{"id":248581,"date":"2010-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-13T12:35:55","modified_gmt":"2016-10-13T07:05:55","slug":"panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4967\/2001\t 6\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4967 of 2001\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nPANCHMAHAL\nSHIRDI UTPADAKO NI ROOPANTHAR SEVA SAHAKARI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nBS PATEL for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR HH\nPARIKH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nHL PATEL ADVOCATES for\nRespondent(s) :\n3, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\tThe<br \/>\nshort facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner society had<br \/>\napplied for registration. It had applied for registration as<br \/>\nPanchmahal Sherdi Utpadako Ni Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. As the powers<br \/>\nfor registration of such society were with the Assistant Registrar,<br \/>\nCooperative Societies (Panchayat) &#8211; respondent No.3, the proposal was<br \/>\nsubmitted to him. However, it appears that thereafter the word<br \/>\n&#8216;Rupantar&#8217;, pending the proposal, was added between &#8216;Utpadakoni&#8217; and<br \/>\n&#8216;Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd.&#8217;. Not only that but the English<br \/>\ntranslation of Bye-law No.4 of the said society providing for the<br \/>\nobjects of the society is as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t To<br \/>\nundertake the process for conversion of sugarcane crop of the members<br \/>\nand to undertake incidental activities of the same and to arrange for<br \/>\ntransportation through contractor or directly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.\tIt<br \/>\nappears that the case of the petitioner is that in the said Bye-law<br \/>\nNo.4 before the registration, the word  excluding the sugar , for<br \/>\nconversion of the crop of sugarcane, was added. The Assistant<br \/>\nRegistrar granted registration, as per the petitioner, in the year<br \/>\n1998 on 24.09.1998. It appears that thereafter the Director, Sugar,<br \/>\nentered into the correspondence with the Registrar and ultimately the<br \/>\nmatter was taken up in suo<br \/>\nmoto revision<br \/>\nunder Section 155 by the Additional Registrar (Appeals). The<br \/>\nAdditional Registrar (Appeals), after<br \/>\ngiving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, accepted the<br \/>\nrevision to the extent that the registration is maintained but if the<br \/>\npetitioner society desirous to get the registration, the matter was<br \/>\nremanded to the competent authority by submitting the proposal and<br \/>\nuntil the same, the status quo was ordered to be maintained. The<br \/>\npetitioner carried the matter in revision before the State Government<br \/>\nand the State Government, vide order dated 30th<br \/>\nAugust, 2000, found that since it was pertaining to the manufacturing<br \/>\nof sugar, powers were with the Director, Sugar and not with the<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Panchayat) for<br \/>\nregistration of the Society and dismissed the Revision. it is under<br \/>\nthese circumstances the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">3.\tIt may<br \/>\nbe recorded that this Court by interim order had stayed the impugned<br \/>\norder and consequently the petitioner society is functioning since<br \/>\n1997.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">4.\tHeard<br \/>\nMr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.<br \/>\nH.H.Parikh, learned A.G.P. for the State Authorities and Mr. Utkarsh<br \/>\nSharma for H.L. Patel, Advocate for respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">5.\tIt<br \/>\nappears that in the name it did provide for the<br \/>\nword &#8216;Rupantar&#8217; and Bye-law No.4 also provides for undertaking the<br \/>\nactivities for conversion of crops of sugarcane. But, the pertinent<br \/>\naspect is that the same is by excluding the sugar. Therefore, even if<br \/>\nBye-law No.4 is to stand as it is, any activity by the petitioner<br \/>\nsociety for conversion of sugarcane crop into sugar is not<br \/>\npermissible. It was also declared by the learned counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the petitioner that the petitioner society was neither desirous<br \/>\nnor is desirous to undertake any activity of conversion of any crop<br \/>\nof sugarcane whether it is sugar or any other item. He also declared<br \/>\nthat if this Court continues the registration with the clarification<br \/>\nand the bar of implementation of the whole Bye-law No.4 in toto, the<br \/>\npetitioner has no objection.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">6.\tThe<br \/>\nperusal of the order passed by both the authorities and the affidavit<br \/>\nin reply filed on behalf of the State Government goes to show that<br \/>\nthe main aspect on the basis of which the powers have been exercised<br \/>\nis that the Bye-laws of the society did provide for manufacturing of<br \/>\nsugar and if such was the position the powers for registration was<br \/>\nwith the Director, Sugar and not with the Assistant Registrar. Had it<br \/>\nbeen a case where the Bye-law did provide for manufacturing<br \/>\nactivities of sugar, the matter might have stood on different<br \/>\nfooting. However, it<br \/>\nappears that even if Bye-law No.4 is considered<br \/>\nas it is, it excludes the activities of conversion of sugarcane crop<br \/>\nin sugar. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Bye-law No.4 provided<br \/>\nfor manufacturing activity of sugar for which the powers were with<br \/>\nthe Director, Sugar. Therefore the said ground as it is taken into<br \/>\nconsideration by both the authorities could not be said as with<br \/>\nproper application of mind or valid.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">7.\tIt is<br \/>\nhardly required to be stated that a mere nomenclature of any society<br \/>\nwould not confer jurisdiction upon the Registering Authority but<br \/>\nwhether the authority has power to register the society can be<br \/>\ndecided on the basis of its object as provided in the Bye-laws.<br \/>\nTherefore, the insertion of the word  Rupantar , though at the<br \/>\nfirst instance may give an impression of society for conversion of<br \/>\nsugarcane crop. It may be that the conversion of sugarcane crop may<br \/>\ninclude sugar but if considered with Bye-law No.4, it is specifically<br \/>\nexclude sugar. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner<br \/>\nsociety is registered with the object of manufacturing activity of<br \/>\nsugar from sugarcane merely because the word  Rupantar  is added<br \/>\nin its name.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">8.\tI<br \/>\nwould have further considered the matter on the aspect as to whether<br \/>\nthe activity for conversion of the sugarcane crop excluding the sugar<br \/>\nwould change the functioning of the society and as to whether the<br \/>\njurisdiction would fall with the Director, Sugar or would be<br \/>\navailable with Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society (Panchayat).<br \/>\nHowever, the learned counsel, as recorded hereinabove, declared<br \/>\nbefore the Court that the petitioner is not desirous to press for<br \/>\nimplementation of Bye-law No.4 if the registration is continued<br \/>\nexcluding Bye-law No.4 and this Court may order for deletion of<br \/>\nBye-law No.4 while maintaining the registration.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">9.\tIt<br \/>\nappears to the Court that the matter is pertaining to the grant of<br \/>\nregistration of a society. It may be that the proposal might be<br \/>\nsubmitted by any society with the proposed Bye-laws for registration<br \/>\nbut it is always open to the Registering Authority to delete Bye-law<br \/>\nif not in accordance with the policy or in contravention to the Act<br \/>\nor the Rules at the time when the registration is granted or the<br \/>\nregistration can be granted with a specific condition also. As the<br \/>\npresent petition is arising from the exercise of the powers by the<br \/>\nRegistering Authority and the higher Authority, the matter can be<br \/>\nconsidered for exclusion or deletion of the Bye-law while maintaining<br \/>\nthe registration of a society, more particularly when on behalf of<br \/>\nthe petitioner an unequivocal declaration is made that Bye-law No.4<br \/>\nmay be ordered to be deleted and the society may be permitted to<br \/>\nfunction as the society of  sugarcane manufacturer for supplying<br \/>\nsugarcane to the sugar manufacturer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">10.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid, the registration of the petitioner society can<br \/>\nbe maintained with two modifications. One is that it will remain as<br \/>\n Panchmahal Sherdi Utpadako Ni Seva Sehakari Mandli Ltd.  by name<br \/>\nand in the object clause, Bye-law No. 2(4) shall stand deleted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">11.\tIt<br \/>\nappears to the Court that if the registration is maintained as<br \/>\nobserved earlier, the grievance on the part of the Additional<br \/>\nRegistrar (Appeals) as well as of the State Government would not<br \/>\nsurvive and the power of registration of such society could be said<br \/>\nas was available with the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies<br \/>\n(Panchayat), who has in fact exercised the powers. This Court is<br \/>\ninclined to take the aforesaid view in view of three peculiar<br \/>\ncircumstances; one of continuation of the society since 1997; the<br \/>\nsecond is that no activity undertaken by the society for conversion<br \/>\nof any production of sugarcane, even if sugar is excluded and third<br \/>\nis that the declaration is also made on behalf of the society for<br \/>\ndeletion of the word  Rupantar  in the name and no objection for<br \/>\ndeletion of such Bye-law No. 2(4) providing for any activity of<br \/>\nconversion of sugarcane crop for any product.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">12.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the Additional<br \/>\nRegistrar (Appeals) and the State Government are quashed to the<br \/>\nextent that the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative<br \/>\nSocieties (Panchayat) for registration of the society shall operate<br \/>\nwith the name of the petitioner society as  Panchmahal Sherdi<br \/>\nUtpadako Ni Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd.  and in the object clause,<br \/>\nBye-law No. 2(4) shall stand deleted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">13.\tRespondent<br \/>\nNo.3 shall issue corrected registration certificate by way of<br \/>\ncompliance of order of this Court within a period of one month from<br \/>\nthe receipt of the order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">14.\tPetition<br \/>\nis allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.<br \/>\nNo order as to cost.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">[JAYANT<br \/>\nPATEL, J.]<\/p>\n<p>jani<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4967\/2001 6\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4967 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-248581","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>Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010 - 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\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-13T07:05:55+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=\"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\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-13T07:05:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"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\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-13T07:05:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010 - 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\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-13T07:05:55+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-13T07:05:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010"},"wordCount":1409,"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\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010","name":"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-13T07:05:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/panchmahal-vs-state-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Panchmahal vs State on 21 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248581","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=248581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}