{"id":112074,"date":"2010-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-14T17:01:08","modified_gmt":"2015-04-14T11:31:08","slug":"natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.L.Dave,&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\nSCR.A\/334\/1993\t 8\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 334 of 1993\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE\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\nNATVARLAL\nAMBALAL PATEL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 11 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nSUMATI R SHAH for\nApplicant(s) : 1,MR JAL SOLI UNWALA for Applicant(s) : 1, \nMR HH\nPARIKH APP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s)\n: 2 - 5,8 - 9. \nMR AD SHAH for Respondent(s) : 6, \nMR TEJAS P\nSATTA for Respondent(s) : 7, \nMRS SHILPA R SHAH for Respondent(s) :\n10, \nMR HRIDAY BUCH for Respondent(s) : 11, \nMR PRAKASH K JANI\nfor Respondent(s) :\n12, \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 A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/04\/2010  \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
\tBy
\nthis petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
\nConstitution of India, the petitioner   original complainant
\nchallenges the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\nMehsana in Inquiry Case No.115 of 1986 passed on 30.3.1990
\ndischarging respondent Nos.2 to 10 from the charges in the said
\nInquiry case arising from M Case No.49 of 1986. The petitioner is the
\noriginal complainant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nsaid order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring Criminal
\nRevision Application No.83 of 1990 before the Sessions Court, Mehsana
\nunder Section 397 of Cr PC. The Sessions Court, Mehsana Camp at Patan
\nby judgment and order dated 3.2.1993 dismissed the said revision
\napplication and, therefore, this petition to challenge both the
\norders.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nchallenge to the order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was basically
\non the ground of not affording audience to the petitioner   the
\ncomplainant\/informant before passing the impugned order accepting the
\nreport on action taken by the Investigating Officer under  Section
\n169 of Cr PC. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court
\nas reported in Bhagwant Singh
\nvs. Commissioner of Police & Anr., AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 1285.
\nThe revisional Court, however, did not accept the contention raised
\nby the present petitioner by observing that the report under Section
\n169 of Cr PC made by the Investigating Officer, even if it is
\naccepted without hearing the petitioner, is not likely to cause any
\nprejudice to the complainant. Error, if any, can be rectified
\nby resorting to Section 319 of Cr PC.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr Unwala for the petitioner. He has mainly relied
\non the decision in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) and submitted
\nthat for the purposes of the complainant, the decision of the Court
\nis final in discharging the accused persons and the petitioner
\ncomplainant would be required then to resort to and depend on the
\ncircumstances which may or may not arise for invoking Section 319 of
\nCr PC. If the complainant is heard before accepting the report and if
\nthe Magisterial Court  finds that there is an error in making of
\nreport, it may not accept the report and may direct further
\ninvestigation which would eliminate the chances of uncertainty and
\nany prejudice being caused to the complainant\/informant.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr AD Shah for respondent No.6 has opposed this petition.
\nAccording to him, no prejudice is caused to the complainant. There is
\nno provision in law which requires the Court to hear the complainant
\nbefore accepting the report in respect of action under Section 169 of
\nCr PC and the Courts below cannot be said to have committed any
\nerror.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tRespondent
\nNo.1-State is represented by learned APP Mr Parikh. Though notices
\nare served on respondent Nos. 2 to 5, 8 and 9 they have chosen not to
\ncontest this petition. Learned advocate Mr Satta for
\nrespondent No.7, learned advocate Mr Param Buch for
\nMr Hriday Buch for respondent No.11 and learned advocate Mr Siddharth
\nDave for Mr Jani for respondent No.12  have adopted the arguments of
\nMr Shah.\n<\/p>\n
\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Shilpa R Shah for respondent No.10 is not present.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nquestion that emerges for determination is, whether a complainant is
\nrequired to be heard before the Court accepts a report made by
\nInvestigating Officer in respect of his action taken under Section
\n169 of Cr PC, commonly addressed to as  a report under 169 ?\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\nthe opinion of this Court, to call such a report as a report under
\nSection 169 is not a correct or accurate expression. Section 169 of
\nCr PC, if seen, it deals with the release
\nof the accused when there is deficient evidence. The Section
\nruns as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 169.\tIf,
\nupon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the
\nofficer-in-charge of the police station that there is not sufficient
\nevidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding
\nof the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is
\nin custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without
\nsureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so
\nrequired, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
\noffence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for
\ntrial.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tA
\nplain reading of this Section would go to show that it makes
\nobligatory upon the Investigating Officer to release the accused on
\nhis executing a bond with or without sureties, if the Investigating
\nOfficer finds that the evidence is not sufficient or that there is no
\nreasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the
\naccused to a Magistrate. When such a person is released, a bond  is
\nto be obtained with or without sureties  requiring him to appear
\nbefore a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offence on a
\npolice report and to try the accused or commit him for trial. The
\nSection nowhere contemplates making of a report by the Investigating
\nOfficer or office in-charge of the police station. It contemplates
\nonly an action at the hands of officer in-charge of police station to
\nrelease an accused on bond with or without sureties, if there is
\nabsence of sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to
\njustify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate upon an
\ninvestigation under the Chapter. Therefore,  when a police officer
\nmakes a report to the Magistrate about his action taken under Section
\n169 of Cr PC, it is not a report under 169 but it is a report on the
\naction taken by I.O. or by Officer in charge of a police station.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt
\nmay be stated that an attempt is made to distinguish such a report
\nfrom a report under Section 173 of Cr PC by stating that the judgment
\nin the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) will not apply to the facts of
\nthe present case, as in that case, the report was under Section
\n173(2) of Cr PC and not under Section 169 of Cr PC, like in the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn
\nfact if the provisions contained in Section 173 of Cr PC are seen,
\nthey deal with a situation where upon completion of investigation,
\nthe officer in-charge of the police station is required to forward to
\na Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police
\nreport, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government
\nindicating the names of parties, nature of information, the names of
\npersons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
\ncase, whether any offence appears to have committed and, if so, by
\nwhom, whether he has been released on bond and, if so, with or
\nwithout sureties and whether he has been forwarded in custody under
\nSection 170.\n<\/p>\n
10.1\t\tIf
\na conjoint reading is given to Section 169 it contemplates action
\nupon investigation whereas Section 173 requires making of a report.
\nSection 169 does not contemplate making of a report but it only
\ncontemplates taking of bond with or without sureties from the accused
\nto appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to
\ntake cognizance of the offence on a police report and such police
\nreport is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr PC.  Clauses (d) and\n<\/p>\n
(f) of Section 173(2)(i)  are relevant, which run as under :-\n<\/p>\n
173.
\n\tReport of police officer on completion of investigation.\n<\/p>\n
(2)(i)\tAs
\nsoon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station
\nshall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the
\noffence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the
\nState Government, stating –\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tto\n<\/p>\n
(c)\t…\t…\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
(d)\twhether
\nany offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\t…\t..\t…\t..\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
(f)\twhether
\nhe has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without
\nsureties;\n<\/p>\n
(g)\t..\t…\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
10.2\t\tClause\n<\/p>\n
(d) requires the report to state whether any offence appears to have
\nbeen committed and, if so, by whom and clause (f) requires the report
\nto contain the details as to whether the accused has been released on
\nhis bond and, if so, with or without sureties. These two clauses
\nwould mean that the report would contain whether the offence appears
\nto have been committed and if so, by whom. Necessarily, therefore,
\nsuch persons will have to be forwarded to the Magistrate with the
\ndetails of the offence. If it is found not to have been committed,
\nthen by whom. Therefore, when there are more than one persons accused
\nof some offence and if at the end of investigation, the Investigating
\nAgency finds that only some of them appear to have committed the
\noffence and some of them appear not to have committed
\nthe offence, the details of both the categories will have to be
\nincluded. The report would also indicate whether the accused has been
\nreleased on his bond which would also include  release of accused
\nunder Section 169 of Cr PC. Differently put, the provisions contained
\nin Cr PC, particularly Chapter XII do not contemplate any other
\nreport than Section 173 report, least a report under section 169.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe
\nSupreme Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) has taken a view
\nthat where a Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of offence or
\ndrops proceedings against some persons  mentioned in the FIR, the
\nMagistrate must give notice and hear the first informant.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn
\na more recent case in the case of Minu Kumari vs. State of Bihar as
\nreported in (2006) 4 SCC 359, the Apex Court made the following
\nobservations :-\n<\/p>\n
 12.\tThe
\ninformant is not prejudicially affected when the Magistrate decides
\nto take cognizance and to proceed with the case. But where the
\nMagistrate decides that sufficient ground does not subsist for
\nproceeding further and drops the proceeding or takes the view that
\nthere is material for proceeding against some and there are
\ninsufficient grounds in respect of others, the informant would
\ncertainly be prejudiced as the first information report lodged
\nbecomes wholly or partially ineffective. This Court in Bhagwant Singh
\nvs. Commr. of Police<\/a> [ (1985) 2 SCC 537] held that where the
\nMagistrate decides  not to take cognizance and to drop the proceeding
\nor takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
\nagainst some of the persons
\nmentioned in the first information report, notice to the informant
\nand grant of opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes
\nmandatory. As indicated above, there is no provision in the Code for
\nissue of a notice in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\nview in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra) is thus reaffirmed. The
\nSupreme Court has dealt with cases of reports where  there is no
\nsufficiency of evidence to justify forwarding of a case to a
\nMagistrate, which is termed variously as referred charge or final
\nreport or summary, i.e. a situation contemplated under Section 169 of
\nCr. PC.. It is also observed that Section 173 in terms does not refer
\nto any notice to be given to raise any protest to the report
\nsubmitted by the police. The Court found that where the Magistrate
\ndecides that sufficient ground does not subsist  for proceeding
\nfurther and drops the proceeding or takes the view that there is
\nmaterial for proceeding against some  and there are insufficient
\ngrounds in respect of others, which is a situation contemplated under
\nSection 169 of Cr. PC., the informant would certainly be prejudiced
\nas the first information report lodged by him becomes wholly or
\npartially ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThus,
\nbefore accepting the report of the Investigating Agency  of either
\nproceeding against only some of the accused persons and dropping the
\nproceedings against rest of them or dropping the proceedings against
\nall the accused persons, it is mandatory that the Magisterial Court
\nhears the informant\/complainant. The Magisterial Court having not
\ndone that and the Sessions Court having upheld the view committed
\nerror in doing so.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe
\npetition, therefore, merits acceptance and the same is accepted. The
\norder dated 30.3.1990 passed by the  learned Chief Judicial
\nMagistrate, Mehsana in Inquiry Case No.115 of 1986 and the order
\ndated 3.2.1993  passed by the Sessions Court, Mehsana Camp at Patan
\nin Criminal Revision Application No.83 of 1990 are hereby set aside.
\nThe Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby directed to take a decision
\non the report of the Investigating Officer afresh after giving
\naudience to the first informant\/complainant.\n<\/p>\n
\tRule
\nis made absolute accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis made clear that this Court has not entered into
\nthe merits of the report and the Magistrate shall decide the same
\nwithout being influenced by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(A.L.\n<\/p>\n
DAVE, J.)<\/p>\n
zgs\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010 Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/334\/1993 8\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 334 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/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-112074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNatvarlal vs State on 8 April, 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\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-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=\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-14T11:31:08+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T11:31:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2057,\"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\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-14T11:31:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 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":"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 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\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-14T11:31:08+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T11:31:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010"},"wordCount":2057,"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\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010","name":"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-14T11:31:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/natvarlal-vs-state-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Natvarlal vs State on 8 April, 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\/112074","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=112074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}