{"id":50409,"date":"2009-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-14T16:26:20","modified_gmt":"2015-05-14T10:56:20","slug":"state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 23 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs The on 23 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable 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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/209\/1997\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. 209 of 1997\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\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\nPARSHOTTAM\nSADARAM & 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nMANISHABEN L. SHAH Ld. APP for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR HN JOSHI for\nM\/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n2. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/07\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n
1.0\tThe
\npresent appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
\n4.1.1997 passed by the learned  Special Judge, Kutchh at Bhuj in
\nSpecial Case No. 12\/1986 whereby the accused has been acquitted of
\nthe charges  under sec. 161 read with sec. 114 of IPC and under sec.
\n5(1)(d) read with sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, leveled
\nagainst them.\n<\/p>\n
2.0\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tIt
\nis the case of the prosecution that the accused no. 1 had illegally
\nas well as unauthorisedly demanded Rs. 26\/- only from Mr. Swaroopaji
\nRatanji Jadeja i.e. Rs.25\/- only as bribe and Rs. 1\/- only as the
\ncost of the application form for the loan to be obtained by him,
\nwhich is being alleged as bribe money other than legal remuneration
\nfor issuing the certificate and the extract of 7\/12 of the
\nagricultural land being owned and occupied by him, before a week on
\n13.8.84. It is further alleged that the accused had accepted the said
\nbribe money other than legal remuneration from the informant Mr.
\nSwaroopji Ratanji Jadeja of village Zura which  was found from the
\naccused no. 2 who was sitting in the office of Zura Gram Panchayat
\nnear the Chair of the accused no. 1 on 13.8.84, while he was
\ndischarging his official duty as a public servant in the capacity of
\nTalati and Secretary of Zura Gram Panchayat,  it is alleged that the
\naccused  nos. 1 and 2 in abetment of each other, have committed
\nmisconduct as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tTherefore,
\n a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against
\nthe respondents with the ACB Police Station, Bhuj. Thereafter, PI
\nwith staff members of ACB  along with panchas carried out the raid
\nand ultimately, it was found that the accused have committed the said
\nmisconduct in abetment of each other and committed the offence under
\nsec. 161 read with sec. 114 of IPC and sec. 5(1)(d) read with sec.
\n5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.  During the course of
\ninvestigation, respondents were arrested and, ultimately,
\ncharge-sheet was filed against them, which was numbered as Special
\nCase No. 12\/1986. The trial was initiated against the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tTo
\nprove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has
\nexamined the following witnesses:\n<\/p>\n
PW-1
\n\tSwaroopji Ratanji Jadeja Ex. 20<\/p>\n
PW-2
\n\tHiralal Kantilal Thacker Ex. 22<\/p>\n
PW-3
\n\tAbdul Kadar Ismail Memon Ex. 27<\/p>\n
PW-4
\n\tDevjibhai Hamirbhai Sanjot Ex. 29<\/p>\n
PW-5
\n\tHardattrai Jivantrai Gor Ex. 35<\/p>\n
Hakemchandra
\n\tDharamdas Sharma, PI, Ex. 44<\/p>\n
\tTo
\nprove the case, the prosecution has also produced the    following
\ndocumentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Complaint
\n\tEx. 45<\/p>\n
Panchnama
\n\tof muddaml Ex. 26<\/p>\n
Office
\n\torder Ex. 31<\/p>\n
Seizure
\n\tmemo Ex. 23 & 24<\/p>\n
Seizure
\n\tMemo Ex. 25<\/p>\n
Abstract
\n\tof Gram Panchayat No. 11 ex. 36<\/span><\/p>\n
Abstract
\n\tof 8-A of village panchayat Ex. 37<\/p>\n
Abstract
\n\tof 7\/12 Ex. 39<\/p>\n
Certificate
\n\tof talati Ex. 40<\/p>\n
2.4\tAt
\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused under
\nsection 313 of Cr.P.C.,  and hearing arguments on behalf of
\nprosecution and the defence, the  learned Special Judge acquitted the
\nrespondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgment and
\norder dated 4.1.1997.\n<\/p>\n
2.5\tBeing
\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order
\npassed by the Sessions Court the appellant State has preferred the
\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3.0\tIt
\nwas contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the
\nSessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court
\nhas not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and
\nlooking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the
\nprosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against
\nthe present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court
\nthrough the oral as well  as the entire documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
4.0\tAt
\nthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would
\ngovern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an
\norder of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very
\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In
\nthe case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &
\nAnr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated
\nabout the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of
\nacquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 54.
\n In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an
\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional
\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a
\njudgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the
\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the
\nappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal
\nrecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tFurther,
\nin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in
\n(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following
\nprinciples:\n<\/p>\n
 42.\tFrom
\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general
\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tAn
\nappellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider
\nthe evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
[2]\tThe
\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
\ncondition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the
\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of
\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n
[3]\tVarious
\nexpressions, such as,  substantial and compelling reasons ,  good
\nand sufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,
\n distorted conclusions ,  glaring mistakes , etc. are not
\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an
\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature
\nof  flourishes of language  to emphasis the reluctance of an
\nappellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power
\nof the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n
[4]\tAn
\nappellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal
\nthere is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
\npresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
\npresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
\ncourt of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
\nstrengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
[5]\tIf
\ntwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence
\non record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of
\nacquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\tThus,
\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even
\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\nfinding  of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
4.3\tEven
\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa
\nV. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the
\nCourt has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In
\npara 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 16.\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the
\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal
\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any
\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized
\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of
\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment
\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate court has a
\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion
\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed
\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.
\nA duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to
\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis
\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused
\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n
4.4\tSimilar
\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court  in the cases of
\nState of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in
\n2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state
\nof MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this
\nCourt may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
4.5\tIt
\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give
\nfresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\nCourt in the  case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported
\nin AIR 1981 SC 1417, wherein, it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
 &
\nThis court
\nhas observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary
\n(1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
\nappellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on
\nthe evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate
\nthe reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement
\nwith the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under
\nappeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n
4.6\tThus,
\nin case the  appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\ngiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
5.0\tWe
\nhave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court.
\nWe have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by
\nthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned
\nAPP for the appellant-State. While appreciating the evidence of
\ncomplainant and Police Officer, the trial Court has observed that
\nthere is contradictory version to each other and, therefore, it can
\nbe said that it does not inspire any confidence.  At the time of
\ntaking into consideration and appreciation of evidence, the trial
\nCourt has observed that the same is found contradictory one and it
\ncan be said that there would not be proper and reasonable ground for
\ndisbelieving and\/or discarding the explanation made by the accused
\nno. 1. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand and
\nacceptance and the recovery was also doubtful. In that view of the
\nmatter, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
\nreasonable doubt against the respondents-accused. Thus, from the
\nevidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved
\nits case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tMrs
\nManishaben L. Shah Learned  APP is not in a position to show any
\nevidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach
\nof the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that
\nthe decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the
\nmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tIn
\nthe above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that
\nthe trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent
\nof the charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n
7.0\tWe
\nfind that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely
\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
8.0\tWe
\nare, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court
\nbelow and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the
\nappeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(K.S.\n<\/p>\n
JHAVERI, J.)<\/p>\n
(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n
SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n
mandora\/<\/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 23 July, 2009 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/209\/1997 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 209 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-50409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs The on 23 July, 2009 - 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-23-july-2009\" \/>\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 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-14T10:56:20+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\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 23 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-14T10:56:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1943,\"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-23-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-14T10:56:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 23 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 23 July, 2009 - 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-23-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-14T10:56:20+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\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 23 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-14T10:56:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009"},"wordCount":1943,"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-23-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009","name":"State vs The on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-14T10:56:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 23 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/50409","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=50409"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50409\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}