{"id":79019,"date":"2008-06-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-08T08:56:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T03:26:31","slug":"hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H.N.Devani,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/4406\/2008\t 14\/ 14\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 4406 of 2008\n \n\nWITH\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC. APPLICATION NO.4410 OF 2008\n \n\nAND\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION NO.4414 OF 2008\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n==========================================\n\n\n \n\nHITESH\nD. SHAH - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMAHENDRA K PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1, \nPUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/05\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\t  By
\n\tthese applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\n\tProcedure, 1973 (?Sthe Code??) the applicants seek quashment of
\n\tthe complaints lodged against them in the Court of the Metropolitan
\n\tMagistrate, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under sections
\n\t4(3), 5 (1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
\n\tTechniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (?Sthe PNDT
\n\tAct??) as well as Rules 9(4), 10(1A), 17(1) and 17(2) of the
\n\tPre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
\n\tRules, 1996 (?Sthe PNDT Rules??).\n<\/p>\n
\t  The
\n\tmain grounds for challenging the complaint are set out in paragraph
\n\t2 of the application. One of the grounds is that the respondent No.2
\n\therein is not an ?Sappropriate authority?? as envisaged under
\n\tsection 17(2) of the Act and that therefore the complaint made by
\n\thim is not maintainable. In support of the said contention reliance
\n\thas been placed upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dr.
\n\tManish Dave v. State of Gujarat and Another and other
\n\tcognate matters,  (2008  (1) GLR 239) wherein on similar facts, for
\n\tthe reasons stated in the said judgement and order, it had been held
\n\tthat the complaints were bad in law. Similar contention was raised
\n\tbefore this Court in the case of Jagruti R. Sanghvi v. State
\n\tof Gujarat (Criminal
\n\tMiscellaneous Application No.4996 of 2008),
\n\twherein this Court had for the reasons stated in its order
\n\tdated 7.2.2007 rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
\n\tNo.7328 of 2006 and allied matters, expressed disagreement with the
\n\tview taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Dr.Manish
\n\tDave (supra) and referred the following question to the
\n\tlarger bench for its consideration and opinion:\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tunder the provisions of section 28 of the Pre-conception and
\n\t\tPre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,
\n\t\t1994 a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a
\n\t\tcompliant made by any officer authorised in this behalf by the
\n\t\tAppropriate Authority?\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tother grounds stated in the application are that there is no
\n\tspecific allegation in the entire complaint that the applicants have
\n\tconducted test for determining the sex of the foetus or that the
\n\tapplicants had communicated the sex of the foetus to any one. That
\n\tthe only allegation against the applicant is that there is
\n\tdeficiency and inaccuracy found in Form ??F?” as there are some
\n\tblanks in the same. That as far as non-filling up of certain columns
\n\tis concerned the applicants are not required to note the same as the
\n\tapplicants have nothing to do with such particulars in view of the
\n\tfact that ultimately the report which is indicated in the sonography
\n\ttest is just to be handed over to the patient concerned. Reliance is
\n\tplaced upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.
\n\tManish Dave (supra) wherein while construing the provisions
\n\tof the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the PNDT Act, it
\n\thas been held that ?Sthe language of the proviso is to the effect
\n\tthat ?Sany deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to
\n\tcontravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 unless contrary is
\n\tproved by the person conducting such ultra sonography??. The phrase
\n\t?Sunless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultra
\n\tsonography?? connotes that if there is any allegation, the person
\n\tconducting can prove otherwise. In the present case, there is no
\n\tallegation by the respondent authority that the provisions of
\n\tsection 5 and 6 of the Act are attracted and hence there is no
\n\tquestion of proving otherwise.?? Interpreting the provisions of
\n\tsection 5 and 6 of the PNDT Act it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
?S[14].\n<\/p>\n
A reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that no person
\nshould be communicated the sex of foetus, the test should not be
\nconducted for the purpose of determining the sex of a foetus nor can
\nthere be a test for selection of sex before conception. If the test
\nis is done for the aforesaid purpose there is a contravention of the
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
[15].\n<\/p>\n
From a bare perusal of the complaints it is apparent that it is not
\nthe case of the authority that provisions of Secs.5 or 6 are
\napplicable inasmuch as the authority has not been able to show or
\neven alleged that (i) any pregnant woman or her relative or any other
\nperson has been communicated the sex of foetus by the petitioners or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) at any place and by any person, including the person conducting
\nultrasonography, there has been either sex determination or sex
\nselection. In absence of such specific allegations in the complaint
\nit cannot be said that provisions of Secs.5 and 6 of the Act would be
\nattracted.\n<\/p>\n
[16].\n<\/p>\n
Reading the proviso to Sec.(3) it is to be presumed that the
\ndeficiency or inaccuracy in the record would amount to contraventions
\nof the provisions of Sec.5 or 6 of the Act. As a natural consequence,
\nin view of such deficiency or inaccuracy, there should be allegation
\nof contention of provisions of Secs.5 and 6 of the said Act. In the
\npresent case there are no specific allegations in the complaint
\npertaining to the provisions of Secs.5 and 6. Apart from that the
\nlanguage of Secs.5 and 6 is prohibitory in nature, and therefore, the
\nburden of proof will be on the authority to prove that there was
\ncontravention and thereupon to rely on the provisions of Statutory
\nForm-F for filing criminal complaint.\n<\/p>\n
[17].\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, without alleging the contravention to provisions
\nof Secs.5 and 6, the complaint has been filed merely on the alleged
\ndeficiency or inaccuracy, it should follow contravention of
\nprovisions of Secs.5 and 6 Such is not the case in the complaints in
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
[18].\n<\/p>\n
As far as Sec.4(3) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners
\nthat the register is maintained with all the columns which fall
\nwithin the four corners of the duties and functions of the
\npetitioners. Apart from that no opportunity is afforded to the
\npetitioners to prove contrary and put up their case. Further, such
\ndeficiency or inaccuracy, at least so far as the present proceedings
\nare concerned, is merely a procedural lapse, which do not in any
\nmanner contravene the provisions of Secs.5 and 6 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
[19].\n<\/p>\n
In view of the above, when it is not established that there is
\ncontravention of the provisions of Sec.5 or 6, the contention
\nregarding any inaccuracy or deficiency in in Form-F will not be
\napplicable, and, therefore, the complaints themselves are not
\nmaintainable. I am, therefore, of the view that the complaints do not
\nprima facie establish any alleged offence against the petitioners.??\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe reasons that follow, this Court is not in agreement with the
\n\tview taken by a co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid decision:\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tPNDT Act is an Act to provide for the prohibition of sex selection,
\n\tbefore or after conception, and for regulation of pre-natal
\n\tdiagnostic techniques for the purposes of detecting genetic
\n\tabnormalities or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or
\n\tcertain congenital malformations or sex-linked disorders and for the
\n\tprevention of their misuse for sex determination leading to female
\n\tfoeticide and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.\n<\/p>\n
Chapter
\n\tIII of the PNDT Act, which provides for ?SRegulation of Pre-Natal
\n\tDiagnostic Techniques?? consists of three sections viz. sections 4,
\n\t5 and 6. Section 4 makes provision for regulation of pre-natal
\n\tdiagnostic techniques. Section 5 makes provision for written consent
\n\tof pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating the sex of
\n\tfoetus. Section 6 prohibits the determination of sex. Sub-section
\n\t(3) of section 4 which is relevant for the purpose of the present
\n\tapplications reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S4.\n<\/p>\n
Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques.- On an from the
\ncommencement of this Act.-\n<\/p>\n
(3)<\/span><\/p>\n
no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be used or conducted unless
\nthe person qualified to do so is satisfied for reasons to be recorded
\nin writing that any of the following conditions are fulfilled, namely
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
age
\n\tof the pregnant woman is above thirty-five years;\n<\/p>\n
the
\n\tpregnant woman has undergone two or more spontaneous abortions or
\n\tfoetal loss;\n<\/p>\n
the
\n\tpregnant woman has been exposed to potentially teratogenic agents
\n\tsuch as drugs, radiation, infection or chemicals;\n<\/p>\n
the
\n\tpregnant woman or her spouse has a family history of mental
\n\tretardation or physical deformities such as, spasticity or any other
\n\tgenetic disease;\n<\/p>\n
any
\n\tother condition as may be specified by the Board<\/p>\n
Provided
\nthat the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall
\nkeep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be
\nprescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall
\namount to contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 unless
\ncontrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography.??\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tinterpretation of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the
\n\tPNDT Act is the main issue involved in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
A
\n\tplain reading of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 shows
\n\tthat the same imposes an obligation on the person conducting
\n\tultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep a complete record
\n\tthereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tmanner in which such record is to be kept is prescribed by the PNDT
\n\tRules. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the PNDT Rules provides that the
\n\trecord to be maintained by every Genetic Clinic, in respect of each
\n\tman or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure\/
\n\ttechnique\/test, shall be as specified in Form F.\n<\/p>\n
Rule
\n\t10(1A) of the PNDT Rules lays down that ?SAny person conducting
\n\tultrasonography\/image scanning on pregnant woman shall give a
\n\tdeclaration on each report on ultrasonography\/image scanning that
\n\the\/she has neither detected nor disclosed the sex of foetus of the
\n\tpregnant woman to any body. The pregnant woman shall before
\n\tundergoing ultrasonography\/image scanning declare that she does not
\n\twant to know the sex of her foetus.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the aforesaid provisions, the person conducting
\n\tultrasonography on a pregnant woman is required to keep a complete
\n\trecord thereof in the clinic in such manner, as prescribed under the
\n\tRules. Hence, the concerned person is required to fill up Form F
\n\twhich is the ?SForm for maintenance of record in respect of
\n\tpregnant woman by genetic clinic\/ultrasound clinic\/imaging centre??.\n<\/p>\n
Under
\n\tthe proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 any deficiency or
\n\tinaccuracy found in maintaining the record as prescribed shall
\n\tamount to contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 unless
\n\tcontrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography.
\n\tHence, there is a presumption under the statute by virtue of which
\n\tthe moment any inaccuracy or deficiency is found in the record
\n\tmaintained by the clinic, the same would ipso facto amount to
\n\tcontravention of the provisions of section 5 and 6 of the PNDT Act,
\n\tsubject to a caveat that such inaccuracy or deficiency shall not
\n\tamount to contravention of the provisions of section 5 and 6 if the
\n\tperson conducting the ultrasonography proves to the contrary.
\n\tTherefore, once an inaccuracy or deficiency is found, the burden
\n\tshifts upon the person conducting the ultrasonography to prove to
\n\tthe contrary, failing which the deficiency or inaccuracy in
\n\tmaintaining the record as prescribed shall be presumed to be a
\n\tcontravention of section 5 or 6 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Looking
\n\tto the complaints in question, it is evident that the persons
\n\tconducting the ultrasonography have not properly filled up Form-F as
\n\tprescribed under the PNDT Rules; hence, there is clearly a
\n\tdeficiency in maintaining the record, which would amount to
\n\tcontravention of sections 5 or 6 of the Act.  In view of the
\n\tprovisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PNDT Act, the
\n\tdeficiency or inaccuracy in maintaining the record would ipso facto
\n\tamount to contravention of section 5 or 6 and no other allegations
\n\tregarding the provisions of section 5 or 6 being attracted, are
\n\tnecessary. Therefore, the authority is not required to prove
\n\tcontravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6. But once any
\n\tinaccuracy or deficiency is found in maintaining the record, there
\n\tis a presumption against the person conducting the ultrasonography
\n\tthat there is a contravention of the provisions of section 5 ot 6 of
\n\tthe Act, which has to be rebutted by cogent evidence. Hence, the
\n\tonus lies upon the said person and not on the authority.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tprovisions of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PNDT Act mandate
\n\tthat the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall
\n\tkeep record thereof in the clinic in such manner as may be
\n\tprescribed. The statute provides that any deficiency or inaccuracy
\n\tfound in maintaining such record shall amount to contravention of
\n\tsection 5 or 6 of the Act. Hence, when the non-maintenance of such
\n\trecords as prescribed, entails such serious implications, it cannot
\n\tbe said that any inaccuracy or deficiency in filing Form-F as
\n\trequired under the statutory provisions is merely a procedural lapse<\/p>\n
The
\n\twords ?Sunless the contrary is proved?? have come up for
\n\tconsideration before the Supreme Court in several cases in the
\n\tcontext of the provisions of section 4(1) of the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act, 1947. In the case of C.S.D. Swami v. State,
\n\tAIR<\/a> 1960 SC 7, the Supreme Court while construing the
\n\tprovisions of section 5(3) (before amendment by Act 40 of 1964) of
\n\tthe Prevention of Corruption Act, has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
?SIn
\nthis case, no acceptable evidence, beyond the bare statements of the
\naccused, has been adduced to show that the contrary of what has been
\nproved by the prosecution, has been established, because the
\nrequirement of the section is that the accused person shall be
\npresumed to be guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his
\nofficial duties “unless the contrary is proved”. The words
\nof the statute are peremptory, and the burden must lie all the time
\non the accused to prove the contrary. After the conditions laid down
\nin the earlier part of sub-section (3) of S. 5 of the Act, have been
\nfulfilled by evidence to the satisfaction of the court, as discussed
\nabove, the court has got to raise the presumption that the accused
\nperson is guilty of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his
\nofficial duties, and this presumption continues to hold the field
\nunless the contrary is proved, that is to say, unless the court is
\nsatisfied that the statutory presumption has been rebutted by cogent
\nevidence.??\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe case of Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of
\n\tMaharashtra, AIR<\/a> 1964 SC 575 the Supreme Court while
\n\tinterpreting the provisions of section 4(1) of the Prevention of
\n\tCorruption Act, 1947 has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
?SIt
\nis well to bear in mind that whereas under S. 114 of the Evidence Act
\nit is open to the Court to draw or not to draw a presumption as to
\nthe existence of one fact from the proof of another fact and it is
\nnot obligatory upon the court to draw such presumption, under
\nsub-sec. (1) of S. 4, however, if a certain fact is proved, that is,
\nwhere any gratification (other than legal gratification) or any
\nvaluable thing is proved to have been received by an accused person
\nthe court is required to draw a presumption that the person received
\nthat thing as a motive of reward such as is mentioned in S. 161, I.
\nP. C. Therefore, the Court has no choice in the matter, once it is
\nestablished that the accused person had received a sum of money which
\nwas not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to
\nthat person to show that though that money was not due to him as
\nlegal remuneration it was legally due to him in some other manner or
\nthat he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which
\nwas lawful. The burden resting on the accused person in such a case
\nwould not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under S.
\n114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by
\nreason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is
\nreasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the
\nexplanation is a true one. The words ‘unless the contrary is proved’
\nwhich occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has
\nto be rebutted by ‘proof’ and not by a bare explanation which is
\nmerely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is
\ndirectly established or when upon the material before it the Court
\nfinds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act
\non the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation
\nis supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision
\ncannot be said to be rebutted.??\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe case of Mahesh Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan,<\/a>
\n\t(1974) 3 SCC 591, the Supreme Court while dealing with the
\n\tprovisions of section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
\n\theld as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S7.\n<\/p>\n
Under Section 4(1) of the Act, the burden of proving the contrary
\nmust rest on the appellant. But the learned Counsel appearing on his
\nbehalf urges that the presumption under Section 4(1) can be raised
\nonly if the prosecution establishes in the first instance that the
\namount was paid otherwise than as a legal remuneration. This
\ncontention is contrary to the clear terms of section 4(1) and would
\nrender illusory the presumption arising under the Section. To cast on
\nthe prosecution the burden of proving that the amount was accepted by
\nthe accused otherwise than by way of legal remuneration is to ask the
\nprosecution to prove that the amount was paid and accepted by way of
\nbribe. If this be the true nature of the burden resting on the
\nprosecution, no presumption at all need be raised because apart from
\nthe presumption that prosecution would have to prove that the money
\nwas accepted by the accused and that it was accepted as a bribe. It
\nis plain that if the prosecution proves the acceptance of the amount
\nby the accused and the amount does not represent legal remuneration
\nin any form or of any kind, the accused must establish that the
\namount was not accepted by him as a motive or reward as is mentioned
\nin section 161, Penal Code. As held in V.D. Jhangan v. The State
\nof Uttar Pradesh, the<\/a> accused can establish his case by
\npreponderance of probabilities, that is to say, he need not prove his
\ncase beyond a reasonable doubt.??\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe case of Dr. Manish Dave (supra), the view taken by
\n\ta Coordinate Bench of this Court is that ?SReading the proviso
\n\tto Sec (3) it is presumed that the deficiency or inaccuracy in the
\n\trecord would amount to contraventions of the provisions of Section 5
\n\tand 6 of the Act. As a natural consequence, in view of such
\n\tdeficiency or inaccuracy, there should be allegation of
\n\tcontravention of provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act. In
\n\tthe present case there are no specific allegations in the complaint
\n\tpertaining to the provisions of Sections 5 and 6. Apart from that
\n\tthe language of Sections 5 and 6 is prohibitory in nature, and
\n\ttherefore, the burden of proof will be on the authority to prove
\n\tthat there was contravention and thereupon to rely on the provisions
\n\tof Statutory Form-F for filing criminal complaint.??\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe opinion of this Court, if the aforesaid interpretation were to
\n\tbe accepted, the same would render illusory the presumption arising
\n\tunder the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the PNDT Act.
\n\tTo cast on the prosecution the burden of proving that there was
\n\tcontravention of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the PNDT Act
\n\tis to ask the prosecution to prove that the accused has communicated
\n\tto the pregnant woman concerned or her relatives or any other person
\n\tthe sex of the foetus by words, signs, or in any other manner or
\n\tthat the accused has conducted pre-natal diagnostic techniques
\n\tincluding ultrasonography, for the purpose of determining the sex of
\n\tthe foetus. If this be the true nature of the burden resting on the
\n\tprosecution, no presumption at all need be raised. From the language
\n\temployed in the statute it is plain that the person conducting
\n\tultrasonography on a pregnant woman is required to maintain complete
\n\trecord thereof in the clinic in such manner as may be prescribed. If
\n\tthe prosecution proves that there is any deficiency or inaccuracy
\n\tfound therein, there would be a presumption that the provisions of
\n\tsections 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act have been contravened and it is for
\n\tthe person conducting such ultrasonography to establish that there
\n\tis no contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe light of the aforesaid discussion, the following questions are
\n\treferred to the Larger Bench for its consideration and opinion:\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tunder the provisions of section 28 of the Pre-conception and
\n\t\tPre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,
\n\t\t1994 a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a
\n\t\tcompliant made by any officer authorised in this behalf by the
\n\t\tAppropriate Authority?\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tthe provisions of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of
\n\t\tthe PNDT Act, require that the complaint should contain specific
\n\t\tallegations regarding the contravention of the provisions of
\n\t\tsections 5 or 6 of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tthe burden lies on the authority to prove that there was
\n\t\tcontravention of the provisions of sections 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act?\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\tany deficiency or inaccuracy in filing Form-F as required under the
\n\t\tstatutory provisions is merely a procedural lapse?\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tRegistry is directed to place this matter before the learned Chief
\n\tJustice for passing appropriate orders.\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008 Author: H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/4406\/2008 14\/ 14 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 4406 of 2008 WITH CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.4410 OF 2008 AND CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO.4414 OF 2008 ========================================== HITESH D. SHAH – […]<\/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-79019","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008 - 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\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-08T03:26:31+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T03:26:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3531,\"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\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T03:26:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 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":"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008 - 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\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-08T03:26:31+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T03:26:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008"},"wordCount":3531,"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\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008","name":"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T03:26:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hitesh-vs-state-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hitesh vs State on 19 June, 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\/79019","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=79019"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79019\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79019"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79019"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79019"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}