{"id":13400,"date":"2010-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-05T08:08:46","modified_gmt":"2018-12-05T02:38:46","slug":"chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice 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\nLPA\/236\/2010\t 1\/ 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\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 236 of 2010\n \n\nWITH\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1424 of 2010\n \n\nIN\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 216 of 2010\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE \n\n \n\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\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 \n\nCHANDRAKANT\nKODIDAS (KHODIDAS)PATEL, PARTNER OF JAY BHAVANI & 1 -\nAppellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=============================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nCL SONI for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMS TRUSHA PATEL AGP for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n4. \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\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nmatter relates to seizure of  Hitachi 110 earth moving vehicle owned
\nby the 1st appellant.  Learned Single Judge having passed
\nconditional order for release, the present appeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\ncase of the appellants is that the 1st appellant is the
\nowner of the vehicle rented in favour of the 2nd
\nappellant, who is the holder of lease granted on 30.09.2008 for
\nexcavating the sand.  The 3rd and 4th
\nrespondents having seized the vehicle on 26.12.2009, followed by
\nnotice issued on 15.10.2010 showing intention to recover the amount,
\nthe writ petition was preferred.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAccording
\nto the appellants, seizure under Rules 13 and 17 of the Gujarat
\nMinerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation)
\nRules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `2005 Rules’) is illegal, the
\nsaid Rules being not applicable to minor mineral including sand.
\n2005 Rules are applicable to other minerals and that the minor
\nmineral is governed by the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966
\n(hereinafter referred to as `the 1966 Rules’) whereunder no provision
\nhas been made for seizure of vehicle or machinery or to recover any
\namount other than penalty under Rule 42.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tCounsel
\nfor the appellant would contend that even if 2005 Rules are applied,
\nunder Rule 18 as the authorized officer has power to release the
\nvehicle on execution of a bond by owner for production of the
\nproperty so released as and when so required, without any condition,
\nthe conditional order for release of vehicle passed by learned Single
\nJudge is uncalled for.  It was also contended that in absence of
\ndetermination of amount to be recovered, learned Single Judge ought
\nnot have asked to deposit any amount as a pre-condition for release
\nof the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Trusha Patel, learned A.G.P. for the respondents contends that the
\npower of seizure flows from Sec.24(1) of the Mines and Mineral
\n(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as
\n`the Act of 1957′).  If any person raises, transports or causes to be
\nraised or transported any mineral from any land without any lawful
\nauthority, the competent authority is empowered to seize mineral,
\ntool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing used in such activity.
\nReferring to Section 3(a)   definition of mineral, it was submitted
\nthat mineral includes both minor and other minerals, except mineral
\noils.  In absence of any exclusion of miner mineral, no distinction
\ncan be made between two minerals, one minor and another.  It is for
\ngiving effect to Section 21(4), which was introduced by Amending Act
\n38 of 1999, 2005 Rules were framed, wherein under Rule 2(9),
\n`mineral’ has been expressed and defined in terms with expression and
\ndefinition under Sec.3(a) of the Act of 1957.  According to her, the
\nauthorities are empowered to seize tool, machine, vehicle, etc. under
\nRule 13(2) and (3) read with Rule 17 of 2005 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tFrom
\nthe provisions of the Act and the Rules, it will be evident that
\nprior to Amending Act 38 of 1999, no provision was made for seizure
\nof tool, equipment, vehicle, etc. used in illegal mining.  Power was
\ndelegated u\/Sec.21 only to impose penalty, and for giving effect to
\nthe same provision under Rule 42 of 1966 Rules was made. Sub-sec.(4)
\nto Sec.21 was introduced by Amending Act 38 of 1999 whereunder for
\nthe first time provision was made for seizure of tool, equipment,
\nvehicle or any other thing if used by a person for raising or
\ntransporting a mineral without any lawful authority.  After
\nintroduction of sub-sec.(4) to Sec.21, to give effect to the same,
\n2005 Rules were enacted.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\npower of seizure of any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing
\nused for raising or transporting mineral without any lawful authority
\nis vested under sub-secs. (4), (4A) and 5 to Sec.21 and quoted
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
 21.
\nPenalties. – (1)  to (3)
\nxx\txx\txx<\/p>\n
(4)   <\/span>
\nWhenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or
\ntransported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land,
\nand, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other
\nthing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall
\nbe liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered
\nin this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
(4A)
\nAny mineral, tool equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under
\nsub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the
\ncourt competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section
\n(1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of
\nsuch court.\n<\/p>\n
(5)    <\/span><\/p>\n
Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral
\nfrom any land, the State Government may recover from such person the
\nmineral so raised, or, where such mineral has already been disposed
\nof, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent,
\nroyalty or tax, as the case may be, for the period during which the
\nland was occupied by such person without any lawful authority.\n<\/p>\n
(6)    <\/span><\/p>\n
xx\txx\txx <\/p>\n
8.\tIt
\nwill be evident from 2005 Rule that the same is applicable to all
\nmineral except mineral oil.  Rule 5 while deals with mining, Rule 8
\nrelates to registration and renewal for stockings\/storage of mineral.
\n Penalties can be imposed under Rule 13, which includes seizure as
\nevident from Rule 13, as quoted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
 13.
\n Penalties:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tWhoever
\ncontravenes the provision of Rule 5, 6 and 8 of these rules shall be
\npunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year
\nor with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both
\nand in case of continuing contravention with an additional fine which
\nmay extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such
\ncontravention continues after conviction for the first such
\ncontravention.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhenever
\nany person raise transport or store or cause to be raised or
\ntransported or stored without any lawful authority, the State
\nGovernment may recover from such person the mineral so raised, or
\ntransported or stored where such mineral has already been disposed of
\nthe price thereof and may also recover from such person rent, royalty
\nor tax as the case may be;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhenever
\nany person raise, transports or stores or cause to be raises or
\ntransported or stored without any law full authority any mineral from
\nany land\/place and for that purpose or use any tool, equipment,
\nvehicle or any other thing, such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or
\nany other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or
\nauthority specially empowered in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tRule
\n17 also deals with seizure of property liable for confiscation.  Once
\na property is seized it requires to be marked in a specified manner
\nand required to be produced before the authorized officer to satisfy
\nthat an offence has been committed.  Such officer on satisfaction may
\norder confiscation of mineral or value or part of the value so seized
\ntogether with vehicle used in committing such offence.  Under
\nsub-rule (4) of Rule 17, no order of confiscation can be made, unless
\nthe person from whom the property is seized is given a notice,
\nopportunity of making a representation and a reasonable opportunity
\nof being heard in the matter.  Such procedure is required to be
\nfollowed prior to confiscation of the seized property as evident from
\nthe said Rule 17 and quoted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
 Rule 17.\n<\/p>\n
Seizure of property liable to confiscation:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tWhen
\nthere is reason to believe that an offence has been committed in
\nrespect of any mineral such mineral, together with vehicles or other
\nconveyances used in committing such offence may be seized by any
\nofficer authorized by the Government in that behalf (herein after
\nreferred to as the authorized officer) and record details of seizing
\nproperty in Form-J.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tEvery
\nofficer seizing any property under these rules shall place on such
\nproperty a mark in such manner as may be prescribed, indicating that
\nthe same has been so seized and shall as may be except where the
\noffender agrees in writing to get the offence compounded, either
\nproduce the property seized before the officers appointed by the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhere
\nany mineral seized under sub-rule (1) produced before the officers
\nauthorized by the State Government and he is satisfied that an
\noffence has been committed in respect thereof, he may order
\nconfiscation of the mineral or value or part of the value thereof so
\nseized and produced, together with the vehicles, or other conveyance
\nused in committing such offence.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tNo
\norder confiscating any property shall be made under sub-rule (3)
\nunless the person from whom the property is seized is given.\n<\/p>\n
(a)\ta
\nnotice in writing in Form X informing him of the goods on which it is
\nproposed to confiscate such property.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\topportunity
\nof making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as
\nmay be specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation;
\nand<\/p>\n
(c)\ta
\nreasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tWithout
\nprejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (4) no order of confiscation
\nof vehicle, or other conveyance under sub-rule (3) shall be made if
\nthe owner thereof proves to be satisfaction of competent authority or
\nauthorized officer that it was used without his knowledge or
\nconnivance or the knowledge of connivance of his agent, if any, or
\nthe person in charge of the vehicle or other conveyance in committing
\nthe
\noffence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary
\nprecautions against such use.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tThe
\nproperty seized under this rule shall be kept in the custody of the
\nauthorized officer or with any third party until compensation for
\ncompounding the offence is paid or until an order of the Officer
\nauthorized by the Commissioner directing its disposal is received.\n<\/p>\n
(7)\tThe
\nState Government may at any time on its own accord call for the
\nexamination of the order of confiscation by the competent authority
\non an application, call for and examine the records of the case and
\nmay make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and pass such
\norder as he may think fit;\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that
\nno order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him
\nan opportunity of being heard.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe
\nauthorized officer or the officer who seized the vehicle is empowered
\nto release the vehicle on execution of a bond for production of the
\nproperty so released, if and when so required.  This is evident from
\nRule 18 which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 Rule 18.\n<\/p>\n
Power to release property seized on bonds:\n<\/p>\n
The authorized
\nofficer or who has seized any vehicles or other conveyance under
\nrule-13 and where a report of such seizure has been made to the
\nofficers authorized by Commissioner under sub-rule (3) of that rule
\nmay release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for
\nthe production of the property so released, if and when so required
\nbefore the officers authorized by the Commissioner having
\njurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure has been
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid provisions it will be clear that the power of seizure
\nof vehicle flows from sub-secs.(4), (4A) of Sec.21 of the Act read
\nwith Rule 13 of 2005 Rules.  The expression `mineral’ under sub-sec.
\n3(a) of the Act and Rule 2(9) of 2005 Rules is same, which includes
\nminerals whether minor mineral or other mineral.  The authorized
\nofficer is not only empowered to seize minerals together with
\nvehicle, tool, equipment, etc., but also liable to determine the
\nquantum of amount to be recovered after notice and hearing under Rule
\n17 of 2005 Rules.  Final order of seizure or imposition of penalty or
\nboth can be made under rule 13 subject to appeal and revision and
\nreview as prescribed under Chapter V of 2005 Rules.  The owner of the
\nvehicle or the property, if seized, on execution of a bond for
\nproduction of property, as and when so required, can request the
\nauthorized officer to release the property without asking for
\ndepositing any amount to be determined, as the authorized officer is
\nempowered to do so under Rule 18.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nfull power being vested with the authority to seize mineral,
\nproperty, vehicle, tool, etc. after notice and hearing to decide the
\nquantum of payment and penalty, there being provision made for
\nappeal, revision and review under 2005 Rules, and the authorized
\nofficer being empowered to release the vehicle under Rule 18 without
\nany pre-condition to deposit money, we are of the view that the High
\nCourt under Art.226 normally should not entertain any writ petition
\nfor release of vehicle or seized material.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn
\nthe present case, we find that the authorities have not yet finally
\ndetermined the quantum of amount to be paid by appellant after notice
\nand hearing the appellant, we are of the view that the learned Single
\nJudge instead of passing conditional order ought to have dismissed
\nthe writ petition allowing the appellants to move before the
\nauthorities for release of the vehicle.  In absence of any
\nexceptional circumstance such as absence of authorized officer or
\nappellate forum, there was no occasion to entertain the writ
\npetition.  For the reasons aforesaid while we set aside the order
\ndated 25.01.2010 passed by learned Single Judge, give liberty to the
\nappellants to move before the authorized officer under Rule 18, who
\nmay decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a week
\nfrom the date of receipt of such application.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nLetters Patent Appeal and Civil Application stand disposed of with
\nthe aforesaid observations.  Direct service is permitted, but no
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.\n<\/p>\n
MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)<\/p>\n
(ANANT
\nS. DAVE, J.)<\/p>\n
[sn
\ndevu] pps<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Dave,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/236\/2010 1\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 236 of 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1424 of 2010 IN SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 216 of 2010 […]<\/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-13400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChandrakant vs State on 10 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\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-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=\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-05T02:38:46+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-05T02:38:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2217,\"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\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-05T02:38:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandrakant vs State on 10 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":"Chandrakant vs State on 10 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\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-05T02:38:46+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-05T02:38:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"wordCount":2217,"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\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","name":"Chandrakant vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-05T02:38:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandrakant vs State on 10 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\/13400","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=13400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}