{"id":93040,"date":"2010-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-30T22:17:39","modified_gmt":"2017-09-30T16:47:39","slug":"himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 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\/818\/1996\t 1\/ 13\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. 818 of 1996\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\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\nHIMMATSING\nBADJIBHAI PARGI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nJB PARDIWALA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR RC KODEKAR, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for\nOpponent(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\nDate\n: 03\/03\/2010\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
The
\n\tappellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
\n\tCriminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and order of
\n\tconviction dated 19th August 1996 passed by the learned
\n\tSpecial Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special (Corruption) Case
\n\tNo.08 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the
\n\tappellant-accused of the charges levelled against him.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tShort facts of the case are as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tThe
\noriginal complainant had some disputes with regard to taking water
\nfrom the well. It is the case of the original complainant that he was
\nbeaten by his brother and his sons at the time of doing agricultural
\nwork. Because of intervention of the neighbours, the original
\ncomplainant was saved. The original complainant had lodged a
\ncomplaint with Santrampur Police Station for the said assault of his
\nbrother and sons of his brother. After filing the complaint, the
\noriginal complainant was admitted in the hospital for treatment.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tThe
\ninvestigation was carried out by the present appellant-accused in
\nrespect of the complaint filed by the original complainant. It is
\nalso the say of the complainant that when the original complainant
\nwent to the appellant-accused  with his treatment certificate, the
\nappellant-accused told the original complainant that his brother had
\nalso filed a complaint against him, therefore, the original
\ncomplainant should come along with his wife at Gothib Outpost on
\nMonday. On 16th November 1992 the complainant along with
\nhis wife and witnesses went to Gothib Outpost where their statements
\nwere recorded. It is also the case of the original complainant that
\nafter recording statements, the appellant-accused told the original
\ncomplainant that he will be taken on remand. The appellant-accused
\nfurther added that if the original complainant wants to escape from
\nthe remand, he will have to give an amount of Rs.500\/- to the
\nappellant-accused. It is also the case of the original complainant
\nthat as he was not having money, the appellant-accused arrested the
\noriginal complainant and was produced before the Santrampur Police
\nStation, from where the original complainant got himself released on
\nbail. At that time also the appellant-accused demanded an amount of
\nRs.500\/- from the original complainant. It is also the case of the
\noriginal complainant that he stated the accused that he would give
\nthe appellant-accused an amount of Rs.500\/- on the next day.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tThe
\noriginal complainant therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau
\non 17th
\nNovember 1992 at about 11:00 a.m. and filed the complaint against the
\nappellant-accused. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer called two
\npanchas and after completing necessary procedure, the raid was
\ncarried out.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tIt
\nis also the case of the original complainant that when he reached to
\nGothib Outpost, the appellant-accused asked the original complainant
\nthat whether the original complainant had brought Rs.500\/- as
\ndemanded or not and told him to handover Rs.500\/-. At that time the
\noriginal complainant had handed over the powdered currency notes,
\nwhich were given to him by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, to the
\nappellant-accused. Thereafter, the appellant-accused went to the
\nadjacent room and placed the said currency notes in one of the books
\nlying in that room. Thereafter, the original complainant went outside
\nthe room and gave signal to Police Inspector Shri Pathan. Police
\nInspector Shri Pathan along with his staff members and panch witness
\nno.2 immediately rushed inside the room. Thereafter, procedure of
\nexamining under ultra-violet lamp was carried out and search of the
\naccused was also carried out. Thereafter, panch witness no.1 brought
\nthe said diary from the adjacent room, from wherein the currency
\nnotes of Rs.500\/- were traced out. The said notes were also examined
\nin the light of ultra-violet lamp. It is found that the notes were
\nshining blue. The fingers of the appellant-accused and  original
\ncomplainant were also shining blue and the pages of the diary, in
\nwhich the currency notes were placed, were also shining blue.
\nThereafter, panchnama was prepared and the currency notes were
\nseized. The statements were recorded and thereafter, the offence was
\nregistered against the appellant-accused.\n<\/p>\n
2.5\tAfter
\ninvestigation was over, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had given
\nsanction for filing the charge-sheet against the appellant-accused
\nand accordingly, the accused was charge-sheeted for the offences
\npunishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
\nthe Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nAct’).\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter
\n\tthe trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the
\n\tcase of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as
\n\tdocumentary evidence. The prosecution has examined complainant at
\n\tExh. 10 as a Prosecution Witness No.1, Panch Witness No.2 was
\n\texamined at Exh.12, Police Inspector Pathan has been examined at
\n\tExh.14 and also produced documentary evidence in support of the
\n\tprosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
After
\n\thearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge, Panchmahal at
\n\tGodhra, has been pleased to convict the appellant-accused by his
\n\tjudgment and order dated 19th
\n\tAugust 1996 in
\n\tSpecial (Corruption) Case No.08 of 1993 and sentenced the
\n\tappellant-accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and
\n\tto pay fine of Rs.1,000\/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for each
\n\toffence and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three
\n\tmonths for each offence. It was ordered that substantive sentence
\n\tshall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated
\n\t19th
\n\tAugust 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahal at
\n\tGodhra in Special (Corruption) Case No.08 of 1993, the appellant has
\n\tpreferred the above-mentioned Criminal Appeal before this Hon’ble
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave heard Mr. Rushabh Shah for Mr. Pardiwala, learned counsel for
\n\tthe appellant-accused and Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional
\n\tPublic Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. I
\n\thave also gone through the papers and the Judgment and order passed
\n\tby the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tRushabh Shah has taken me through the evidence of prosecution
\n\twitnesses and the documentary evidence and submitted that from the
\n\tabove evidence it is established that the prosecution has failed to
\n\tprove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that there
\n\twas a family dispute between two brothers. The original complainant
\n\twas under impression that the appellant-accused is supporting the
\n\tother side and because of that impression only, the
\n\tappellant-accused was wrongly booked by the original complainant. He
\n\thas also contended that the contention of the complaint is also not
\n\tproved beyond reasonable doubt. Even total contradictory version was
\n\testablished and oral evidence of the panchas is also not in
\n\tcorroboration with the evidence of the present complainant.
\n\tHe has also read the depositions of the panch witnesses and
\n\tvehemently contended that the evidence of the panch witnesses is
\n\talso doubtful. Mr. Shah also contended that trapping officer has
\n\tcommitted so many wrong during the so-called trap. He has also
\n\tcontended that the money was not recovered from the possession of
\n\tthe accused. The trapping officer has not considered the defence
\n\tmade to him during the interrogation of the appellant-accused. He
\n\thas also contended that demand of bribe is not established beyond
\n\treasonable doubt and explanation given by the original complainant
\n\tis also doubtful. He has contended that the appellant-accused has 22
\n\tyears of dot less service and award was also given to the
\n\tappellant-accused for his performance.  No departmental inquiry was
\n\tever conducted against the appellant-accused. He has also read the
\n\toral as well as documentary evidence and vehemently contended that
\n\tsufficient contradiction is proved before the learned Judge and the
\n\tjudgment and order of conviction is not legally tenable and hence,
\n\tjudgment and order of conviction is required to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tR.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n\tfor the respondent-State has supported the judgment and order of the
\n\tTrial Court. He has read the oral evidence of the panch witnesses
\n\tand trapping officer and vehemently argued that the prosecution has
\n\tproved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has also contended that
\n\tthe panch witness no.2 is a public servant and he has no grudge
\n\tagainst the appellant-accused and he is an independent witness. He
\n\thas also contended that the defence has never bothered to put any
\n\tquestion to this witness and there is no reason for panch witness to
\n\twrongly involve the appellant-accused in the case. He has also read
\n\tthe oral evidence of the trapping officer and contended that the
\n\ttrapping officer has successfully carried out the raid. He has
\n\tfurther contended that after receiving signal from the original
\n\tcomplainant, the trapping officer immediately rushed to the place of
\n\tthe offence and search was carried out by the trapping officer. The
\n\ttrap amount was recovered from the possession of the
\n\tappellant-accused. He has also contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court
\n\thas observed in catena of decisions that such type of cases are
\n\trequired to be dealt with heavily.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave
\n\tgone through the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. I
\n\thave also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led
\n\tbefore the Trial Court and also considered the submissions made by
\n\tlearned Advocate for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tTrial Court, has after appreciating the facts and evidence on
\n\trecord, found that the sanction to file complaint against the
\n\tappellant-accused was given as per the law. It is also observed that
\n\tthe defence has never tried to establish that sanction was not given
\n\tas per the law. From the oral evidence of the original complainant,
\n\tit is found that the prosecution has proved his case beyond
\n\treasonable doubt. Even from the perusal of oral evidence of the
\n\tpanch witness nos. 1 and 2 it can be seen that panchas had proved
\n\tbeyond reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused demanded Rs.500\/-
\n\tas bribe. It is also held by the Trial Court that trapping officer
\n\thas recovered the said amount of Rs.500\/- from the possession of the
\n\tappellant-accused in presence of panchas. The Trial Court has also
\n\tperused the statement of the appellant-accused recorded under
\n\tSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the duty of the
\n\tappellant-accused to rebut the presumption. The Hon’ble Division
\n\tBench of this Court has also considered that it is the duty of the
\n\taccused to rebut the presumption.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tcase of State of Gujarat Vs Laxmansinhji Dansinhji Gohil,
\n\treported in GLR 2009(3) 1919, this
\n\tCourt has held as under :\n<\/p>\n
 We
\n\t\thave also considered Sec.8 of the Evidence Act and the statements
\n\t\trecorded under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused had never bothered to
\n\t\texplain the presence of anthrecene powder as well as recovery of
\n\t\ttrap amount. From the evidence of complainant and panch witness, it
\n\t\tis clear that the accused No.1 has demanded illegal gratification
\n\t\tand also made a statement to the complainant that without money his
\n\t\twork will not be done by him. From the conduct of accused No.1, it
\n\t\tappears that he has not explained anything to deny the allegations
\n\t\tregarding demand as well as acceptance of trap money by accused
\n\t\tNo.2. Therefore, from the conduct of accused No.1 and accused No.2,
\n\t\twho was present with accused No.1, it is clear that at the event of
\n\t\tdirection given by accused no.1 to complainant to give the trap
\n\t\tamount to accused No.2 on the spot. Without any hesitation, the
\n\t\ttrap amount was accepted by the accused No.2 in the presence of
\n\t\tpanch, then, it was counted by him and again it was placed before
\n\t\taccused No.1, therefore, accused No.1 told him that  keep it with
\n\t\tyou, he will see later on . So, conduct of both the accused is
\n\t\testablished from the oral as well as documentary evidence. So for
\n\t\tas Sec.4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is concerned, it
\n\t\twas the duty of accused to remove the presumption, but we have not
\n\t\tfound that they were removed the presumption in a convincing
\n\t\tmanner.\n<\/p>\n
     Even
\n\t\t\tthe Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the recent decisino in the
\n\t\t\tcase of State represented by CBI, Hyderabad Vs G. Prem
\n\t\t\tRaj, reported in (2010)
\n\t\t\t1 SCC 398, has reiterated
\n\t\t\tthe same ratio.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthese type of cases, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must
\n\tbe a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance. It is true that
\n\tonly demand is not sufficient to establish the offence. There must
\n\tbe acceptance and it is required to be proved with cogent evidence.
\n\tIn the present case, from the panchnama, oral evidence of the
\n\tpanchas, complainant and trapping officer, it is proved beyond
\n\treasonable doubt that demand was made and bribe was accepted by the
\n\tappellant-accused. The trapping officer has recovered the trap
\n\tamount from the possession of the appellant-accused. The premise is
\n\tto be established on the fact from drawing presumption that there
\n\twas payment and acceptance of illegal gratification and once the
\n\tpremise is established, inference to be drawn  that said illegal
\n\tgratification was accepted  as motive and resort for doing
\n\tunofficial work in official capacity in a wrong way.  Just not to
\n\tarrest the original complainant in a bogus case, the
\n\tappellant-accused had demanded an unlawful gratification in the form
\n\tof Rs.500\/- as a bribe amount. These circumstances lead to the
\n\tconclusion that the accused has demanded bribe amount and it was
\n\taccepted by him. When it is established demand and acceptance of
\n\tillegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the Court would
\n\tcertainly be entitled to draw the presumption under the Prevention
\n\tof Corruption Act and when the appellant-accused failed to produce
\n\tany iota of evidence to rebut the said presumption, the learned
\n\tTrial Court has rightly convicted the appellant-accused.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tcounsel for the appellant is not in a position to show any evidence
\n\tto take a contrary view in the matter or to show that the approach
\n\tof the Trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that
\n\tthe decision is perverse or that the Trial Court has ignored the
\n\tmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the
\n\tTrial Court was completely justified in convicting the
\n\tappellant-accused of the charges levelled against him. I find that
\n\tthe findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just and
\n\tproper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\n\tinfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of conviction recorded by the
\n\tcourt below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
\n\tHence, the present appeal is required to be rejected and is hereby
\n\trejected. The
\n\tjudgment and order dated 19th
\n\tAugust 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Godhra in Special
\n\t(Corruption) Case No.08 of 1993 holding the appellant-accused guilty
\n\tof offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
\n\tSection 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentencing
\n\tthe appellant-accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year
\n\tand to pay fine of Rs.1,000\/- for each offence and in default, to
\n\tsuffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for each offence and
\n\tsubstantive sentences to run concurrently, is hereby confirmed. The
\n\tappellant-accused is on bail. This bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
\n\tThe appellant-accused is, therefore, directed to surrender himself
\n\tbefore the Jail Authority within a period of six weeks from today,
\n\tfailing which the Trial Court concerned is directed to issue
\n\tNon-bailable warrant against the appellant-accused to effect his
\n\tarrest.  Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
(Z.\n<\/p>\n
\tK. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n
Anup<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/818\/1996 1\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 818 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/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-93040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHimmatsing vs State on 3 March, 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\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-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=\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-30T16:47:39+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T16:47:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2533,\"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\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T16:47:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 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":"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 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\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-30T16:47:39+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T16:47:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010"},"wordCount":2533,"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\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010","name":"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T16:47:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/himmatsing-vs-state-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Himmatsing vs State on 3 March, 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\/93040","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=93040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}