{"id":253251,"date":"2008-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-04-25T10:49:11","modified_gmt":"2018-04-25T05:19:11","slug":"p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"P vs State on 14 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P vs State on 14 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Anant S. Dave,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   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\/119820\/2008\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \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. 1198 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n============================================\n \n\nP\nTHAVARSIRAJ &amp; 2 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n============================================ \nAppearance\n: \nMR GT\nDAYANI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR KT DAVE\nADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR UTKARSH B JANI\nfor Respondent(s) : 2, \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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 14\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\tThis<br \/>\napplication is filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1679850\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure for quashing the proceedings for criminal case No.3077 of<br \/>\n2007 filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1823824\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instrument Act pending<br \/>\nbefore the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">2.\tThe<br \/>\nmain contention of the applicants is that the applicants are the<br \/>\nDirectors of the Company named M\/s. Duracraft Papers Pvt. Ltd., a<br \/>\ncompany duly registered under <a href=\"\/doc\/257409\/\" id=\"a_2\">Indian Companies Act<\/a>, 1956 and that<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 is one of the partners of M\/s. J.M.C. Engineering, a<br \/>\npartnership firm dealing in the business of manufacturing of<br \/>\nmachineries related to the manufacture of Art &amp; Craft papers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">3.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the applicants that Memorandum of Understanding dated<br \/>\n12.12.2005 was entered into between applicant No.1 and respondent<br \/>\nNo.2 and accordingly, respondent No.2 was required to supply present<br \/>\napplicants 30 TPC Craft Paper Mill Machinery on various terms and<br \/>\nconditions which were set out in the said Memorandum of Understanding<br \/>\ni.e. regarding Design, Technical Specification &amp; Scope of Supply,<br \/>\nExclusions, Commercial terms and conditions, Price Break up and<br \/>\nstipulated period for supply of machinery. It is further stated that<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 grossly failed to supply the machinery within the<br \/>\nprescribed time limit and the applicants suffered huge loss.<br \/>\nHowever, in a revised schedule, respondent No.2 agreed to delivery<br \/>\nthe goods latest by 15.1.2007 and that too, was not complied with.<br \/>\nThe applicants submitted that in the month of March, 2007, the<br \/>\napplicants had given three cheques in which except one cheque,<br \/>\nremaining two cheques were given without filling the date.  The<br \/>\ndetails of cheques are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">Cheque No.<\/p>\n<p>Amount<\/p>\n<p>Date<\/p>\n<p>694013<\/p>\n<p>6,77,250.00<\/p>\n<p>22\/03\/2007<\/p>\n<p>694062<\/p>\n<p>6,00,000.00<\/p>\n<p>24\/03\/2007<\/p>\n<p>694014<\/p>\n<p>18,07,718.00<\/p>\n<p>16\/08\/2007<\/p>\n<p>3.1.\tThat<br \/>\nso far as cheque No.694062 is concerned, the applicants had already<br \/>\ndeposited the amount of Rs. 6 lacs which was given due credit and<br \/>\ncheque No. 694013 amounting to Rs. 6,77,250\/- is concerned, the said<br \/>\ncheque was issued towards 5% retention money as per the terms of<br \/>\npayment and it is also reflected on the statement of account.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">3.2.\tThus,<br \/>\naccording to the applicants, no cause of action arose for filing a<br \/>\ncase under <a href=\"\/doc\/1132672\/\" id=\"a_3\">Negotiable Instrument Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">4.\tShri<br \/>\nG.T.Dayani, learned advocate, appearing for the applicants submit<br \/>\nthat the case of the applicants is covered by the decision reported<br \/>\nin AIR 2005 SC 3512 in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1302578\/\" id=\"a_4\">S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.<br \/>\nNeeta Bhalla<\/a> and AIR 2007 SC 3086 in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1343681\/\" id=\"a_5\">Sabhitha<br \/>\nRamamurthy v. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya<\/a> and submits that no<br \/>\naverments in the complaint are made by the complainant to the effect<br \/>\nthat the accused wherein were responsible for the conduct of the<br \/>\nbusiness of the Company and, therefore, in absence of sufficient<br \/>\naverments as indicated in the above judgment, the complaint deserves<br \/>\nto be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">5.\tShri<br \/>\nU.B.Jani, learned advocate, appearing for respondent No.2 has drawn<br \/>\nthe attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the complainant and<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 herein.  It is submitted that the Cheque No.694062<br \/>\namounting to Rs. 6 lacs which was directly deposited by the present<br \/>\naccused was dishonored.  The true and correct fact is that the said<br \/>\ncheque was received but was never cleared and, therefore, cause of<br \/>\naction did arise under the <a href=\"\/doc\/1132672\/\" id=\"a_6\">Negotiable Instrument Act<\/a>.  Learned<br \/>\nadvocate further submits that the case of the applicants is not<br \/>\ncovered by the  <a href=\"\/doc\/1302578\/\" id=\"a_7\">S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla<\/a><br \/>\n(supra), inasmuch as, the complaint reads as  t he accused<br \/>\nare the Directors of Private Limited Company registered under the<br \/>\nprovision of the <a href=\"\/doc\/257409\/\" id=\"a_8\">Indian Companies Act<\/a>, 1956 and the above Directors<br \/>\nare in-charge of day-to-day business of the Company.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">5.1.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for respondent NO.2 further submits that along with the<br \/>\ncomplaint the research report was also submitted and accordingly the<br \/>\npresent applicants are Directors of the Company.  In view of the<br \/>\nabove averments, it is prima facie established that the accused<br \/>\nherein were the Directors in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the<br \/>\nbusiness of the Company and it will be sufficient to bring the case<br \/>\nof the respondent No.2 within parameters of the law laid down by the<br \/>\nApex Court in the case  <a href=\"\/doc\/1302578\/\" id=\"a_9\">S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta<br \/>\nBhalla<\/a> (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">5.2.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for respondent No.2 relied on para 8 of the<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\"> It<br \/>\nis respectfully submitted that cheque No.694062 amounting to Rs. 6<br \/>\nlakhs which was directly deposited by the present accused was<br \/>\ndishonored.  Despite knowing all these facts, it is being projected<br \/>\nas if the said cheque was already cleared.  The true and correct fact<br \/>\nis that the said cheque was  received  but was never cleared and<br \/>\nthe applicants have not come with clean hands since the applicants<br \/>\nhave only produced incomplete account statement .  The present<br \/>\nrespondent begs to annex true and correct account statement along<br \/>\nwith this reply as mark Annexure C.  It shall be clear from the said<br \/>\nstatement that the said Rs. 6 lakhs has been credited and shown as<br \/>\nreceipt of payment.  However, there was an immediate contra entry<br \/>\ngiven in order t nullify the said credit entry since the said cheque<br \/>\nwas dishonored.  It is this very fact which has been suppressed by<br \/>\nthe accused.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">5.3.\tAccording<br \/>\nto learned advocate for the respondent No.2 since there is<br \/>\nsuppression of the above facts, a case is made out not to exercise<br \/>\npowers under <a href=\"\/doc\/1679850\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">6.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard learned advocates appearing for the parties and considering the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case, in the complaint filed by the<br \/>\ncomplainant on 11.10.2007 there are specific averments to the effect<br \/>\nthat the present applicants are the Directors of the Company and they<br \/>\nare in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the business of the<br \/>\nCompany.  Not only that but the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has<br \/>\nconsidered the above aspect and, therefore, process is issued.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">7.\tIn<br \/>\nmy humble view, the decision relied on by learned advocate for the<br \/>\napplicants was a case where no sufficient averments were made and<br \/>\nonly a statement was made to the effect that the accused were<br \/>\npartners of the partnership firm.  In the present case, on perusal of<br \/>\nthe record along with the complaint and averments, it clearly<br \/>\nestablishes that the accused are the Directors in-charge of the<br \/>\nday-to-day affairs of the business.  The reliance placed on the<br \/>\ndecisions of the Apex Court in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1302578\/\" id=\"a_11\">S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals<br \/>\nLtd. v. Neeta Bhalla<\/a> (supra) and  <a href=\"\/doc\/1343681\/\" id=\"a_12\">Sabhitha Ramamurthy v. R.B.S.<br \/>\nChannabasavaradhya<\/a> (surpa), is of no help to the applicants and<br \/>\neven in the case of doubt whether &#8216;X&#8217; or &#8216;Y&#8217;, Director is in-charge<br \/>\nof the day-to-day affair, can be even raised before the concerned<br \/>\nMagistrate by way of defence and can be scrutinized at an appropriate<br \/>\nstate.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">8.\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to<br \/>\naccept the arguments of Shri Dayani, learned advocate for the<br \/>\napplicants as disputed question of facts arise and contentions raised<br \/>\nherein by the applicants can be raised before the concerned<br \/>\nMagistrate by way of defence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">8.1.\tSo<br \/>\nfar as suppression of facts as stated in para 8 of the<br \/>\naffidavit-in-reply is concerned, it is not advisable to deal with the<br \/>\nsame on merit in view of pendency of proceedings before the concerned<br \/>\nMagistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">9.\tThis<br \/>\nCriminal Misc. Application is rejected.  Notice is discharged.<br \/>\nAd-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">[ANANT<br \/>\nS. DAVE, J.]<\/p>\n<p>\/\/smita\/\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court P vs State on 14 August, 2008 Author: Anant S. Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/119820\/2008 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 1198 of 2008 ============================================ P THAVARSIRAJ &amp; 2 &#8211; Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) ============================================ [&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-253251","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P vs State on 14 August, 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\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P vs State on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-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=\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-25T05:19:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P vs State on 14 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T05:19:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1217,\"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\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008\",\"name\":\"P vs State on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-25T05:19:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P vs State on 14 August, 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":"P vs State on 14 August, 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\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P vs State on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-25T05:19:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P vs State on 14 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T05:19:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008"},"wordCount":1217,"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\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008","name":"P vs State on 14 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-25T05:19:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-vs-state-on-14-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P vs State on 14 August, 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\/253251","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=253251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253251\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}