{"id":30279,"date":"2011-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-20T15:55:00","modified_gmt":"2018-02-20T10:25:00","slug":"mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: D.H.Waghela, Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/3026\/2008\t 13\/ 13\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. 3026 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\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\nMEHMUDA\nW\/O SALIM MUNA SHAIKH - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRAJESH M AGRAWAL for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR MATAFER R PANDE for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR\nKARTIK PANDYA, APP for Opponent(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 D.H.WAGHELA\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 J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tThe
\nchallenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and order dated
\n26\/3\/2007 rendered by Ld. Special Judge [NDPS], Surat, in Special
\n[NDPS] Case No. 9 of 2002, whereby the appellant original accused
\ncame to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 22 read
\nwith section 8[c] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
\nAct, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’] and was
\nsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years and fine
\nof Rs.1,00,000\/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for 2 years.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nprosecution case in nut-shell, is that Jasvidarsinh Dharamsinh
\nRamgadhiya was serving as Police Inspector in Salabatpura Police
\nStation, Surat City, received an information at about 14-00 hours on
\n10\/8\/2002 that the lady accused had kept Brown Sugar in her home
\nsituated in the area called Indarpura at Surat and was doing business
\nof selling the same. Upon receipt of such information, the
\ninformation was reduced into writing and was forwarded to his higher
\nofficer and thereafter, panchas were called. Preliminary panchnama
\nwas drawn and Police Inspector Mr. Ramgadhiya along with two panchas
\nand other police personnel including a lady constable left the police
\nstation for the raid. After they reached to the place of information,
\nthe lady accused was found in her home. She was informed about the
\ninformation which had been received and she was further informed that
\nit was necessary to search her house including her person and if she
\ndesires that some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate should be kept
\npresent at the relevant time, then she had the option to request so,
\nto which she did not opt for the same. When the personal search of
\nthe lady accused  through lady panch Kavitaben and lady constable
\nAshaben was made, one packet covered under a plastic was found.
\nThrough the checking by mobile FSL, the contents in the packet was
\nfound to be Brown Sugar [Heroin], weighing 89 Gram and 450 Miligram.
\nSamples were collected out of the contraband article and were sealed
\nand packed. Detailed panchnama was drawn in the house of the accused.
\nP I Mr. Ramgadhiya lodged FIR regarding the offence and his FIR was
\nregistered.  During the course of police investigation, statements of
\nmaterial witnesses were recorded and samples were forwarded to the
\nFSL, FSL report was collected and after conclusion of the
\ninvestigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in Special Court [NDPS],
\nSurat.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\ntrial Court framed charge against the accused at exh. 4, to which she
\ndid not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the
\nprosecution examined 10 witnesses detailed in para. 5 in the impugned
\njudgment as well as produced 20 documents detailed in para. 6 in the
\nimpugned judgment. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the
\ntrial Court recorded further statement of the accused under section
\n313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the accused in her further
\nstatement denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to
\nher by the trial Court emerged from the evidence on record and stated
\nthat she was falsely implicated in this case.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tAfter
\nconsidering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after
\nhearing submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the trial
\nCourt came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved
\nits case beyond any reasonable doubt and ultimately, recorded
\nconviction of the accused and awarded sentence as hereinabove
\nreferred to in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
R.M. Agrawal, Ld. Advocate for the appellant accused, at the outset,
\nsubmitted that he does not challenge the order of conviction on
\nmerits. However, he submitted that looking to the quantity of the
\ncontraband article Heroin recovered from the accused, which is 89
\ngram and 450 miligram, the maximum sentence being RI for 10 years and
\nmaximum fine being Rs.1 lac imposed on her is disproportionate to and
\nis not commensurate with the quantity of contraband article recovered
\nfrom her. Mr. Agrawal at the first instance, drew our attention to
\nserial no. 56 in the table contained under the notification
\nspecifying small quantity and commercial quantity pertaining to
\nheroin, wherein the small quantity is stated to be upto 5 Gram and
\ncommercial quantity is stated to be 250 Gram and more. Mr. Agrawal,
\nLd. Advocate submitted that in the instance case, the quantity seized
\nis more than small quantity, but much lesser than commercial
\nquantity, which is intermittent quantity. Mr. Agrawal then drew our
\nattention to section 22 sub-clause [b] of the NDPS Act, wherein it is
\nstated that where the contravention involves quantity less than
\ncommercial quantity, but greater than small quantity, the punishment
\nprescribed is RI for a term which may extend to 10 years and with
\nfine which may extend to Rs.1 lac.  On the above premises, Mr.
\nAgrawal submitted that in the instant case, the trial Court awarded
\nthe maximum punishment prescribed without assigning any reason.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Agrawal, Ld. Advocate for the appellant accused submitted that the
\nappellant -accused is undergoing sentence since last 8 years and 11
\nmonths. Mr. Agrawal, therefore, urged that in the instant case, the
\nperiod undergone by the appellant accused in the jail may be her
\nsufficient and adequate sentence and considering the poor financial
\nposition of the lady accused, fine may be suitably reduced. In
\nsupport of the above submission, Mr. Agrawal relied upon a case of
\nPrakash Mangilal Dalaji Dalsaniya v. The State of Guajrat
\ndecided by this Court on 30\/6\/2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 485 of
\n2007.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Kartik Pandya, Ld. APP for the respondent – State vehemently
\nopposed this appeal as well as the submissions made by Ld. Advocate
\nMr. RM Agrawal for the appellant – accused about reduction of
\nsentence. However, it was submitted that
\nthere cannot be any dispute that the quantity
\nof contraband article seized from the accused was greater than small
\nquantity, but lesser than commercial quantity and, therefore, section
\n22[b] of the NDPS Act would apply for awarding appropriate punishment
\nand there is also no dispute that in the instant case, the trial
\nCourt awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment and the maximum
\nfine prescribed. Mr. Pandya, Ld. APP submitted that considering the
\nnature of offence so also the seriousness of the crime, there is no
\nreason to reduce the punishment awarded to the appellant –
\naccused. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tWe
\nhave given our anxious considered thought to the rival submissions
\nmade by the learned advocates appearing for the parties with regard
\nto awarding of sentence when the quantity of contraband article
\nseized is less than commercial quantity.\n<\/p>\n
8.
\nIn the case of Balwinder
\nSingh v. Asstt.\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, (2005) 4 SCC 146,
\nthe Supreme Court has narrated the relevant factors to be considered
\nfor reduction of sentence for the offence under NDPS Act. In the said
\ncase, the accused was convicted under the NDPS Act for the first time
\nand, therefore, the sentence was reduced from RI for 14 years to RI
\nfor 10 years.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tIn
\nthe case of Shantilal
\nv. State of M.P., (2008) 1 SCC (Cri),
\nSupreme Court, in para 31 of the reported decision has held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“31.\tThe
\n\tnext submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, however,
\n\thas substance.  The term of imprisonment in default of payment of
\n\tfine is not a sentence.  It is a penalty which a person incurs on
\n\taccount of non-payment of fine. The sentence is something which an
\n\toffender must undergo unless it is set aside or remitted in part or
\n\tin whole either in appeal or in revision or in other
\n\tappropriate judicial proceedings or “otherwise”.  A term
\n\tof imprisonment ordered
\n\tin default of payment of fine stands on a different footing.  A
\n\tperson is required to undergo imprisonment either because he is
\n\tunable to pay the amount of fine or refuses to pay such amount.  He,
\n\ttherefore, can always avoid to undergo imprisonment in default of
\n\tpayment of fine by paying such amount.  It, is, therefore, not only
\n\tthe power, but the duty of the court to keep in view the nature of
\n\toffence, circumstances under which it was committed, the position of
\n\tthe offender and other relevant considerations before ordering the
\n\toffender to suffer imprisonment in default of payment of fine.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThe
\nratio laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the above referred
\ndecision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In
\nthe instant case, as per the case of the prosecution, contraband
\narticle weighing 89 Gram and 450 Miligram Brown Sugar [Heroin] came
\nto be recovered.  Now as per serial no. 56 in the table, small
\nquantity is defined upto 5 gram and the
\ncommercial quantity is defined 250 Gram or more of heroin. In the
\ninstant case, the quantity seized is intermittent quantity, namely
\ngreater than small quantity and lesser than commercial quantity. In
\nthat case, considering section 22 [b] of the NDPS Act, the maximum
\nsentence prescribed  is RI for a term which may extent to 10 years
\nand the maximum fine prescribed is upto Rs.1 lac. No minimum sentence
\nof imprisonment or fine is prescribed as the same is prescribed for
\nthe commercial quantity. In the instant case, perusing the impugned
\njudgment and order rendered by the trial Court and more particularly
\npara. 40, it clearly  transpires that the trial Court observed that
\nthe quantity seized from the possession of the accused was greater
\nthan small quantity, but lesser than commercial quantity. The trial
\nCourt then observed that considering the punishment prescribed for
\nsuch contravention, adequate sentence was required to be imposed and
\nultimately, as stated above, awarded the maximum term of imprisonment
\nand the maximum fine. The trial
\nCourt while exercising the discretion in awarding maximum sentence of
\nimprisonment and the maximum fine, no sufficient reasons are
\nassigned.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tSeen in the above
\ncontext, the sentence imposed on the appellant – accused
\ndeserves to be adequately modified by partly allowing this appeal. We
\nare of the considered opinion that when the appellant – accused
\nis already undergoing sentence since last 8 years and 11 months, the
\nperiod undergone by her in the jail can definitely be said to be
\nadequate sentence. Considering the submissions advanced regarding the
\npoor financial condition of the appellant – accused, so also
\nconsidering the period of imprisonment already undergone by her in
\nthe jail, we are of the opinion that the fine of Rs.25,000\/- and in
\ndefault of payment of fine, simple imprisonment [SI] for two months
\nwould serve the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed
\nin part and accordingly it is partly allowed
\nqua the sentence only. The impugned judgment and order of conviction
\npassed in Special [NDPS] Case No. 9\/2002 by the Ld. Special Judge
\n[NDPS], Surat, against the appellant – accused  is confirmed
\nand maintained. However, while upholding the conviction of the
\nappellant – accused  under section 22 read with section 8[c] of
\nthe NDPS Act, the sentence already undergone by the appellant –
\naccused  in the jail shall be her sentence of imprisonment and the
\nappellant – accused shall pay fine of Rs.25,000\/- [Rupees
\ntwenty five thousand only] and in default of payment of fine, SI for
\ntwo months. In light of this, the sentence awarded by the trial Court
\nshall stand set aside.\n<\/p>\n
[
\nD.H. WAGHELA, J. ]<\/p>\n
[
\n\tJ.C. UPADHYAYA, J.]<\/p>\n
* Pansala.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011 Author: D.H.Waghela, Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/3026\/2008 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3026 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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-30279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011 - 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\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-20T10:25:00+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\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-20T10:25:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1870,\"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\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-20T10:25:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 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":"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011 - 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\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-20T10:25:00+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\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-20T10:25:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011"},"wordCount":1870,"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\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011","name":"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-20T10:25:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mehmuda-vs-the-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mehmuda vs The on 18 July, 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\/30279","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=30279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30279\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}