{"id":28494,"date":"2011-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011"},"modified":"2019-02-08T12:06:02","modified_gmt":"2019-02-08T06:36:02","slug":"asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R.M.Doshit,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/517\/1989\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 517 of 1989\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n \n For\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT\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 civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nASST.\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOM - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nALLANA\nJASUB KER &amp; 6 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \n Appearance\n: \nMR\nBIPIN BHATT, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the Appellant \nNOTICE\nSERVED for Opponent(s) : 1,3 - 6. \nMR CH VORA for Opponent(s) :\n2, \nMs DARSHANA PANDIT APP for Opponent(s) :\n7, \n=========================================================\n \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\n HONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\t  \nDate\n: 21\/07\/2006  ::  28\/09\/2006 \n\n \n\nORAL\n JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\t  This<br \/>\nis an Appeal preferred under Section 378 CrPC by the complainant &#8211;<br \/>\nAssistant Collector [Customs], Bhuj against the judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 19th May, 1988 of acquittal of the accused<br \/>\nrecorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhuj in Criminal<br \/>\nCase No. 566 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\ncomplainant &#8211; Assistant Collector [Customs], Bhuj lodged<br \/>\ncomplaint against the accused (six in number) for offence<br \/>\npunishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as, ?Sthe Act??]. According to the complainant,<br \/>\npursuant to the information received, the Customs Department had, on<br \/>\n12th November, 1984, raided the house in possession of the<br \/>\naccused No.1 and had seized a quantity of &#8216;Charas&#8217; (a<br \/>\ncontraband narcotic drug). On further investigation on 15th<br \/>\nNovember, 1984 the complainant seized 4 kilograms of charas from the<br \/>\njungle near village Sukhpar. Pursuant to the said seizure, the<br \/>\nstatement as envisaged by Section 108 of the Act of the accused No.1<br \/>\nwas recorded on 16th November, 1984. It was alleged that<br \/>\nthe seized contraband charas was smuggled into the territories of<br \/>\nIndia by the accused Nos.3 (Juma Amad, the respondent No.2 herein)<br \/>\nand the accused No.2 Juma Jusab across the border from Pakistan. The<br \/>\nsaid contraband charas was sold to the accused Nos.5 and 6 through<br \/>\nthe accused Nos.1 and 4. The prosecution supported its case by the<br \/>\nstatements of the accused (Exhibits 39 to 42 and 82 &amp; 83)<br \/>\nrecorded under Section 108 of the Act, the report of the chemical<br \/>\nexamination (Exh.43) and the seizure panchnama (Exh.45). The<br \/>\ncomplainant gave his evidence at Exh.38. The learned Magistrate has<br \/>\nheld that the identity of the place from where the contraband charas<br \/>\nwas seized was not established. The possession of the accused No.1 of<br \/>\nthe house from where the contraband charas was seized was also not<br \/>\nestablished. As to the chemical examination report (Exh. 43), the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate has held that the said report was not admissible<br \/>\nin evidence under Section 293(4) CrPC. It was not proved by ordinary<br \/>\nmode of proving a document. Further prosecution had failed to<br \/>\nestablish connection between the goods seized and the report (Exh.\n<\/p>\n<p>43). The learned Magistrate has also not believed the aforesaid<br \/>\nstatements recorded under Section 108 of the Act. Consequently, the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the accused persons.<br \/>\nFeeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred the present Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Bhatt has read out the judgment and has taken me through the evidence<br \/>\non record. He has submitted that the statements (Exhibits 39 to 42<br \/>\nand 82 &amp; 83) were indeed recorded under Section 108 of the<br \/>\nAct after following due procedure. The learned Magistrate has erred<br \/>\nin not accepting the said statements in evidence and in not relying<br \/>\nupon the same. He has submitted that the accused had admitted the<br \/>\noffence. The said statements being admissible in evidence, the<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate ought to have recorded conviction of the accused<br \/>\npersons. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt in the matter of Mukesh Natvarlal Modi v\/s. H.S.Barot and<br \/>\nanother  [1998(1) GLR 639].\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nAppeal is contested by Mr. Vora. He has submitted that the<br \/>\ncomplainant had failed to comply with the procedure required for<br \/>\nrecording a statement under Section 108 of the Act. The learned<br \/>\nMagistrate has rightly not relied upon the said statements. He has<br \/>\nfurther submitted that as recorded by the learned Magistrate,<br \/>\nprosecution has failed to establish the seizure of the contraband<br \/>\ngoods. The connection between the seized goods and the chemical<br \/>\nreport has also not been established. In absence of any corroborative<br \/>\nevidence no conviction could be recorded solely on the basis of the<br \/>\nstatements recorded under Section 108 of the Act. He has submitted<br \/>\nthat the learned Magistrate had rightly discarded the statements<br \/>\n(Exhibits 39 to 42 and 82 &amp; 83) purportedly recorded under<br \/>\nSection 108 of the Act, he has submitted that the Appeal deserves to<br \/>\nbe dismissed and the acquittal requires to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 28-09-2006<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\nhave carefully perused the record. In my opinion the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate has rightly recorded acquittal of the accused persons. The<br \/>\nprosecution has failed to establish that the house from which the<br \/>\ncontraband ?SCharas?? was recovered was in possession of the<br \/>\naccused no.1. The Chemical Report [Exh. 43] discloses that the<br \/>\nsamples in question were ?SCharas?? a drug prohibited under<br \/>\nthe Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. The complainant, however, failed to<br \/>\nestablish that samples were drawn from the contraband ?SCharas??<br \/>\n recovered by him and that such samples were sent for chemical<br \/>\nexamination. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that the<br \/>\nchemical report {Exh. 43} submitted by the Chemical Examiner,<br \/>\nCustoms &amp; Central Excise Laboratory, New Kandla was in respect of<br \/>\nthe contraband material recovered from the accused persons. The<br \/>\nlearned Magistrate is also right in holding that the Chemical<br \/>\nExaminer, Customs &amp; Central Excise Laboratory is not covered by<br \/>\nSection 293 (4) CrPC. The said report was, therefore, not admissible<br \/>\nin evidence as envisaged by Section 293 (1) CrPC. The said report,<br \/>\ntherefore, was required to be proved as envisaged by the Evidence<br \/>\nAct. Indisputably, the report Exh.43 has not been proved in<br \/>\nthe manner required under the Evidence Act. In other words, the<br \/>\nperson making the said report was not examined to prove the said<br \/>\nreport. The report [Exh.43], therefore, had no probative<br \/>\nvalue. Further, the complainant solely relied upon the statements<br \/>\n[Exhs. 39 to 42 and 82 &amp; 83] made by the accused persons<br \/>\nunder Section 108 of the Act. It should be noted that at the trial,<br \/>\nthe accused persons retracted from the said statements. Assuming that<br \/>\nthe said statements were duly recorded under Section 108 of the Act,<br \/>\nwhen at the trial the accused retracted from the said statements, in<br \/>\nabsence of other supporting evidence, the learned Magistrate has<br \/>\nrightly refused to  rely upon the said statements and to record<br \/>\nconviction solely on the basis of the said statements. The persons<br \/>\nmaking the statements Exhs. 84 to 86  &amp; 88 under Section<br \/>\n108 of the Act were not arraigned as accused. Nor were they examined<br \/>\nas witnesses in the trial; nor were they offered for cross<br \/>\nexamination by the defence. In the circumstances, the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate has rightly held that the said statements [Exhs. 84 to<br \/>\n86 &amp; 88] had no probative value.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\nabsence of any evidence other than the above referred statements<br \/>\nrecorded under Section 108 of the Act, the learned Magistrate has<br \/>\nrightly recorded acquittal of the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>For<br \/>\nthe aforesaid reasons, I uphold the acquittal of the accused persons<br \/>\nand dismiss the present Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> R &amp;<br \/>\nP be returned to the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>{Ms.\n<\/p>\n<p> R.M. Doshit, J.}<\/p>\n<p>moin\/pt*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011 Author: R.M.Doshit,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/517\/1989 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 517 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed [&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-28494","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>Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011 - 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\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-08T06:36:02+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\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T06:36:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1075,\"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\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T06:36:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011 - 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\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-08T06:36:02+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\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T06:36:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011"},"wordCount":1075,"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\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011","name":"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T06:36:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asst-vs-the-on-19-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asst vs The on 19 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/28494","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=28494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}