{"id":39773,"date":"2010-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-22T01:49:00","modified_gmt":"2016-04-21T20:19:00","slug":"adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/843\/2000\t 12\/ 12\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. 843 of 2000\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\t\t:\tSd\/-\n \n=======================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=======================================================\n\n\n \n\nADARSH\nCHEMICALS &amp; FERTILIZERS LTD. &amp; 1 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=======================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nJAL SOLI UNWALA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nOpponent(s) :\n1, \n======================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/04\/2010\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tPresent<br \/>\n\tAppeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2000<br \/>\n\tdelivered by the Learned<br \/>\n\tSpecial Judge &amp; Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special<br \/>\n\tCriminal Case No.6 of 1994 recording<br \/>\n\tthe conviction of the accused for the violation of the Fertilizers<br \/>\n\t(Control) Order, 1985 and under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential<br \/>\n\tCommodities Act and imposing sentence of SI for three months and<br \/>\n\tfine of Rs.1,000\/-, in default, to undergo SI for one month.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tfacts of the case briefly summarized are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tThe<br \/>\ncomplainant visited the premises of the accused for the inspection<br \/>\nand collected sample of pesticides (WS), which was found in a sealed<br \/>\nbag manufactured by Adharsh Chemicals &amp; Fertilizers Ltd., Udhana<br \/>\nand on the basis of sample and analysis, it was found that the sample<br \/>\nwas not as per the standard and thereby the accused have violated the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Fertilizers<br \/>\n(Control) Order, 1985 read with provisions of the Essential<br \/>\nCommodities Act and thereby the offence under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of<br \/>\nthe  Essential Commodities Act has been committed.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2\tOn<br \/>\nthe basis of the aforesaid complaint, case was registered being<br \/>\nSpecial<br \/>\nCriminal Case No.6 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>Since it is a summary case, plea of the accused was recorded at<br \/>\nExh.6. The accused denied to have committed any such offence and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the learned trial Court proceeded<br \/>\nwith the trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3\tIn<br \/>\norder to bring home the charges leveled against the accused, the<br \/>\nprosecution has examined several witnesses and has also produced<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.4\tAfter<br \/>\nrecording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the<br \/>\nLearned<br \/>\nSpecial Judge &amp; Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar recorded<br \/>\nthe further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.6\tAfter<br \/>\nhearing the learned APP as well as learned advocate for the accused,<br \/>\nthe Learned<br \/>\nSpecial Judge &amp; Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar convicted<br \/>\nthe accused for the alleged<br \/>\noffence and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tcounsel, Mr.Unwala for the appellant-accused referred to the<br \/>\n\ttestimony of the complainant at Exh.11 and submitted that as stated<br \/>\n\tby this witness, when the sample was collected from a sealed bag<br \/>\n\treceived from the manufacturer, Adharsh Chemicals &amp; Fertilizers<br \/>\n\tLtd., Udhna, which rules out any possibility of tampering or<br \/>\n\tadulterating. He further submitted that it is not even the case of<br \/>\n\tthe prosecution that there was any adulteration either by the<br \/>\n\taccused or by the manufacturer. He, therefore, submitted that it is<br \/>\n\tmore in the nature of some kind of nominal variation in the<br \/>\n\tstandard. He submitted that as per the required standard, P2O5<br \/>\n\tshould be dissoluble with 16% as against 31.68% found in the sample.<br \/>\n\tHe, therefore, submitted that the phosphoric acid was also found<br \/>\n\tmore but the difference is very less and considering this marginal<br \/>\n\tdifferent, it is not the case of the prosecution about any<br \/>\n\tadulteration and such variation may be due to various circumstance<br \/>\n\tbeyond control. He, therefore, submitted that the Court below has<br \/>\n\trecorded the conviction erroneously without appreciating this aspect<br \/>\n\tmerely on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, which was<br \/>\n\tproduced at Exh.16 and 26, which suggest that the sample does not<br \/>\n\tconform to the prescribed standard. He submitted that even if the<br \/>\n\tsample may not have conform standard, the Court ought to have found<br \/>\n\tout whether there was any adulteration or any irregularity. If there<br \/>\n\tis no such evidence then merely because of said marginal difference,<br \/>\n\tthe conviction could not have been recorded. Learned counsel further<br \/>\n\treferred to the testimony of P.W.No.2, Exh.24 and submitted that as<br \/>\n\tstated by this witness, he has not carried out test or analysis as<br \/>\n\tadmittedly it was done by one Mr.A.R. Balas. Learned counsel<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that this witness has stated that he has simply drawn the<br \/>\n\tsample and, thereafter, the analysis has been made by his assistant.<br \/>\n\tHe submitted that he himself has not carried out test and report at<br \/>\n\tExh.26 made by him is based on the report at Exh.16. Again he<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that as stated by this witness, he has not mentioned about<br \/>\n\tthe details as to the analysis made, the procedure or method<br \/>\n\tfollowed or which method was followed. He, therefore, submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe report at Exh.26 is in fact based on the report at Exh.16, for<br \/>\n\twhich, there is no evidence of the analyst. He submitted that the<br \/>\n\treport at Exh1.6 is made by the Analyst, Mr.A.R. Balas, who is not<br \/>\n\texamined by prosecution and, hence, the accused could not<br \/>\n\tcross-examine this witness on this aspect. He submitted that the<br \/>\n\treport at Exh.26 is made on the basis of the report at Exh.16 and<br \/>\n\tthat report itself does not contain any details as to the procedure<br \/>\n\tfollowed or any other method adopted. He, therefore, submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe conviction is based merely on the basis of said report and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, the impugned judgment and order recording conviction is<br \/>\n\terroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the<br \/>\n\tsample has to be of minimum 400 gram, which is not there. He also<br \/>\n\treferred to the report and the testimony of P.W.No.2 and submitted<br \/>\n\tthat he has also admitted that if the sample is less than 400 gram,<br \/>\n\tit would affect the result. He, therefore, submitted that the<br \/>\n\timpugned judgment and order recording conviction is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\n\tA.P.P., Mr.Jani resisted the application and submitted that as<br \/>\n\tdiscussed in the impugned judgment, the P.W.No.2 has specifically<br \/>\n\tstated in his testimony at Exh.24 that analysis was made by his<br \/>\n\tassistant in his presence and under his guidance and, therefore, it<br \/>\n\tcannot be said that P.W.No.2 himself cannot testify or the report is<br \/>\n\tnot valid. It is submitted that the variation is admittedly found as<br \/>\n\tstated in the report at Exh.16 and 26 suggesting that the sample<br \/>\n\tdoes not conform with the standard and, therefore, breach has been<br \/>\n\tcommitted. Therefore, learned A.P.P., Mr.Jani submitted that whether<br \/>\n\tthe analysis has been made by X or Y, in which, it is required to be<br \/>\n\tconsidered that the analysis was made in his supervision and under<br \/>\n\tthe guidance of Mr.A.R. Balas and, therefore, the report cannot be<br \/>\n\tbrushed aside. He submitted that it is stated that the details are<br \/>\n\tnot mentioned in the register as well as the details as to the<br \/>\n\tprocedure and the method adopted is also not mentioned actually in<br \/>\n\tthe report at Exh.16 that by itself would not make it unbelievable.<br \/>\n\tFor that purpose, he referred to the testimony of P.W.No.2, Exh.24<br \/>\n\tand submitted that he has explained as to what has transpired and<br \/>\n\tthe method of P2O5 is provided in FCO Schedule-II on the basis<br \/>\n\tthereof, therefore, the sample does not conform with the standard<br \/>\n\tand, therefore, merely because there is no mention in the report<br \/>\n\tabout the procedure and the method, the impugned judgment and order<br \/>\n\tcannot be said to have been erroneous. However, he also fairly<br \/>\n\tstated that report is not of minimum 400 Gram as required.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered<br \/>\n\twhether the impugned judgment and order could be sustained or not.<br \/>\n\tIt is evident from the record that there are no allegations with<br \/>\n\tregard to any adulteration and the same has been collected from the<br \/>\n\tsealed bag supplied by the manufacturer, Adarsh Chemical &amp;<br \/>\n\tFertilizer Ltd., therefore, the contention of the learned advocate<br \/>\n\tthat whatever the marginal difference is there could not be<br \/>\n\tattracted to the present accused as he has simply received from the<br \/>\n\tmanufacturer, for which, he has no control. Therefore, first aspect,<br \/>\n\twhich is highlighted is with regard to any possibility of<br \/>\n\tadulteration or manipulation, which does not appear to so and that<br \/>\n\tis not the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAnother<br \/>\n\tfacet of the arguments with regard to report at Exh.16 and 26 that<br \/>\n\tthe conviction is recorded only on the basis of said report and<br \/>\n\topportunity of cross-examination has not been given to the accused<br \/>\n\tas the person, who has carried out the analysis is not examined is<br \/>\n\trequired to be appreciated. The report at Exh.16 has been made by<br \/>\n\tMr.A.R. Balas and P.W.NO.2 has stated in his testimony at Exh.24<br \/>\n\tthat in his presence and under his supervision and guidance, Mr.A.R.<br \/>\n\tBalas had carried out test and analysis. He has also explained with<br \/>\n\tregard to the procedure stating that P2O5 FSC Schedule-II is<br \/>\n\tapplicable and he has also stated that report was prepared and on<br \/>\n\tthat basis, the analysis has been made, however, admittedly in the<br \/>\n\treport at Exh.16, there is no mention about any details including<br \/>\n\tthe procedure and the method followed. The report at Exh.24 is made<br \/>\n\ton the basis of the report at Exh.16. Therefore, the basis for which<br \/>\n\tthe report at Exh.26 is report at Exh.16 and the person, who carried<br \/>\n\tout the said test, may be under the supervision of P.W.No.2, who is<br \/>\n\tnot examined. Had he been examined, the accused could have<br \/>\n\topportunity to cross-examine with reference to the report including<br \/>\n\tas to how he has arrived at conclusion. Admittedly, report at Exh.16<br \/>\n\tdoes not contain as to any procedure and any details and as also<br \/>\n\tmethod adopted or followed. Further admittedly, sample, which is<br \/>\n\trequired to be taken has to be minimum 400 gram and it is also<br \/>\n\tstated by P.W.No.2 in his testimony at Exh.26 that otherwise, it<br \/>\n\twould affect the analysis report. A close look at the report at<br \/>\n\tExh.16 and 26 would suggest that the sample is of 1 gram, which was<br \/>\n\ttested. Therefore, again it would raise doubt with regard to manner<br \/>\n\tin which the analysis was made and the test was carried out. Even<br \/>\n\tassuming that the analysis was made by Mr.A.R. Balas under the<br \/>\n\tguidance and under the supervision of P.W.No.2, at-least manner and<br \/>\n\tmethod and the details as to the procedure followed ought to have<br \/>\n\tbeen recorded, which his not to be found in the report at Exh.16. It<br \/>\n\ttranspires that the report, Exh.26 is based no the report at Exh.16<br \/>\n\tand, therefore, it would raise doubt about the conclusion. Further<br \/>\n\tthe case of the prosecution is at the most that the sample does not<br \/>\n\tconform or adhere to the standard prescribed and difference is<br \/>\n\tmarginal. Therefore, when there are not allegation for adulteration<br \/>\n\tand as stated by the learned counsel, it could be for various<br \/>\n\treasons when it is supplied by the manufacturer, it would not be<br \/>\n\tappropriate to record conviction for said marginal difference based<br \/>\n\ton the report, which cannot be readily accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the<br \/>\n\topinion that recording conviction of the accused for<br \/>\n\tthe violation<br \/>\n\tof the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1985 and under Section<br \/>\n\t7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tthe result, Criminal Appeal accordingly stands allowed. Judgment and<br \/>\n\tOrder dated 11.08.2000 delivered by the Learned Special Judge &amp;<br \/>\n\tAdditional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special Criminal Case No.6 of<br \/>\n\t1994 recording the conviction of the accused persons for the offence<br \/>\n\tunder Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is<br \/>\n\tquashed and set aside and the appellant no.2 viz., Jayant K. Patel<br \/>\n\tis ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any<br \/>\n\tother offence. He is on bail and, hence, his bail bonds stand<br \/>\n\tcancelled. The fine paid by the appellants-accused, if any, is<br \/>\n\tordered to be refunded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>(RAJESH<br \/>\nH.SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\/patil<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/843\/2000 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 843 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA : Sd\/- ======================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers [&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-39773","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>Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 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\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-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=\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-21T20:19:00+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\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T20:19:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1923,\"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\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T20:19:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 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\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-21T20:19:00+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\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T20:19:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"},"wordCount":1923,"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\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010","name":"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T20:19:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/adarsh-vs-unknown-on-21-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Adarsh vs Unknown on 21 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39773","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=39773"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39773\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}