{"id":39757,"date":"2010-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-17T01:20:14","modified_gmt":"2017-09-16T19:50:14","slug":"jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&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\nSCR.A\/1099\/2005\t 6\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1099 of 2005\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\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 \n\nJAMATSINH\nMALSINGH WAGHELA (THAKORE) - Applicant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent\n \n\n==============================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nVIRAT G POPAT for\nApplicant : 1, \nMr. U.R. Bhatt, Ld. APP for\nRespondent. \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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/09\/2005 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tLeave<br \/>\nto amend the prayer clause is permitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. U.R. Bhatt, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of<br \/>\n\trespondent State.  With the consent of learned counsels for the<br \/>\n\tparties this matter is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has filed<br \/>\n\tthe present petition under Article 227 of<br \/>\n\tthe Constitution of India, read with Section 482 and section 451\/457<br \/>\n\tof Cr.P.C., essentially for releasing the<br \/>\n\tvehicle i.e. Maruti Car bearing Registration No. GJ-6-K-9212 lying<br \/>\n\tat present in the custody of Gadh police<br \/>\n\tstation during pendency of the trial in connection with the police<br \/>\n\tstation C.R. No: 62\/2003. The petitioner<br \/>\n\thas submitted that he is the owner of the<br \/>\n\tsubject maruti car. The vehicle was used by his brother on 31\/5\/2003<br \/>\n\tfor illegal transportation of liquor and the same was seized by the<br \/>\n\tpolice officers on the same day and the<br \/>\n\tcase under Bombay Prohibition Act came to<br \/>\n\tbe registered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner<br \/>\n\tpreferred an application<br \/>\n\tfor custody of maruti car before the learned Jt. JMFC on 3\/7\/2003<br \/>\n\twhich came to be rejected on 21\/7\/2003.<br \/>\n\tThe petitioner thereafter preferred<br \/>\n\tCriminal Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 22 of 2003 which also came to be rejected on<br \/>\n\t18\/8\/2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner<br \/>\n\tpreferred this petition for obtaining<br \/>\n\tinterim custody of the vehicle during<br \/>\n\tpendency of the trial, and challenging the orders<br \/>\n\tpassed by learned Magistrate on 3\/7\/2003 and the Sessions Court<br \/>\n\tdated 18\/8\/2003 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner<br \/>\n\thas submitted that the learned JMFC as<br \/>\n\twell as Sessions Court ought to have<br \/>\n\tappreciated the fact that the vehicle in question, if not put to<br \/>\n\tproper run, is likely to be render non<br \/>\n\tfunctional and would be rendered useless. The releasing of vehicle<br \/>\n\tand handing over the custody thereof to the petitioner,<br \/>\n\twho is appearing to be<br \/>\n\tthe registered owner as per the<br \/>\n\tcertificate of registration, would in no way jeopardize<br \/>\n\tthe case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t The petitioner&#8217;s counsel has submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the application, if any, made for confiscating the said vehicle<br \/>\n\talso will have no adverse impact as during pendency of the trial<br \/>\n\tthe order of confiscation is not straightway likely to be<br \/>\n\tmade. The petitioner&#8217;s counsel submits<br \/>\n\tthat when the offence itself is yet to be proved, the order of<br \/>\n\tconfiscation, if any, would not be prejudicing the final order in<br \/>\n\tthe trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner&#8217;s relied upon the decision of<br \/>\n\tthe Apex Court in case of SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI Vs. STATE OF<br \/>\n\tGUJARAT, reported in (2002) 10 SCC pg. 283 and submits that, in such<br \/>\n\tan event ordinarily the vehicle is required to be<br \/>\n\t handed over to the registered owner. Non<br \/>\n\tgranting the custody of the vehicle is in no way helping the<br \/>\n\tprosecution. He has also relied upon the<br \/>\n\tjudgment of this Court in case of RAKESHKUMAR KACHARABHAI PRAJAPATI<br \/>\n\tVs. STATE OF GUJARAT in Special Criminal<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 180 of 2004 dated<br \/>\n\t21\/12\/2004 wherein this Court has  ordered<br \/>\n\thanding over custody of the vehicle involved in the offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe counsel of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner submits<br \/>\n\tthat the interim custody of the subject vehicle, therefore, deserves<br \/>\n\tto be ordered to<br \/>\n\tbe handed over to the present petitioner on the strictest conditions<br \/>\n\tpossible, so as to ensure the production<br \/>\n\tof vehicle as and when required during the trial.  Learned counsel<br \/>\n\thas further submitted that the petitioner<br \/>\n\tis ready &amp; willing to establish his<br \/>\n\tbonafide by depositing Rs.30,000\/- before<br \/>\n\tthe concerned trial court for getting interim custody of the vehicle<br \/>\n\tpending the trial which may be subject to the final outcome of the<br \/>\n\ttrial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned APP Shri. Bhatt<br \/>\n\twith all vehemence at his command opposed the present<br \/>\n\tapplication. He submits that the vehicle<br \/>\n\tis involved in serious offence under Prohibition<br \/>\n\tAct and as many as 378 bottles containing<br \/>\n\tliquor were seized from the vehicle.<br \/>\n\tIn view of this the order passed by the trial court and confirmed by<br \/>\n\tthe Sessions Court does not call for any<br \/>\n\tinterference under section<br \/>\n\t227 of the Constitution of India.  Therefore, Shri. Bhatt has<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the vehicle is otherwise<br \/>\n\talso liable to be confiscated as it is<br \/>\n\tclearly provided under the Prohibition Act. In view of this, he<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the order passed by learned trial court and Sessions<br \/>\n\tcourt may not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tShri. Bhatt, however, could<br \/>\n\tnot point out any cogent reason for not<br \/>\n\treleasing the vehicle by way of interim<br \/>\n\tcustody to the petitioner, nor could<br \/>\n\the point out as to how the facts discussed<br \/>\n\tin the case of Rakeshkumar Kachrabhai Prajapati (supra) is different<br \/>\n\tthan that of the present one.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Court has perused the<br \/>\n\trecord and the judgment of the trial court<br \/>\n\tas well as of the revisional court. The<br \/>\n\tprovision of section 451 deserves<br \/>\n\tto be appreciated in its true perspective. The provision<br \/>\n\tof section 451 of Cr.P.C., empowers the<br \/>\n\tconcerned court to exercise<br \/>\n\tits discretion in respect of disposal of the property pending the<br \/>\n\ttrial in certain cases. The decision of<br \/>\n\tthe Apex Court in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal<br \/>\n\tDesai (supra) is certainly applicable in the facts of the present<br \/>\n\tcase. The decision of this Court in case<br \/>\n\tof Rakeshkumar Kachrabhai Prajapati in Special Criminal<br \/>\n\tApplication No. 180 of 2004 which has<br \/>\n\tfollowed the decision of the Supreme Court<br \/>\n\tin case  of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) is also be applicable<br \/>\n\tin respect of present facts &amp; circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt also deserves to<br \/>\n\tbe considered that the petitioner<br \/>\n\thas volunteered to deposit Rs.30,000\/=<br \/>\n\twith the trial court for establishing his<br \/>\n\tbonafide that the vehicle is going to be<br \/>\n\tmaintained and produced as and when required before the court. In<br \/>\n\tview of these facts &amp; circumstances,<br \/>\n\tif the interim custody of subject vehicle if ordered to<br \/>\n\tbe given to the petitioner, no<br \/>\n\tirreparable injury is going to cause to the case of the prosecution.<br \/>\n\t Therefore, subject vehicle is ordered to<br \/>\n\tbe handed over to the petitioner on the<br \/>\n\tfollowing conditions;\n<\/p>\n<p>that<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner shall deposit Rs.30,000=00<br \/>\n\t(Rs. Thirty thousand only) before the<br \/>\n\ttrial court ( before 2nd Jt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tJudicial Magistrate (JD), Palanpur on or before 14\/10\/2005, and<br \/>\n\tshall produce the receipt thereof before<br \/>\n\tthe concerned police station before the interim<br \/>\n\tcustody is transferred to the petitioner;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tpetitioner<br \/>\n\tshall furnish one surety of Rs.50,000\/-;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tthat the said vehicle shall<br \/>\n\tbe preserved in good condition<br \/>\n\tby the petitioner and that the said<br \/>\n\tvehicle shall not be transferred,alienated or in any way the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner shall not part with the<br \/>\n\tpossession of the said vehicle;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tthat the petitioner<br \/>\n\tshall not permit any misuse of the  said<br \/>\n\tvehicle whenever it is put to motion;\n<\/p>\n<p>that<br \/>\n\tthe said vehicle shall be produced before the Court<br \/>\n\tas and when it is required by the trial court even in<br \/>\n\tpursuance of application filed by the<br \/>\n\tState under section 99 and 100 of the Bombay Prohibition<br \/>\n\tAct;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tthat the petitioner<br \/>\n\tshall not use the said vehicle for any illegal purpose<br \/>\n\tand shall not permit the user thereof for illegal<br \/>\n\tpurpose;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tthat on breach of any of<br \/>\n\tthe above conditions, the investigating<br \/>\n\tofficer shall be at liberty to re-seize<br \/>\n\tthe said vehicle.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\torder is only for interim custody of the<br \/>\n\tvehicle and it is made clear that this order shall have no adverse<br \/>\n\timpact upon  the application, if any, made<br \/>\n\tfor the confiscation\/re-seize.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petition<br \/>\n\tis partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above said extent.<br \/>\n\tDirect service is permitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t                        [<br \/>\n\tS.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]<\/p>\n<p>\/vgn<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/1099\/2005 6\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1099 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ============================================================== 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-39757","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>Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-16T19:50:14+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-16T19:50:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1223,\"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\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-16T19:50:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 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":"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-16T19:50:14+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-16T19:50:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010"},"wordCount":1223,"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\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010","name":"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-16T19:50:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jamatsinh-vs-state-on-25-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jamatsinh vs State on 25 August, 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\/39757","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=39757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39757\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}