{"id":95704,"date":"2010-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2"},"modified":"2016-10-06T08:35:54","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T03:05:54","slug":"state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"State vs The on 30 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs The on 30 November, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: 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\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\/736\/1996\t 8\/ 8\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. 736 of 1996\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHANTILAL\nNATVERLAL SHAH &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nHL JANIL, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\nfor Appellant(s) : 1,\n \n\nNone\nfor Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. \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: 30\/11\/2010\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant-State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378<br \/>\n\tof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and<br \/>\n\tOrder of acquittal dated 30th April 1996 passed by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Criminal Appeal No.40 of<br \/>\n\t1995 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment<br \/>\n\tand order dated 03rd June 1995 passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tJudicial Magistrate First Class, Surendrangar in Criminal Case<br \/>\n\tNo.1443 of 1991 and acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges<br \/>\n\tlevelled against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant No.2 is<br \/>\n\tserving as Food Inspector. It is the case of the original<br \/>\n\tcomplainant that on 05th April 1991 between 12:30 and<br \/>\n\t16:20 hours, the complainant had visited M\/s. Shantilal Shah Firm<br \/>\n\twhere Mr.Shantilal Natvarlal Shah was present and was doing business<br \/>\n\tof selling Chilly Powder, Turmeric Powder, etc. It is also the case<br \/>\n\tof the complainant that the complainant had taken 450 gms. of Chilly<br \/>\n\tPowder of Sadam brand after paying consideration. It is also the<br \/>\n\tcase of the complainant that sample was taken in presence of panch<br \/>\n\twitness. It is also the case of the prosecution that after following<br \/>\n\tdue procedure of sealing, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst,<br \/>\n\tVadodara for analysis. On examination, the Public Analyst found that<br \/>\n\tthe said sample was adulterated and is not as per the standard<br \/>\n\tprescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore,<br \/>\n\tafter following the due procedure, complaint was filed against the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\n\tFirst Class, Surendranagar for violation of Prevention of Food<br \/>\n\tAdulteration Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter,<br \/>\n\tstatement of complainant was recorded. Considering the statement<br \/>\n\tgiven by the complainant as the prima-facie case was established,<br \/>\n\tcharge-sheet came to be filed against the respondents-accused.<br \/>\n\tThereafter, trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To<br \/>\n\tprove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as<br \/>\n\twell as documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated<br \/>\n\t03rd June 1995 convicted the respondents-accused under<br \/>\n\tthe Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate has<br \/>\n\tconvicted the respondents-accused and ordered to undergo rigorous<br \/>\n\timprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.02,000\/- each,<br \/>\n\tand in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple<br \/>\n\timprisonment for a further period of six months.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 03rd<br \/>\n\tJune 1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,<br \/>\n\tSurendranagar in Criminal Case No.1443 of 1991, present<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No.40 of<br \/>\n\t1995 before the Court of Sessions, Surendranagar.  The said Appeal<br \/>\n\twas heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar.  After<br \/>\n\thearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated<br \/>\n\t30th April 1996 set aside the judgment and order dated<br \/>\n\t03rd June 1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\n\tFirst Class, Surendranagar, in Criminal Case No.1443 of 1991 and<br \/>\n\tacquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against<br \/>\n\tthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal dated 30th April 1996 passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tSessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 1995, the<br \/>\n\tappellant-State of Gujarat, has preferred the above mentioned<br \/>\n\tCriminal Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the<br \/>\n\tappellant-State. I have also gone through the papers and the<br \/>\n\tJudgment and Order passed by the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Jani<br \/>\n\thas taken me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence and submitted that from the above evidence it<br \/>\n\tis established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case<br \/>\n\tbeyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the trial Court has<br \/>\n\trightly held the respondents-accused guilty for the offences<br \/>\n\talleged against them and, therefore, the Sessions Court, in Appeal,<br \/>\n\tshould not have interfered with the said findings of the trial<br \/>\n\tCourt. He has contended that witnesses have supported the case of<br \/>\n\tthe prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave<br \/>\n\terror in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of witnesses. He,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, contended that the judgment and order passed by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Sessions Judge setting aside the judgment of the trial Court<br \/>\n\tby acquitting the respondents-accused from the charges levelled<br \/>\n\tagainst them, is without appreciating the facts and evidence on<br \/>\n\trecord. He, therefore, contended that the order passed by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar is required to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate<br \/>\n\tCourt is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh<br \/>\n\treasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons<br \/>\n\tassigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant<br \/>\n\tcase, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and<br \/>\n\tfindings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the<br \/>\n\trespondent-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons<br \/>\n\taforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and<br \/>\n\tproper and requires no interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Even<br \/>\n\tin a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State<br \/>\n\tof Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran &amp; Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75,<br \/>\n\tthe Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similar<br \/>\n\tprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State<br \/>\n\tof Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &amp; Ors, reported in 2007 AIR<br \/>\n\tSCW 5553<br \/>\n\tand in Girja<br \/>\n\tPrasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.<br \/>\n\tThus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of<br \/>\n\tacquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the<br \/>\n\tappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give<br \/>\n\tfresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are<br \/>\n\tfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex<br \/>\n\tCourt in the case of State<br \/>\n\tof Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tin case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion<br \/>\n\tgiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not<br \/>\n\tnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court<br \/>\n\tas well as of the Sessions Court. I have also perused the reasons<br \/>\n\tassigned by both the Courts below and also considered the<br \/>\n\tsubmissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tSessions court has, after appreciating the oral as well as<br \/>\n\tdocumentary evidence, found that when public analyst has not been<br \/>\n\texamined, report of the public analyst has no value in eye of law.<br \/>\n\tIt is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that when report<br \/>\n\tof the public analyst does not disclose full and complete data of<br \/>\n\tthe experiment and tests performed by him, no probative value be<br \/>\n\tattached to the same in order to record conviction and sentence to<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused. It is also observed by the learned Judge that<br \/>\n\tfiling of a document is not sufficient, it must be proved in<br \/>\n\taccordance with law. In the instance case, xerox copy of bill cannot<br \/>\n\tbe said to be proved document. It is also observed by the learned<br \/>\n\tSessions Judge that the Food Inspector has not properly followed the<br \/>\n\tprocedure laid down in the Act. It is also observed by the learned<br \/>\n\tSessions Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond<br \/>\n\treasonable doubt the case against the respondents-accused.<br \/>\n\tThe learned Judge has also observed that there are serious lacuna in<br \/>\n\tthe oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tthe appellant could not bring home the charge against the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused in the present Appeal. The prosecution has<br \/>\n\tmiserably failed to prove the case against the respondents-accused.<br \/>\n\t Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the<br \/>\n\tprosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.H.L.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tJani, learned learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the<br \/>\n\tappellant, is not in a position to show any evidence to take a<br \/>\n\tcontrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Sessions<br \/>\n\tCourt is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision<br \/>\n\tis perverse or that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored the<br \/>\n\tmaterial evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tabove view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the<br \/>\n\tSessions Court was completely justified in setting aside the<br \/>\n\tjudgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and<br \/>\n\tacquitting the respondents-accused of the charges leveled<br \/>\n\tagainst them. I find that the findings recorded by the Sessions<br \/>\n\tCourt are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said<br \/>\n\tfindings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\tam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate<br \/>\n\tconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the<br \/>\n\tSessions Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.<br \/>\n\tHence the appeal is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of above, appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated<br \/>\n\t30th<br \/>\n\tApril 1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in<br \/>\n\tCriminal Appeal No.40 of 1995 acquitting the respondents-accused of<br \/>\n\tthe charges levelled against them, by setting aside the judgment and<br \/>\n\torder dated 03rd<br \/>\n\tJune 1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,<br \/>\n\tSurendranagar, in Criminal Case No.1443 of 1991 holding the<br \/>\n\trespondents-accused guilty of the charges levelled against<br \/>\n\tthem, is hereby confirmed.  Bail bond, if any, shall stands<br \/>\n\tdischarged. Record &amp; Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court concerned, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.\n<\/p>\n<p>K. Saiyed, J)<\/p>\n<p>Anup<\/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 The on 30 November, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/736\/1996 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 736 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&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-95704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs The on 30 November, 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\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs The on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-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=\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-06T03:05:54+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=\"8 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-the-on-30-november-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs The on 30 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T03:05:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1562,\"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-the-on-30-november-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2\",\"name\":\"State vs The on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T03:05:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs The on 30 November, 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":"State vs The on 30 November, 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\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs The on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-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":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-06T03:05:54+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs The on 30 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T03:05:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2"},"wordCount":1562,"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-the-on-30-november-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2","name":"State vs The on 30 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T03:05:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-the-on-30-november-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs The on 30 November, 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\/95704","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=95704"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95704\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}