{"id":18344,"date":"2008-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-15T08:30:15","modified_gmt":"2018-03-15T03:00:15","slug":"central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.RA\/46020\/2008\t 2\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 460 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n==================================================\n \n\nCENTRAL\nBUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - Applicant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSHAUKAT\nBARKATALI KESHVANI AND ANOTHER - Respondents\n \n\n==================================================Appearance\n: \nMR YN RAVANI for the Applicant.\n             \nMR JM PANCHAL WITH MS LILU K BHAYA for Respondent :\n1. \nMR AJ DESAI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent :\n2. \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 H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned Advocate Yogesh N. Ravani for the applicant &#8211; CBI, learned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mr. J. M. Panchal for Ms. L. K. Bhaya for respondent No. 1<br \/>\nand learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. A. J. Desai for<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2   State.  RULE.  Learned Advocates for the<br \/>\nopposite sides waive service on behalf of their respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThis<br \/>\nRevision Application preferred under Section 437 read with Section<br \/>\n401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order<br \/>\npassed below Exh. 3 by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Court No. 4<br \/>\nat Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in CBI Special Case No. 23 of 2006 by which<br \/>\nthe learned Special Judge has allowed the application for discharge<br \/>\nfiled by respondent No. 1.  It is submitted that the order passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Judge is erroneous, perverse and contrary to the law and<br \/>\nrequires to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe<br \/>\nshort facts leading to the filing of the present petition are stated<br \/>\nhereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tOne<br \/>\nM\/s Mahalaxmi Steel Traders, a proprietorship concern of one Mr.<br \/>\nAshish S. Shah applied for Cash Credit facility to the PNB.  On<br \/>\n13-02-2002, the Cash Credit facility of Rs. 40 Lakhs was made<br \/>\navailable to M\/s Mahalaxmi Steel Traders on the following securities<br \/>\nand guarantees:\n<\/p>\n<p>Hypothecation<br \/>\n\tof primary security of iron steel bars, patta, angle,<br \/>\n\tchannel, etc.<\/p>\n<p>Collateral<br \/>\n\tsecurity of the immovable properties:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) \tFlat No. 304, 704 of<br \/>\n Aasha ;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) \tFlat No. 402, 702, 904,<br \/>\n1002 of  Kiran , Asha Kiran Apartments, Satellite Road,<br \/>\nAhmedabad;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) \tOffice Premises  A  and<br \/>\n G  in Vardan Exclusive Tower, 6th Floor, Stadium<br \/>\nRoad, Near S. P. Colony, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis submitted by the learned Advocate that so far as the Title<br \/>\nClearance Certificate is concerned, the Bank has issued certain<br \/>\nguidelines by way of Circulars dated 08-07-2000, 17-09-2002 and<br \/>\n21-03-2000.  They are issued with a view to prevent frauds which<br \/>\nnormally occur with the bank by producing forged documents.<br \/>\nRespondent No. 1 was duty bound to issue the Clearance Certificate in<br \/>\nstrict adherence to the guidelines issued by the Bank and to verify<br \/>\nthe genuineness of the documents after making necessary inquiry in<br \/>\nthe matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tAs<br \/>\nthe amount in question was not realized, a complaint was lodged by<br \/>\nthe Bank through its authorized officer before the CBI being<br \/>\ncomplaint bearing No. RC 27 (A) \/ 2004   GNR on 02-12-2004 for the<br \/>\ncommission of offences punishable under Section 120B read with<br \/>\nSections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under<br \/>\nSection 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of<br \/>\nCorruption Act, 1988.  Thereafter, the investigation commenced in the<br \/>\nmatter and during the course of investigation, it was found that<br \/>\nwithout verifying the genuineness of the documents, respondent No. 1<br \/>\nhad issued the Title Clearance Certificate.  On completion of the<br \/>\ninvestigation, the charge   sheet came to be filed against<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 along with other accused persons.  Thereafter,<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 filed the application vide Exh. 3 under Section 227<br \/>\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for discharge and the same<br \/>\nwas allowed by the learned Special Judge by order dated 03-03-2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned Special<br \/>\nJudge has committed egregious error in exercising the powers under<br \/>\nSection 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  While deciding the<br \/>\napplication for discharge, the learned Judge ought to have verified<br \/>\nas to whether there was sufficient material to discharge respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1.  The learned Judge committed error in holding that there was<br \/>\nno sufficient material to try respondent No. 1 and has, thus, far<br \/>\nexceeded the jurisdiction vested in her.  The learned Judge has<br \/>\noverlooked the guidelines framed by PNB and further erred in not<br \/>\nconsidering Circular No. 56 dated 08-07-2000 which specifically<br \/>\nstates that the Bank should obtain certificate from the Advocate \/<br \/>\nSolicitor certifying the title to concerned property being original<br \/>\nand duplicate or fake and that the title is clear, marketable and<br \/>\nfree from encumbrances.  The learned Judge ought to have taken into<br \/>\nconsideration that respondent No. 1 is involved in serious offences<br \/>\npunishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as<br \/>\nwell as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the<br \/>\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 including under Section 120B of<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code and since he was involved in a criminal conspiracy,<br \/>\nthe prayer for discharge ought to have been rejected.  Thus, the<br \/>\nlearned Judge has not taken into consideration various circulars<br \/>\nissued by the Bank from time to time in proper perspective while<br \/>\ndischarging respondent No. 1 for serious offences punishable under<br \/>\nSection 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of<br \/>\nthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and, therefore, the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Judge be quashed and set aside and the Revision<br \/>\nApplication be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate Mr. J. M. Panchal representing respondent No. 1 submitted<br \/>\nthat while granting the application for discharge, the learned Judge<br \/>\nhas taken into consideration the role played by respondent No. 1 in<br \/>\nthe alleged commission of offences punishable under  Section 120B<br \/>\nread with Sections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as<br \/>\nunder Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention<br \/>\nof Corruption Act, 1988 and, therefore, the revision preferred by the<br \/>\napplicant is devoid of merit and does not call for interference by<br \/>\nthis Court.  The learned Advocate further submitted that even on bare<br \/>\nperusal of the reasoning given by the learned Judge, it becomes clear<br \/>\nthat ultimately it is incumbent upon the concerned officer of the<br \/>\nBank to personally verify and inspect the immovable property which<br \/>\nwas offered as a mortgage and duty is not cast upon respondent No. 1<br \/>\nto go into all the minute details.  The shortfall, as per the<br \/>\ndetailed discussion made by the learned Judge, is that he had not<br \/>\ninquired from the management of those offices or the flats about the<br \/>\nactual allotment of the property to the co-accused.  The learned<br \/>\nJudge has, after considering the material which was placed before<br \/>\nher, rightly allowed the application for discharge preferred by<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 and no interference is called for in an order of<br \/>\ndischarge passed by the learned Judge while exercising the revisional<br \/>\npowers under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The<br \/>\nlearned Advocate further submitted that even the powers under Section<br \/>\n397 are required to be exercised in very exceptional circumstances if<br \/>\nthere is any illegality committed by the learned Judge or the order<br \/>\nis on the face of it perverse.  Considering the detailed and<br \/>\nexhaustive reasons given by the learned Judge, no interference is<br \/>\ncalled for in the matter and the application deserves to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tI<br \/>\nhave heard learned Advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani for the applicant<br \/>\nCBI, learned Advocate Mr. J. M. Panchal for respondent No. 1 and<br \/>\nlearned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. A. J. Desai for respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2 at length and in great detail.  I have perused the order passed<br \/>\nby the learned Judge below Exh. 3 in CBI Special Case No. 23 of 2006,<br \/>\nthe Circulars issued by PNB dated 08-07-2000 and 17-09-2002 as well<br \/>\nas the Certificate given to Shri Pragnesh Himatlal Yagnik of Vardan<br \/>\nBuilders Limited dated 17-12-2001 and NOC dated 15-03-2002 given to<br \/>\nMr. Pragnesh Himatlal Yagnik which has been referred to by the<br \/>\nlearned Advocate for the applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tRespondent<br \/>\nNo. 1 is booked for the offences punishable under  Section 120B read<br \/>\nwith Sections 420, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under<br \/>\nSection 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of<br \/>\nCorruption Act, 1988.  The applicant, who is aggrieved by the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Special Judge below Exh. 3 in CBI Case No. 23<br \/>\nof 2006, has preferred the present Revision Application on the ground<br \/>\nthat even though the duty was cast on respondent No. 1 to verify<br \/>\nvarious documents before giving the Clearance Certificate, the same<br \/>\nwas not done by him and he had not adhered to the various guidelines<br \/>\nissued by the Bank from time to time with regard to the verification<br \/>\nof the genuineness of the documents. On perusal of the order passed<br \/>\nby the learned Judge, it becomes clear that the duty of the<br \/>\nrespondent was to give the Title Clearance Certificate after making<br \/>\nnecessary verification.  Respondent No. 1 had given the certificate,<br \/>\nas per the documents issued by the Bank and it was the duty of the<br \/>\nofficer of the concerned Bank to make necessary inquiry with regard<br \/>\nto the inspection of the immovable property which was offered by way<br \/>\nof mortgage and the person who is dealing with the disbursement of<br \/>\nloan in the Bank is required to check personally the property which<br \/>\nis offered as a mortgage and thereafter he is expected to submit the<br \/>\nletter to the Society with regard to the Bank&#8217;s loan.  The learned<br \/>\nJudge, while considering the role played by respondent No. 1, has<br \/>\nrightly held that the only shortfall of respondent No. 1 was that he<br \/>\nhad not inquired from the management of those offices \/ flats about<br \/>\nthe actual allotment which was given to other accused persons but it<br \/>\nwas not incumbent upon him to inquire from the management of those<br \/>\noffices and flats and the duty is cast upon the officer of the Bank<br \/>\nto take the spot inspection as well as to obtain the letter of lien<br \/>\nand respondent No. 1 was not expected to perform the aforesaid task<br \/>\nof taking the spot inspection as well as to obtain the letter of lien<br \/>\nprepared for the Bank.  In view of the aforesaid facts and<br \/>\ncircumstance and considering the detailed reasons which are assigned<br \/>\nby the learned Judge and the catena of decisions rendered by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the matter, no interference in my considered view is called<br \/>\nfor in Revision Application preferred under Section 397 read with<br \/>\nSection 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Even on bare perusal<br \/>\nof Section 397, it becomes clear that unless some illegality is<br \/>\ncommitted by the Court below or the order is ex facie perverse, this<br \/>\nCourt should not interfere with the order while exercising the powers<br \/>\nunder Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though this Court<br \/>\nhas no doubt supervisory jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, this Revision Application is without any<br \/>\nsubstance and as the same is devoid of merits, it is liable to be<br \/>\nrejected.  Hence, the same is rejected.  Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.\n<\/p>\n<p>B. ANTANI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>\/shamnath<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008 Author: H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.RA\/46020\/2008 2\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 460 of 2008 ================================================== CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION &#8211; Applicant Versus SHAUKAT BARKATALI KESHVANI AND ANOTHER &#8211; Respondents ==================================================Appearance : [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18344","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-15T03:00:15+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\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T03:00:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1711,\"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\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-15T03:00:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-15T03:00:15+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\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T03:00:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008"},"wordCount":1711,"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\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008","name":"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-15T03:00:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/central-vs-shaukat-on-20-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Central vs Shaukat on 20 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/18344","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=18344"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18344\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18344"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18344"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18344"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}