{"id":225595,"date":"2008-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-01-25T19:01:05","modified_gmt":"2017-01-25T13:31:05","slug":"patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&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.A\/67319\/1996\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL NO. 673 OF 1996\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\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\nPATEL\nPRAVINCHNADRA VADILAL - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPATEL\nBHAGWANDAS PRAHLADJI AND CO. &amp; ORS. - Respondent(s)\n \n\n======================================Appearance\n: \nMs. Jirga Jhaveri for\nAppellant(s). \nMr. Y. S. Lakhani for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. \nMr.\nK. T. Dave, APP for Respondent(s) :\n5. \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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tBy<br \/>\nway of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973 ( the Code  for short), the appellant has<br \/>\nquestioned the legality and validity of the impugned  judgement and<br \/>\norder of acquittal dated 30th December, 1995 passed  by<br \/>\nthe learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana in Criminal<br \/>\nCase No.969 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nfacts of the case briefly summarised are that the<br \/>\ncomplainant-Pravinchandra Vadilal is the inspector of the<br \/>\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee, Mehsana which is engaged in<br \/>\nthe trading business of agricultural produces. The complainant as an<br \/>\nInspector of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mehsana has<br \/>\nlodged the complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 4 with regard to<br \/>\nviolation of rules, regulations and by-laws of the Market Committee.<br \/>\nThe Agricultural Produce Market Committee in exercise of the powers<br \/>\nunder the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 ( the Act<br \/>\nfor short) has framed the regulations for regulating business of sale<br \/>\nof the agricultural produces and it regulates the business or trading<br \/>\nin the agricultural produce market committee. The trader and the<br \/>\ncommission agent are required to take license for the purpose of<br \/>\ndoing business in the market yard and they are required to fulfill<br \/>\nthe rules and regulations of the Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee and also have to comply with the general conditions of the<br \/>\nlicence granted to the traders. It is alleged that the accused<br \/>\npersons, who are doing the business in the market yard, have charged<br \/>\nRs.2\/-  and Rs.3.50 excessively in their bill in violation f the<br \/>\nrules, regulations and the bye-laws. It is, therefore, alleged that<br \/>\nRegulation 42 has been violated and the offence under Regulation 42<br \/>\nhas been committed by the accused persons. Therefore, Resolution No.7<br \/>\ndated 24th October, 1983 was passed authorising the<br \/>\ncomplainant to initiate necessary proceedings,  on the basis of which<br \/>\nthe complaint has been lodged for the alleged offences before the<br \/>\nlearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, who passed the order to<br \/>\nregister the offence against the accused persons by the order dated<br \/>\n29th February, 1992. The learned Magistrate recorded the<br \/>\nplea of the accused persons, who  claimed to be tried for the<br \/>\noffence. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial<br \/>\nand on conclusion of the trial, passed the impugned judgement and<br \/>\norder recording acquittal of the accused persons, which has been<br \/>\nassailed by the present appellant in this appeal on the grounds set<br \/>\nout in the memo of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tMs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Jirga Jhaveri, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the<br \/>\nlearned Court below has erred in not appreciating that the<br \/>\ncomplainant was authorised by the Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee to issue notice for breach of the provisions of the Act and<br \/>\nthe Rules. She also submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred<br \/>\nin appreciating that the books of accounts have not been produced.<br \/>\nFurther, she submitted that Rule 59(3) of the Agricultural Produce<br \/>\nMarket Committee Rules, 1965 ( the Rules  for short) has been<br \/>\nviolated and it has not been appreciated. For that purpose, she<br \/>\nreferred to Rule 59(3) of the Rules, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> Any<br \/>\nlicensee who commits a breach of provisions of sub-rule (1) shall be<br \/>\ndeemed to have violated the conditions of the license.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tShe<br \/>\nsubmitted that the traders and the commission agents are required to<br \/>\nkeep the books of accounts and they are required to be submitted  for<br \/>\nexamination in the Office of the Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee as and when required. She, therefore, submitted that as it<br \/>\nhas not been done in the present case, not only Rule 59(3) has been<br \/>\nviolated, but, the terms and conditions of the license have also been<br \/>\nviolated, which the learned Court below has failed to appreciate. She<br \/>\nalso submitted that there is a clear violation of Section 8 of the<br \/>\nAct, which provides for the requirement of the license for operation<br \/>\nin the market. Section 8 provides that no person shall operate in the<br \/>\nmarket area or any part thereof except under and in accordance with<br \/>\nthe conditions of a license granted under this Act. She, therefore,<br \/>\nsubmitted that the accused herein have collected excessive charges,<br \/>\nwhich were not authorised, and as it was found by the complainant<br \/>\nduring inspection, the complaint came to be filed, on the basis of<br \/>\nwhich after recording the evidence, the learned Magistrate has<br \/>\nrecorded the order of acquittal, which is erroneous. It was submitted<br \/>\nthat the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material<br \/>\nand evidence on record with regard to illegal collection of the so<br \/>\ncalled hamal charges and other pala (to spread the<br \/>\nagricultural produce for inspection by the buyer) and again fill it<br \/>\nback in the grain bags.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>Y. S. Lakhani, learned Advocate for the accused, referred to the<br \/>\njudgement and also material and evidence on record and submitted that<br \/>\nthere is no violation of any rules, regulations or terms and<br \/>\nconditions of the license. It was submitted that the complainant<br \/>\nhimself  has admitted in the cross examination that he has not<br \/>\nrecorded the statements of hamals or traders or farmers from whom the<br \/>\nadditional charges is said to have been collected by the accused<br \/>\npersons. He, submitted that though it is alleged that the amount has<br \/>\nbeen illegally deducted by way of charges in violation of the rules<br \/>\nand regulations, there is no evidence collected or statement recorded<br \/>\nby the prosecution. He also referred to the deposition of the witness<br \/>\nexamined on behalf of the accused persons, which include the<br \/>\ntraders\/farmers, who used to sell the agricultural produce to the<br \/>\naccused persons, and referring to this evidence, he emphasised that<br \/>\nit has been specifically stated that the charges were in accordance<br \/>\nwith the norms and rules and it has also been paid to the hamals<br \/>\nfor the work done by them. Thus, all the persons from whom the amount<br \/>\nhas been collected have admitted that these charges were paid to the<br \/>\nhamals for doing their job of bringing the agricultural<br \/>\nproduce from the market yard to the place\/area in the Market<br \/>\nCommittee where the buyer would examine.  Pala  charges<br \/>\nare the charges paid to the hamals for spreading the<br \/>\nagricultural produce for the purpose of inspection by the buyer and<br \/>\nagain refilling it in the grain bags, for which the additional<br \/>\ncharges are to be paid by way of labour charges. Therefore, there is<br \/>\nno breach of any rules and regulations or conditions of the license,<br \/>\nmuch less no offence can be said to have been committed.  He<br \/>\nsubmitted that the judgement and order of the learned Court below<br \/>\nrecording acquittal is just and proper and it does not call for any<br \/>\ninterference. He also submitted that the complainant has failed to<br \/>\nestablish any charges for the offence under the Act and the Rules, as<br \/>\nalleged, and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the<br \/>\nimpugned judgement and order. He also submitted that it is well<br \/>\nsettled that even if there are two views, normally, the Court should<br \/>\nnot interfere with the order of the acquittal unless it is perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the rival submissions and also on appreciation and scrutiny<br \/>\nof the evidence, which has been referred to by both the sides, it is<br \/>\nrequired to be considered that whether it would call for any<br \/>\ninterference in the impugned judgement and order recording acquittal.<br \/>\nFrom the scrutiny of the evidence, it transpires that the charges<br \/>\nlevelled against the accused are with regard to illegal collection of<br \/>\nexcessive charges in violation of the rules, regulation and<br \/>\nconditions of the licence. It is evident from the deposition of the<br \/>\ncomplainant at Exh.33 that he has not recorded the statement of any<br \/>\nfarmer or any other person, though the charge about illegal<br \/>\ncollection of hamal charges (labour charges) has been<br \/>\nlevelled. Moreover, in the cross examination, it has been further<br \/>\nadmitted that no opportunity has been given to explain as to why such<br \/>\ncharges are claimed and without giving any such opportunity, the<br \/>\ncomplaint has been filed for the alleged offences. It transpires from<br \/>\nthe record that in support of their defence, the accused persons have<br \/>\nexamined Somabhai Ishwarbhai Patel and Dhulabhai Patel, who were<br \/>\nselling their agricultural produces to the accused persons. These<br \/>\nwitnesses have clearly stated in their deposition that the amount has<br \/>\nbeen paid towards the labour charges. Bhulabhai Patel has initially<br \/>\nstated in his deposition about different charges being levied for the<br \/>\nagricultural produces and thereafter, has stated that though the<br \/>\nnormal charges are either Re.1\/- or Rs.0.50, the accused had<br \/>\ncollected Re.1\/- per bag, but, has explained that this includes the<br \/>\namount for spreading the agricultural produces which is known as<br \/>\n pala  charges.  Pala  charges is the<br \/>\nadditional charge levied for spreading the agricultural produces for<br \/>\nthe purpose of inspection by the buyer in the market area and<br \/>\nthereafter, it is again required to be refilled in the grain bags.<br \/>\nTherefore, on the basis of this material and evidence on record, the<br \/>\nlearned Court below has recorded the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tThough<br \/>\nthe learned Advocate, Ms. Jhaveri, for the appellant, has referred to<br \/>\nthe grounds set  out in the memo of the appeal and as regards Section<br \/>\n8 of the Act, which provides for operation in the market area under<br \/>\nthe license, there is no quarrel that no person shall operate in the<br \/>\nmarket area without any license and also except in accordance with<br \/>\nthe terms and conditions of the license. There is no evidence,<br \/>\nhowever, as to any breach or violation of any of the terms or<br \/>\nconditions of the license. Though reliance is placed on Rule 59(3),<br \/>\nwhich refers to the fact that anyone who commits a breach of<br \/>\nprovisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 59 shall be deemed to have<br \/>\nviolated the conditions of the license,  it cannot be said on perusal<br \/>\nof the material and evidence on record that there is any such<br \/>\nviolation or breach of either rule or regulation or any terms and<br \/>\nconditions of the license.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tTherefore,<br \/>\non appreciation and scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is evident<br \/>\nthat the view taken by the learned Court below recording acquittal<br \/>\ncannot be said to be perverse, but, possible and this Court is in<br \/>\nagreement with the ultimate conclusions arrived at and recorded by<br \/>\nthe learned Court below. Therefore, it may not be further necessary<br \/>\nto elaborate on this aspect and scrutinise the evidence threadbare,<br \/>\nas observed by the Honourable Apex Court in its judgement in the case<br \/>\nof <a href=\"\/doc\/131360\/\">State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy &amp; Anr.,<\/a><br \/>\nreported in AIR  1981 SC 1417.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tMoreover,<br \/>\nit is well settled that if two views are possible or even if a<br \/>\ndifferent view is possible is not by itself sufficient to interfere<br \/>\nwith the order of acquittal. If two views are possible on the basis<br \/>\nof the evidence and the view taken by the trial Court is reasonable<br \/>\nand possible, then, normally, the High Court would not interfere with<br \/>\nthe order of acquittal. This principle has been laid down by the<br \/>\nHonourable Apex Court in its judgement in the case of Shingara<br \/>\nSingh vs. State of Haryana &amp; Anr., reported in AIR 2004<br \/>\nSC 124. The same view has been consistently followed in the<br \/>\nsubsequent judgement in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay<br \/>\nThakran &amp; Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755,<br \/>\n wherein it has been observed referring to the scope of interference<br \/>\nby the appellate court that the appellate court can review the<br \/>\nevidence and interfere with the order of acquittal only if the<br \/>\napproach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality<br \/>\nor decision is perverse or the Court has committed a manifest error<br \/>\nof law and ignored the material evidence on record. The same view has<br \/>\nalso been reiterated in the subsequent judgement of the Honourable<br \/>\nApex Court in the case  of   K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan,<br \/>\nreported in (2008) 1 SCC\n<\/p>\n<p>258.<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tTherefore,<br \/>\nin view of the discussion made herein above and the settled legal<br \/>\nposition, the impugned judgement and order dated 30th<br \/>\nDecember, 1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First<br \/>\nClass), Mehsana below in Criminal Case No.969 of 1992, is possible,<br \/>\nreasonable and on appreciation of evidence, broadly the conclusion<br \/>\narrived at is just and proper and therefore, this Court is not<br \/>\ninclined to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the learned<br \/>\nCourt below. Therefore, the impugned judgement and order passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Court below recording acquittal is hereby confirmed and<br \/>\nthe present appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, the present appeal hereby stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[R.\n<\/p>\n<p>H. Shukla, J.]<\/p>\n<p>kamlesh*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/67319\/1996 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 673 OF 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be [&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-225595","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>Patel vs Patel on 7 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\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-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=\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-25T13:31:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T13:31:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2078,\"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\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T13:31:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel vs Patel on 7 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":"Patel vs Patel on 7 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\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-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":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-25T13:31:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T13:31:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008"},"wordCount":2078,"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\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008","name":"Patel vs Patel on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T13:31:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel vs Patel on 7 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\/225595","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=225595"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225595\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}