{"id":49965,"date":"2011-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-30T01:04:09","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T19:34:09","slug":"state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 21 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs The on 21 January, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1366\/2010\t 6\/ 6\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\nAPPEAL No. 1366 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF P P JADAV - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAMRATLAL\nTARACHAND RATHI JALARAM KIRANA STORES,BAZAR RD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nHL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Opponent(s) : 1, \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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/01\/2011\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under
\n\tSection 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
\n\tJudgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 2010
\n\tpassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankheda, in
\n\tCriminal Case No.501 of 1995 for the offences punishable under the
\n\tPrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned
\n\tMagistrate has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges
\n\tlevelled against him.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant along with
\n\tpanch witness visited the shop of respondent-accused whereby the
\n\trespondent was doing his business. It is the case of the complainant
\n\tthat the complainant purchased Rolax Glucose Biscuit after paying
\n\tconsideration. It is also the case of the prosecution that after
\n\tfollowing due procedure of sealing, the sample was sent for analysis
\n\tto the Pubilc Analyst, Vadodara. On examination, the Public Analyst
\n\tfound that the said sample was adulterated and not upto the
\n\tstandards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food
\n\tAdulteration Act, 1954. Therefore, after following the due
\n\tprocedure, complaint was filed against the respondent-accused in the
\n\tCourt of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankheda for
\n\tviolation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tthe trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the
\n\tcase of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the
\n\trespondent-accused from the charges alleged against him by his
\n\tJudgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 2010.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of
\n\tacquittal dated 26th February 2010 passed by the learned
\n\tJudicial Magistrate First Class, Sankheda, in Criminal Case No.501
\n\tof 1995, the appellant has preferred the above mentioned Criminal
\n\tAppeal.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on
\n\tbehalf of the appellant. I have also gone through the papers and the
\n\tJudgment and Order passed by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.H.L.\n<\/p>\n
\tJani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the
\n\tJudgment and Order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal
\n\tand it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate
\n\thas not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has argued that
\n\tthe learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that the Food
\n\tInspector has followed the proper procedure while collecting the
\n\tsample, etc. are just and proper. The sample was seized and sealed
\n\tproperly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the
\n\tevidence of prosecution. He, therefore, contended that the order of
\n\tacquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is without appreciating
\n\tthe facts and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and
\n\tset aside by this Hon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate
\n\tCourt is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh
\n\treasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons
\n\tassigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant
\n\tcase, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and
\n\tfindings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the
\n\trespondents-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the
\n\treasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal
\n\tand proper and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, this
\n\tappeal requires to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\tin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State
\n\tof Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported
\n\tin (2007)3 SCC 75,
\n\tthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.\n<\/p>\n
Similar
\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State
\n\tof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR
\n\tSCW 5553
\n\tand in Girja
\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.
\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of
\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\n\tappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give
\n\tfresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
\n\tfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\n\tCourt in the case of State
\n\tof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tin case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave gone through
\n\tthe order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also
\n\tperused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the
\n\ttrial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned
\n\tadvocates for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\ttrial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary
\n\tevidence, found that prosecution has failed to follow the mandatory
\n\tprovision of Rules 14 and 20 of the Rules. It is also observed by
\n\tthe learned Magistrate that without application of mind, sanction
\n\twas given by the L.H.A. to file complaint. Even prosecution has
\n\tfailed to prove that the complainant has purchased sample from the
\n\tshop of the respondent-accused. Even Exhibit 88 and 89 is also not
\n\tproved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has observed that
\n\tthere are serious lacuna in the oral as well as documentary evidence
\n\tof prosecution. Nothing is produced on record of this appeal to
\n\trebut the concrete findings of the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charges against the
\n\trespondent-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has
\n\tmiserably failed to prove the case against the respondent-accused.
\n\tThus, from the evidence itself it is established that the
\n\tprosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Jani,
\n\tlearned Additional Public Prosecutor, is not in a position to show
\n\tany evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the
\n\tapproach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
\n\tor that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored
\n\tthe material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
\n\ttrial Court was completely justified in acquitting the
\n\trespondent-accused of the charges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tfind that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely
\n\tjust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\n\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the
\n\ttrial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th
\n\tFebruary 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
\n\tSankheda, in Criminal Case No.501 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. Bail
\n\tbond, if any, shall stands discharged. Record and Proceedings, if
\n\tany, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.\n<\/p>\n
K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n
Anup<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs The on 21 January, 2011 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1366\/2010 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1366 of 2010 ========================================= STATE OF GUJARAT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF P P JADAV – Appellant(s) Versus AMRATLAL TARACHAND RATHI […]<\/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-49965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs The on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs The on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-29T19:34:09+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=\"6 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-the-on-21-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 21 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T19:34:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1167,\"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-the-on-21-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T19:34:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 21 January, 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 The on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-29T19:34:09+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 21 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T19:34:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011"},"wordCount":1167,"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-the-on-21-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011","name":"State vs The on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T19:34:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 21 January, 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\/49965","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=49965"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49965\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}