{"id":89658,"date":"2011-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2"},"modified":"2019-02-08T05:34:15","modified_gmt":"2019-02-08T00:04:15","slug":"khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/669\/2011\t 12\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 669 of 2011\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4774 of 1997\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nKHIMJI\nJAMNADAS OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nASHISH H SHAH for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\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 J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 03\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellant – original writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal
\nunder clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and
\norder dated 24th November 2008 passed by the learned
\nSingle Judge in Special Civil Application No.4774\/1997, whereby the
\nlearned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tFacts
\nrelevant for the purpose of deciding the present Appeal can be
\nsummarised as under:\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappellant-original writ petitioner is in the business of edible and
\n\tnon-edible oils. It is his case that he has been issued licence by
\n\tthe State Government under the Gujarat Essential Articles
\n\t(Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (for short,
\n\t‘the Order of 1981).\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbusiness unit of the appellant was suddenly inspected on 17th
\n\tJune 1997 by officers of Food and Civil Supplies, Junagadh. On
\n\tinspection of the said unit, it was found that the appellant was in
\n\tpossession of essential articles in the form of raw oil. The entire
\n\tconsignment was seized under the seizure order dated 17th
\n\tJune 1997. The details are as under:\n<\/p>\n
Sr.\n<\/p>\n
No.\n<\/p>\n
Particulars<\/p>\n
Quantity<\/p>\n
Value
\n\t\t\t\t\t(Rs.)<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Ground
\n\t\t\t\t\tnut solvent oil <\/p>\n
   17010<\/p>\n
 3,74,220\/-\n<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
Rapeseed
\n\t\t\t\t\tsolvent oil<\/p>\n
   10180<\/p>\n
 2,64,680\/-\n<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
Partly
\n\t\t\t\t\tprocessed ground nut <\/p>\n
 115575<\/p>\n
 8,55,255\/-\n<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
Partly
\n\t\t\t\t\tprocessed rapeseed <\/p>\n
 320775<\/p>\n
14,43,487\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total
\n\t\t\t\t\tValue Rupees<\/p>\n
29,37,642\/-\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears that thereafter show-cause notice was issued against the
\n\tappellant – original writ petitioner calling upon the
\n\tappellant to show-cause as to why the entire consignment of oil
\n\tshould not be confiscated under the provisions of the Order of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tDistrict Supply Officer, Junagadh, vide order dated 15th
\n\tJuly 1997, ordered confiscation of the entire stock of oil which was
\n\tseized from the business unit of the appellant. The order passed by
\n\tthe District Supply Officer was challenged before the Collector,
\n\tJunagadh. The Collector, vide order dated 17th October
\n\t1998, ordered 50% confiscation of the consignment of oil cake. It
\n\tdeserves to be noted that the Collector, however, released the
\n\tentire consignment of oil cake.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved
\n\tby the said order passed by the Collector, ordering 50% confiscation
\n\tof the oil cake, the appellant preferred Special Civil Application
\n\tNo.4774\/1997. The said petition was heard and dismissed by the
\n\tlearned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears that the principal contention of the appellant –
\n\toriginal writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was to the
\n\teffect that the Collector committed grave error in passing the order
\n\tof confiscation because the seized oil was not edible and,
\n\ttherefore, not covered under the provisions of the Order of 1981,
\n\tsince it is not one of the essential items declared under the Order
\n\tof 1981. It also appears that the appellant relied on the report of
\n\tthe Public Analyst indicating that the sample is of raw solvent
\n\textracted ground-nut oil and that it cannot be used for human
\n\tconsumption. It was also submitted before the learned Single Judge
\n\tthat the appellant – original writ petitioner was detained
\n\tpreventively under the provisions of Black Marketing Act and on the
\n\tsame contention canvassed before the learned Single Judge, the order
\n\tof detention was quashed.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tlearned Single Judge took the view that there was sufficient
\n\tevidence before the authorities to hold that the seized quantity
\n\tcomprised of raw oil in the process of being made in the humanly
\n\tconsumable edible oil. The learned Single Judge took the view that
\n\tthe authorities below were justified in coming to the conclusion
\n\tthat the seized oil would be included in the entry “edible
\n\toil” and on this reasoning, thought fit to dismiss the
\n\tpetition.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nare of the view that the learned Single Judge, in taking the view as
\nreflected from the judgment and order, has not committed any error
\nand we are in complete agreement with the reasonings assigned by the
\nlearned Single Judge. However, in the present case, as the issue
\nrelates to essential commodities, we would like to give our
\nindependent finding in this regard which would further fortify the
\nview taken by the learned Single Judge, which we are confirming.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel Mr.Ashish H.Desai appearing for the
\nappellant and the learned AGP Mrs.Manisha L.Shah for the State.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthis Appeal before us also the same contentions have been reiterated,
\nnamely, that the commodity seized as per the seizure order dated 17th
\nJune 1997 was raw solvent oil and the same was admittedly not edible.
\nIt was also submitted further that the commodity seized was not the
\nessential article within the meaning of clause 2(8) of the Order of
\n1981. It was also submitted that as per the provisions of Section
\n2(a)(v) of the Essential Commodities Act, “edible oil” is
\nthe sub-category of “food stuffs” and, therefore, “edible
\noil” should fall within the general category of “food
\nstuffs” and by no stretch of imagination “raw solvent
\nextracted oil” can be included in the general category of “food
\nstuffs”.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nhave considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant –
\noriginal writ petitioner and we are of the opinion that there is no
\nmerit in any of the contentions.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\nbetter adjudication of the issue, it would be expedient to look into
\ncertain provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing,
\nControl and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. Section 2(8) defines
\n“essential articles”, which means “an article
\nspecified in the Schedule-I”. Schedule-I appended to the Order
\nof 1981 is as under:\n<\/p>\n
Food
\nstuffs<\/p>\n
A.\n<\/p>\n
Foodgrains including products thereof.\n<\/p>\n
xxx
\n\txxx<\/p>\n
Paddy<\/p>\n
Rice<\/p>\n
xxx
\n\txxx<\/p>\n
Wheat<\/p>\n
B.\n<\/p>\n
Pulses including dal whether whole or split with or without husk.\n<\/p>\n
Tur<\/p>\n
Moong<\/p>\n
Arhar<\/p>\n
Masoor<\/p>\n
Lobia<\/p>\n
Rajmaha<\/p>\n
Gram
\n\tincluding peas<\/p>\n
Urad<\/p>\n
Any
\n\tother dal whether whole or split with or without husk.\n<\/p>\n
C.\n<\/p>\n
Edible Oilseeds.\n<\/p>\n
Groundnut
\n\tshelled or unshelled<\/p>\n
Til<\/p>\n
Mustard<\/p>\n
Rapeseed<\/p>\n
Soyabean<\/p>\n
Imported
\n\tedible oilseeds<\/p>\n
Kharsani
\n\tseeds<\/p>\n
D.\n<\/p>\n
Edible Oils.\n<\/p>\n
Groundnut
\n\toil (including solvent extracted).\n<\/p>\n
Til
\n\toil, Mustard oil, Rapeseed oil, Cottonseed oil, Soyabean oil,
\n\tSun-flower oil.\n<\/p>\n
Hydrogenated
\n\tvegetable oil.\n<\/p>\n
“Imported
\n\tedible oils” means (a) Palmolein (b) Palmoil (c) Soyabean oil\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) Sun-flower oil, or (e) any other edible oil containing any of
\n\tthe aforesaid oils.\n<\/p>\n
Kharsani
\n\tOil<\/p>\n
E.\n<\/p>\n
Sugar-Khandsari.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nare concerned with clauses (C) and (D) of “food stuffs”
\nof Schedule-I, so far as the present Appeal is concerned. It is
\nevident from Schedule-I appended to the Order of 1981 that “edible
\noilseeds” and “edible oils” fall within the ambit
\nof “food stuffs”. The word “edible”,
\naccording to Webster’s Dictionary, in its adjectival sense, means
\n“fit to be eaten as food; eatable, esculent”. According
\nto Chambers’ 20th Century Dictionary “edible”
\nin its adjectival sense means “fit to be eaten”.
\nSimilarly, according to the shorter Oxford Dictionary the word
\n“edible” in its adjectival sense means “eatable,
\nfit to be eaten”. The contention of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant that the oil which was seized was not “edible oil”
\nand was “raw oil” and, therefore, not covered under the
\nprovisions of the Order of 1981 since it is not one of the essential
\nitems declared under the Order of 1981, deserves to be rejected on
\ntwo good grounds. It is well known rule of interpretation that
\nassociated words take care of their meaning from one another and that
\nis the meaning of the rule of statutory construction, noscitur
\na sociis. A word in a statutory provision is to be read in
\ncollocation with its companion word. The pristine principle based on
\nthe maxim noscitur a sociis (meaning of a word should
\nbe known from its accompanying or associating words) has much
\nrelevance in understanding the import of words in a statutory
\nprovision. When “foodstuffs” are associated with edible
\noil-seeds which have to be processed before the oil in them can be
\nconsumed, it is appropriate to interpret “foodstuffs” in
\nthe wider sense as including all articles of food which may be
\nconsumed by human beings after processing.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\ntaking this view, we are fortified by a Supreme Court’s decision in
\nthe matter of K.Janardhan Pillai and another v\/s. Union of India
\nand others, reported in (1981)2 SCC 45. In this case,
\nbefore the Supreme Court, the challenge related to the validity of
\nthe declaration made by the State Government of Kerala on 20th
\nMarch 1976 declaring that raw cashew-nut was an essential article, in
\nexercise of the power under clause(a) of Section 2 of the Kerala
\nEssential Articles Control (Temporary Powers) Act, 1961 (Kerala Act 3
\nof 1962) and other Orders. In the said case, the contention before
\nthe Supreme Court was that since the Order regulates only procurement
\nand distribution of raw cashewnut as industrial raw material for
\nprocessing in the factories, it is not being dealt with as foodstuff.
\nRejecting this contention, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 14
\nof the judgment as under:\n<\/p>\n
“It
\nis not disputed by the State Government that if raw cashewnut is
\nfoodstuff within the meaning of the Central Act, it cannot be
\ndeclared as an essential article under the Kerala Act. What is,
\nhowever, urged is that since the Order regulates only procurement and
\ndistribution of raw cashewnut as industrial raw material for
\nprocessing in the factories, it is not being dealt with as foodstuff.
\nHence it should not be treated as an essential commodity under the
\nCentral Act. There are at least two good reasons to reject this
\ncontention advanced on behalf of the State Government – first, the
\nlanguage used in Section 2(a)(v) of the Central Act and secondly the
\npurpose of the Central Act. Section 2(a)(v) of the Central Act reads:
\n“foodstuffs, including edible oil-seeds and oils”. It is
\na well known rule of interpretation that associated words take their
\nmeaning from one another and that is the meaning of the rule of
\nstatutory construction, noscitur a sociis. When ‘foodstuffs’ are
\nassociated with edible oil-seeds which have to be processed before
\nthe oil in them can be consumed, it is appropriate to interpret
\n‘foodstuffs’ in the wider sense as including all articles of food
\nwhich may be consumed by human beings after processing. It is in this
\nwider sense that the said term has been understood by Indian Courts
\nas can be seen from some of the decisions to which we shall presently
\nrefer. Secondly, having regard to the history of legislation relating
\nto foodstuffs dealt with above and the object of the Central Act
\nwhich regulates the production, supply and distribution of essential
\ncommodities amongst the poverty-stricken Indian people, the
\nexpression ‘foodstuffs’ should be given a wider meaning as including
\neven raw materials which ultimately result in edible articles. Any
\ninterpretation that may be given in this case should not be governed
\nby its consequence on the impugned Order but in the light of the
\nimportance of the Central Act in the context of the national economy.
\nA narrow interpretation may result in the exclusion of several
\narticles from the purview of the Central Act although nobody has
\nentertained any doubt so far about their being essential
\ncommodities.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthis view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no error much
\nless an error of law can be said to have been committed by the
\nlearned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant
\nand, therefore, the Appeal fails and it deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nAppeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
\nCJ.)<\/p>\n
(J.B.Pardiwala,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\/moin<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/669\/2011 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 669 of 2011 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4774 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE […]<\/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-89658","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKhimji vs State on 3 May, 2011 - 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\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-08T00:04:15+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\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T00:04:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1875,\"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\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-08T00:04:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 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":"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011 - 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\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-08T00:04:15+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\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T00:04:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2"},"wordCount":1875,"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\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2","name":"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-08T00:04:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khimji-vs-state-on-3-may-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khimji vs State on 3 May, 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\/89658","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=89658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}