{"id":20276,"date":"1998-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998"},"modified":"2018-07-30T13:28:55","modified_gmt":"2018-07-30T07:58:55","slug":"chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998","title":{"rendered":"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. &#8230; vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of &#8230; on 2 February, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. &#8230; vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of &#8230; on 2 February, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, K.T. Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCHANDRAKANT PATIL, SHYAM K. GARIKAPATTI, SUBHASH SINGH THAKU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE THROUGH CBI, GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t02\/02\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nM.K. MUKHERJEE, K.T. THOMAS\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t    WITH<br \/>\n\t      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 445 OF 1997<br \/>\n\t\t\t    AND<br \/>\n\t      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 447 OF 1997<br \/>\n\t\t\t    AND<br \/>\n\t      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 486 OF 1997<br \/>\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nThomas J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After concurring  with the\t finding that  first accused<br \/>\nSubhash Singh Thakur, Second accused Jayendra. Thakur @ Bhai<br \/>\nThakur; third  accused Shyam  Kishore Garikapati  and fourth<br \/>\naccused Chandrakant  Patil are\tguilty of  the offence under<br \/>\nSection\t  5  of\t the  Terrorist\t and  Disruptive  Activities<br \/>\n(Prevention  )\tAct,  1987,  for  short\t &#8216;  the\t TADA&#8217;,\t and<br \/>\nconfirming the\tconfirming the conviction of that offence we<br \/>\nfelt that  the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years<br \/>\nawarded by  the trial  court to\t each of them is inadequate.<br \/>\nHence we  issued notice\t to them  on the proposal to enhance<br \/>\nthe sentence.  The said\t accused, in  reply to\tthe  notice,<br \/>\nfiled detailed\twritten submission.  We heard  the arguments<br \/>\naddressed by  the senior  counsel on behalf of those accused<br \/>\nand also  Shri V.  R. Reddy,  Addl.  Solicitor\tGeneral\t who<br \/>\nargued for the Central Bureau of Investigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We may  state at  the outset that we would not, at this<br \/>\nstage, review  the finding  regarding the  conviction of the<br \/>\noffence under  Section 5 of TADA for the obvious reason that<br \/>\nwe confirmed  the finding  after considering  in detail\t the<br \/>\ncontentions  raised   by  the\taccused\t and  the  elaborate<br \/>\narguments addressed by the learned counsel. Further, we have<br \/>\nalready dismissed  the petitions  filed for  review  of\t the<br \/>\nfindings arrived at by us adverse to those accused. Shri Ram<br \/>\nJethmalani, learned  senior  counsel  made  an\tendeavor  to<br \/>\nconvince us  that the accused have a right for re-canvassing<br \/>\nthe aforesaid finding on a parity of the principle envisaged<br \/>\nin Section  referred to hereinafter as &#8216; the present Code&#8217;).<br \/>\nAccording to  the sub-ground  of its  inadequacy,  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt shall  not enhance  the enhance except after giving to<br \/>\nthe accused a reasonable opportunity of sowing cause against<br \/>\nsuch enhancement  and while  showing cause,  the accused may<br \/>\nplead  for  his\t acquittal  or\tfor  the  reduction  of\t the<br \/>\nsentence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Under the\tCode of\t Criminal Procedure,  1898 (the\t old<br \/>\nCode) High Court had the power to enhance a sentence even on<br \/>\nan appeal  filed by  the  accused  against  his\t conviction.<br \/>\nSection 423 of the old Code, while circumscribing the powers<br \/>\nof the appellate court, made an addition through sub-section<br \/>\n91-A) like this:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;(1-A)  Where   an\t appeal\t from  a<br \/>\n     conviction lies  to the High Court,<br \/>\n     it\t may   enhance\t the   sentence,<br \/>\n     notwithstanding\t\tanything<br \/>\n     inconsistent therewith contained in<br \/>\n     clause (b) of Sub-section (1).&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     As\t against   the\tsaid  provision,  the  corresponding<br \/>\nsection in the present Code contains restrictions imposed on<br \/>\nthe appellate  court for enhancing the sentence on an appeal<br \/>\nfiled  from   a\t conviction.   The   said   restriction\t  is<br \/>\nincorporated in\t Section 386 (b) of the present Code that in<br \/>\nan appeal  from conviction,  the appellate court may reverse<br \/>\nthe finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused<br \/>\nor alter  the finding  and maintain  the sentence of with or<br \/>\nwithout altering  the finding alter the nature or the extent<br \/>\nof the\tsentence &#8220;but  not so as to enhance the same.&#8221; While<br \/>\nincorporating  the   said    restriction  the  present\tCode<br \/>\nconferred a  new right on the State or Central Government by<br \/>\nSection\t 377   to  present  an\tappeal\tthrough\t the  public<br \/>\nProsecutor on  the ground  of inadequacy  of Sentence.\tSuch<br \/>\nappellate powers  of the High Court are subject to the rider<br \/>\nthat the accused should be given a reasonable opportunity of<br \/>\nshowing cause  against such  enhancement and  while  showing<br \/>\nsuch cause  the accused has the right to plead for acquittal<br \/>\nor for reduction of sentence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On the  strength of  the principle so adumbrated in the<br \/>\npresent Code learned counsel contended first that this Court<br \/>\nhas no\tpower to  enhance the sentence as the present appeal<br \/>\nhas been  filed from  a conviction,  and  second,  that\t the<br \/>\naccused would  get a  right when  there\t is  a\tproposal  to<br \/>\nenhance\t the   sentence,  to  plead  for  his  acquittal  by<br \/>\nreviewing the finding already made.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  unable to\tagree with  the learned counsel that<br \/>\nthe accused  has a  further right in the case to canvass for<br \/>\nreviewing the  finding arrived\tat by this Court over again.<br \/>\nThe right  envisaged in\t Section 377(3)\t of the Present Code<br \/>\nshall be  confined to appeals presented by Government to the<br \/>\nHigh Court against sentence on the ground of its inadequacy.<br \/>\nThere is  no scope  to afford  a further  opportunity in the<br \/>\nappeal, at  this stage, since the finding of the trial court<br \/>\nhas already been considered elaborately by re-evaluating the<br \/>\nentire evidence\t in the\t light of  the\telaborate  arguments<br \/>\ncanvassed on  behalf of\t the parties.  A repetition  of\t the<br \/>\nwhole process  over again  is, apart  from waste  of time of<br \/>\nthis Court, unnecessary and unwarranted by law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior next contended that<br \/>\nthe Supreme  Court has\tno power  to enhance sentence in the<br \/>\nabsence\t of   an  appeal   by\tthe   Government   presented<br \/>\nspecifically for  that purpose\tmore so\t because the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt\thas no\trevisional powers  which the  High court and<br \/>\nCourt of Sessions are conferred with by the present Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Powers of\tthe Supreme  Court in  appeals\tfiled  under<br \/>\narticle 136  of the  Constitution are  not restricted by the<br \/>\nappellate provisions  enumerated under\tthe Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure or  any other\t statue. When  exercising  appellate<br \/>\njurisdiction, the Supreme Court has power to pass any order.<br \/>\nThe aforesaid  legal position  has been\t recognized  by\t the<br \/>\nConstitution Bench  of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/937486\/\">Durga Shankar Mehta vs.<br \/>\nThakur Raghuraj\t Singh and  ors.<\/a>, 1995 (1) SCR 267 and later<br \/>\nfollowed in a series of decisions. [vide <a href=\"\/doc\/158396\/\">Arunachalam vs. PSR<br \/>\nSadhanantham &amp;<\/a>\tanr.,  1979  (2)  SCC  297,  Delhi  Judicial<br \/>\nService Association  vs. State\tof Gujarat  &amp; Ors., 1991 (4)<br \/>\nSCC 406].\n<\/p>\n<p>     The present  appeals have\tnot been filed under Article<br \/>\n136 of the Constitution, but under Section 19 of TADA. Hence<br \/>\nit was contended that while dealing with a statutory appeal,<br \/>\nplenary powers\tof the\tSupreme Court  cannot be  exercised.<br \/>\nAccepting the  said contention\twe may\tpoint out  that even<br \/>\notherwise this\tCourt has  wide and  residual powers to deal<br \/>\nwith the  situation like  this, which  are well\t enclosed in<br \/>\nArticle 142 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is now well nigh settled that Supreme Court&#8217;s powers<br \/>\nunder Article  142 of  the  Constitution  are  vastly  broad<br \/>\nbased. That  power in  its exercise is circumscribed only by<br \/>\ntwo conditions,\t first is that it can be exercised only when<br \/>\nSupreme court  other wise exercises its jurisdiction and the<br \/>\nother is  that the  order which Supreme Court passes must be<br \/>\nnecessary for  doing complete justice in the cause or matter<br \/>\npending before\tit. the first condition is satisfied here as<br \/>\nthe  appellate\t jurisdiction  of   the\t Supreme   Court  is<br \/>\nexercisable by virtue of Section 19 of TADA.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In Delhi  Judicial Service\t Association  vs.  State  of<br \/>\nGujarat (supra)\t as also  in <a href=\"\/doc\/1613412\/\">Union  Carbide Corporation\t vs.<br \/>\nUnion of  India,<\/a> 1991  (5) SCC\t584,  this  Court  made\t the<br \/>\nposition  clear\t  that\tpower\tunder  Article\t142  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution is\t entirely of  different level  and is  of  a<br \/>\ndifferent quality  which cannot\t be limited or restricted by<br \/>\nprovisions contained  in statutory law. No enactment made by<br \/>\nthe Central  or State  legislature can limit or restrict the<br \/>\npower  of   this  Court\t under\tArticle\t 142,  though  while<br \/>\nexercising  it\tthe  court  may\t have  regard  to  statutory<br \/>\nprovisions. <a href=\"\/doc\/622643\/\">In\tMohammed  Anis\tvs.  Union  of\tIndia,<\/a>\t1994<br \/>\nSupple. (1) Scc 145, Ahmadi ]. (es the learned Chief Justice<br \/>\nthen was  ) by\tfollowing the  dictum in the above mentioned<br \/>\ndecisions has observed in paragraph 6, as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;This power  has been  conferred on<br \/>\n     the  Apex\t Court\tonly   and   the<br \/>\n     exercise  of   that  power\t is  not<br \/>\n     dependent\tor  conditioned\t by  any<br \/>\n     statutory\t    provision.\t     The<br \/>\n     Constitutional  plenitude\t of  the<br \/>\n     powers of\tthe  Apex  Court  is  to<br \/>\n     ensure\tdue\t and\t  proper<br \/>\n     administration of\tjustice\t and  is<br \/>\n     intended to be co-extensive in each<br \/>\n     case with\tthe need of justice of a<br \/>\n     given  case   and\tto  meeting  any<br \/>\n     exigency.\tVery  wide  powers  have<br \/>\n     been conferred  on this  Court  for<br \/>\n     due and  proper  administration  of<br \/>\n     justice and whenever the court sees<br \/>\n     that the demand of justice warrants<br \/>\n     exercise of  such powers,\tit  will<br \/>\n     reach out to ensure that justice is<br \/>\n     done   by\t  resorting   to    this<br \/>\n     extraordinary  power  conferred  to<br \/>\n     meet precisely such a situation.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/854140\/\">In E.K.  Chandrasenan vs.\tState of Kerala<\/a> 1995 (2) SCC<br \/>\n99, this  Court has  traced its power in Article 142 for the<br \/>\npurpose of enhancing the sentence awarded to the accused who<br \/>\nfiled the  appeal challenging  the conviction  passed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  The following observations in the said decision<br \/>\nare apposite:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;What is  contained in  Article 142<br \/>\n     would   in\t   any\t case\t provide<br \/>\n     sufficient power  to this\tCourt to<br \/>\n     pass an order like the one at hand,<br \/>\n     if this  Court were  to be\t of  the<br \/>\n     view that the same is necessary for<br \/>\n     doing complete justice.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Shri Ram  Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, cautioned<br \/>\nus by  reminding that  recourse to Article 142 should not be<br \/>\nmade for  too often  since  those  powers  are\tspecifically<br \/>\nreserved for  using in\texceptional exigencies. According to<br \/>\nhim the instances when resort was made to Article 142 by the<br \/>\nCourt in  the past  were far and few between and that too in<br \/>\ncases of very rare eventualities.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  aware that\t powers under Article 142 are not to<br \/>\nbe exercised  frequently but  only sparingly. The occurrence<br \/>\ndescribed in  this case\t is not\t the usual  type  of  crimes<br \/>\nreaching this  Court. When  all the four accused were caught<br \/>\nred handed  while making  nocturnal movements  towards\tsome<br \/>\ntargeted destination in the densely crowded city with highly<br \/>\nlethal and  quickly explosive  articles, it  is a  matter of<br \/>\nreasonable  imagination\t that,\thad  they  not\tbeen  timely<br \/>\nintercepted by\tthe alert  and vigilant\t police\t force,\t the<br \/>\nconsequences would  have been  disastrous and calamitous. We<br \/>\nhave no\t manner of  doubt that\tsentence of  imprisonment of<br \/>\nfive years  for the  offence under  Section 5 of the TADA in<br \/>\nthe circumstances  of this  case is  too inadequate  and  it<br \/>\nwarrants enhancement.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The next  question to  be considered is, what should be<br \/>\nthe extent  of the  sentence. Section  5 of  TADA prescribes<br \/>\npunishment of  &#8220;imprisonment for  a term  which shall not be<br \/>\nless than  five years,\tbut which may extend to imprisonment<br \/>\nfor life&#8221;  besides fine.  When we  found  that\tthe  minimum<br \/>\nsentence prescribed  is too  inadequate, we have to consider<br \/>\nwhether the maximum prescribed is attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Christopher J.  Emmins MA\tin his &#8216;A Practical Approach<br \/>\nto Sentencing&#8217;.\t has suggested\tthat  the  maximum  sentence<br \/>\nshould be  reserved for\t the gravest  instances\t of  offence<br \/>\nlikely to occur as a principle of commonsense (vide p. 110).<br \/>\nWe do  not think that the maximum sentence prescribed in the<br \/>\nsection\t need\tbe  awarded   in  this\t case  since   on  a<br \/>\nconsideration of  all aspects  of the  case we feel that the<br \/>\nsaid upper  limit is on the higher side. Nevertheless, after<br \/>\nbe sowing  our serious consideration in the matter we are of<br \/>\nthe definite  opinion that  imprisonment for  period  of  at<br \/>\nleast 10  years would  be necessary  to\t meet  the  ends  of<br \/>\njustice looking\t at the\t manner in  which  the\toffence\t was<br \/>\nperpetrated by the four accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  result, we enhance the sentence of imprisonment<br \/>\nfrom 5 years as awarded by the Designated Court, to 10 years<br \/>\nfor all\t the for  accused A-  1 Subhash\t Singh Thakur,\tA- 2<br \/>\nJayendra  Thakur   @  Bhai   Thakur,  A-   3  Shyam  Kishore<br \/>\nGarikapati, and Chandrakant Patil. Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     All the appeals would stand this disposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. &#8230; vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of &#8230; on 2 February, 1998 Author: Thomas Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, K.T. Thomas PETITIONER: CHANDRAKANT PATIL, SHYAM K. GARIKAPATTI, SUBHASH SINGH THAKU Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE THROUGH CBI, GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/1998 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. ... vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of ... on 2 February, 1998 - 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\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. ... vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of ... on 2 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-30T07:58:55+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=\"10 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-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. &#8230; vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of &#8230; on 2 February, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T07:58:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1878,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998\",\"name\":\"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. ... vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of ... on 2 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T07:58:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. &#8230; vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of &#8230; on 2 February, 1998\"}]},{\"@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 Patil, Shyam K. ... vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of ... on 2 February, 1998 - 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\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. ... vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of ... on 2 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-30T07:58:55+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. &#8230; vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of &#8230; on 2 February, 1998","datePublished":"1998-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T07:58:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998"},"wordCount":1878,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998","name":"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. ... vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of ... on 2 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T07:58:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandrakant-patil-shyam-k-vs-state-through-cbi-govt-of-on-2-february-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandrakant Patil, Shyam K. &#8230; vs State Through Cbi, Govt. Of &#8230; on 2 February, 1998"}]},{"@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\/20276","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=20276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}