{"id":62513,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-26T13:46:14","modified_gmt":"2017-01-26T08:16:14","slug":"state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs ) The on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs ) The on 16 February, 2010<\/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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1596\/2003\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. 1596 of 2003\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \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\t-Yes.\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 ? -No.\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\t-No.\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 ? -No.\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 ? -No.\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAKWANA\nCHEHUJI BHAVANJI - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHL JANI, APP for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, \nMR VM PANCHOLI 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: 16\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1)\tThe
\npresent appeal, under Section-378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated
\n29\/8\/2003 passed by the learned Third Joint Judicial Magistrate
\n(First Class), Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No.3686 of 1997 whereby
\nthe accused was acquitted of the charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tThe
\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1)\tOn
\n30\/1\/1997 at about 21:00 hours, the accused was found in drunken
\ncondition at public place at village Aadivada without any pass and
\npermit and thereby committed offence punishable under
\nSection-66(1)(B), 85(1)(3) of Bombay Prohibition Act.  The
\ncomplainant has therefore filed a complaint before Sector-21 Police
\nStation, Gandhinagar.  Necessary investigation was carried out and
\nstatements of witnesses were recorded.  After completion of the
\ninvestigation the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused
\nbefore the Court of learned Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
\nGandhinagar for the alleged offences which was numbered as Criminal
\nCase No.3686 of 1997.  The trial was initiated against the
\nrespondent-accused accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
2.2)\tTo
\nprove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined
\nthree witnesses and in order to support the case, the prosecution has
\nproduced several documentary evidences.\n<\/p>\n
2.3)\tAt
\nthe end of trial,  after recording the statement of the accused
\nperson under Section-313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after
\nhearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the
\nlearned Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gandhinagar has
\nacquitted the respondent-accused of all the charges leveled against
\nhim by judgement and order dated  29\/8\/2003 which is impugned in the
\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tIt
\nwas contended by learned APP Mr. H. L. Jani that the judgment and
\norder of the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
\nGandhinagar is not proper, legal and it is erroneous.  He has also
\nargued that the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate has not considered
\nproperly the evidence of witnesses.  He has submitted that the Court
\nbelow has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution
\nand looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that
\nthe prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence
\nagainst the present respondent-accused. Learned APP has also taken
\nthis Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary
\nevidence. He submitted that the prosecution witness had clearly
\ndeposed in his deposition that the respondent-accused was found
\ncommitting offence punishable under Sections-66(1)(B), 85(1)(3) of
\nBombay Prohibition Act. He further submitted that there was no reason
\nfor the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate to disbelieve the
\nprosecution case and to acquit the respondent-accused.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tFrom
\nthe respondent-accused side, heard learned counsel Mr. Nasir Saiyed
\nfor learned advocate Mr. V. M. Pancholi.  He has read oral as well as
\ndocumentary evidences and contended that evidence of the doctor is
\ntotally in contrary manner and therefore the judgment and order
\npassed by the learned Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
\nGandhinagar is in proper manner and there is no need to interfere
\nwith the same.\n<\/p>\n
5)\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
\nM.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in
\n(2006) 6 SCC,
\n39, the
\nApex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal
\nagainst the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex
\nCourt has observed as under:\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
\njudgement 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
5.1)\tFurther,
\nin the case of Chandrappa
\nVs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415
\nthe Apex Court laid down the following principles:\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
5.2)\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
5.3)\tEven
\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State
\nof Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,
\nthe  Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
\nIn para 16 of the said decision the Court
\nhas 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 judgement
\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
5.4)\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
5.5)\tIt
\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or
\nto give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court
\nbelow are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by
\nthe Apex Court in the  case of State
\nof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417
\nwherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
 & This
\ncourt has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
\nChaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty
\nof the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial
\ncourt on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to
\nreiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general
\nagreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which
\nis under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n
5.6)\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
6)\tI
\nhave gone through the judgement and order passed by the Joint
\nJudicial Magistrate (First Class), Gandhinagar.  I have also perused
\nthe oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and
\nalso considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for both the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
5.1)\tThe
\nentire prosecution case rests on  prosecution witnesses and oral as
\nwell as documentary evidences.  It appears from the oral evidences of
\nwitnesses and documentary evidence produced before the Court that the
\nprosecution has failed to prove the case against the
\nrespondent-accused.  Even certificate of doctor and oral evidence of
\ndoctor are contrary to each other and therefore from the medical
\nevidences also the prosecution has failed to prove the case against
\nthe accused.  Hence it appears that there is  serious lacuna in the
\nprosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the case
\nagainst the respondent-accused.  Therefore the Trial Court has
\nrightly passed the order of acquittal in favour of the accused and I
\ndo not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the
\nTrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.2)\tThus,
\nfrom the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has
\nnot proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. H.L. Jani, learned
\nAPP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view
\nof the matter or that the approach of the Trial Court is vitiated by
\nsome manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the
\nTrial Court has ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tIn
\nthe above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
\nTrial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of
\nthe charges leveled against him. I find that the findings recorded by
\nthe Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the
\nsaid findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. I
\nam, 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
\nthe appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n
SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n
(ila)<\/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 16 February, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1596\/2003 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1596 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/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-62513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs ) The on 16 February, 2010 - 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-16-february-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 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-26T08:16:14+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-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs ) The on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T08:16:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1825,\"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-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs ) The on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-26T08:16:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs ) The on 16 February, 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 16 February, 2010 - 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-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs ) The on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-26T08:16:14+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-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs ) The on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T08:16:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":1825,"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-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010","name":"State vs ) The on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-26T08:16:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs ) The on 16 February, 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\/62513","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=62513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}