{"id":1732,"date":"2008-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-06T18:08:34","modified_gmt":"2018-04-06T12:38:34","slug":"saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/12539\/2007\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 12539 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \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\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\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\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\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\nSAURABH\nC CHOKSI - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRAJU K KOTHARI for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR\nKC SHAH Ld. APP for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMRS\nVASAVDATTA BHATT for\nRespondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \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 Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 02\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nfacts of the present case stated briefly that the present application<br \/>\nis directed for quashing of Criminal Case No. 132\/2001 pending in the<br \/>\nCourt of  Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, which was<br \/>\nfiled against the present petitioner by respondent no. 2 under the<br \/>\nprovisions of Sec. 220(3)of Companies Act. That the complainant ?<br \/>\nrespondent no. 2 &#8211; Deputy Registrar, Registrar of Companies  for<br \/>\nGujarat, has filed the said complaint against the petitioner and then<br \/>\nthe process was issued by the trial Court, therefore, the present<br \/>\npetitioner has filed this application under sec. 482 of Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIt<br \/>\nis submitted by the petitioner that in the above Criminal Case,<br \/>\naccused no. 1 ?  M\/s. Pan India Forest &amp; Land Development Ltd.,<br \/>\nis a limited company. The petitioner was  Non-Executive Director of<br \/>\nthe said company. It is also contended that the petitioner is a<br \/>\nChartered Accountant by profession and also Principal of JG College<br \/>\nof Commerce. The petitioner was never  in-charge of affairs of the<br \/>\ncompany and never attended any meeting nor signed any document on<br \/>\nbehalf of the company and also not aware about the financial position<br \/>\nof the said company. It is also contended by the petitioner that he<br \/>\nhas resigned from the Directorship of the said company on 1.4.1999<br \/>\nand Form No. 32 has been placed on record at Annexure-B to this<br \/>\napplication.  It is also the say of the petitioner that complaint<br \/>\nfiled by respondent no. 2 for non-filing of the Annual Return which<br \/>\nwas required to be filed with the complainant&#8217;s office on or before<br \/>\n30.11.1999. In view of this, the petitioner submitted that the<br \/>\noffence has been committed on 1.12.1999 and on the said date, the<br \/>\npetitioner was not Director of the said company. It is also contended<br \/>\nby the petitioner that he had resigned  on 1.4.1999, that is, much<br \/>\nbefore the offence and, therefore, he cannot be booked under the said<br \/>\noffence.\tIt is further contended by the petitioner that on 1.12.1999,<br \/>\nthe petitioner had no relationship with the company, therefore,<br \/>\ncomplaint is not maintainable against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Raju Kothari has vehemently argued that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas a Non-Executive Director but not in-charge of day to day affairs<br \/>\nof the company, and therefore, criminal liability cannot be fastened<br \/>\nupon him. From the perusal of complaint at Annexure-A, and From No.<br \/>\n32 which is at page 10 of this application, it appears that  from<br \/>\nColumn No. 5 and 6 of the Form No. 32  that on the alleged date, he<br \/>\nwas not a Executive Director of the said company.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tHeard<br \/>\nMr Mukesh Patel learned APP for respondent no. 1 ?  State of<br \/>\nGujarat. He has submitted that from the complaint, prima-facie case<br \/>\nis established against present petitioner. He has also opposed this<br \/>\napplication.\tMs. Vasavdatta Bhatt learned advocate appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of respondent no. 2 submitted that every Director is<br \/>\nresponsible officer within the meaning of sec. 5 of the Companies<br \/>\nAct, 1956, whether appointed as technical, non-technical, executive<br \/>\nor non-executive  for default committed by the company and its<br \/>\nofficers as the case may be as he cannot be absolved his liability in<br \/>\nfiling the return with the office of respondent no. 2 for the period<br \/>\nduring which he was Director of the Company. Therefore, it is<br \/>\ncontended by the learned advocate that criminal case has been filed<br \/>\nfor non-filing Annual Return for the financial year ending on<br \/>\n31.3.1999, which was required to be filed with the office of<br \/>\nrespondent no. 2 on or before 30.11.1999 as required under sec. 159<br \/>\nof the Companies Act, 1956. So, it is contended that when the<br \/>\nprima-facie case is made out against the petitioner, then the powers<br \/>\nunder sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be exercised in<br \/>\nfavour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nsupport of his submission, learned advocate Mr.Kothari for the<br \/>\npetitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the<br \/>\ncase of  Jayesh More vs. State of Gujarat &amp; Anr., reported in<br \/>\n2000(1)GLR p. 121, wherein, this Court has held that by 30th<br \/>\nNovember, income tax return is required to be submitted, failure to<br \/>\ndo so is an offence. If before 30th November, a person has<br \/>\nceased to be a Director of the Company, he cannot be prosecuted for<br \/>\nfailure to submit the return. In para-12 of the above case, this<br \/>\nCourt has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>?S12.\n<\/p>\n<p>The outcome of the above discussion is that, on the date on which the<br \/>\noffence\/default is said to have been committed, i.e. On 30th<br \/>\nNovember, 1996, of not submitting copies of the annual return, the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s relationship with the company was not in existence. The<br \/>\npetitioner cannot be held responsible  even otherwise as he does not<br \/>\nfall within the definition of officer in default as given in Sec. 5<br \/>\nof the Companies Act and sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 162 of the Companies<br \/>\nAct holds the company and every officer in default responsible for<br \/>\nsuch lapse and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. No<br \/>\noffence against the petitioner can be said to be constituted and as a<br \/>\nnecessary consequence the petition must succeed and complaint qua the<br \/>\npetitioner must be quashed.??\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThere<br \/>\ncannot be any dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the<br \/>\ndecision cited above, on which, strong reliance has been placed by<br \/>\nthe petitioner, however, the basic principles which are required to<br \/>\nbe kept in mind while exercising the powers under sec. 482 of Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in the<br \/>\ncase of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, reported in 1992<br \/>\nSuppl.(1) SCC 335 would squarely applies to the facts of the<br \/>\npresent case. From the Form No.32, it appears that allegations which<br \/>\nare made in the complaint on the said date when petitioner was not<br \/>\nDirector of the Company, then, how he can be booked under the<br \/>\nprovisions of Companies Act for criminal offence. It is true that  in<br \/>\nthe case of Jayesh More (supra), this court has also considered the<br \/>\nsame issue that on the said date when the petitioner was not a<br \/>\nDirector of the Company, then he cannot be prosecuted for the failure<br \/>\nto file return. From the allegations made by respondents no. 2 and<br \/>\nno. 1, I have not found any legality to convince that against whom<br \/>\nthe complaint was filed was proper, legal and tenable in view of the<br \/>\nabove observations and principles laid down by this Court as well as<br \/>\nApex Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, this application is allowed. The complaint filed by<br \/>\nrespondent no. 2 before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate, Ahmedabad being Criminal Case No. 132\/2001 for the<br \/>\noffence punishable under sec. 220(3)of Companies Act, 1956, is hereby<br \/>\nquashed qua the present petitioner. Rule is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Z.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>SAIYED, J.)<\/p>\n<p>mandora\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/12539\/2007 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 12539 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to [&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-1732","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>Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008 - 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\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-06T12:38:34+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-06T12:38:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1114,\"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\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-06T12:38:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 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":"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008 - 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\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-06T12:38:34+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-06T12:38:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008"},"wordCount":1114,"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\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008","name":"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-06T12:38:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saurabh-vs-state-on-2-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saurabh vs State on 2 September, 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\/1732","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=1732"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1732\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}