{"id":25762,"date":"1966-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966"},"modified":"2018-10-29T10:48:30","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T05:18:30","slug":"state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966","title":{"rendered":"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR  778, \t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 249<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Dayal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVINAYA CHANDRA CHHOTA LAL PATNI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n05\/09\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  778\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 249\n CITATOR INFO :\n C\t    1967 SC1326\t (8)\n RF\t    1973 SC2200\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\nCriminal  Trial-Complainanl's  statement-Corroboration\twith\ndocuments,   statements\t  of   accused\t in   other   cases-\nAdmissibility-Handwriting expert, examination, if essential.\nIndian\tEvidence  Act, 1872 (1 of 1872),  s.  45-Handwriting\nExpert, evidence, if conclusive.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   respondent  was  charged\tunder  s.  408\tI.P.C.\t for\nmisappropriating  the  funds  of  his  employer.   The\tonly\nwitness\t to prove the entries and signatures on the  cheques\nwas  the  complainant (employer) and  corroboration  of\t his\nstatement  was sought from four documents two of which\twere\nsaid to be handed over to the complainant by the  respondent\nwhen the respondent's conduct was found out.  The other\t two\ndocuments were the, respondent's statement as are 'accused n\na  criminal case and an application given by the  respondent\nin another case.  The trial court convicted the\t respondent.\nOn  appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent  holding\nthat  (i)  it  was unsafe to rely on the  statement  of\t the\ncomplainant  alone. (ii) the documents were inadmissible  in\nevidence, and (iii) it was for the prosecution to example  a\nhandwriting  expert  to prove the disputed  handwriting,  In\nappeal by the State.\nHELD : The appeal must be allowed.\n(i)  The  complainant was competent to speak  about  entries\nand signatures, as the respondent had been his employee\t for\na  number  of  years.  He had many an occasion\tto  see\t the\nrespondent write and sign. [251 D-E]\n(ii) The documents were admissible in evidence.\nThe   documents\t handed\t over  by  the\trespondent  to\t the\ncomplainant  and  the statement of  the\t respondent  provide\nstrong\tcorroboration to the statement of  the\tcomplainant.\nIn  fact  the admission in the document\t together  with\t the\nstatement  could  also\tbe treated as a\t confession  of\t the\nrespondent  cashing the cheques, the subject matter  of\t the\ncharge in this case.\nThe statements of the respondent in the criminal case and in\nthe application in another case were admissible in  evidence\nto prove his admissions with respect to these facts. [253 H;\n254 F]\n(iii)\t  It was not essential that handwriting expert\tmust\nbe  examined  in a case to prove or  disprove  the  disputed\nwriting.   A  Court  is competent to  compare  the  disputed\nwriting of a person with others which are admitted or proved\nto  be\this  writings.\tIt may not be safe for\ta  Court  to\nrecord\ta  finding  about a person's writing  in  a  certain\ndocument merely on the basis of comparison, but a Court\t can\nitself compare the, writing in order to appreciate  properly\nthe  other evidence produced before it in that regard.\t The\nopinion of an handwriting expert is also relevant in view of\ns.  45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not\t conclusive.\nThe  sole evidence of a handwriting expert is  not  normally\nsufficient  for\t recording  a definite,\t finding  about\t the\nwriting being of a certain person or not. [251 G, H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No, 43  of<br \/>\n1964.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">250<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated<br \/>\nJuly  18, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal  Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 527 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>A.S.R.\tChari, M. V. Goswami AND B. R. G. K. Achar, for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>V. S. Nayyar, AND H. M. Chenoy, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRaghubar Dayal, J. This appeal, by special leave, is by\t the<br \/>\nState of Gujarat against the order of the Gujarat High Court<br \/>\nacquitting the respondent of the offence under s. 408 I.P.C.<br \/>\nThe  respondent\t was an employee of Nalinkant P.W.  1,\tsole<br \/>\nproprietor  of\tArora Trading Company, in 1959.\t He  was  in<br \/>\nservice from 1954.  It was his duty to withdraw moneys\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  Union Bank of India Ltd., with which Nalinkant  had  an<br \/>\naccount.  Nalinkant used to leave his cheque book with a few<br \/>\nblank  signed cheques with the respondent when he had to  go<br \/>\nout  of Ahmedabad, the place of business.   The\t prosecution<br \/>\ncase  is  that the respondent took advantage of\t such  blank<br \/>\ncheques,  filled them up and cashed them from the  Bank\t and<br \/>\nmisappropriated the amounts so received.  He made no entries<br \/>\nabout such receipts in the petty cash book maintained by the<br \/>\nfirm.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nalinkant  was the only witness to prove that  the  relevant<br \/>\nentries in the cheques and the signatures at the back of the<br \/>\ncheques\t in  token of having received the amounts  from\t the<br \/>\nBank were of the respondent.  Corroboration of his statement<br \/>\nwas  sought from four documents two of which were  documents<br \/>\nsaid to have been handed over to Nalinkant by the respondent<br \/>\nwhen the respondent&#8217;s ,conduct of committing breach of trust<br \/>\nwith respect to certain items was found out on December\t 14,<br \/>\n1959.\tThe  other  two\t documents  were  the\trespondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nstatement   as\tan  accused  in\t a  criminal  case  and\t  an<br \/>\napplication  given  by the respondent  in  another  criminal<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent admitted his being the employee of  Nalinkant<br \/>\nand  his duty to withdraw moneys from the Bank,\t but  denied<br \/>\nthe other relevant allegations to the effect that it was  he<br \/>\nwho filled in the cheques, withdrew the moneys from the bank<br \/>\nand misappropriated the amounts so received.<br \/>\nThe trial Court accepted the testimony of Nalinkant and\t con<br \/>\nevicted\t the respondent of the offence under S. 408 IPC\t for<br \/>\ncommitting  breach  of\ttrust with respect  to\tthe  amounts<br \/>\nwithdrawn in respect of three cheques.\tOn appeal, the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt\tacquitted   the\t respondent.   The   learned   Judge<br \/>\nconsidered  it\tunsafe\tto  rely  on  the  evidence  of\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant  alone  and held the various  documents  ,to  be<br \/>\ninadmissible in evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">251<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Before dealing with the contentions for the parties in\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  we  may\tmention\t that  the  State  of  Gujarat\t has<br \/>\ninstituted  five  other criminal appeals, Nos. 44 to  48  of<br \/>\n1964  against this very respondent against his acquittal  by<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  in  five other  cases\t in  regard  to\t his<br \/>\ncommitting  breach  of trust with respect to  various  other<br \/>\namounts\t withdrawn by him from the Bank by filling in  blank<br \/>\ncheques\t which\thad  been  left\t duly  signed  with  him  by<br \/>\nNalinkant.   The  High Court&#8217;s order of acquittal  in  those<br \/>\ncases  is  based on the same grounds on which the  order  of<br \/>\nacquittal  under  appeal is  based.   Consequently,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the  State  and  the  respondent\tmade   their<br \/>\nsubmissions with reference to the judgment of the High Court<br \/>\nin this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Chari, for the State, has argued that the High Court was<br \/>\nin error in holding the four documents to be inadmissible in<br \/>\nevidence  and  in expressing the view that it  was  for\t the<br \/>\nprosecution  to\t rely  upon the evidence  of  a\t handwriting<br \/>\nexpert\ton the question of the handwriting of a\t person,  as<br \/>\nthe handwriting of a person could be proved by other means.<br \/>\nIn  the present case it wag&#8217; proved by the complainant\tthat<br \/>\nthe various entries in the cheques and the signatures on the<br \/>\nreverse\t of the various cheques were in the  handwriting  of<br \/>\nthe  respondent.   The complainant was\tcompetent  to  speak<br \/>\nabout  them  as the respondent had been his employee  for  a<br \/>\nnumber\tof years.  The complainant had many an\toccasion  to<br \/>\nsee him write and sign.\n<\/p>\n<p>No reason has been given by the learned Judge for  differing<br \/>\nwith the view of the trial Court that the complainant was  a<br \/>\nreliable  witness.   The mere expression it is not  safe  to<br \/>\nrely  upon the evidence of the complainant alone in  a\tcase<br \/>\nlike this&#8217; is not a sufficient ground for differing from the<br \/>\ntrial  court  in its opinion about the\tcredibility  of\t the<br \/>\nwitness who had deposed before it.\n<\/p>\n<p>This  statement is not factually correct also as  the  trial<br \/>\nCourt had itself compared these writings and signatures with<br \/>\ncertain\t other writings which had been proved to be  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   A Court is competent to compare  the  disputed<br \/>\nwriting of a person with others which are admitted or proved<br \/>\nto  be\this  writings.\tIt may not be safe for\ta  Court  to<br \/>\nrecord\ta  finding  about a person&#8217;s writing  in  a  certain<br \/>\ndocument merely on the basis of comparison, but a Court\t can<br \/>\nitself compare the writings in order to appreciate  properly<br \/>\nthe  other evidence produced before it in that regard.\t The<br \/>\nopinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view  of<br \/>\ns.  45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not\t conclusive.<br \/>\nIt  has\t also  been  held  that\t the  sole  evidence  of   a<br \/>\nhandwriting expert is not normally sufficient &#8216;or  recording<br \/>\na  definite  finding about the writing being  of  a  certain<br \/>\nperson or not.\tIt follows that it is not essential that the<br \/>\nhandwriting  expert must be examined in a case to  prove  or<br \/>\ndisprove the dis<br \/>\nSup.  C1\/66-3<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">252<\/span><br \/>\nputed  writing.\t It was therefore not right for the  learned<br \/>\nJudge to consider it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the<br \/>\ncomplainant in a case like this, i.e., in a case in which no<br \/>\nhandwriting  expert  had  been examined in  support  of\t his<br \/>\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n<p>This is sufficient to set aside the order of the High  Court<br \/>\nacquitting   the   respondent  as  the\t evidence   of\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant,  when believed, is sufficient to establish\t the<br \/>\noffence\t against the respondent.  However, we shall  discuss<br \/>\nthe  admissibility  of the four documents as  we  understand<br \/>\nthat  it  is really for a decision on that  point  that\t the<br \/>\nState preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>One  of the documents is a slip on which, according  to\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant,  the respondent noted down the various  amounts<br \/>\nwhich  he  had\tmisappropriated, after he  had\tperused\t the<br \/>\ncounterfoils  of  the cheques.\tThe respondent did  this  on<br \/>\nDecember  14,  1959,  when  the\t complainant,  on   checking<br \/>\naccounts  with\tthe statement of account received  from\t the<br \/>\nBank,  found  that  the\t two did not  tally  and,  when,  on<br \/>\nquestioning, the respondent admitted having  misappropriated<br \/>\nsome  amounts.\t This  slip of paper mentions  a  number  of<br \/>\ncheques\t besides  certain  amounts  received  from   certain<br \/>\npersons.   With\t respect to the cheques, their\tnumber,\t the<br \/>\ndate  of  the  cheque  or of  withdrawal  and  the  amounts,<br \/>\npresumably  the\t amounts withdrawn, are\t noted.\t  The  three<br \/>\ncheques in the present case are mentioned in this list.\t  It<br \/>\nmay  be\t mentioned that most of the other cheques  were\t the<br \/>\nsubject\t matter of the proceedings in the other cases  which<br \/>\nhave given rise to the other five appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>The learned Judge rejected this document as inadmissible as,<br \/>\naccording  to  him, it did not convey any  meaning  and\t the<br \/>\ndocument could not be read along with the explanation  given<br \/>\nby  the\t complainant.  In this, we are of opinion  that\t the<br \/>\nlearned Judge was in error.  A statement of the\t complainant<br \/>\nabout  the circumstances in which this document was  written<br \/>\nand  what it purported to indicate, is admissible.  What  is<br \/>\nrelevant for the case is what is ultimately proved and\twhat<br \/>\nis proved would depend on the statement of the\tcomplainant.<br \/>\nHis statement, if believed, establishes that the particulars<br \/>\nnoted on this slip relate to sums which were admitted by the<br \/>\nrespondent  to have been misappropriated by him.   The\tvery<br \/>\nfact  that  the details of the three  cheques,\tthe  amounts<br \/>\ndrawn on which are said to have been misappropriated in this<br \/>\ncase, find a place in this list, bears out the statement  of<br \/>\nthe  complainant.  The entries in this list,  together\twith<br \/>\nthe  statement of the complainant, make out a confession  of<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t to  the effect that he\t had  withdrawn\t the<br \/>\namounts\t of  the cheques mentioned in the list and  that  he<br \/>\nmisappropriated\t  them.\t   This\t  document   therefore\t was<br \/>\nadmissible in evidence.\t In fact, the learned Judge himself,<br \/>\nafter  observing that the document could not be admitted  in<br \/>\nevidence even if it be in the handwriting of the respondent,<br \/>\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    253<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&#8221;  that\t document  can however be admitted as  part  of\t the<br \/>\nextra-judicial\tconfession  said to have been  made  to\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  other document consists of a statement written by\tthem<br \/>\nrespondent  on December 14, 1959, subsequent to his  writing<br \/>\nout the first document, viz., the list of the various  items<br \/>\nmisappropriated.   The\tcomplainant  has  stated  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  wrote  it on being asked by the  complainant  to<br \/>\ngive  him a statement in writing so that he may be  able  to<br \/>\npresent the same before the income-tax, authorities.  He has<br \/>\nfurther\t deposed  that it was a voluntary statement  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  and that no threat or promise had been held\t out<br \/>\nto   him  for  making  that  writing.\tThe  learned   Judge<br \/>\nobserved,.  with  respect to this document, that  there\t was<br \/>\nnothing\t in  that statement to show that it amounted  to  an<br \/>\nadmission, that there was no reference to the cheques  which<br \/>\nwere the subject matter of the charge in the case and that a<br \/>\ngeneral\t statement that he had committed breach of trust  by<br \/>\nwithdrawing  the amount of the cheques did not amount to  an<br \/>\nadmission.   Curiously enough, the learned Judge observed  a<br \/>\nlittle later:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Further,\t it  amounts to\t an  extra  judicial<br \/>\n\t      confession, and in a case like this it is\t not<br \/>\n\t      safe  to base a conviction on  extra  judicial<br \/>\n\t      confession.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  is\ttrue that there is no specification of\tthe  cheques<br \/>\nwhich were cashed by the respondent and the amounts received<br \/>\nand misappropriated.  This vagueness of a sort is  explained<br \/>\nby the statement of the complainant and by the proof of\t the<br \/>\nfirst\t document   which   gave   the\t  various    amounts<br \/>\nmisappropriated.   Apart  from\tthis,  the  statement  makes<br \/>\nreference to certain other facts which had a bearing on\t the<br \/>\nquestion  in issue in the present case.\t In  this  statement<br \/>\nthe respondent admits being entrusted from time to time with<br \/>\nblank  cheques\tbearing the  complainant&#8217;s  signatures,\t his<br \/>\ncommitting  breach of trust by withdrawing big amounts\tfrom<br \/>\nthe bank by exchanging those cheques, especially during\t the<br \/>\nten months prior to December 14, 1959 and his not  crediting<br \/>\nthe  amounts of those cheques, presumably, in the  accounts.<br \/>\nIt  further  mentions that the respondent,  had\t passed\t the<br \/>\nwriting out of his own sweet will and not on account of\t any<br \/>\nimproper pressure brought upon him.  He further states\tthat<br \/>\nhe  had given this writing willingly on his being  suspected<br \/>\nand  on one or two such cheques having been found  out.\t  In<br \/>\nour  opinion, this document is clearly an admission  of\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances which have a bearing on the accusation brought<br \/>\nagainst\t the respondent and is thus admissible in  evidence.<br \/>\nIn  fact,  the admission in the document together  with\t the<br \/>\nstatement  of  the  complainant can also  be  treated  as  a<br \/>\nconfession  by\tthe  respondent of  his\t cashing  the  three<br \/>\ncheques, the subject matter of the charge in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">254<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The learned Judge is not right in observing that it was\t not<br \/>\nsafe  to base a conviction on an extra-judicial\t confession.<br \/>\nThe  ,conviction  in this case was not based merely  on\t the<br \/>\nextra-judicial\tconfession.  There was the evidence  of\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant  against  the  respondent.\t The  extra-judicial<br \/>\nconfession  strongly  corroborated  that  statement.\tThis<br \/>\ndocument too, therefore, was admissible in evidence and\t had<br \/>\nbeen wrongly ignored by the learned Judge.<br \/>\nThe  other  two\t documents were\t considered  irrelevant\t and<br \/>\ntherefore  inadmissible\t in evidence.  One of  them  is\t the<br \/>\nstatement  of the respondent made under s. 342 Cr.  P.C.  on<br \/>\nSeptember  3,  1960, in a criminal case\t against  him.\t The<br \/>\nstatements  about  the\trespondent  being  a  clerk  of\t the<br \/>\ncomplainant  and  the admissions of the respondent  in\tthis<br \/>\nstatement about the complainant giving him cheques signed by<br \/>\nhim  so that he could, whenever necessary, draw the  amounts<br \/>\nand  about  his\t maintaining the petty\tcash  book  and\t the<br \/>\n,circumstances in which the defalcations were found out\t and<br \/>\nabout  the respondent giving the writing dated December\t 14,<br \/>\n1959  admitting\t the defalcations, are\tadmissions  for\t the<br \/>\npurposes  of the present case and as such this document\t was<br \/>\nadmissible in evidence to prove the respondent&#8217;s  admissions<br \/>\nwith respect to these facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>The fourth document was an application given by the  respon-<br \/>\ndent  on October 27, 1960 in another criminal  case  against<br \/>\nhim.   The document, as a whole, is not of much use  to\t the<br \/>\nprosecution,  but at the same time it cannot be held  to  be<br \/>\ninadmissible  as  it consists of  certain  statements  which<br \/>\ncould  be used as admissions in this ,case even\t though\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  had given such explanations with respect to\t his<br \/>\nadmissions as might have reduced their evidentiary &#8216;value.<br \/>\nWe  are\t of opinion that the documents handed  over  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  to the complainant on December 14, 1959 and\t the<br \/>\nstatement of the respondent dated September 3, 1960  provide<br \/>\nstrong corroboration to the statement of the complainant.<br \/>\nThe result is that this appeal must succeed.  We accordingly<br \/>\nallow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court\t and<br \/>\nrestore that of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Y.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">255<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 778, 1967 SCR (1) 249 Author: R Dayal Bench: Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RESPONDENT: VINAYA CHANDRA CHHOTA LAL PATNI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/09\/1966 BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR RAMASWAMI, V. [&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-25762","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 Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966 - 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-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966\" \/>\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 Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966 - 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-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-29T05:18:30+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=\"14 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-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T05:18:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2287,\"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-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966\",\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T05:18:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966\"}]},{\"@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 Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966 - 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-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-29T05:18:30+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966","datePublished":"1966-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T05:18:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966"},"wordCount":2287,"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-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966","name":"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T05:18:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-gujarat-vs-vinaya-chandra-chhota-lal-patni-on-5-september-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni on 5 September, 1966"}]},{"@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\/25762","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=25762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25762\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}