{"id":6186,"date":"2010-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-29T01:26:44","modified_gmt":"2017-11-28T19:56:44","slug":"state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 20 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs The on 20 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&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\/2144\/2009\t 5\/ 7\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. 2144 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKOLI\nRUDA KARSHANBHAI - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n:\n \n\nMR. M.G.\nNANAVATI, LD. ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for 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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n\t\t\t\tORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nappellant   original complainant has preferred this Appeal under<br \/>\nSection 378(1)(3)  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against<br \/>\nthe Judgment and order dated 13.08.2006 passed by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge, &amp; 3rd Fast Track Court,<br \/>\nJunagadh, in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2006, whereby the learned<br \/>\nJudge has set aside the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 passed by<br \/>\nthe learned J.M.F.C., Visavadar in Criminal Case No. 177 of 1990, and<br \/>\nacquitted the respondent   original accused from the charges<br \/>\nleveled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nshort facts of the prosecution case   as per complaint that the<br \/>\nappellant was found in possession of Sag-wood from his residential<br \/>\nhouse at his village Mundiya Ravani after cutting the said Sag-wood,<br \/>\ntwo days ago from Sakara Forest and Ravani village from the date of<br \/>\ncomplaint.  The offence under Section 26(f) of the Indian Forest Act<br \/>\nwas registered for the violation of the said provision and the<br \/>\ncomplaint was filed by Range Forest Officer  and after investigation,<br \/>\nthe said offence having sufficient evidence, filed charge-sheet in<br \/>\nthe court of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThereafter<br \/>\nthe trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. The<br \/>\nprosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence.  After considering the oral as well as<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence the learned Magistrate has held  the respondent<br \/>\naccused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 26( f ) of<br \/>\nthe Indian Forest Act and awarded sentence of two months R.I. with<br \/>\nfine of Rs. 500\/- i\/d to under-go S.I. for one month.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAgainst<br \/>\nthe said judgment the respondent   accused had preferred Criminal<br \/>\nAppeal No. 67 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Junagadh.<br \/>\nThe said appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge &amp;<br \/>\n3rd<br \/>\nF.T.C. , Junagadh and after hearing the parties, the learned<br \/>\nJudge has set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court,<br \/>\nvide judgment and order dated 13.8.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated<br \/>\n13.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge &amp; 3rd<br \/>\nF.T.C., Junagadh, in above Criminal Revision, the appellant   State<br \/>\nhas preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tI<br \/>\nhave heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the appellant<br \/>\nState.  I  have also gone through the papers and the Judgment and<br \/>\norder passed by the Court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tLearned<br \/>\nAPP  for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of<br \/>\nprosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence and contended<br \/>\nthat from the above evidence it is established that the prosecution<br \/>\nhas successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has<br \/>\ncontended that the trial court has rightly held  the respondent-<br \/>\naccused guilty for the offences alleged against him and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe Sessions Court, in Appeal, should not have interfered with the<br \/>\nsaid findings of the trial Court.  He has contended that there is no<br \/>\npersonal enmity between the accused and the complainant and<br \/>\ntherefore, there is no question to falsely involve the accused in<br \/>\ncommission of offence.   Therefore, the learned lower Appellate Judge<br \/>\nhas committed grave error in not believing the case of the<br \/>\ncomplainant.  He, therefore, contended that the judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, setting aside the<br \/>\njudgment of the trial court, is without appreciating the facts and<br \/>\nevidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tI<br \/>\nhave gone through the Judgment of the trial Court as well as of the<br \/>\nSessions Court. I have also perused the reasons assigned by both the<br \/>\nCourts.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would<br \/>\ngovern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an<br \/>\norder of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very<br \/>\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In<br \/>\nthe case of<br \/>\nM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Anr, reported in<br \/>\n(2006)6 SCC, 39,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in<br \/>\nappeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 54.<br \/>\n\t In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an<br \/>\n\tappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional<br \/>\n\tjurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a<br \/>\n\tjudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the<br \/>\n\twell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the<br \/>\n\tappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal<br \/>\n\trecorded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tFurther,<br \/>\nin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in<br \/>\n(2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 42.<br \/>\nFrom the above decisions, in our considered view,the\tfollowing<br \/>\ngeneral principles regarding powers of the appellate\tcourt while<br \/>\ndealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal \temerge:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[1]<br \/>\nAn  appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and<br \/>\n\treconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal<br \/>\nis\tfounded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[2]<br \/>\nThe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, \trestriction<br \/>\nor condition on exercise of such power and an appellate \tcourt on the<br \/>\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both \ton questions<br \/>\nof fact and of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[3]<br \/>\nVarious expressions, such as,  substantial and compelling<br \/>\n\treasons ,  good and sufficient grounds ,  very<br \/>\nstrong\tcircumstances ,  distorted conclusions ,  glaring<br \/>\nmistakes , etc. \tare not intended to curtain extensive powers of an<br \/>\nappellate court \tin an appeal against acquittal.  Such phraseologies<br \/>\nare more in the \tnature of   flourishes of language  to emphasis<br \/>\nthe reluctance of \tan appellate court to interfere with acquittal<br \/>\nthan to curtail the \tpower of the court to review the evidence and to<br \/>\ncome to its own \tconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[4]<br \/>\nAn appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of<br \/>\n\tacquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused.<br \/>\n\tFirstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the<br \/>\n\tfundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person<br \/>\n\tshall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a<br \/>\n\tcompetent court of law.  Secondly, the accused having secured his<br \/>\n\tacquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,<br \/>\n\treaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[5]<br \/>\nIf two reasonable conclusion are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\n\tevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\n\tfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThus,<br \/>\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even<br \/>\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the<br \/>\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the<br \/>\nfinding  of acquittal recorded by the  courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tEven<br \/>\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\nof Goa V. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\nthe  Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases,<br \/>\n more particularly,  para -16 of the said decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tSimilar<br \/>\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court in the cases of State<br \/>\nof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR<br \/>\nSCW 5553<br \/>\nand in Girja<br \/>\nPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\nThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\nacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tThus,<br \/>\nin case the  appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion<br \/>\ngiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not<br \/>\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tI<br \/>\nhave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court as<br \/>\nwell as of the Sessions Court.  I have also perused the oral as well<br \/>\nas documentary evidence led before the courts below  and also<br \/>\nconsidered the<br \/>\nsubmissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tI<br \/>\nhave perused judgments and orders of the learned JMFC and learned<br \/>\nadditional Sessions Judge also. From para 23 of the judgment<br \/>\nconcerned learned additional Sessions Judge, has observed oral as<br \/>\nwell as documentary evidence and he has observed that learned JMFC,<br \/>\nhas committed the error in considering the evidence produced on<br \/>\nrecord. Today, learned APP for the appellant Mr. M.G. Nanavati, is<br \/>\nunable to show that which type of error has committed by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Sessions Court, it appears that there is material<br \/>\ncontradiction regarding execution of Panchnama. The Sessions Court<br \/>\nhas found that the complainant was not authorized to file complaint<br \/>\nagainst the accused. There is material contradiction in the evidence<br \/>\nof witnesses who are of the same department.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.\tThus,<br \/>\nthe appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondent<br \/>\n  accused in the present Appeal. The prosecution has miserably<br \/>\nfailed to prove the case against the appellant   accused.  Thus,<br \/>\nfrom the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has<br \/>\nnot proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate for the appellant is not in a position to show any evidence<br \/>\nto take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the<br \/>\nAppellate court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the<br \/>\ndecision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material<br \/>\nevidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.\tIn<br \/>\nabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\nSessions Court was completely justified in setting aside the judgment<br \/>\nof the trial court and acquitting the respondent   accused  of the<br \/>\ncharges leveled against him.  I find that the findings recorded by<br \/>\nthe Appellate court are absolutely just and proper and in recording<br \/>\nthe said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by<br \/>\nit.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.\tI<br \/>\nam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court<br \/>\nbelow and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the<br \/>\nappeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.\tIn<br \/>\nview of above the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order<br \/>\ndated 13.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge &amp;<br \/>\n3rd<br \/>\nFast Track Court, Junagadh, in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2006,<br \/>\nsetting  aside the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the<br \/>\nlearned J.M.F.C., Visavadar in Criminal Case No. 177 of 1990, holding<br \/>\nthe respondent   accused guilty of the charged levelled against<br \/>\nhim, is hereby<br \/>\nconfirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand canceslled.  R &amp; P may<br \/>\nbe sent back to the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED,J.)<\/p>\n<p>pawan<\/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 The on 20 January, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2144\/2009 5\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2144 of 2009 ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus KOLI RUDA KARSHANBHAI &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR. M.G. NANAVATI, [&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-6186","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs The on 20 January, 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\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\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 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-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=\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-28T19:56:44+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=\"9 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-20-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 20 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-28T19:56:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1688,\"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-20-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-28T19:56:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 20 January, 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":"State vs The on 20 January, 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\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-28T19:56:44+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 20 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-28T19:56:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010"},"wordCount":1688,"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-20-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010","name":"State vs The on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-28T19:56:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 20 January, 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\/6186","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=6186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}