{"id":61184,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-07T04:34:02","modified_gmt":"2017-10-06T23:04:02","slug":"shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\/2414\/1998\t 1\/ 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. 2414 of 1998\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\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 ? Yes\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\nSHIVNARAYAN\nCHHEDILAL GUPTA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPH PATHAK for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS KRINA CALLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \nRULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.0\tBy<br \/>\nway of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to<br \/>\nthe respondent authorities to pay the  arrears of full salary and<br \/>\nadmissible allowances for the period of his suspension, i.e from<br \/>\n23.04.1982 to 20.10.1985 with interest @ 18 % per annum.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.0<br \/>\nIt is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Clerk in<br \/>\nthe Legal Department of respondent- State and was promoted as<br \/>\nAssistant in the year 1977. During the tenure of his service, he was<br \/>\nserved with charge-sheet dated 23.04.1982 and criminal case was filed<br \/>\nagainst him. He was acquitted from the charges levelled against him<br \/>\nby the Criminal Court. Thereafter departmental inquiry was conducted<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner pursuant to which, he was suspended from<br \/>\n23.04.1982 to 23.10.1985 and, therefore, his suspension period was<br \/>\nnot regularized. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner<br \/>\napproached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 805 of<br \/>\n1986 which was partly allowed. The petitioner has made representation<br \/>\nwhich was rejected vide order 12.12.1997. Hence, this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.0\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the petitioner has submitted that the  impugned order<br \/>\ndated 12.12.1997 passed by the respondent authority is not legal as<br \/>\nthe reasonings given for suspension are not just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the petitioner further contended that in departmental<br \/>\ninquiry, the petitioner had been exonerated. In support of his<br \/>\nsubmissions, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of<br \/>\nBrahma Chandra Gupta versus Union of India<br \/>\nreported<br \/>\nin AIR 1984 Supreme Court 380,<br \/>\n wherein in paragraph 6, it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.<br \/>\nMr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant wanted us to examine<br \/>\nthe score and ambit of Article 193 and Mr. Gujral learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe Union of India was equally keen on the other side to do the same<br \/>\nthing. We steer clear of both. The appellant was a permanent UDC who<br \/>\nhas already retired on superannuation and must receive a measure of<br \/>\nsocio-economic justice. Keeping in view the facts of the case that<br \/>\nthe appellant was never hauled up for departmental enquiry, that he<br \/>\nwas prosecuted and has been ultimately acquitted and on being<br \/>\nacquitted he was reinstated and was paid full salary for the period<br \/>\ncommencing from his acquittal and further that even for the period in<br \/>\nquestion the concerned authority has not held that the suspension was<br \/>\nwholly justified because 3\/4th of the salary is ordered<br \/>\nto be paid, we are of the opinion that the approach of the trial<br \/>\nCourt was correct and unassailable. The learned trial Judge on<br \/>\nappreciation of facts found that this is a case in which full amount<br \/>\nof salary should have been paid to the appellant on his reinstatement<br \/>\nfor the entire period. We accept that as the correct approach. We<br \/>\naccordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgement of first<br \/>\nappellate Court as well of the High Court and restore the one of<br \/>\ntrial Court with this modification that the amount decreed shall be<br \/>\npaid with 9 % interest p.a. from the date of suit till realization<br \/>\nwith costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.2\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the petitioner submitted that an order adjusting the<br \/>\nsuspension period from 23.04.1982 to 20.10.1985 against the leave<br \/>\navailable could not have been passed as the same would tantamount to<br \/>\npunishment. In the departmental inquiry, the petitioner has been<br \/>\nexonerated. Therefore, under the B.C.S. R Rules, 1959, the petitioner<br \/>\nshould be paid full salary and allowances during the period of his<br \/>\nsuspension from 23.04.1982 to 20.10.1985. Hence, in the above Rule,<br \/>\nit clearly lays down that if a Government Servant who is placed under<br \/>\nsuspension pending departmental proceedings his suspension period<br \/>\nmust be treated as the duty and he must be paid full pay and<br \/>\nallowances to which, he would have been entitled. The petitioner was<br \/>\nreinstated in 17.10.1985. The competent authority pay the full salary<br \/>\nand allowances to which, it would have been entitled during<br \/>\n23.04.1982 to 20.10.1985. Learned advocate for the petitioner has<br \/>\nfurther relied on the decision in case of Ramsinhji<br \/>\nViraji Rathod, Parmanand Society versus the State of Gujarat  1971<br \/>\nLAB I.C 923 (v 4 C 219) <\/p>\n<p>wherein in paragraph 4 held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 4.<br \/>\nRule 152 of the B.C.S. Rules provides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 152.<br \/>\n(1) When a Government servant who has been\tdismissed, removed or<br \/>\nsuspended  is reinstated, the\tauthority competent to order the<br \/>\nreinstatement shall\tconsider and make a specific order-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a)\tregarding<br \/>\nthe pay and allowances to be paid to the\tGovernment servant for the<br \/>\nperiod of his absence from\tduty; and<\/p>\n<p>\t(b)\twhether<br \/>\nor not the said period shall be treated as a\tperiod spent on duty.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t(2)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Where the authority mentioned in clause (I) is of\topinion that the<br \/>\nGovernment servant has been fully\texonerated or, in the case of<br \/>\nsuspension, that it was\twholly unjustified, the Government servant<br \/>\nshall be\tgiven the full pay and allowances to which he would\thave<br \/>\nbeen entitled had he not been dismissed, removed \tor suspended, as<br \/>\nthe case may be.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThough<br \/>\nthe show cause notice, dated February 18,\t1967, Annexure J to the<br \/>\npetition uses the words\t hounourable acquittal  in substance what<br \/>\nappears to\thave been in the mind of the authorities concerned is the<br \/>\n\tconcept of full exoneration set out in sub-rule (2) of Rule \t152 of<br \/>\nthe Bombay Civil Services Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.3\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the petitioner further relied on the the decision in<br \/>\ncase of Kantaben Fulabhai Khant, w\/d of deceased Fulabhai<br \/>\nversus District Development Officer and Anr- 2008(2) G.L.H (UJ) 9<br \/>\ni.e in Special Civil Application No. 1476 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.0\tPursuant<br \/>\nto the departmental inquiry and order which was passed, the learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the petitioner strongly relied on the decision rendered<br \/>\nin case of K.D. Desai versus High Court of<br \/>\nGujarat reported in<br \/>\n2009 (3) G.L.H 631 wherein Division Bench of this Court has<br \/>\nheld in Paragraph 15  as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 15.<br \/>\nNow we deal with the authorities cited by Mr. Girish \tPatel, learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nGirjaprasad Nagardas Dave v. The State of \tGujarat, 1971 Labour<br \/>\nand Industrial Cases 921, a \tDivision Bench of this Court<br \/>\nconsidered the same Rule \t152 and held as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t It<br \/>\nis, therefore, essential that the Competent Authority \tmaking a<br \/>\nspecific order under Rule 152 must, in cases of \tsuspension, apply<br \/>\nthe mind also to the question whether \tor not suspension was wholly<br \/>\nunjustified, even if it comes \tto the conclusion that the concerned<br \/>\nGovernment\tservant has not been dully exonerated and form an\topinion<br \/>\nwith regard to the same and make an\tappropriate order under the said<br \/>\nrule in conformity with\tthe said opinion. An order made without due<br \/>\ncompliance\twith the aforesaid requirements must fail on the<br \/>\nground\tthat it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind<br \/>\nto\tone of the relevant factors which must enter into\taccount before<br \/>\nmaking a specific order under the said \trule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe facts of that case, the Court held that before\tmaking the<br \/>\nimpugned order, the Competent Authority\thas not at all applied its<br \/>\nmind to the above aspects of the \tmatter. The Court, therefore,<br \/>\nquashed the order as\tsuffering from vice of non-application of mind.<br \/>\nThe Court \talso left it open to the Competent Authority to take<br \/>\nsuch\tproceedings afresh in the matter as it thinks proper after<br \/>\n\tissuing a notice to the petitioner and make a specific\torder under<br \/>\nRule 152 in accordance with law and in light \tof the observations<br \/>\nmade in the judgmment. The\tdecision, therefore, does not support the<br \/>\ncase of the\tpetitioners but only reiterates what has been held in the<br \/>\n\tdecisions already considered hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.0\tMrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader has raised contention<br \/>\nthat the authority after considering the remand pursuant to the order<br \/>\nof this Court  dated 12.08.1997 passed in Special Civil Application<br \/>\nNo. 805 of 1986 has reconsidered the argument for reinstatement of<br \/>\nthe petitioner.  There is no justification to consider the<br \/>\nsuspension period as on duty and same was treated as leave since the<br \/>\nsame was not suspension is not justified.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.0\tAs<br \/>\na result of hearing and perusal of the documents on record, the<br \/>\nsuspension order of the petitioner dated 23.04.1982 shows that the<br \/>\npetitioner was required to be placed under suspension on account of a<br \/>\ncriminal case lodged against him and in view of breach of Rule 3(i)\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) and (iii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971.<br \/>\nThe petitioner was acquitted and in view of the order passed by this<br \/>\nCourt  dated 12.08.1997 passed in Special Civil Application No. 805<br \/>\nof 1986, the argument for reinstatement of the petitioner has been<br \/>\nreconsidered. The case of the petitioner is that serious allegations<br \/>\nwere made against the petitioner. The petitioner misbehaved with the<br \/>\nSuperior Officer which is serious misconduct on the part of the<br \/>\npetitioner. The order of suspension of the petitioner is just and<br \/>\nproper. It may be ultimately because of lack of non-availability of<br \/>\nthe witness, he must have been acquitted. The investigation officer<br \/>\nhas not produced the evidence as observed by the trial Court in the<br \/>\ncriminal case but it is entirely at the discretion of the employer to<br \/>\nconsider the question regarding the period of suspension. The view<br \/>\ntaken by the authority regarding the suspension period as on leave is<br \/>\njust and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.0\tThe<br \/>\npetition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Rule is<br \/>\ndischarged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands<br \/>\nvacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(K.S.JHAVERI,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>niru*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2414\/1998 1\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2414 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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-61184","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>Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011 - 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\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-06T23:04:02+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\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T23:04:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1538,\"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\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-06T23:04:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011 - 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\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-06T23:04:02+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\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T23:04:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011"},"wordCount":1538,"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\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011","name":"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-06T23:04:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shivnarayan-vs-state-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shivnarayan vs State on 30 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/61184","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=61184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}