{"id":126545,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-10T21:00:33","modified_gmt":"2016-03-10T15:30:33","slug":"the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&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\nTAXAP\/432\/2008\t 12\/ 12\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 432 of 2008\n \n\nWITH\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 434 of 2008\n \n\n \n======================================\n \n\nTHE\nCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJATINDER\nSINGH AUJLA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - Opponent\n \n\n====================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ OZA for Appellant. \nMR SN THAKKAR for\nOpponent. \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 K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 24\/02\/2010 \nCOMMON ORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Vapi has filed these appeals under
\n\tSection 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate
\n\tthe following substantial questions of law for the determination and
\n\tconsideration of this Court :-\n<\/p>\n
 Tax
\nAppeal No. 432 of 2008<\/p>\n
 Whether
\nin the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal is
\njustified in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the
\norder of the Commissioner (Appeals), setting aside the mandatory
\npenalty levied and imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise
\nAct, 1944 read with Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944,
\nupholding the demand of the revenue on the ground of fraud committed
\nby the respondent Company, resulting into short payment of central
\nexcise duty ?\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt has initially issued notice on 04.02.2009 and thereafter on
\n\t04.03.2009 and lastly on 20.06.2009. though direct service was
\n\tprayed for and it was granted, till this date the respondent is not
\n\tserved.  In any case, at the time of hearing of another cognate
\n\tmatter i.e. Tax Appeal No.434 of 2008 wherein Mr. S. N. Thakkar is
\n\tappearing states that he has an instruction to appear in this matter
\n\tand hence, it is also taken up for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Oza has re-framed the
\n\tfollowing substantial questions of law which are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\t Whether
\n\tthe impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be an order
\n\tmade in accordance with law ?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether
\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has
\n\tcommitted substantial error of law in rejecting the appeal of the
\n\tRevenue and thereby confirming the order of the Appellate
\n\tCommissioner setting aside the penalty of Rs.1,00,000\/- imposed on
\n\tthe respondent by the adjudicating authority under Rule 209A of the
\n\tCentral Excise Rules, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr. R. J. Oza, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant
\n\tin Tax Appeal No.432 of 2008 and Mr. Gaurang H. Bhatt, learned
\n\tStanding Counsel appearing for the appellant in Tax Appeal No.434 of
\n\t2008 and Mr. S. N. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the
\n\trespondents and perused the orders passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfacts of the case are that the adjudicating authority has passed the
\n\torder on 31.08.2001 raising the demand of Rs.15,66,000\/- leviable on
\n\tfinished goods cleared during February 1999 to August 1999 under
\n\tproviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act,
\n\t1944 and confirming the central excise duty to the tune of
\n\tRs.1,80,000\/- paid by the Company through TR-6 Challan dated
\n\t07.12.1999 under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the
\n\tAct.  The Adjudicating Authority has also levied penalty of
\n\tRs.17,46,000\/- under Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 173Q of
\n\tthe Central Excise Rules, 1944 and charged interest on delayed
\n\tpayment of duty under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Act on
\n\tthe Company.   The Adjudicating Authority has also imposed personal
\n\tpenalty of Rs.1 Lacs on the respondent   assessee of Tax Appeal
\n\tNo.432 of 2008 and Rs.50,000\/- on the respondent   assessee of Tax
\n\tAppeal No.434 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\taggrieved by the said order, the Company as well as both the
\n\trespondent assessees have filed appeals before the Commissioner
\n\t(Appeals) who vide his order dated 17.06.2003 set aside the impugned
\n\torder imposing penalty on the respondent Company as well as on the
\n\tassessees.  While setting aside the penalty on the Company as well
\n\tas assessees, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the fraud
\n\twas committed by Shri Rathod of his own and the Company or no other
\n\temployee of the Company including Shri J. M. Sharma or Shri Jatinder
\n\tSingh Aujla is involved in the commission of fraud.  Since the
\n\tCompany has been handing over full amount to their employee Shri
\n\tRathod, the goods were cleared from their factory without payment of
\n\tduty, but under the impression that the duty has been paid.  The
\n\tCompany has admitted that the Company is liable for payment of
\n\tdifferential amount of duty and the interest thereon to the
\n\tGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\torder was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal and the
\n\tTribunal while confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
\n\theld that the reasoning adopted by the appellate authority for
\n\tsetting aside the penalty has not been shown as inappropriate nor
\n\tany evidence to the contrary was shown to the Tribunal.  The
\n\tTribunal, therefore, held that there was no infirmity in the order
\n\tof the Commissioner of setting aside the penalty and hence, the
\n\tappeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\torder of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue against the
\n\tCompany as well as two individuals in Tax Appeal Nos.432, 433 &
\n\t434 of 2008.  Tax Appeal No.433 of 2008 filed against the Company
\n\tand Tax Appeal No.434 of 2008 filed against Shri J. M. Sharma were
\n\tadmitted on 17.03.2009 and the common question regarding levy of
\n\tpenalty under Section 11AC was framed which is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 Whether in
\nthe facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal is
\njustified in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the
\norder of the Commissioner (Appeals), setting aside the mandatory
\npenalty levied and imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise
\nAct, 1944 read with Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944,
\nupholding the demand of the revenue on the ground of fraud committed
\nby the respondent, resulting into short payment of central excise
\nduty ?\n<\/p>\n
However,
\n\tthe question regarding 11AC does not arise so far as the appeal
\n\tfiled against the individual is concerned.  Hence, Mr. Gaurang H.
\n\tBhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue has
\n\tproposed the following two questions for the determination and
\n\tconsideration of this Court in Tax Appeal No.434 of 2008 :-\n<\/p>\n
\t Whether in
\n\tthe facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified
\n\tin the eye of law in setting aside the penalty imposed, upon the
\n\tsaid Authorized Signatory of the said unit under Rule 209 A of the
\n\tCentral Excise Rules, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether in the
\n\tfacts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified
\n\tin the eye of law in holding that though the internal fraud within
\n\tthe said Unit has been proved, the penalty imposed upon the said
\n\tAuthorized Signatory of the said Unit under Rule 209 A of the
\n\tCentral Excise Rules, 1944, is not sustainable, irrespective of the
\n\tshort-payment of the duty ?\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tOza as well as Mr. Bhatt have submitted that Mr. J. S. Aujla is the
\n\tExecutive Director of the Company and Mr. J. M. Sharma is the Works
\n\tManager-cum-Authorized Signatory of the Company.  They are in charge
\n\tof the supervision over the works allotted to Shri S. R. Rathod and
\n\tit was their duty to see that the amount paid to Shri Rathod was
\n\tactually deposited in the Bank by way of Resolution with the Bank
\n\trecords.  The respondents had put a blind faith on Shri Rathod and
\n\thad given a loose rope to handle the huge amount of cash to be
\n\tdeposited in the Bank towards central excise duty.  It is on record
\n\tthat Shri Sharma had signed the copies of T-12 Return for August,
\n\t1999 which were submitted to the Central Excise Range Law wherein he
\n\thad given a false declaration regarding genuineness of documents
\n\tsubmitted along with T-12 Return and thereby mis-stated the facts,
\n\tin as much as certain TR-6 challans for the said month were also
\n\ttampered and credited in PLA were wrongly taken in excess of the
\n\tamount actually deposited in the Bank.  Thus, Shri Sharma was
\n\tequally responsible for the contravention of the Act and the Rules
\n\tframed thereunder and has rendered himself liable for penal action
\n\tunder Rule 209-A of the Rules.  They have, therefore, submitted that
\n\tsubstantial question of law as re-framed by the Revenue are required
\n\tto be formulated for consideration and determination of this Court
\n\tand both the appeals are required to be admitted and allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tS. N. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the
\n\tother hand, has submitted that the provisions of Rule 209A has no
\n\tapplication in the facts of the present case.  Rule says that any
\n\tperson who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in
\n\ttransporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or
\n\tpurchasing or in any other manner deals with any excisable goods
\n\twhich he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation
\n\tunder the Act or these Rules, shall be liable to a penalty not
\n\texceeding three times the value of such goods or Rs.5,000\/-
\n\twhichever is greater.  From the finding recorded by both the
\n\tappellate authorities, it is clear that the respondent assessees are
\n\tno way connected with the fraud committed by Mr. Rathod.  There is
\n\tnothing on record which indicates that the respondent assessee knew
\n\tor they had reason to believe that the goods are liable to
\n\tconfiscation under the Act.  Reliance is placed on the decision of
\n\tthe Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Dhanlaxmi Garments V\/s. CCE,
\n\tSurat-I, 2009 (235) ELT 523 wherein it is held that since the
\n\tappellant was not dealing with goods physically, Rule 209A of
\n\tErstwhile Rules is not attracted.  Reliance is also placed on the
\n\tdecision of this Court in the case of CCE V\/s. Keshavan Gokulan,
\n\t2009 (236) ELT 461 (Guj.) wherein it is held that the Tribunal
\n\thas recorded that the requirement of Rule 209A of the Rules to show
\n\tand bring on record that the Officer had knowledge, is absent and
\n\tthere is a categorical finding that the Officers were not aware
\n\tabout the provisions to be followed, had no knowledge of Central
\n\tExcise Law and upon being pointed out, had reversed the entry \/
\n\tdebited the amount.  The Court, therefore, took the view that in
\n\tabsence of any question of law as proposed or otherwise, much less,
\n\ta substantial question of law, the appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Reliance
\n\tis also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat   1 V\/s.
\n\tGovind Agarwal, 2009 (238) ELT 745 (Guj.) wherein it is held
\n\tthat the order passed by the Tribunal deleting the personal penalty
\n\timposed on the proprietor under Rule 209A, does not warrant
\n\tinterference, the order being perfectly legal and in accordance with
\n\tthe requirement of law and, therefore, took the view that the appeal
\n\tstands dismissed in absence of any question of law as proposed or
\n\totherwise, much less a substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above settled legal position and in view of the fact
\n\tthat two appellate authorities have given concurrent finding to the
\n\teffect that the respondent   assessees are not involved and that
\n\teverything was done by Mr. Rathod, there is no question of admitting
\n\tand\/or allowing these appeals and in absence of any question of law,
\n\tmuch less any substantial question of law, both the appeals deserve
\n\tto be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K. A. PUJ, J.]\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t[RAJESH
\nH. SHUKLA, J.]\t<\/p>\n
Savariya   <\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/432\/2008 12\/ 12 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 432 of 2008 WITH TAX APPEAL No. 434 of 2008 ====================================== THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Appellant Versus […]<\/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-126545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe vs Whether on 24 February, 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\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-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=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-10T15:30:33+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T15:30:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1826,\"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\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T15:30:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs Whether on 24 February, 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":"The vs Whether on 24 February, 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\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-10T15:30:33+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T15:30:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":1826,"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\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010","name":"The vs Whether on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T15:30:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-whether-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs Whether on 24 February, 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\/126545","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=126545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}