{"id":28183,"date":"2008-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-17T04:58:11","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T23:28:11","slug":"bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A Kabir<\/div>\n
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                             1\n\n\n           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n          CRIMINAL APPEAL No.        of 2008\n\n      (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.295 of 2007)\n\n\n\nBharat Parikh                          ...Appellant\n\n\n\n                         Vs.\n\n\n\nC.B.I. & Anr.                          ...Respondents\n\n\n\n                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Two legal propositions fall for consideration<\/p>\n
     in this appeal.   The first proposition deals<\/p>\n
     with the question as to whether having framed<\/p>\n
     charges against an accused, a Magistrate has<\/p>\n
     the jurisdiction in law to recall such order on<\/p>\n
     the ground that the prosecution had failed to
\n                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
     comply with the provisions of Section 207 of<\/p>\n
     the Code of Criminal Procedure.                  An ancillary<\/p>\n
     question will also arise as to whether such<\/p>\n
     failure      would    render     the    framing      of    charge<\/p>\n
     void.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The second proposition raises a question as to<\/p>\n
     whether in exercise of its inherent powers, the<\/p>\n
     High Court could quash the charges framed and<\/p>\n
     acquit    the     accused   on    account     of     such      non-<\/p>\n
     compliance with the provisions of Sections 207<\/p>\n
     and 238 of the aforesaid Code.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The appellant herein is the original accused<\/p>\n
     No.5    in   a    special      case    pending      before     the<\/p>\n
     learned Special Judge, Mumbai in which charge<\/p>\n
     was framed against him and the other accused<\/p>\n
     persons on 13th December, 1996 under Sections<\/p>\n
     120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A<\/p>\n
     of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read<\/p>\n
     with     Section      13(1)(d)of       the   Prevention          of<\/p>\n
     Corruption Act, 1988.            Though such charge had<\/p>\n
     been     framed      against     the    appellant         on   13th<\/p>\n
     December,        1996,   after    about      five    years       an
\n                                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
     application was made on behalf of the appellant<\/p>\n
     in     2001,    before    the    Special        Court    seeking<\/p>\n
     directions for production of certain documents<\/p>\n
     in the custody of the prosecution.                      By order<\/p>\n
     dated 27th August, 2001, the said application<\/p>\n
     was allowed and the prosecution was directed to<\/p>\n
     produce all the documents referred to in the<\/p>\n
     statement of one Mr. P.K.R.K. Menon made on<\/p>\n
     24th February, 1993.            The said documents were<\/p>\n
     ultimately produced in 2002. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
     appellant filed an application for re-opening<\/p>\n
     the proceedings and for discharge, which was<\/p>\n
     rejected by the learned Special Judge by his<\/p>\n
     order dated 1st April, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
5.   In rejecting the said application, the learned<\/p>\n
     Special Judge relied primarily on the decision<\/p>\n
     of this Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji<\/p>\n
     Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a> [AIR 1979 SC<\/p>\n
     94] in which this Court had held that once a<\/p>\n
     charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power<\/p>\n
     under Section 227 or any other provision of the<\/p>\n
     Code     of    Criminal    Procedure       to     cancel    such
\n                                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
     charge and to discharge the accused.                      It was<\/p>\n
     also observed that once charge has been framed<\/p>\n
     and   the     accused       pleads        not     guilty,       the<\/p>\n
     Magistrate    is    required       to     proceed      with     the<\/p>\n
     trial to its logical end.            In other words, once<\/p>\n
     a charge is framed in a warrant case instituted<\/p>\n
     either on complaint or a police report, the<\/p>\n
     Magistrate    has     no    power    under       the     Code   to<\/p>\n
     discharge    the    accused.         He    can,    thereafter,<\/p>\n
     either acquit or convict the accused.<\/p>\n
6.   The learned Special Judge also relied another<\/p>\n
     decision    of     this    Court    in     State    of    Andhra<\/p>\n
     Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and Anr.<\/a> [AIR<\/p>\n
     2004 SC 3967], where similar views have been<\/p>\n
     expressed.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Aggrieved    by    the     said    order    of     the   learned<\/p>\n
     Special      Judge,        the     appellant        filed        an<\/p>\n
     application under Section 482 of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
     Code before the Bombay High Court for quashing<\/p>\n
     the   proceedings     of     the    Special       case   pending<\/p>\n
     before the learned Special Judge, Mumbai and<\/p>\n
     also for quashing the order dated 1st April,
\n                                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
     2006,    whereby       the       learned      Special      Judge    had<\/p>\n
     rejected       the      appellant’s              application        for<\/p>\n
     discharge.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Taking     a    view,       which       was      similar    to     that<\/p>\n
     expressed      by     the    learned       Special       Judge,     the<\/p>\n
     Bombay     High      Court        dismissed        the     revisional<\/p>\n
     application upon holding that there had been<\/p>\n
     sufficient compliance by the prosecution with<\/p>\n
     the   requirement           of    law    and     that    failure     to<\/p>\n
     produce the documents referred to in the order<\/p>\n
     dated 27th August, 2001 would not nullify the<\/p>\n
     proceedings          from    the        stage     of     framing     of<\/p>\n
     charge.        On a reference to the decision in<\/p>\n
     Ratilal Bhanji Mithani’s case (supra), the High<\/p>\n
     Court took the view              that since charge had been<\/p>\n
     framed, the case would have to go for trial as<\/p>\n
     no    case     had    been       made      out     for     exercising<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code at<\/p>\n
     the said stage.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the<\/p>\n
     orders passed by the learned Special Judge, as<\/p>\n
     also the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
10. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted by<\/p>\n
    learned senior counsel, Mr. Amit Desai, that<\/p>\n
    the High Court had misapplied the decision in<\/p>\n
    Ratilal Bhanji Mithani’s case (supra) as it was<\/p>\n
    the case of the appellant that non-compliance<\/p>\n
    of the provisions of Section 207                       of the Code<\/p>\n
    of Criminal Procedure had vitiated the entire<\/p>\n
    proceedings, including framing of charge. He<\/p>\n
    submitted       that        such     non-compliance                was<\/p>\n
    antithetical          to    the     concept       of   a   fair    and<\/p>\n
    speedy trial as contemplated in Article 21 of<\/p>\n
    the Constitution as was held in the case of<\/p>\n
    Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration<\/a> (1996) 9<\/p>\n
    SCC    766.     It    was        submitted    that     the   entire<\/p>\n
    proceedings          were    vitiated        on   such     score    as<\/p>\n
    well. It was urged that the High Court had<\/p>\n
    erred    in     not    exercising       its       inherent    power<\/p>\n
    under Section 482 of the Code to quash the<\/p>\n
    entire     proceedings,              including         framing      of<\/p>\n
    charge.\n<\/p>\n
11. In    support    of        his    aforesaid       submission,      Mr.<\/p>\n
    Desai referred to the decision of a seven-Judge
\n                                                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
   Bench of this Court in P. Ramachandra Rao vs.<\/p>\n
   State of Karnataka,<\/a> (2002) 4 SCC 578, wherein<\/p>\n
   the     question       of     speedy      trial          had        been<\/p>\n
   considered      and     having      regard        to    the     views<\/p>\n
   expressed       in    Abdul      Rehman      Antulay’s          case,<\/p>\n
   (1992) 1 SCC 225, it was held that if the delay<\/p>\n
   in    concluding       a    trial      was        oppressive          or<\/p>\n
   unwarranted, it would violate Article 21 of the<\/p>\n
   Constitution and such trial or such proceedings<\/p>\n
   would be liable to be terminated.<\/p>\n
12. Reference was also made to a decision of a<\/p>\n
   three-Judge         Bench   in   State       of    Orissa           vs.<\/p>\n
   Debendra Nath Padhi,<\/a> (2005) 1 SCC 568, wherein<\/p>\n
   while called upon to answer the wider question<\/p>\n
   as to whether at the time of framing charge the<\/p>\n
   trial court can consider material filed by the<\/p>\n
   accused, reference was disapprovingly made to<\/p>\n
   an    earlier    two-Judges       Bench      decision          in    the<\/p>\n
   case of Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration.<\/p>\n
   In<\/a> fact, the matter was heard on a reference as<\/p>\n
   there    was    a    conflict     of   views           between      two
\n                                                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
   Benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction. In Satish<\/p>\n
   Mehra’s case (supra) it was held that at the<\/p>\n
   time of framing of charge the trial court was<\/p>\n
   competent      to   consider      material     produced         on<\/p>\n
   behalf of the accused in the light of Section<\/p>\n
   227     of    the   Code     which       provides         for   an<\/p>\n
   opportunity of being heard to the accused so<\/p>\n
   that he was not unnecessarily made to undergo<\/p>\n
   the entire gamut of a trial which could be<\/p>\n
   concluded     at    the   time   of    framing       of    charge<\/p>\n
   itself, if the trial court was satisfied upon<\/p>\n
   the material produced both by the prosecution<\/p>\n
   and the accused that             there       was no need to<\/p>\n
   proceed to conduct the trial. The said view<\/p>\n
   taken    in   Satish      Mehra’s     case    was,    however,<\/p>\n
   overruled in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case.<\/p>\n
13. Reference was lastly made to a decision of a<\/p>\n
   single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in<\/p>\n
   Dhananjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan,<\/p>\n
   2006    Crl.L.J.    3873,    where     the    principles        of<\/p>\n
   natural justice were held to be an integral<\/p>\n
   part of a fair trial in the context of Article
\n                                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    21   of   the    Constitution        and    the    Universal<\/p>\n
    Declaration      of    Human   Rights      adopted    by    the<\/p>\n
    United Nations on 10th December, 1948.<\/p>\n
14. Appearing       for      the      Central      Bureau        of<\/p>\n
    Investigation         (hereinafter      referred      to     as<\/p>\n
    `CBI’), learned         Additional Solicitor General,<\/p>\n
    Mr. Mohan Parasaran, submitted that a similar<\/p>\n
    application      (Criminal     Application        No.1129    of<\/p>\n
    1997) made by the appellant had been dismissed<\/p>\n
    on 2nd November, 1998, as none of the parties<\/p>\n
    were represented at the time of hearing of the<\/p>\n
    application.      He    also     submitted    that    having<\/p>\n
    regard to the decision in Debendra Nath Pathi’s<\/p>\n
    case(supra)       and     also     in      Ratilal    Bhanji<\/p>\n
    Mithani’s case (supra), the earlier ambiguity<\/p>\n
    had been removed and it had been clearly laid<\/p>\n
    down that not only could the trial court not<\/p>\n
    recall its order framing charge, which would<\/p>\n
    result in       re-opening of the proceedings, but<\/p>\n
    it   could      not     also   consider      the     material
\n                                                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
    produced on behalf of the accused at the time<\/p>\n
    of framing charge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15. Of the two propositions raised in this appeal,<\/p>\n
    the     first     proposition         has    been     completely<\/p>\n
    answered in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
    regarding the trial court’s power to recall its<\/p>\n
    order     framing       charge    against        an     accused.<\/p>\n
    Having regard to the language of Sections 207<\/p>\n
    and    227   of   the    Code    of    Criminal       Procedure,<\/p>\n
    while framing charges the trial court can only<\/p>\n
    look     into     the    materials          produced    by   the<\/p>\n
    prosecution while giving an opportunity to the<\/p>\n
    accused to show that the said materials were<\/p>\n
    insufficient for the purpose of framing charge.<\/p>\n
    The    decision    in    Satish       Mehra’s    case    (supra)<\/p>\n
    having been overruled in Debendra Nath Padhi’s<\/p>\n
    case (supra) the contention of Mr. Desai that<\/p>\n
    the Magistrate should have re-opened the matter<\/p>\n
    on the basis of the documents produced by the<\/p>\n
    prosecution at the instance of the accused, is<\/p>\n
    no     longer      res-integra.         The     question      of
\n                                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
    discharge       by    the     learned     Magistrate         after<\/p>\n
    framing of charge does not, therefore, arise,<\/p>\n
    notwithstanding the submissions advanced with<\/p>\n
    regard to denial of natural justice and a fair<\/p>\n
    and speedy trial as contemplated under Article<\/p>\n
    21    of    the       Constitution,        which       have     no<\/p>\n
    application       whatsoever       to    the   facts    of    this<\/p>\n
    case.\n<\/p>\n
16. With regard to the second proposition regarding<\/p>\n
    the High Court’s powers to look into materials<\/p>\n
    produced on behalf of or at the instance of the<\/p>\n
    accused for the purpose of invoking its powers<\/p>\n
    under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the<\/p>\n
    charges framed, it has to be kept in mind that<\/p>\n
    after the stage of framing charge evidence has<\/p>\n
    to be led on behalf of the prosecution to prove<\/p>\n
    the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to<\/p>\n
    the   charge      and\/or     charges     and     claims   to    be<\/p>\n
    tried.     It        is     only    in     the     exceptional<\/p>\n
    circumstances enumerated in State of Haryana<\/p>\n
    vs. Bhajan Lal<\/a> 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, that a<\/p>\n
    criminal proceeding may be quashed to secure
\n                                                                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
    the ends of justice, but                         such a stage will<\/p>\n
    come only after evidence is led, particularly<\/p>\n
    when the prosecution had produced sufficient<\/p>\n
    material for charges to be framed. As observed<\/p>\n
    in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case (supra) at the<\/p>\n
    stage    of    framing          charge       roving         and     fishing<\/p>\n
    inquiry       is    impermissible                and    a    mini        trial<\/p>\n
    cannot be conducted at such stage. At the stage<\/p>\n
    of framing of charge the submissions on behalf<\/p>\n
    of    the    accused          has     to    be     confined         to     the<\/p>\n
    material produced by the investigating agency.<\/p>\n
    The accused will get an opportunity to prove<\/p>\n
    the     documents            subsequently          produced         by     the<\/p>\n
    prosecution on the order of the Court, but the<\/p>\n
    same    cannot          be    relied       upon        to   re-open       the<\/p>\n
    proceedings once charge has been framed or for<\/p>\n
    invocation         of    the     High      Court’s          powers       under<\/p>\n
    Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/p>\n
17. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with<\/p>\n
    the orders passed by the learned special Judge<\/p>\n
    or     the    High           Court,        and     the       appeal       is,<\/p>\n
    therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
                     ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                     (Altamas Kabir)<\/p>\n
                     ………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                     (Mukundakam Sharma)
\nNew Delhi,<\/p>\n
Dated:July 14,2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008 Author: A Kabir Bench: Altamas Kabir, Mukundakam Sharma 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.295 of 2007) Bharat Parikh …Appellant Vs. C.B.I. & Anr. …Respondents J U D […]<\/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-28183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-16T23:28:11+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T23:28:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1808,\"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\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T23:28:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-16T23:28:11+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T23:28:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008"},"wordCount":1808,"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\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008","name":"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T23:28:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-parikh-vs-c-b-i-and-anr-on-14-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Parikh vs C.B.I. And Anr on 14 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28183","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=28183"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28183\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}