.6.1996 in Criminal
\nAppeal No.31 of 1994 allowing the appeal of the respondent and
\nquashing and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence
\npassed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rapar(Kachchh) on
\n30.9.1994 in Criminal Case No.823 of 1993 for the offence punishable
\nunder Sections 279<\/a> and 429<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 177<\/a>
\nand 184<\/a> of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nfacts in brief leading to filing of this appeal deserve to be set out
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tThe
\nrespondent hereinabove, was facing charge of committing offence
\npunishable under Sections 279<\/a> and 429<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code  and
\nSections 177<\/a> and 184<\/a> of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it
\nwas alleged that on 2.9.1993 early in the morning at about 5 kms away
\nfrom village Adesar and on highway while driving S.T. Bus rashly and
\nnegligently hit the cattle being conducted for grazing by the
\ncomplainant and killed 8 cattle and injured 2 cattle and thus
\ncommitted offence punishable  under  under Sections 279<\/a> and 429<\/a> of
\nthe Indian Penal Code  and Sections 177<\/a> and 184<\/a> of the Bombay Motor
\nVehicles Act,1939. The complainant along with his companions was
\nconducting 40 to 50 cattle on the date of the incident on the highway
\nand after the accident, the bus had not stopped and therefore, the
\ncomplainant followed it in another truck along with his companions
\nand when they reached the railway crossing, which was 4 to 5 kms away
\nfrom the said place of incident, they found the bus which had stopped
\nthen on account of close of rail-cross gate and they recognized the
\ndriver of the bus. First information was given to the  concerned
\npolice station where it was initially registered as ‘Janwajog’ entry
\nand later on the same day the complaint came to be registered. The
\ninvestigation was carried out. The report was filed. The accused
\npleaded not guilty and trial began. The Court, after appreciating the
\nevidence on record came to the conclusion that the offence as alleged
\nis said to have been proved and hence convicted the accused for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 279<\/a> of the Indian Penal Code and
\nsentence him to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and ordered
\npayment of   Rs.1000\/- as fine and in default thereof, ordered him to
\nundergo 1 month simple imprisonment in addition to 6 months
\nimprisonment and also sentenced him under Section 429<\/a> to undergo 2
\nyears simple imprisonment and ordered him to pay Rs.5000\/- as fine
\nand in default thereof to further undergo 5 months simple
\nimprisonment and ordered that Rs.1000\/- be paid to the complainant
\nand Rs.1000\/- to each of the eye-witnesses Vanvir Nasha, Naran Nasha
\nand Pratapsinh Jorubha. This order of sentence and conviction dated
\n30.9.1994 was assailed by the accused respondent hereinabove in the
\nSessions Court by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1994. The
\nAppellate Court after examining, in detail, the reasoning adopted by
\nthe Court and after narrating the serious lacuna in the case of the
\nprosecution, which were not taken into consideration by the Court of
\nthe first instance, came to the conclusion that the appeal deserved
\nto be allowed and accordingly allowed the same by quashing and
\nsetting aside the order of conviction  and sentence dated 30.9.1994
\npassed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rapar in  Criminal
\nCase No.823 of 1993 and acquitted the accused vide the appellate
\nCourt’s order dated 15.6.1996, which is assailed under Section 378<\/a> of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in this acquittal appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\nMs.C.M.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has extensively
\ntaken this Court through the testimony of the eye-witnesses as well
\nas the Investigation Officer and the Veterinary Doctor who performed
\nthe post-mortem upon the carcasses of the cattle and submitted that
\nthe trial Court’s reasoning  ought not to have been discarded by the
\nappellate Court when the trial Court has appreciated  the testimony
\nof eye-witnesses which cannot be said to be suffering from any major
\ncontradiction so as to disbelieve them and when the trial Court has
\nalso heavily relied upon the answer of the accused, which came to be
\nrecorded while recording his statement under Section 313<\/a> of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also when in the said answer, the
\naccused has said that when he was standing with the bus at crossing,
\nhe was contacted by the witnesses and was compelled by them to be
\ntaken to the police station where he has said that he has not done
\nanything. The Panchnama of the bus could not have been disbelieved by
\nthe appellate Court when the constable had supported the Panchnama of
\nthe bus. Over all facts and circumstances attending the case would go
\nto show that the appeal ought not to have been allowed and the order
\nof conviction and sentence ought to have been confirmed and sustained
\nby the appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tShri
\nDevang D. Dave learned advocate appearing for the opponent contended
\nthat this being an acquittal appeal, the Court may not interfere with
\nthe same unless and until it is established by the appellant that
\nsustaining the order of acquittal would result into miscarriage of
\njustice. In the instant case, he submitted that glaring discrepancies
\nwere recorded by the appellate Court in the testimony of the
\neye-witnesses and probability of the bus not being the same bus has
\nbeen discussed by the trial Court and when it can be said that the
\ntrial Court’s order of conviction and sentence was passed upon the
\nconjunctures and surmises, then the order of acquittal passed by the
\nappellate Court after appreciating the evidence on record needs no
\ninterference under Section 378<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973. Shri Dave invited this Court’s attention to the findings
\nrecorded by the trial Court on page 11 of the judgment and submitted
\nthat the plain reading of this findings go to show that the trial
\nCourt has acted upon  presumption as the word  Anuman  is
\nemployed time and again.  Learned advocate for the respondent
\nthereafter drew the attention of this Court at  Exh.38. i.e. the
\n‘Janwajog’ entry wherein also the route of the bus is shown to be
\nfrom Radhanpur to Rapar, whereas in the complaint, which was recorded
\non the same day, the route of the bus is shown to be Anand to Rapar.
\nThe learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the statement
\nof the accused which has been recorded under Section 313<\/a> of the Code
\nof Criminal Procedure, 1973, has wrongly been taken to be a statement
\nconnecting the accused with the crime. This error has been
\nappreciated by the appellate Court and conviction and sentence has
\nrightly been quashed and set aside. This Court may not interfere with
\nthe same under Section 378<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nfollowing indisputable aspects of the matter deserve to be set out
\nbefore adverting to the contention of the learned advocates for the
\nparties which are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
1)\tThe
\nincident in question involves death of 8 cattle and injury to the two
\ncattle on the highway when they were being conducted for grazing in
\nthe night of  1st   September, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
2)
\nThe incident in question is said to have occurred at 2:45 a.m. in the
\nmorning of 2nd September, 1993. As per the say of the
\ncomplainant, the cattle were gathered for the purpose of taking them
\nfor grazing on 1st September, 1993. Some witnesses have
\nsaid that there were 50 to 60 cattle. However, the complainant has
\nstated that there were 40 to 50 cattle. The complainant has said in
\nhis complaint that he was walking at the end of the entire herd and
\nthe bus was coming from the other side which hit the cattle and
\nresulted into killing of 8 cattle and injury to 2 cattle. The other
\neye-witnesses have said that they were walking in front of herds and
\nthey noticed that the bus was coming in high speed and it hit the
\ncattle.\n<\/p>\n
3)
\nThe ‘Janwajog’ entry is said to have been recorded at the  instance
\nof the very complainant who lodges the complaint on the very same
\nday. In the complaint it is mentioned that the bus was enroute Anand
\nto Radhanpur whereas in Janwajog entry that bus was enroute Rathanpur
\nto Rapar.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tThe
\nVeterinary Doctor, who had performed postmortem on the carcasses of
\ncattle, has also stated that he did not  verify the owner of the
\ncattle which died on account of the accident. Time of death is also
\nnot recorded nor could he opine with regard to the time of death of
\nthe cattle.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tThe
\ntrial Court has in its judgment mainly relied upon the answer of the
\naccused in response to the question No.3 in his statement under
\nSection 313<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, wherein he has
\nstated that he was compelled by the witnesses to go to the police
\nstation. This is the main link for connecting the accused with the
\ncrime, according to the findings of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tThe appellate Court has
\nappreciated the fact that the prosecution cannot be said to have
\nestablished its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to connect the
\naccused with the crime and hence on such type of evidence was found
\nto be unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the conviction
\nwas set aside.\n<\/p>\n
7)\tThe appellate Court has also
\nappreciated the fact that the Investigating Officer has not bothered
\nto gather more information and fact as to, if the bus was said to
\nhave been damaged in the accident, what report was made to the S.T.
\nCorporation by the driver or the Conductor of the bus. The appellate
\nCourt has appreciated that this fact is to be read coupled with the
\nfact that the conductor has not supported the case of the prosecution
\nat all.\n<\/p>\n
8)\tThe appellate Court has also
\nappreciated the fact that the panch witness has not supported the
\nPanchnama of bus. The bus is said to have been damaged, the  radiator
\nwas broken and such a bus is said to have made complete journey to
\nits destination. The appellate Court held that the prosecution cannot
\nbe said to have been established its case beyond doubt.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThis Court in light of the
\naforesaid indisputable aspects of the matter is of the view that when
\nthe panch witnesses have not supported the panchnama of bus when the
\nbus was reported to have been damaged wherein radiator itself was
\nbroken and when it is said that the bus was seen after 4 to 5 k.m.
\nand in fact the bus was taken to the police station, then the
\nprosecution has to explain its conduct as to how only ‘Janwajog’
\nentry was made and wherein also serious discrepancy is noticed in
\nrespect of the route of the bus and identification of the bus. The
\nconductor of the bus has not supported the case of the prosecution
\nnor has the Investigation Officer taken care to obtain statement of
\nthe passenger traveling in the bus. The statement of the
\neye-witnesses and the discrepancies found in their statements would
\nalso go to show that the order passed by the appellate Court cannot
\nbe said to have resulted into miscarriage of justice so as to call
\nfor any interference under Section 378<\/a> of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected. Bail
\nbond, if any, shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
(S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. )<\/p>\n
sudhir<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/768\/1996 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 768 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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-269745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Heard on 7 April, 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-heard-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-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=\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-04T11:26:52+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-heard-on-7-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T11:26:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1911,\"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-heard-on-7-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T11:26:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Heard on 7 April, 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 Heard on 7 April, 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-heard-on-7-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-04T11:26:52+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-heard-on-7-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T11:26:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010"},"wordCount":1911,"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-heard-on-7-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010","name":"State vs Heard on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T11:26:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-heard-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Heard on 7 April, 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\/269745","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=269745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}