{"id":266879,"date":"2009-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-20T04:49:48","modified_gmt":"2016-05-19T23:19:48","slug":"sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.B.Antani,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/82720\/2003\t 3\/ 9\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. 827 of 2003\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\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 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\nSANJAY\nTHAKOREBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nP\nDENIS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPRAFUL J BHATT for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR PURVISH J MALKAN for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \nMR HL JANI APP 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 H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/03\/2009 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\tThis<br \/>\npetition is directed against the order dated 18.07.2003 passed by the<br \/>\nlearned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad by<br \/>\nwhich the application below Exh.8 in Criminal Case No.308 of 2000 was<br \/>\nrejected. It is submitted that the respondent has filed a complaint<br \/>\non or about 07.03.1996 in the Court of learned Additional Chief<br \/>\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad  for the offence punishable under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1384683\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sections 9(1)(b)<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/87062\/\" id=\"a_1\">9(1)(c)<\/a> of the Foreign Exchange and <a href=\"\/doc\/1489134\/\" id=\"a_2\">Regulation<br \/>\nAct<\/a>, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as  FERA Act). Before filing the<br \/>\naforesaid complaint, the petitioner was arrested by the officers of<br \/>\nthe Enforcement Directorate on 24.01.1995. When he was produced<br \/>\nbefore the learned Judge, he was released on bail on 07.03.1996 on<br \/>\ncondition of depositing the amount of Rs.80,000\/- as  security. The<br \/>\naforesaid complaint was adjourned on number of occasions because of<br \/>\nthe inaction on the part of the prosecuting agency to produce the<br \/>\nevidence with a view to decide whether the charge can be framed<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner as contemplated under Sections 242<br \/>\nto 245<br \/>\nof the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. After the long pendency of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid complaint, the complainant filed an application on<br \/>\n20.07.2000 for withdrawal of the said complaint. After hearing the<br \/>\nparties at length, the learned Judge has passed order below Exh.41 as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t Heard Mr.Gupta<br \/>\ncomplaint want to withdraw this complaint because show cause notice<br \/>\nof being heard was not given and apply for permission of court to<br \/>\nfile fresh complaint. But I am of the opinion that court should not<br \/>\nbe party to fill up lacuna of complaint. Hence accused is discharged<br \/>\nfor the offence alleged against him for want of notice to show cause<br \/>\nu\/s. 61 of FERA Act 1973.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\tHowever, the<br \/>\ncomplainant filed fresh complaint on 27.12.2000 for the same offences<br \/>\nfor which the earlier complaint had been filed. During the course of<br \/>\nhearing of the said complaint, it was contended by the petitioner<br \/>\nthat in view of the order of learned Judge of withdrawal of<br \/>\nthe earlier complaint containing an observation that the Court did<br \/>\nnot want to allow prosecuting agency to fill up the lacuna left by it<br \/>\nwhile filing the complaint and in view of the discharge of the<br \/>\naccused, the second complaint could not have been filed. It was also<br \/>\ncontended that <a href=\"\/doc\/1381973\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 49(3)<\/a> of the Act again divides offenders of<br \/>\nForeign Exchange law into following two categories:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">(1)\tThose who committed<br \/>\noffence when the Act of 1947 was in force, but against whom, no<br \/>\ncriminal case was instituted before the expiry of two years from the<br \/>\ndate of coming into force of the Act of 1999 (2) Those offenders<br \/>\nagainst whom a criminal case is instituted before the expiry of two<br \/>\nyears from the coming into force of the new Act of 1999.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\tHowever, the learned<br \/>\nJudge was pleased to reject the same by order dated 18.07.2003 which<br \/>\nis under challenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">2.\tThe learned advocate<br \/>\nsubmitted that in view of the earlier order passed by the learned<br \/>\nJudge below Exh.41, second complaint could not be registered and it<br \/>\nwould amount to review of the earlier order passed by the learned<br \/>\nJudge. It is also submitted that the learned Judge has not properly<br \/>\nappreciated the fact that the petitioner was put to great harassment<br \/>\non account of the pendency of the earlier complaint as contended by<br \/>\nhim in his application and not dismissing the second complaint on the<br \/>\nground of violation of <a href=\"\/doc\/1199182\/\" id=\"a_4\">Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution of India. It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case, the order passed by the learned Judge dated 18.07.2003<br \/>\nbelow Exh.8 in Criminal Case Non.308 of 2000 be quashed and set<br \/>\naside. The learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment in<br \/>\ncase of Pramatha Nath Talukdar V\/s. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar reported in<br \/>\nAIR 1962 SC 876 in support of the submission that the second<br \/>\ncomplaint is not maintainable unless there are exceptional<br \/>\ncircumstances to entertain the second complaint. The exceptional<br \/>\ncircumstances are mentioned as (1) manifest error (2) manifest<br \/>\nmiscarriage of justice, and new fact that the complainant had no<br \/>\nknowledge of or could not with reasonable diligence have brought<br \/>\nforward in the previous proceedings. In view of the circumstances<br \/>\nnarrated hereinabove no interference is called for in the second<br \/>\ncomplaint. The learned advocate also placed reliance on the judgment<br \/>\nin case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh V\/s. Kali Singh reported in AIR<br \/>\n1977 SC 2432 wherein, it was held by the Apex Court that there is no<br \/>\nprovision in <a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_5\">Cr.P.C<\/a>. empowering a Magistrate to review or recall a<br \/>\njudicial order passed by him. Inherent powers under <a href=\"\/doc\/27905\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 561-A<\/a> are<br \/>\nonly given to High Court and unlike S.151 of C.P.C. subordinate<br \/>\ncriminal courts have no inherent powers. It is also held by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt that the second complaint can lie only on new facts or even on<br \/>\nprevious facts only if a special case is made out. Thus, the learned<br \/>\nadvocate submitted that considering the ratio laid down in the<br \/>\naforementioned judgments, the petition deserves to be allowed and the<br \/>\norder dated 18.07.2003 passed by the learned Judge below Exh.8 in<br \/>\nCriminal Case No.308 of 2000 be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">3.\tThe learned advocate,<br \/>\nrepresenting the respondent, submitted that considering the reasoning<br \/>\ngiven by the learned Judge, no interference is called for in the<br \/>\norder passed by the learned Judge and, as the petition is<br \/>\nmisconceived, it is required to be dismissed. The learned advocate<br \/>\nplacing reliance on the complaint at Annexure A submitted that the<br \/>\nlearned Judge had considered the submissions as well as the judgment<br \/>\non which reliance was placed by both the sides and, after considering<br \/>\nthe submission and giving opportunity to both the sides, passed<br \/>\nreasoned order, dismissing the application below Exh.8. There is no<br \/>\ninfirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Judge and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the petition is devoid of any merit and the same may be<br \/>\ndismissed. The learned advocate has placed reliance on the averments<br \/>\nmade in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent and submitted<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was discharged from the case not on the basis of<br \/>\nthe merits but on technical ground and as the petitioner is trying to<br \/>\ntake undue advantage of the earlier order of the learned Judge with a<br \/>\nview to escape from the offence committed by him, the petition, on<br \/>\nthat ground, cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. It<br \/>\nis also submitted that in view of the order dated 18.07.2003<br \/>\nrejecting the petitioner&#8217;s application for referring the question of<br \/>\nlaw to the High Court, it was not referred to the High Court and the<br \/>\napplication was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">4.\tI have heard learned<br \/>\nadvocate at length and in great detail. I have also perused the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Judge below Exh.41 produced at Annexure C to<br \/>\nthe petition by which the learned Judge discharged the<br \/>\npetitioner-accused for the offence alleged against him for want of<br \/>\nnotice to show-cause under Section 61 of FERA Act, 1973 as well as<br \/>\nthe subsequent order passed below Exh.8 in Criminal Case No.308 of<br \/>\n2000 by which prayer in the application for referring the matter to<br \/>\nthe High Court was dismissed by the learned Judge on 18.07.2003.<br \/>\nConsidering both the orders as well as the provisions of law which<br \/>\nare relied upon by the learned counsel of both the sides, it is<br \/>\napparent that by passing the order at annexure C, the complainant<br \/>\nwanted to withdraw the complaint because the show-cause notice was<br \/>\nnot given and permission was sought to file fresh complaint. However,<br \/>\nthe learned Judge passed the order that the Court cannot be a party<br \/>\nto fill up the lacuna of the complaint and, therefore, he discharged<br \/>\nthe petitioner-accused for the offence alleged against him for want<br \/>\nof show-cause notice under Section 61 of FERA Act. Thereafter, on<br \/>\n14.12.2000, i.e. after lapse of 5 years, the complaint under Section<br \/>\n56 of the FERA Act was filed against the petitioner for the offence<br \/>\npunishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/1384683\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 9(1)(b)<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/1901558\/\" id=\"a_8\">9(1)(d)<\/a> of the Act. However, on<br \/>\nperusal of the complaint, bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000\/-<br \/>\nwas issued against the present petitioner. The petitioner also filed<br \/>\ndetailed reply in August 2000 praying therein to dismiss the<br \/>\ncomplaint and acquit the petitioner or, in the alternative, to make<br \/>\nreference to the High Court to consider the points raised by the<br \/>\npetitioner in the application and to decide the constitutional<br \/>\nvalidity of <a href=\"\/doc\/1873271\/\" id=\"a_9\">Section 49(3)<\/a> of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,<br \/>\n1999. However, considering the submissions of both the sides, the<br \/>\napplication was dismissed by the learned Judge on 18.07.2003. The<br \/>\nlearned Judge, in my view, has not narrated exceptional circumstances<br \/>\nor extraordinary grounds which would warrant entertainment of<br \/>\nsubsequent complaint filed after lapse of 5 years. Even, the<br \/>\ndepartment has not explained the delay of 5 years caused in filing<br \/>\nthe subsequent complaint. On perusal of the order passed below<br \/>\nExh.41, it becomes clear that the petitioner was discharged for the<br \/>\noffence alleged against him for want of show-cause notice under<br \/>\nSection 61 of FERA Act. Thereafter, the subsequent complaint cannot<br \/>\nbe filed with a view to rake up the same issue before  the<br \/>\nlearned Judge, as  it  would  amount  to  review  of  the earlier<br \/>\norder  or  reconsideration  of  the  order passed  by  the  learned<br \/>\nJudge  which  is produced at Annexure &#8211; C  to  the  present case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">5.\tFor the foregoing<br \/>\nreasons, the petition is allowed and order dated 18.07.2003 passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad below<br \/>\nExh.8 in Criminal Case No.308 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">(H.B.ANTANI,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>Hitesh<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009 Author: H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/82720\/2003 3\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 827 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed [&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-266879","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009 - 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\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-19T23:19:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T23:19:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1584,\"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\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T23:19:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009 - 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\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-19T23:19:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T23:19:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009"},"wordCount":1584,"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\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009","name":"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T23:19:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-vs-p-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjay vs P on 20 March, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/266879","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=266879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}