{"id":35781,"date":"2010-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010"},"modified":"2019-04-03T21:34:18","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T16:04:18","slug":"tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi,&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.MA\/10239\/2010\t 9\/ 9\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. 10239 of\n2010 \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nTAPAN\nB JAISWAL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSR YADAV for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR KARTIK PANDYA, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nParty-in-person, Respondent(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: 13\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\t\tRULE.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned, APP waives service of notice of rule on
\nbehalf of respondent No.1-State and respondent No.2, who is present
\nin person, waives formal service of rule, for himself.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tPetitioner is the
\noriginal accused.  He is Editor of one newspaper, who is shown as
\naccused No.1 in a complaint, bearing Criminal Case No. 2045 of 2009,
\nfiled before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deesa, by
\nrespondent No.2 herein, alleging the offences punishable under
\nSections 385, 386 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe complaint is
\nbased on a newspaper item, published in the said daily on 18.06.2009.
\n On the premises that the said newspaper article contained defamatory
\nand untrue statements about the complainant and his son, said
\ncomplaint for defamation is lodged by respondent No.2. The news item
\nsuggested that a criminal case is registered against respondent No.2
\nand his son, alleging that they are involved in a criminal case of
\nextortion and certain other allegations were also made against them.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tIt is the case of
\nrespondent No.2 that some of the details of the said newspaper
\narticle are contrary to the contents of the criminal complaint for
\nextortion, filed against him and his son.  For all such inaccuracy
\nand misleading statements, respondent No.2 herein, filed the impugned
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe case of the
\npresent petitioner is that the newspaper article was based on the
\ncomplaint filed before the police, against  respondent No.2 and his
\nson, and there is no inaccuracy in the same.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tRespondent No.2,
\nappearing in person, vehemently contended that the newspaper did not
\npublish his counter allegations of being ill-treated by the police
\nauthorities.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tIn
\nsupport of his case, respondent No.2 relied
\non following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
 BIBHUTI BHUSAN DAS
\nGUPTA & ANOTER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL ,
\nreported in AIR(SC)(1969)381;\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
  S.B. SAHA &
\nOTHERS VS. M.S. KOCHAR ,
\nreported in AIR(SC)(1979)1841;\n<\/p>\n
(3)<\/span><\/p>\n
  KISHORE KUMAR
\nGYANCHANDANI VS. G.D. MEHROTRA ,
\nreported in SCC 10(2001)59;\n<\/p>\n
(4)<\/span><\/p>\n
  KISHORE KUMAR
\nGYANCHANDANI VS. G.D. MEHROTRA & ANOTHER ,
\nreported in AIR(SC)(2002)483;\n<\/p>\n
(5)<\/span><\/p>\n
  RAM BABU VS. STATE
\nOF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ,
\nSCC 7 (2009) 194.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tI have heard learned
\nCounsel for the petitioner, learned APP for respondent No.1-State and
\nrespondent No.2, who is present in person.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tI, however, find
\nthat, in similar circumstances, a complaint filed against another
\nnewspaper, for publication of similar news item, by respondent No.2,
\ncame to be quashed, vide order dated 23.08.2010, rendered in Criminal
\nMiscellaneous Application No.3146 of 2010, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 1.\t\tHeard, learned
\nCounsel for the petitioner, learned APP for respondent No.1-State and
\nrespondent No.2, original complainant, who is present in person, for
\nfinal disposal of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThis petition is
\nfiled by the original accused No.1, namely M\/s. D.B. Corporation
\nLimited, seeking quashing of the complaint at  Annexure-A ,
\nbearing Criminal Case No.111 of 2010, dated 10.08.2009, filed
\nbefore Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe said complaint
\nwas filed by respondent No.2 before the learned Magistrate, alleging
\nthe offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with
\nSection 114 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tIt appears, in the
\nDivya Bhaskar newspaper, dated 18.06.2009, under the head of  in
\nextortion case in Deesa, father and son are sent to jail , a news
\nitem was published, suggesting that respondent No.2 and his son were
\ninvolved in a criminal case of demanding extortion money and the
\ncomplainant had ultimately lodged the complaint before the police,
\nagainst them. It was the case of respondent No.2 that the said news
\nitem was defamatory and thereby the accused and, particularly, the
\npetitioner committed the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501,
\n502 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tIn the complaint,
\nrespondent No.2 has alleged that the said news item, in the
\nnewspaper, carried defamatory news. The newspaper has wide
\ncirculation and publication of the news in the said newspaper has
\nresulted into damage to the reputation of the complainant and his
\nson.  The complainant was examined by the learned Magistrate on
\n06.10.2009, thereafter, the learned Magistrate, on 13.01.2010, was
\npleased to issue process under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with
\nSection 114 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tThe learned Counsel
\nfor the petitioner stated that the narration in the news item was
\nexactly as the allegations made in the complaint itself.  The
\ncomplaint is lodged against present respondent No.2 before the Deesa
\nPolice Station. The news item only reproduced the contents of the
\ncomplaint and the same would, therefore, not amount to defamation.
\nShe relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
\n (Shri) Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel & Others Vs. Mithu Bava
\n& Another  reported in 1984 GLH (U.J.) 107, wherein it
\nwas observed that publication of a news item, without twisting the
\nsame, to highlight circumstances which might not be true, may amount
\nto defamation. But, publication of an item of news, without twisting
\nthe same or without an ulterior motive, can never amount to
\ndefamation. A person, who is arrested in connection with the
\nsmuggling of silver would be well-advised, not to take his reputation
\nto be so high that it can be dented by such a news item, being
\npublished in the newspaper.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe respondent No.2,
\nappearing in person, vehemently contended that news of his son being
\narrested, were false. Moreover, the newspaper did not publish the
\ncounter allegations of respondent No.2 of being ill-treated by the
\npolice authorities. He had also given prior notice before lodging the
\ncomplaint. He, therefore, prayed that no case is made out for
\nquashing.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn support of his
\nsubmissions, he relied on following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\t\tIn the case of  Ram
\nBabu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others  reported in
\n(2009)7 SCC 194, in which the Apex Court stressed on the need for a
\nreasoned order, while quashing the complaint and the summons issued
\nby the Court.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\t\tIn  Bibhuti
\nBhusan Das Gupta and Another Vs. State of West Bengal
\nreported in AIR 1969 381, in which the Apex Court observed that even
\nwhen the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with,
\nexamination of pleader in his absence, is not sufficient compliance,
\nexcept, where the accused is a company or the juridical person.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tI do not see how the
\nsaid decision would apply in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\t\tIn the case of
\n Kishor Kumar Gyanchandani Vs. G.D. Mehrotra & Another
\nreported in AIR 2002 SC 483, in which the Apex Court observed that
\nthe power of the Magistrate, under Section 202 of the Criminal
\nProcedure Code, is not lost merely because he accepted the final form
\nsubmitted by the police, investigating the incident in question, on
\nthe basis of an FIR.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThis question is not
\ngermane in the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tConsidering the
\nsubmission made and perusing the documents on record, it appears that
\nthe news item, dated 18.06.2009, published by the petitioner is
\nsubstantially, if not entirely, based on a complaint dated
\n16.06.2009. In that view of the matter, question is whether the
\noffence of ‘defamation’ would be made out. The term ‘defamation’ is
\ndefined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, as under:\n<\/p>\n
  499.
\nDefamation.-\tWhoever, by words either spoken or intended to be
\nread, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes
\nany imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
\nhaving reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
\nreputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
\nexpected, to defame that person.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThere are
\nexplanations and exceptions to the said provision, particularly, the
\nfourth exception, reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 Explanation\n<\/p>\n
4.-\tNo imputation is said to harm a person’s
\nreputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the
\nestimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of
\nthat person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his
\ncaste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or
\ncauses it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
\nloathsome state, or in state generally considered as disgraceful.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIn the present
\ncase, when I find that newspaper report is substantially based on a
\ncomplaint, lodged against respondent No.2, the newspaper cannot be
\nblamed for carrying any defamatory items. It is not as if the news
\npaper reported an incident allegedly taken place.  Newspaper only
\npublished news of filing of a complaint against respondent No.2 and
\nhis son and narrated the allegations made, therein.  This was also
\nthe view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the
\ncase of  (Shri) Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel &
\nOthers (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tAllegation that the
\nnewspaper published a false report of the son of respondent No.2
\nbeing arrested has to be examined on the basis of the impugned
\ncomplaint. It is the part of the complaint that such news were false
\nand defamatory.  This averment of respondent No.2, therefore, cannot
\nbe accepted.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIn
\nthe result, I find that the complaint does not disclose the offences
\npunishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with Section 114 of the
\nIndian Penal Code. Same is, therefore, QUASHED
\nqua the present PETITIONER, alone.\n<\/p>\n
Petition is disposed of, accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tFrom the above, it
\nis clear that the accusations are similar, though, some minor
\ndifferences of statements made in the newspaper publication.  The
\naccusations against the present petitioner are also similar. I see no
\ninaccuracy in the statements in the newspaper publication. They are
\nbased, entirely, on the complaint, which is lodged before the police
\nstation, against respondent No.2 and his son. No allegations are made
\nout disclosing the offence of defamation. No case for defamation is,
\ntherefore, made out.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIn
\nthe result, Criminal Case No. 2045 of 2009,
\nfiled before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deesa, is QUASHED
\nqua the present PETITIONER, alone. Rule is made
\nabsolute to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
(AKIL
\nKURESHI, J.)<\/p>\n
Umesh\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010 Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/10239\/2010 9\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 10239 of 2010 ========================================================= TAPAN B JAISWAL – Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : […]<\/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-35781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTapan vs State on 13 October, 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\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-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=\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-03T16:04:18+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T16:04:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1605,\"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\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T16:04:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tapan vs State on 13 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":"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 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\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-03T16:04:18+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T16:04:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010"},"wordCount":1605,"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\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010","name":"Tapan vs State on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T16:04:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tapan-vs-state-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tapan vs State on 13 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\/35781","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=35781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}