{"id":95677,"date":"2010-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2"},"modified":"2018-09-25T22:39:40","modified_gmt":"2018-09-25T17:09:40","slug":"parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.RA\/270\/2010\t 3\/ 4\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\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 270 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPARTH\n@ KUMAR S\/O SUDHANSU MITRA &amp; 1 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ GOSWAMI for\nApplicant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR MG NANAVATY,APP for Respondent(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 AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/06\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned APP Mr. Nanavaty waives service of rule on behalf of<br \/>\n\trespondent State. Considering the controversy involved, petition is<br \/>\n\ttaken up for final disposal today with the consent of advocates on<br \/>\n\tboth sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners are the original accused. They have challenged order<br \/>\n\tdated 28.4.2010 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad. By the said order, learned Judge was pleased to reject<br \/>\n\tdifferent applications filed by the original accused namely<br \/>\n\tapplication exh. 3,4 and 5. So far as present petitioners are<br \/>\n\tconcerned, they had filed application exh.4 in Sessions Case No.<br \/>\n\t75\/2010 praying inter-alia that charge under Section 9 of the<br \/>\n\tImmoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as<br \/>\n\t the Act ) be dropped. Learned Judge after examining the<br \/>\n\tmaterials on record and after perusing Section 9 of the Act, found<br \/>\n\tthat prayer cannot be granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis the case of the petitioners put-forth through their learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate that ingredients of Section 9 of the Act are not made out<br \/>\n\teven if all the allegations made in the complaint as well as<br \/>\n\tevidence collected by the prosecution through investigation is<br \/>\n\taccepted as unopposed. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on<br \/>\n\tdecision of Learned Single Judge of this Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1777781\/\">Sureshbhai<br \/>\n\tPrahladbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat<\/a> in Criminal Revision<br \/>\n\tapplication No.414\/2002  dated 22.10.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave also heard learned APP Shri Nanavaty for the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>Central<br \/>\n\tquestion involved in the present petition is whether Section 9 of<br \/>\n\tthe Act is applicable in facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>One<br \/>\n\tPooja @ Rekha, daughter of  Narendra Prakash in her statement dated<br \/>\n\t23.8.2009 had narrated the background under which she was drawn into<br \/>\n\tthe prostitution stating inter-alia that her husband was not earning<br \/>\n\tincome and had driven her out from her home with her children. She<br \/>\n\twas struggling to make living in Delhi and that is how she was<br \/>\n\tforced to take up the profession. She thereafter, came to Ahmedabad<br \/>\n\tabout 15 days before the date of incident since she needed money.<br \/>\n\tShe had contacted her friend in Ahmedabad. She thereafter, used to<br \/>\n\tentertain customers brought by the accused and others for which they<br \/>\n\tused to charge commission. This in the nutshell is the story.<br \/>\n\tSimilar statements have been given by other ladies who were found<br \/>\n\tinvolved in the said incident.\n<\/p>\n<p>Question<br \/>\n\tis whether ingredients of Section 9 of the Act could be stated to<br \/>\n\thave been disclosed. Section 9 reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;9.\n<\/p>\n<p> Seduction of  a  person  in  custody.-  Any   person  who  having<br \/>\nthe custody, charge or care of, or a position of authority over, any<br \/>\nperson causes or aids  or abets the seduction for prostitution of<br \/>\nthat person shall be  punishable  on conviction with imprisonment of<br \/>\neither description for a term which shall not be less than seven<br \/>\nyears but which may be for life or for a term  which  may extend to<br \/>\nten years and shall also be liable to fine:\n<\/p>\n<p> Provided  that  the  Court  may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of  less  than  seven years.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>From<br \/>\n\tthe perusal of Section 9 of the Act, it is clear that it applies in<br \/>\n\ta case where the accused who having the custody, charge or care of,<br \/>\n\tor  position of authority over any person, causes or aids or abets<br \/>\n\tthe seduction for prostitution of that person. In the present case,<br \/>\n\tupon perusal of the evidence collected by the prosecution, I do not<br \/>\n\tfind that there is any element of the petitioners being in custody<br \/>\n\tor charge or care of any person or in a position of authority over<br \/>\n\tsuch person who is drawn into prostitution. To this limited extent,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners are legally correct in contending that whatever be<br \/>\n\tthe outcome of the trial, Section 9 of the Act cannot be stated to<br \/>\n\thave been involved. Learned Single Judge of this Court in case of<br \/>\n\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1777781\/\">Sureshbhai Prahladbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat<\/a>(supra) made<br \/>\n\tfollowing observations :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 9.<br \/>\n It is evident from the above statements that  the<br \/>\n       girls  allegedly involved in prostitution did not stay in<br \/>\n      hotel Hidway owned by the revisioner.  It is  clear  that<br \/>\n      they  were  taken to the hotel by the person through whom<br \/>\n      they were engaged, and therefore, it cannot be said  that<br \/>\n      they  were  either under custody or charge or care of the<br \/>\n      revisioner who happens to be owner  of  the  hotel.    No<br \/>\n      other factors are indicated except that revisioner is the<br \/>\n      owner  of  the hotel and allegedly he used to charge more<br \/>\n      money from the customers and pay less to the  girls,  and<br \/>\n      therefore,  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that he was<br \/>\n      enjoying  a  position  of  authority  over   the   girls.<br \/>\n      Therefore, the aforesaid ingredients of Section 9 are not<br \/>\n      made  out  ,at this stage, even accepting the prosecution<br \/>\n      case at its face value.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.1\tSection  9  also provides that person who aids or<br \/>\n      abets seduction for prostitution  of  that  person  shall<br \/>\n      also be punishable.  Term &#8220;seduction&#8221; has been dealt with<br \/>\n      by the   Apex   Court   in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1623865\/\">Ramesh  vs.    The  State  of<br \/>\n      Maharashtra, AIR<\/a> 1962 SC 1908, wherein  it  was  observed<br \/>\n      thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>      \t&#8221; Seducation implies surrender of her body  by  a<br \/>\n      woman  who  is otherwise reluctant or unwilling to submit<br \/>\n      herself  to  illicit  intercourse   in   consequence   of<br \/>\n      persuasion,   flattery,   blandishment   or  importunity,<br \/>\n      whether such surrender  is  for  the  first  time  or  is<br \/>\n      preceded by  similar surrender on earlier occasions.  But<br \/>\n      where a woman offers herself for  intercourse  for  money<br \/>\n      not  casually  but  in  the course of her profession as a<br \/>\n      prostitute &#8211; there are no scruples nor reluctance  to  be<br \/>\n      overcome,  and  surrender  by her is not seduction within<br \/>\n      the Code.  It would then be impossible  to  hold  that  a<br \/>\n      person who instigates another to assist a woman following<br \/>\n      the  profession  of  a  prostitute abets him to do an act<br \/>\n      with intent that she may or with knowledge that she  will<br \/>\n      be seduced to illicit intercourse.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.2\tIn  the light of these observations, the contents<br \/>\n      of the statements of the girls, as  discussed  above,  do<br \/>\n      not  make  out  a  case  of  seduction either against the<br \/>\n      revisioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.3\tIn  the  opinion  of  this  Court, therefore, the<br \/>\n      requirements of Section 9 of the Act  are  not  fulfilled<br \/>\n      even after taking the prosecution case, as it is, against<br \/>\n      the revisioner.    The  revisioner,  therefore, cannot be<br \/>\n      made to face a charge and trial  for  offence  punishable<br \/>\n      under Section 9 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe result, petition succeeds to the limited extent of ordering<br \/>\n\tdeletion of charge of Section 9 of the Act against the present<br \/>\n\tpetitioners from the pending complaint against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to above<br \/>\n\textent.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis clarified that I have expressed no opinion with respect to rest<br \/>\n\tof the allegations and trial shall proceed in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Direct<br \/>\n\tservice is permitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Akil<br \/>\nKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n<p>(raghu)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.RA\/270\/2010 3\/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 270 of 2010 ========================================================= PARTH @ KUMAR S\/O SUDHANSU MITRA &amp; 1 &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &#8211; [&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-95677","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010 - 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\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-25T17:09:40+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T17:09:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1129,\"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\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-25T17:09:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parth vs State on 30 June, 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":"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010 - 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\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-25T17:09:40+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T17:09:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2"},"wordCount":1129,"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\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2","name":"Parth vs State on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-25T17:09:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parth-vs-state-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parth vs State on 30 June, 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\/95677","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=95677"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95677\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}