{"id":45426,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-23T05:47:10","modified_gmt":"2015-11-23T00:17:10","slug":"state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,<\/div>\n<pre>  \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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/2142\/2004\t 10\/ 10\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. 2142 of 2004\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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHAMBHUBHAI\nOMKARBHAI TANK - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n:\n \n\nMR.\nM.G. NANAVATY, ADDL.PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR DK MODI for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR MD MODI\nfor 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 S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(1)\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe<br \/>\nState of Gujarat, appellant herein above has preferred this appeal<br \/>\nunder Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<br \/>\nagainst the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions<br \/>\nJudge (F.T. Court No.4), Gandhinagar in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2004<br \/>\ndated 10.8.2004 acquitting the respondent-original accused and<br \/>\nreversing the order of conviction passed by the 3rd<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar on 30.12.2003 in<br \/>\nCriminal Case No.7912 of 1997 for the offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 16 (1)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as  PF Act  for the sake of brevity).\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset, it is required to be mentioned that the record and<br \/>\nproceedings were called for but the same has not been received.<br \/>\nThere is a letter to the Registrar General addressed by the Principal<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Gandhinagar on 22nd February,2010<br \/>\nindicating that prior to 31st July,2004, the disposal<br \/>\nrecord of Gandhinagar was sent to Central Record room at Ahmedabad<br \/>\n(Rural) and recently they have received 400 bundles of disposal cases<br \/>\nfrom the custody of the record room, Ahmedabad (Rural) and it will<br \/>\ntake some time in tracing out the record of this case.  He submitted<br \/>\nthat therefore the time be granted.  At this stage, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the parties namely, the appellant as well as the<br \/>\nrespondent submitted that the order impugned in this appeal takes<br \/>\nnote of the fact that there was glaring lacuna in case of the<br \/>\nprosecution, which resulted into passing of the acquittal order,<br \/>\nwhich is impugned in this proceedings and Shri Modi, learned advocate<br \/>\nappearing for the respondents submitted that he has in his case<br \/>\npapers in his possession, certified copy of the testimony of the food<br \/>\ninspector, wherein also the lacuna in the case of the prosecution<br \/>\ncould be pointed out, which would help sustaining the order of<br \/>\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)\tShri<br \/>\nM.G. Nanavaty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that<br \/>\nwhen the certified copy of the testimony of the food inspector is<br \/>\navailable, then Court may not wait for entire proceedings as the<br \/>\nmatter could be disposed of in the light of the impugned order as<br \/>\nwell as the certified copy of the testimony of the food inspector.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)\tThe<br \/>\nCourt has heard the learned advocates for the parties on merits and<br \/>\non the strength of the certified copy which is produced on record did<br \/>\nnot take it fit to adjourn the matter for receiving the record and<br \/>\nproceedings as the controversy appears to be in narrow compass<\/p>\n<p>(6)\tProsecution<br \/>\ncase in short deserves to be set out as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>(7)\tThe<br \/>\noriginal complainant food inspector in discharge of his duties as<br \/>\nsuch on 21.11.1996 at 19:30 hours  visited the accused Lorry where<br \/>\nfrom the accused was selling prepared edibles known in vernacular as<br \/>\nBhaji Pav.  The accused had kept in one aluminum container ground nut<br \/>\noil for being used for preparing the food article called Bhaji Pav.<br \/>\nThe accused, therefore, admittedly had not kept the said ground nut<br \/>\noil for selling. It was kept in the lorry for it being used for<br \/>\npreparing the final food article called Bhaji Pav.  The food<br \/>\ninspector after purchasing the said oil and sealing the sample in<br \/>\npresence of the Pancha, sent one sample to the public analyst and<br \/>\nremaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>(8)\tThe<br \/>\narticle was found to be not in conformity with the standard and hence<br \/>\nit was opined to be adulterated warranting<br \/>\nfiling of the complaint, which came to be filed after obtaining due<br \/>\nsanction of the competent authority.  The Court of the first instance<br \/>\nwhere the criminal case no.7912 of 1997 had been tried,  came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the prosecution prove its case and hence convicted<br \/>\nthe accused of the charge of committing offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 16(1) and imposed six months simple imprisonment and 1,000\/-<br \/>\nfine and in default thereof, accused was ordered to undergo one more<br \/>\nmonth of simple imprisonment vide its order dated 30.12.2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>(9)\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 30.12.2003<br \/>\npassed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class,<br \/>\nGandhinagar in Criminal Case No.7912 of 2007, the accused preferred<br \/>\nappeal being Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2004 in the Court of Sessions<br \/>\nJudge, Gandhinagar, wherein the Sessions Court recorded its findings<br \/>\nwith regard to erroneous judgment and order of conviction, reversed<br \/>\nthe same and acquitted the accused respondent herein above of the<br \/>\ncharge of committing offence punishable under Section 16(1).  This<br \/>\norder dated 30.12.2003 is impugned in this present proceedings under<br \/>\nSection 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>(10)\tShri<br \/>\nD.K. Modi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent relying upon<br \/>\nthe testimony of the food inspector contended that the food inspector<br \/>\nhas clearly admitted in his cross examination that he did not clean<br \/>\nthe bottles  and bowl, in which the food article was collected for<br \/>\nexamination.  He has also admitted in his cross-examination that the<br \/>\nsubject oil was collected from the container into the bowl (Tapeli)<br \/>\nand that bowl had not been cleaned on the spot nor was there any<br \/>\nevidence to show on record that either the bowl or bottles were<br \/>\ncleaned by any one and hence there was failure on the part of the<br \/>\nprosecution in leading cogent evidence to establish compliance with<br \/>\nRule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.  Certified copy<br \/>\n of the testimony of the food inspector has been relied upon by Shri<br \/>\nModi.  In addition to the aforesaid submissions, Shri Modi further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the order of acquittal is otherwise also sustainable<br \/>\nin view of the fact that there is breach of rule 9(B) of the<br \/>\nPrevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in asmuchas mandatory<br \/>\nprovisions of sending report of public analyst to the accused person<br \/>\nwithin 10 days from the date of institution of proceedings is not<br \/>\ncomplied with .  The said aspect has been appreciated by the First<br \/>\nAppellate Court as could be seen from its judgment, wherein it is<br \/>\nclearly come out that the complaint was instituted on 25.9.1997 and<br \/>\nnotice was sent on 10.10.1997.  Shri<br \/>\nModi has relied upon the following authorities:\n<\/p>\n<p>Unreported<br \/>\n\tjudgment in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Bharatsinh Balvangsinh Zala<br \/>\n\tin Criminal Appeal No.599 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tcase of Ahmed Dadabhai Advani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in<br \/>\n\t1948-1997, SCI, Page 939.\n<\/p>\n<p>(11)\tShri<br \/>\nM.G. Nanavaty, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant could not controvert the contentions raised by Shri Modi<br \/>\nnor could he show anything contrary to what was submitted by Shri<br \/>\nModi at the bar on the strength of the certified copy of the judgment<br \/>\nof the Court of the first instance as well as the Appellate Court and<br \/>\nthe testimony of the food inspector.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">(12)\t<\/span><\/p>\n<p>This Court is of the view that the appeal is required to be dismissed<br \/>\non the following reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>(13)\tThe<br \/>\ntwo serious flaws in the case of the prosecution could be noticed by<br \/>\nthis Court from the certified copies of the judgment as well as<br \/>\ncertified copy of the testimony of the food inspector namely the<br \/>\nprosecution could not establish by leading cogent evidence that the<br \/>\nfood inspector while collecting the sample complied with Rule 14 of<br \/>\nthe Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.  On the contrary, the<br \/>\ncross -examination of the food inspector go to show that the food<br \/>\ninspector did not clean the vessels in which the oil was taken from<br \/>\nthe first instance in container, which was lying in the lorry of the<br \/>\naccused nor did he lead any positive evidence to show that the<br \/>\nbottles wherein, the oil was poured were also cleaned or he got them<br \/>\ncleaned in his supervision.  Thus, there was no evidence with regard<br \/>\nto compliance with Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration<br \/>\nRules, which will go to the root of the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>(14)\tThe<br \/>\nsecond flaw is in respect of the non-compliance with provisions of<br \/>\nRule 9(B) of the Provisions of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in<br \/>\nasmuch as the complaint was lodged on 25.9.1997 and the notice by LHA<br \/>\nwas said to have been dispatched on 10.10.1997 admittedly beyond the<br \/>\nsaid period of 10 days.  Before parting with this judgment, the Court<br \/>\nis also of the view that the factor with regard to the inherent<br \/>\nlacuna in the prosecution case needs to be mentioned at this stage<br \/>\nthat the food article in question had admittedly not been kept for<br \/>\nselling it to the people.  Though it was kept there in the lorry, but<br \/>\nthe same was kept only for preparing the final product called Bhaji<br \/>\nPav.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">(15)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Court at this stage did not elaborately dwell upon this aspect<br \/>\nthat the order of acquittal otherwise  also capable of being<br \/>\nsustained on the true aspect which has been set out herein above.<br \/>\nThe Court is of the view that the order of acquittal deserves to be<br \/>\nsustained.  The appeal fails and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vahid<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011 Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2142\/2004 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2142 of 2004 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-45426","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>State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-23T00:17:10+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\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T00:17:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1470,\"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\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-23T00:17:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 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":"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-23T00:17:10+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\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T00:17:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011"},"wordCount":1470,"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\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011","name":"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-23T00:17:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-2-the-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs (2) The on 30 August, 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\/45426","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=45426"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45426\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}