{"id":233953,"date":"2000-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000"},"modified":"2015-08-25T12:55:30","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T07:25:30","slug":"state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, K.G. Balakrishnan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  601 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK..V. JOSEPH ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nUMESH C. BANERJEE &amp; K.G. BALAKRISHNAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2000 Supp(4) SCR 485<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>The State of Gujarat is in appeal against the judgments of the Gujarat High<br \/>\nCourt in these appeals. Whereas in Criminal Appeal No 601\/97, judgment in<br \/>\nits entirety has been challenged as totally without jurisdiction, the<br \/>\nCriminal Appeal No. 802\/1997, however, is having a limited challenge and<br \/>\nthe main grievance pertains to certain directions. For convenience sake the<br \/>\nCriminal Appeal No. 602\/1997 is taken up first for hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. K.N. Rawal, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India contended<br \/>\nthat the directions contained at paragraph 26.1 at page 68-69 of the<br \/>\npaperbook in particular the last few lines are not only unwarranted but<br \/>\nwholly without jurisdiction. For convenience sake the same is set out<br \/>\nhereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;In fact, after registering the offence, sanction must be<br \/>\nobtained within one month or at the most within two months, and thereafter,<br \/>\nthe chargesheet should be filed within fifteen days. If round about three<br \/>\nmonths if the chargesheet is not filed, Director General, Anti-Corruption<br \/>\nBureau should call for necessary explanation and take appropriate<br \/>\ndepartmental action against the concerned Investigation Officer and also<br \/>\nmust request the concerned departmental head to grant sanction immediately.<br \/>\nThe concerned sanctioning authority from the date of the receipt of papers<br \/>\nshall grant sanction within two months failing which he would be liable for<br \/>\nthe contempt proceedings of this Court in absence of reasonable<br \/>\nexplanation. It will also be a duty of the trial court to see that if it<br \/>\ncome across any belated granting of sanction and thereafter filing of the<br \/>\nchargesheet, appropriate observations are made against the concerned<br \/>\nofficials by forwarding a copy of his judgment and order at the highest to<br \/>\nSecretary level. Incidentally, it may also be stated that some of the<br \/>\nlearned PPs in charge of Corruption case do not cite Judgment of this Court<br \/>\nand Apex Court in favour of the prosecution. This is too sad!!..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned Additional Solicitor General highlighting the initiation of<br \/>\ncontempt proceedings in the absence of reasonable explanation from the<br \/>\nsanctioning authority in the event of there being a delay of two months,<br \/>\ncontended that judicial proceedings ought not to prompt the judicial<br \/>\nofficers to apprehend things and pass orders on apprehensions. It has<br \/>\nfurther been contended that as a matter of fact adaptation of procedure as<br \/>\nabove would not only denegrate the Judiciary itself but the confidence<br \/>\nreposed by the people to the Judiciary would be shaken and resultantly a<br \/>\ntotal anarchy in the judicial system.\n<\/p>\n<p>Incidentally, it may be noticed that use of temperate language and<br \/>\ntolerance are the two basic factors in any judicial approach and it is in<br \/>\nthis perspective Mr. Rawal contended that direction as noticed above to the<br \/>\ntrial court and use of strongest possible language as regards public<br \/>\nprosecutors cannot but be said to be rather unfortunate. A generalized<br \/>\nstatement ought not to be made since restraint is the greatest virtue that<br \/>\none may expect from a judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>We do find some justification in Mr. Rawal&#8217;s criticism of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>In this view of the matter, and since the portion indicated above is rather<br \/>\nharsh, the same stands expunged from the judgment. Save as above, we do not<br \/>\nwish to disturb the finding of the court in the judgment under appeal. We<br \/>\nhowever record our appreciation at the gesture of the learned Add.<br \/>\nSolicitor General since he himself submitted that the rest of the order by<br \/>\nreason of the subsequent event should not be disturbed in any way. The<br \/>\nappeal is, therefore, dismissed though however the High Court&#8217;s judgment<br \/>\nshall stand modified to the extent indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>Turning attention on to the Criminal Appeal No. 601\/1997 unfortunately<br \/>\nhowever, the judgment under appeal is more pathetically couched and we<br \/>\ncannot possibly lend concurrence to use of such strong language by the High<br \/>\nCourt. Significantly, the Indian Administrative Service Officers<br \/>\nAssociation as also the Union of India have made fervent appeals to this<br \/>\nCourt for being impleaded as parties so as to be able to advance<br \/>\nsubmissions before this Court at the final disposal of the appeal. We<br \/>\nhowever are not inclined to pass any order on such submission.\n<\/p>\n<p>In order however to appreciate the contentions raised in this matter the<br \/>\ndirections as contained in the judgment are set out hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(I) Portion of para 4 of the Vigilance Manual is in direct conflict with<br \/>\nthe statutory provisions viz. Sections 7, 13. 17, and 19 of the Prevention<br \/>\nof Corruption Act the same stands ultra vires and null and void.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) Once the proposal to grant sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention<br \/>\nof corruption Act is forwarded by the investigating agency to competent<br \/>\nauthorities then to Bureau the same in passing appropriate order beyond the<br \/>\nperiod of 2 months amounts to lack of devotion to duty and in absence of<br \/>\njust and proper explanation, the concerned officer would be liable not only<br \/>\nfor departmental proceedings but also for the contempt of Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)  It is declared that once the sanction is duly accorded by the<br \/>\ncompetent authority under Section 19 of the Act neither Vigilance<br \/>\nCommission not for the purpose any other Department of the State Government<br \/>\nhas any right, power whatsoever to direct the sanctioning authority either<br \/>\nto reconsider or withdraw or in any other way directing it to withdraw the<br \/>\nprosecution from the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)  The circular dated 13\/6\/1986 issued by the State Government evoking<br \/>\nthe earlier circular dated 31st May 1986 is ultra vires and are quashed and<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5) The charge levelled against Respondent that since he is a part and<br \/>\nparcel of the Government he had no business to confront the Government. The<br \/>\nsaid charge levelled by the Government is absolutely unfounded.\n<\/p>\n<p>(6) So far as the withdrawal of prosecution is concerned, concerned<br \/>\nofficers were involved in the process of illegal withdrawals the Chief<br \/>\nSecretary shall take immediate necessary departmental and criminal<br \/>\nproceedings against those officers.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Be it noted that the judgment under appeal was delivered by the Appellate<br \/>\nBench of the High Court on the basis of the letter written by the then<br \/>\nIncharge Anti-Corruption Bureau and the resultant effect of which is the<br \/>\ndeclaration of para 4 of the vigilance manual as ultra vires by reason of<br \/>\nthe same being said to be in direct conflict with the statutory provisions<br \/>\nof Sections 7, 13, 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. No notice<br \/>\nhowever was sent to the Advocate-General of the State before such a<br \/>\ndeclaration was effected and the same thus can not but be termed to be not<br \/>\nsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>While it is true that corruption cases against some influential public<br \/>\nservants ought not to be withdrawn at the instance of the Home Department<br \/>\nwithout any basis whatsoever, but in our view in terms of the doctrine of<br \/>\nforum convenience the High Court by itself cannot usurp the function in the<br \/>\nmanner as it has in the matter, rather forwarded the same to such of the<br \/>\nInstitutions as are available in the country for such inquiries. This is a<br \/>\nmatter of propriety rather than convenience. In any event, time factor also<br \/>\nhas a definite role to play in the event the matter is to be considered by<br \/>\nthe High Court itself. Needless to record that the arrear issue is already<br \/>\nvery high in the agenda and if matters like the present one are taken up by<br \/>\nthe Court then and in that event the Court itself shoulders the<br \/>\nresponsibility and resultantly further delay in disposals would be<br \/>\ninevitable. Expeditious disposal is the requirement and inordinate delay<br \/>\nshould always be avoided.\n<\/p>\n<p>In any event, we do feel however to record that the language used is rather<br \/>\nstrong and as noticed above restraint and use of temperate language ought<br \/>\nto be the basic criteria in the judicial approach. The violation of the<br \/>\nprinciple of natural justice also have been contended by reason of the fact<br \/>\nthat no notice was sent in the matter for the purposes of any explanation<br \/>\nneither any explanation obtained. The court passes an order on the basis of<br \/>\nthe available materials and upon affording the reasonable opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing and in the event there is any deprivation in regard thereto<br \/>\naffectation of the cause of justice would be the effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>In any event by reason of the factum of the non-availability of any<br \/>\nopportunity to any of the parties, we do not feel it inclined to proceed<br \/>\nwith the matter in any further detail. The words and phrases used also to<br \/>\nsay the least are not very apposite. The judgment thus in any event cannot<br \/>\nbe sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The order under<br \/>\nchallenge is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering however, the nature of the allegation levelled and by reason of<br \/>\nthe involvement of high public officials, we do feel it expedient to refer<br \/>\nthe matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for dealing with the eight<br \/>\ninstances of sanction of prosecution as adumberated in the judgment and<br \/>\ntake appropriate steps in accordance with law, preferably within a period<br \/>\nof one year from the date of communication of the order. Costs directed to<br \/>\nbe paid in terms of the judgment however shall not be recovered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000 Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, K.G. Balakrishnan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 601 of 1997 PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT RESPONDENT: K..V. JOSEPH ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/11\/2000 BENCH: UMESH C. BANERJEE &amp; K.G. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2000 Supp(4) SCR 485 The following [&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-233953","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>State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000 - 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\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T07:25:30+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T07:25:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1549,\"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\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000\",\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T07:25:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000 - 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\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T07:25:30+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T07:25:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000"},"wordCount":1549,"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\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000","name":"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T07:25:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-k-v-joseph-etc-on-9-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Gujarat vs K..V. Joseph Etc on 9 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/233953","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=233953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}