{"id":68151,"date":"2011-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-23T10:39:13","modified_gmt":"2018-01-23T05:09:13","slug":"vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Anant S. Dave,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/100119\/1998\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1001 of 1998\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n \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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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 \n\nVASUDEV\nCHANDULAL KACHHIYA - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 6 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nABHA MAKWANA for MR RAMNANDAN SINGH for Applicant, \nMS MANISHA L\nSHAH APP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR EE SAIYED for Respondent(s) : 2\n- 7. \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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/02\/2009 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tpetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with<br \/>\n\tSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short  the<br \/>\n\tCode ) is preferred by the petitioner with the following main<br \/>\n\tprayers :-\n<\/p>\n<p> (B)\tYour<br \/>\nLordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other<br \/>\nappropriate writ holding the order below Annexure A and Annexure C<br \/>\npassed by Honourable Session Court, Nadiad and Learned JMFC Petlad<br \/>\nrespectively as illegal and unlawful and be pleased further to quash<br \/>\nand set aside the aforesaid orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>(C)<br \/>\nYour Lordships may be pleased to direct the learned JMFC, Petlad to<br \/>\nhold fresh trial in complaint No.813 of 91 of by taking expert&#8217;s<br \/>\nevidence for before passing fresh order for framing of the charge<br \/>\nagainst the accused .\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis the case of the petitioner that the petitioner preferred a<br \/>\n\tprivate complaint, which was registered as Criminal Case No.83\/91<br \/>\n\tand on 25.03.1991 the learned JMFC, Petlad issued the process.<br \/>\n\tAgainst the issuance of process, a revision application was<br \/>\n\tpreferred being Criminal Revision Application No.20\/93, which came<br \/>\n\tto be rejected on 12.07.1993 and against which Misc. Criminal<br \/>\n\tApplication No.3827\/93 was preferred before this court for quashing<br \/>\n\tthe complaint under Section 482 of the Code, which also came to be<br \/>\n\trejected on 08.09.1993 holding that while exercising powers by the<br \/>\n\tMagistrate of issuance of process, no illegality was committed.<br \/>\n\tHowever, by an order dated 26.04.1994 learned JMFC discharged the<br \/>\n\taccused in the Criminal Case No.813\/91 for the offences alleged to<br \/>\n\thave been committed under Sections 406, 464 and 114 of the Indian<br \/>\n\tPenal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by the order of discharge in exercise of powers under<br \/>\n\tSection 245(2) of the Code, Criminal Revision Application No.108\/94<br \/>\n\twas preferred by the original complainant and by judgment and order<br \/>\n\tdated 19.08.1996 the learned Sessions Judge, Nadiad confirmed the<br \/>\n\torder of learned JMFC in discharging the accused, since according to<br \/>\n\tlearned Sessions Judge no illegality was committed by the Magistrate<br \/>\n\tin exercise of of powers under Section 245(2) of the Code.  However,<br \/>\n\tthis petition is preferred after 2 years of passing the above order<br \/>\n\tby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad and for which delay<br \/>\n\tis explained.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tcounsel for the petitioner-original complainant has raised threefold<br \/>\n\tgrievances to challenge the judgment and order passed by the courts<br \/>\n\tbelow viz. (i) that both the courts below failed to appreciate<br \/>\n\tevidence on record in correct perspective and in spite of the<br \/>\n\trelevant material was produced, the same was not examined and it has<br \/>\n\tresulted into miscarriage of justice; (ii) the transaction with<br \/>\n\tregard to deposit of money was with members of the family and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, immediately no action was taken but when it was found<br \/>\n\tthat respondents herein have committed offence under Sections 406<br \/>\n\tand 464 of the Indian Penal Code, complaint was filed; and (iii)<br \/>\n\tthat the learned JMFC has made no efforts to find out correctness of<br \/>\n\tthe allegations by referring the matter to the hand writing expert<br \/>\n\tto find out the correctness or otherwise of the signature in the<br \/>\n\tpass-book given by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the above, it is submitted that orders passed by the courts<br \/>\n\tbelow deserve to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having<br \/>\n\theard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the facts<br \/>\n\tand circumstances of the case, what transpires is that initially for<br \/>\n\tthe offences committed under Sections 406, 464 and 114 of the Indian<br \/>\n\tPenal Code private complaint was registered with JMFC, Petlad on the<br \/>\n\tground that mother of the petitioner-Smt.Jasoda Chandubhai Kachhiya<br \/>\n\twas widow and was unable to manage the transactions and on her<br \/>\n\tbehalf the petitioner and one of the brothers of the petitioner viz.<br \/>\n\tShri Krishnadas resident of Vadodara and accused Nos.1 to 4 are the<br \/>\n\tpartners of firm M\/s.Shankarlal Ashabhai Shroff and accused No.5 is<br \/>\n\ta Clerk and No.6 is the Manager.  The petitioner complainant has<br \/>\n\tclose relationship with the accused No.1, since he is son of<br \/>\n\tmaternal uncle of the complaint and accused No.2 is nephew of mother<br \/>\n\tof the petitioner and accused No.3 is sister-in-law (bhabhi-mother<br \/>\n\tof the complainant). Thus, the petitioner was assured about fact<br \/>\n\tthat if the money is to be deposited in the above firm the same will<br \/>\n\tbe safe and, therefore, Rs.65,000\/- were deposited by his mother,<br \/>\n\tthe complainant deposited Rs.12,700\/- and his brother deposited<br \/>\n\tRs.13,300\/-.  In December, 1988 the petitioner was told by the<br \/>\n\taccused Nos.1, 5 and 6 that all the receipts of the deposits  were<br \/>\n\thanded over but after the end of December when the petitioner<br \/>\n\tdemanded the receipts, they were not returned but cheque books were<br \/>\n\tgiven to the petitioner without any signature of the accused.<br \/>\n\tSince, the petitioner threatened to lodge a complaint they had<br \/>\n\tsigned three cheques and, therefore, subsequently it was found that<br \/>\n\tin the books of accounts the accused have interpolated and made<br \/>\n\tincorrect page number in the ledger book and thus committed the<br \/>\n\tabove offences.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tTrial Court examined the evidence produced before it and found that<br \/>\n\tin the cross-examination at Exh.37 the complainant and the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner herein in terms admitted that on the same day two<br \/>\n\tcomplaints were filed with an intention to receive money<br \/>\n\timmediately. Not only that but on examination of the evidence, the<br \/>\n\tlearned Magistrate found that amount was no doubt deposited and no<br \/>\n\tingredients of cheating, as required to establish charge under<br \/>\n\tSection 406 and allegations with regard to forgery etc. of preparing<br \/>\n\tfalse documents for attracting Section 464 of the IPC were not<br \/>\n\tsupported by evidence.  There was nothing on record to compare with<br \/>\n\tthe original writing or the record and just because passbooks were<br \/>\n\tsigned by the accused No.1 it was not possible to believe that<br \/>\n\tdocument was forged.  The learned JMFC discussed the law at length<br \/>\n\twith regard to cognizance under Section 190 of the Code and found<br \/>\n\tthat even prima facie case was not made out to frame the charges.<br \/>\n\tBesides, entrusting of property may have been established but at the<br \/>\n\tsame time there was nothing on recored to indicate criminal breach<br \/>\n\tof trust and the transaction was found to be of civil nature and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, power under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\n\tProcedure, 1973 was exercised deciding the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tSessions Judge also closely scrutinized the above aspects and<br \/>\n\tnoticed that appreciation of evidence on the record by the learned<br \/>\n\tJMFC in the context of ingredients of Sections 406 and 464 of the<br \/>\n\tIndian Penal Code even prima facie it was not established after<br \/>\n\tconsidering Exhs.37 and 45 by which deposition of complainant Shri<br \/>\n\tVasudev Kachhiya and deposition of his brother and witnesses Shri<br \/>\n\tKrishnadas was recorded.  The only purpose according to the courts<br \/>\n\tbelow for filing such private complaint is to settle the dispute<br \/>\n\twhich was a civil nature and considering the notice dated 19.02.1991<br \/>\n\tgiven by mother of the petitioner, the revision application was also<br \/>\n\trejected by confirming the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the above, the contentions of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner about not appreciating the evidence in correct<br \/>\n\tperspective by the learned Magistrate, which was confirmed by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising revisional powers<br \/>\n\tcannot be accepted since even prima facie case was not made out.<br \/>\n\tBoth the courts have considered the records of the case and<br \/>\n\tdeposition of the complainant as well as witnesses and found that no<br \/>\n\tingredients of criminal breach of trust or forgery was found and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, the order passed by the learned JMFC discharging the<br \/>\n\taccused, which was  confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions<br \/>\n\tJudge, Nadiad while exercising revisional powers, do not deserve any<br \/>\n\tinterference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227<br \/>\n\tof the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of<br \/>\n\tCriminal Procedure since no error of law much less jurisdictional<br \/>\n\terror is found.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby<br \/>\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rule<br \/>\n\t\tdischarged.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) <\/p>\n<p>*pvv<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011 Author: Anant S. Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/100119\/1998 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1001 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local [&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-68151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-23T05:09:13+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T05:09:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1305,\"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\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T05:09:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 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":"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-23T05:09:13+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T05:09:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011"},"wordCount":1305,"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\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011","name":"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T05:09:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudev-vs-state-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasudev vs State on 24 March, 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\/68151","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=68151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}