{"id":83205,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-05T09:04:15","modified_gmt":"2018-10-05T03:34:15","slug":"rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/1737\/2010\t 13\/ 13\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\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1737 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1903 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nRAJKUMAR\nSANGAIAH PANDIYAN - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPARTHIV A BHATT for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nYN RAVANI for Respondent(s) : 2, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 3 -\n4. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
As
\n\tin both the matters common questions arise for consideration, they
\n\tare being considered by this common order.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioners
\n\tof respective both the petitions are co-accused in the charge-sheet
\n\tfiled by CBI against various alleged offenders in connection with
\n\tI-C.R.No.5\/05 dated 16.07.2007 of ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad and
\n\tthereafter, was registered as separate complaint by CBI after the
\n\tinvestigation was transferred under the orders of the Apex Court to
\n\tCBI.  The charge-sheet against the accused concerned including the
\n\tpetitioners herein is filed in Special Case No.5\/10 before the
\n\tlearned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special CBI Court
\n\tNo.2, Ahmedabad (Rural).  The petitioners of Special Criminal
\n\tApplication No.1737\/10 is the original accused No.2 whereas
\n\tpetitioners of Special Criminal Application No.1903\/10 are original
\n\taccused No.1 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as
\n\t“petitioners\/co-accused” for the sake of convenience).
\n\tIt appears that the original accused No.12 Shri N.K.Amin after
\n\tfiling of the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate applied for
\n\tpardon under section 305 of the Cr.P.C. by showing a desire to
\n\tdisclose the whole of the circumstance within his knowledge.  The
\n\toriginal accused Nos. 1 and 5 resisted the said application under
\n\tsection 306 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate by filing
\n\tobjections and at that stage, the reference was made by the learned
\n\tMagistrate under section 395 of Cr.P.C. to this Court on the aspects
\n\tof constitutional validity of section 306 of the Cr.P.C.  vide order
\n\tdated 26.08.2010.  At that stage, the CBI, respondent No.2 herein,
\n\tchallenged the aforesaid order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the
\n\tlearned Magistrate for making reference under section 395 of the
\n\tCr.P.C. to this Court.  We may record that the reference made by the
\n\tlearned Magistrate was numbered as Criminal Reference No.2\/10.  This
\n\tCourt vide its judgement dated 07.10.2010 in a petition preferred by
\n\tCBI challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate for
\n\tmaking reference being Cr.Misc. Application No.10311\/10 after
\n\thearing both the sides  had concluded at para 56 and observed that
\n\tthe power under section 306 of Cr.P.C. are not unguided or arbitrary
\n\tand the say of the other co-accused are not required to be
\n\tconsidered nor they have any role to play when the question is to be
\n\tconsidered by the learned Magistrate for grant of pardon, but the
\n\tco-accused will have right to cross-examine the accomplice witness
\n\tif his statement has been recorded and a further right to
\n\tcross-examine in the event such statement is used as an evidence at
\n\tthe time of trial.  It was also observed that the learned Magistrate
\n\tis required to decide the application under section 306 of the
\n\tCr.P.c by maintaining the spirit of advancement of interest of
\n\tjustice.  It was also observed that the order by the learned
\n\tMagistrate by making reference is by way of misdirection of exercise
\n\tof the power and condition for making reference have not been
\n\tsatisfied <\/p>\n
Ultimately,
\n\tthe order passed by the learned Magistrate was quashed and set aside
\n\tin exercise of the power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
\n\tConsequently, thereafter by a separate order, Reference No.2\/10 also
\n\tcame to be disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe meantime, it appears that Special Criminal Application
\n\tNo.1737\/10 is filed on 08.09.2010 and Special Criminal Application
\n\tNo.1903\/10 is filed on 27.09.2010 before this Court for challenging
\n\tthe constitutional validity of section 306 of Cr.P.C. contending
\n\tthat the same is violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the
\n\tConstitution of India by invoking the power of this Court under
\n\tArticle 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave heard Mr.S.B. Vakil with Ms. Archana Archarya and Mr.B.B. Naik
\n\twith Mr. Parthiv Bhatt, learned counsels appearing for the
\n\trespective petitioners.  Mr.Y.N. Ravani, learned Special Counsel for
\n\tCBI and Mr.K.P.Raval, learned APP for State of Gujarat have appeared
\n\tupon the advance copy.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\twas contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respective
\n\tpetitioners that the basis of the present petitions is the breach of
\n\tfundamental rights under Constitution  and when such question is
\n\traised of constitutional validity, it is the duty of the Court to
\n\tdecide the questions of fundamental right.  It was submitted that
\n\twhen the breach of fundamental right is apprehended by the
\n\tpetitioners, they are well within their rights to prefer petition
\n\tand there is no suggestion or no question is raised on the aspect
\n\tthat the petitions are frivolous.  On the aspect of prejudice, it
\n\twas contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respective
\n\tpetitioners that the petitioners need not wait till the decision is
\n\tpronounced by the learned Magistrate under section 306 of Cr.P.C.
\n\tupon the application made by one of the co-accused Shri Amin,
\n\taccused No.12.  The petitioners did take steps for preventing the
\n\tprejudice by submitting objections to the application and the
\n\tlearned Magistrate had made the reference but the said order of the
\n\tlearned Magistrate of making reference on the aspects of
\n\tconstitutional validity has been set aside by this Court.  It was
\n\tsubmitted that the accused concerned including the petitioners have
\n\tcarried the matter before the Apex Court and the hearing is being
\n\tawaited.  It was submitted that apart from the aforesaid aspects,
\n\twhen an independent question is raised for challenging the
\n\tconstitutional validity of a statute under Article 226 of the
\n\tConstitution, this Court may not decline the entertainment of the
\n\tpetition nor the petition can be rejected on the ground that it is
\n\tnot maintainable.  It was submitted that if a particular provision
\n\tof Cr.P.C. which is section 306 in the present case, is
\n\tunconstitutional or a stillborn, the action based on the same may
\n\tnot be permitted by this Court and the petitioners have therefore
\n\tlocus standi to prefer the present petitions and at present there is
\n\ta perfect occasion for the petitioners to maintain the petitions by
\n\tchallenging the constitutional validity.  It was submitted that if
\n\tsection 306 of the Cr.P.C. is interpreted to mean that co-accused
\n\tare not required to be heard before grant of pardon, then it would
\n\tviolate Article 14 of the Constitution and the same would be against
\n\tthe settled legal position that all statute which permits exercise
\n\tof the power are to be read with the principles of natural justice
\n\tand if they are not read with the principles of natural justice, it
\n\twould violate Article 14 of the Constitution and the fact  situation
\n\tof the present case are satisfied on the said aspect. Therefore, it
\n\twas submitted that this Court may consider the petition as
\n\tmaintainable and further process be issued upon all parties to the
\n\tproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\tmay record that this Court for the reasons recorded in the above
\n\treferred judgement dated 07.10.2010 in Criminal Misc. Application
\n\tNo.10311\/10 at para 56 had recorded the following conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
“(a)\t\tSection
\n306 of Cr.P.C., is clear in itself and in view of the various
\ndecisions of the Apex Court and also of the other High Courts,
\nincluding the view expressed by us while interpreting Section 306 of
\nCr.P.C., there is no unguided or arbitrary power vested to the
\nlearned Magistrate but are rather for advancement of the interest of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t\tThe
\n\t\tsay of the other co-accused is not required to be considered, nor
\n\t\tthey have any role to play when the question is to be considered by
\n\t\tthe learned Magistrate for grant of pardon after hearing a person
\n\t\tapplies for pardon and the prosecution or the investigating
\n\t\tmachinery but all the co-accused will have a right to
\n\t\tcross-examination to the accomplice witness if his statement is
\n\t\trecorded before the learned Magistrate and will have further right
\n\t\tof cross-examination if such evidence is thereafter used by the
\n\t\tprosecution at the time of trial for supporting its case or
\n\t\totherwise at the appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\t\tThe
\n\t\tlearned Magistrate under Section 306 of Cr.P.C., is required to
\n\t\tdecide the application made by the A-12, keeping in view the
\n\t\tobservations made by us in the above referred judgement and more
\n\t\tparticularly by maintaining the spirit of advancement
\n\t\tof interest of justice and in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\t\tThe
\nimpugned order for making reference by the learned Magistrate is by
\nway misdirection of the exercise of power and condition for making
\nreference have not been satisfied.”\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tmay also be recorded that in the said decision, various decisions of
\n\tthe Apex Court as well as of the other High Courts for the inbuilt
\n\tmechanism under section 306 of Cr.P.C. and the mode and manner of
\n\texercise of power by the learned Magistrate under section 306 of
\n\tCr.P.C and the observations made on the aspects of constitutional
\n\tvalidity of the said provisions have been considered by us in great
\n\tdetail and the same are not required to be repeated or referred to
\n\tagain in the present order.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis undisputed position that the petitions invoke the power of this
\n\tCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is a
\n\tdiscretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under
\n\tConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthis stage, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the
\n\tcase of Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami<\/a> reported at AIR
\n\t1997 SC 1041 and more particularly the observations made at para 14,
\n\trelevant of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“14.\n<\/p>\n
Even otherwise, the grant of relief to the respondent
\neven on the principles of “justice, equity and good conscience”
\nwhich doctrine appears to have been pressed into aid, was on the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case, not permissible.  A
\nCourt of equity, it should be remembered, must so act as to prevent
\nperpetration of a legal fraud. It is expected to do justice by
\npromotion of honesty and good faith, as far as it lies within its
\npower. A party seeking relief in equity must come to the Court with
\nclean hands.” \t\t\t\t\t\t   (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nwas further observed that –\n<\/p>\n
“All
\nthe three Courts, including the High Court, found that plea of the
\nrespondent to be ‘false’ in the suit for specific performance filed
\nby the respondent. S. L. P. against the judgment and decree, was also
\ndismissed by this Court. How then could the respondent be found
\nentitled to any relief in equity, when his defence was based on
\nfalsehood? We have noticed the conduct of the respondent in denying
\nthe title of the appellant herein and putting forward a plea which
\nhas been concurrently found by all the Courts to be false.  He,
\ntherefore, certainly did not come to the Court with clean hands.
\nThus, even if  it be assumed for the sake of argument, that the
\nprinciples of ‘justice, equity and good conscience’ underlying the
\nprovisions of Section 60 (b) of the Easements Act, could be attracted
\nin a given case in the State of Assam where the Easements Act had not
\nbeen extended, the conduct of the respondent disentitled him to any
\nrelief on the basis of ‘equity, justice and good conscience’.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
In
\n\tState of Maharashtra & Others Vs. Prabhu reported at (1994) 2
\n\tSCC 481, at para 4, the Apex Court observed thus –\n<\/p>\n
“4.\n<\/p>\n
Even assuming that construction placed by the High  Court and
\nvehemently  defended  by\tthe  learned   counsel for respondent is
\ncorrect should the High Court have  interfered with the order of
\nGovernment in exercise of 486 its  equity  jurisdiction.   The
\ndistinction  between  writs issued as a matter of right  such as
\nhabeas corpus and  those issued in  exercise of discretion such\t as
\ncertiorari and mandamus are well known and explained in countless
\ndecisions given by this Court and English Courts.\t  It is not
\nnecessary to  recount  them.  The High Courts  exercise
\ncontrol\tover Government functioning and ensure obedience of rules and
\nlaw by  enforcing  proper, fair and just  performance  of  duty.
\nWhere the Government or any authority passes an order  which is
\ncontrary  to  rules\t or  law  it  becomes  amenable\t  to correction
\nby the courts in exercise of writ  jurisdiction.  But  one  of  the
\n principles inherent in  it  is  that\t the exercise of power should
\nbe for the sake of justice.  One of the yardstick for it is if the
\nquashing of the order results in  greater harm to the society then
\nthe court may  restrain from exercising the power.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
It
\n\twas further observed at para 5 in the said decision, relevant of
\n\twhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Therefore,
\neven if the order  of  the Government  was vitiated\t either because
\nit omitted to issue a proper show cause notice or it could\t not have
\n proceeded  against  the\trespondent  for his past activities  the
\n High Court should have  refused to  interfere in  exercise
\nof its equity jurisdiction as the facts of the case  did  not\twarrant
\ninterference.  What  could  be more harmful to society than
\nappointing the respondent as  member of  the Board, a position of
\nimportance and  responsibility, who   was  found  responsible  for
\nmass  copying   at\t the examination centre of which he was a
\nsupervisor.  It  shakes the confidence and faith of the society in
\nthe system and is prone to encouraging even the honest and sincere to
\n deviate from their path.   It is the responsibility of the High
\nCourt as  custodian  of the Constitution to  maintain\t the  social
\nbalance\t by interfering where necessary for sake of  justice and
\nrefusing  to interfere where it is against the  social interest and
\npublic good.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe case of Union of India v. M\/s. C. Damani and Co.<\/a> reported at AIR
\n\t1980 SC 1149, it was inter alia observed by the Apex Court at para
\n\t20, the relevant of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nthorny issue being by-passed for the while, the next question is
\nwhether the constitutionality of the Export (Control) Fifteenth
\nAmendment Order, 1979 should be examined closely vis-a-vis pre-ban
\ncontracts.  Constitutional questions should be considered by courts
\nonly when it is absolutely necessary, not otherwise.”\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid legal position, when this Court has already
\n\truled as per the above referred decisions in Criminal Misc.
\n\tApplication No.10311\/10, that the say of the other co-accused is not
\n\trequired to be considered nor they have any role to play when the
\n\tquestion is to be considered by the learned Magistrate for grant of
\n\tpardon after hearing the person who applies for pardon and the
\n\tprosecution or the investigating machinery and all other co-accused
\n\twill have right for cross-examination to the accomplice witness if
\n\this statement is recorded before the learned Magistrate and such
\n\taccused will have further right of cross-examination if such
\n\tevidence is thereafter used by the prosecution at the time of trial
\n\tfor supporting its case, no prejudice in law at this stage would be
\n\tcaused to the petitioners herein. When there is no right in law for
\n\thearing to be given before exercise of the power under section 306
\n\tof Cr.P.C., there is no prejudice to the petitioners who are
\n\tco-accused.  Further, it is not a case where the pardon has been
\n\tgranted, and the statement is recorded and such statement is to be
\n\tused against the petitioners\/co-accused.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tobserved earlier, even if it is to be used against the co-accused,
\n\tthe petitioners herein who are other co-accused have a right to
\n\tcross-examination by way of defence at the appropriate stage and
\n\tinspite of the same, the attempt is made by way of the present
\n\tpetitions to challenge the constitutional validity of the statutory
\n\tprovisions of section 306 of Cr.P.C.,  inspite of the position of
\n\tlaw being made clear by the above referred decision of this Court
\n\tthat the rights of the co-accused in law are sufficiently protected.
\n\t Therefore, it appears to us that there is no bonafide purpose on
\n\tthe part of the petitioners.  Further, if the challenge to the
\n\tconstitutional validity of the provisions is entertained at this
\n\tstage, it may result into throttling the process of further
\n\tinvestigation at the hands of the party who has all rights under law
\n\tto defend the case at the appropriate stage. Therefore, it appears
\n\tto us keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances it is
\n\tjust and proper to decline invoking of power of this Court under
\n\tArticle 226 of the Constitution at the hands of the petitioners for
\n\tsuch purpose at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\treliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
\n\tupon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kavalappara
\n\tKottarathil Kochunni v. State of Madras<\/a> reported at AIR 1959 SC 725,
\n\tis ill-founded inasmuch as in the said case before the Apex Court,
\n\tit was found by the Court that the person so prejudicially affected
\n\tby the law should be entitled to the constitutional remedy.  As
\n\tobserved by us hereinabove, no prejudice is caused to the
\n\tpetitioners who are co-accused at a stage under section 306 of
\n\tCr.P.C. since their rights are sufficiently protected in law as per
\n\tthe observations made by us in Criminal Misc. Application
\n\tNo.10311\/10.  Therefore, the said decision is of no help to the
\n\tpetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\treliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
\n\tCollector of Customs, Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty<\/a> reported in
\n\tAIR 1962 SC 316 is also ill-founded inasmuch as it was not a case
\n\twhere the question arose before the Apex Court as to whether under
\n\tArticle 226 of the Constitution, this Court may decline the
\n\tentertainment of the challenge to the constitutional validity of the
\n\tprovisions of the statute at the instance of the party who is not to
\n\tsuffer any prejudice in law in view of the inbuilt mechanism of the
\n\tprovisions taking all care to maintain right to defend the case in
\n\tthe event such evidence is to be used against him.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcontention that the provisions of section 306 of Cr.P.C. be read
\n\twith the principles of natural justice, thereby right of hearing of
\n\tthe other co-accused so as to meet with the test of Article 14 of
\n\tthe Constitution is also on a non-existent premise inasmuch as in
\n\tthe above referred decision of this Court, there is no right under
\n\tsection 306 of the Cr.P.C. to be heard of the other co-accused.
\n\tFurther, as observed earlier, there is no prejudice.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid, we find that the petitions does not deserve
\n\tto be entertained in exercise of the discretionary equitable
\n\tjurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
\n\tHence, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 (JAYANT
\nPATEL, J.)<\/p>\n
 (H.B.\n<\/p>\n
ANTANI, J.)<\/p>\n
 Further
\norder<\/p>\n
\tAfter
\nthe pronouncement of the judgement, Mr.S.B. Vakil as well as
\nMr.B.B.Naik, learned counsels pray that their clients are desirous to
\napproach before the higher forum against the present decision and
\ntherefore, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate be stayed
\nfor some time.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nmay record that uptil now, no process has been issued nor any interim
\nprotection has been granted in the present proceedings.  When we have
\nfound a case not entertain the petition, such prayer cannot be
\ngranted.  Hence, declined.\n<\/p>\n
 (JAYANT
\nPATEL, J.)<\/p>\n
 (H.B.\n<\/p>\n
ANTANI, J.)<\/p>\n
*bjoy<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/1737\/2010 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1737 of 2010 With SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1903 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT […]<\/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-83205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010 - 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\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-05T03:34:15+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T03:34:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3153,\"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\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T03:34:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010 - 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\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-05T03:34:15+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T03:34:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":3153,"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\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010","name":"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T03:34:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajkumar-vs-state-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajkumar vs State on 28 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83205","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=83205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}