{"id":81805,"date":"2011-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-21T09:23:09","modified_gmt":"2017-05-21T03:53:09","slug":"state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs This on 24 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs This on 24 March, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable 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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/2033\/2008\t 8\/ 8\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. 2033 of 2008\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nLAVJIBHAI\n@ LAVABHAI POPATBHAI - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nPUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \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: 05\/02\/2009 \n\n \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)<\/p>\n<p>1.0\tThis<br \/>\nappeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is<br \/>\ndirected against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2008 passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Addl. Sessions Judge &amp; Special Judge, Jamnagar in<br \/>\nSpecial (G.E.B.) Case No.4\/2005, whereby, the respondent-accused has<br \/>\nbeen acquitted from the charges leveled against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.0\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts of the prosecution case are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tOn<br \/>\n24.02.2004, the authorities of the Gujarat Electricity Board carried<br \/>\nout at inspection at the residential house of the respondent-accused.<br \/>\nAt that time, they noticed that the respondent had committed theft of<br \/>\nelectricity by illegally taking electricity from a nearby electric<br \/>\nline of the Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2\tTherefore,<br \/>\non 11.03.2004, a complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was<br \/>\nsent to the Police Station for the purpose of registration of the<br \/>\noffence, which, ultimately, was registered on 23.04.2004 vide C.R.<br \/>\nII-No. 535\/2004 with G.E.B. Police Station, Rajkot. Necessary<br \/>\ninvestigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses<br \/>\nwere recorded. During the course of investigation, as sufficient<br \/>\nmaterial was found against the respondent, he was arrested and,<br \/>\nultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court of<br \/>\nlearned JMFC, Kalavad. As the case was exclusively triable by the<br \/>\nSessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court,<br \/>\nJamnagar and it was numbered as Special (G.E.B.) Case No.4\/2005.<br \/>\nTrial was initiated against the respondent. At the end of trial, the<br \/>\ntrial Court acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled<br \/>\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.3\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order<br \/>\npassed by the Sessions Court, the appellant   State has preferred<br \/>\nthe present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.0\tIt<br \/>\nwas contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Court<br \/>\nbelow is against the provisions of law; the Court below has not<br \/>\nproperly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and that<br \/>\nlooking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the<br \/>\nprosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence against the<br \/>\npresent respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the<br \/>\noral as well as the documentary evidence available on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.0\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset, it is required to be noted that the principles which<br \/>\nwould govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court,<br \/>\nagainst an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been<br \/>\nvery succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions.<br \/>\nIn the case of M.S.\n<\/p>\n<p>Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala &amp; Anr, reported<br \/>\nin (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has<br \/>\nnarrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the<br \/>\norder of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has<br \/>\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 54.<br \/>\n In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional<br \/>\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a<br \/>\njudgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the<br \/>\nwell-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the<br \/>\nappellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal<br \/>\nrecorded by the Court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tFurther,<br \/>\nin the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported<br \/>\nin (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down<br \/>\nthe following principles;\n<\/p>\n<p> 42.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general<br \/>\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with<br \/>\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n<p>[1]\tAn<br \/>\nappellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and<br \/>\nreconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n<p>[2]\tThe<br \/>\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or<br \/>\ncondition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the<br \/>\nevidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of<br \/>\nfact and of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>[3]\tVarious<br \/>\nexpressions, such as,  substantial and compelling reasons ,  good<br \/>\nand sufficient grounds ,  very strong circumstances ,<br \/>\n distorted conclusions ,  glaring mistakes , etc. are not<br \/>\nintended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an<br \/>\nappeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature<br \/>\nof  flourishes of language  to emphasis the reluctance of an<br \/>\nappellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power<br \/>\nof the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>[4]\tAn<br \/>\nappellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal<br \/>\nthere is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the<br \/>\npresumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental<br \/>\nprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be<br \/>\npresumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent<br \/>\nCourt of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the<br \/>\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and<br \/>\nstrengthened by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>[5]\tIf<br \/>\ntwo reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence<br \/>\non record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of<br \/>\nacquittal recorded by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.2\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 trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.3\tEven<br \/>\nin a recent decision in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/585040\/\">State of Goa V. Sanjay<br \/>\nThakran &amp; Anr.<\/a> reported<br \/>\nin (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has<br \/>\nreiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of<br \/>\nthe said decision, the Court has observed as under;\n<\/p>\n<p> 16.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the<br \/>\npowers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal<br \/>\nwould not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the<br \/>\napproach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality<br \/>\nand the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any<br \/>\nreasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized<br \/>\nas perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of<br \/>\nappeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment<br \/>\ndelivered by the  Court below. However, the appellate Court has a<br \/>\npower to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion<br \/>\narrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed<br \/>\na manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record.<br \/>\nA duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to<br \/>\nre-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis<br \/>\nof material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused<br \/>\nis connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.4\tSimilar<br \/>\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex  Court  in the cases of<br \/>\nState of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors<br \/>\nreported in 2007<br \/>\nA.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs<br \/>\nVs. State of MP reported in<br \/>\n2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this<br \/>\nCourt may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.5\tIt<br \/>\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\nappellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give<br \/>\nfresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are<br \/>\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the  case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy<br \/>\nreported in AIR<br \/>\n1981 S.C. 1417, wherein, it is held as under;\n<\/p>\n<p> &amp;<br \/>\nThis<br \/>\nCourt has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini<br \/>\nChaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty<br \/>\nof the appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial<br \/>\nCourt on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to<br \/>\nreiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general<br \/>\nagreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which<br \/>\nis under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.6\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>5.0\tWe<br \/>\nhave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.<br \/>\nWe have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by<br \/>\nthe trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\nAdvocate for the appellant. From the record, it transpires that the<br \/>\ninspection in question was carried out on 24.02.2004, whereas, the<br \/>\ncomplaint with respect to the said incident was referred to the<br \/>\npolice for the purpose of registration of the offence only on<br \/>\n11.03.2004. No explanation, much less any satisfactory explanation,<br \/>\nhas come from the prosecution as regards the said delay. It has also<br \/>\ncome on record that the officials, who had carried out the inspection<br \/>\nin question, were not duly authorized to carry out such inspection.<br \/>\nNo evidence has been produced on record to show that the inspection<br \/>\nwas carried out with the authority of law. Apart from that it also<br \/>\nappears that the search \/ seizure was not done in accordance with the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed under the relevant Act. Thus, from the evidence<br \/>\nitself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case<br \/>\nbeyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Kodekar, learned APP, is not in a<br \/>\nposition to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter<br \/>\nor that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest<br \/>\nillegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court<br \/>\nhas ignored the material evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.0\tIn<br \/>\nthe above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that<br \/>\nthe trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent<br \/>\nof the charges leveled against him. We find that the findings<br \/>\nrecorded by the trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in<br \/>\nrecording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been<br \/>\ncommitted by it. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the<br \/>\nfindings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal<br \/>\nrecorded by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere<br \/>\nwith the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.0\tThe<br \/>\nappeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand<br \/>\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. JHAVERI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>[Z.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. SAIYED, J.]<\/p>\n<p>Pravin\/*<\/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 This on 24 March, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/2033\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2033 of 2008 ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus LAVJIBHAI @ LAVABHAI POPATBHAI &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&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-81805","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs This 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\/state-vs-this-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=\"State vs This 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\/state-vs-this-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=\"2017-05-21T03:53:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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-this-on-24-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs This on 24 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T03:53:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1706,\"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-this-on-24-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs This 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\":\"2017-05-21T03:53:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs This 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 This 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\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs This on 24 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-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":"2017-05-21T03:53:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs This on 24 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T03:53:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011"},"wordCount":1706,"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-this-on-24-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011","name":"State vs This 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":"2017-05-21T03:53:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-this-on-24-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs This 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/81805","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=81805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}