Gujarat High Court
M/S Hdfc Securities Ltd Thro Keyur ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 November, 2022
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9773 of 2019
=====================================================
M/S HDFC SECURITIES LTD THRO KEYUR RAJNIKANT SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR DINESH TIWARI with MR NIMIT Y SHUKLA(8338) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS M D MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 15/11/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, the learned advocate with Mr. Nimit Y. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.
2. By way of present application, the applicant herein has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"a. To issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 20th July, 2019 passed by the Ld. Magistrate Court at Bhavnagar in Criminal Case no.2392 of 2013;
b. To issue a writ of mandamus and/or any Page 1 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 other writ, order or direction, to direct further investigation to be conducted by a competent investigation agency apart from the present Respondent.
c. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may direct that the Trial pending being Criminal Case no.2392 of 2013 pending on the file of Ld. Magistrate Court, Bhavnagar be stayed until the final disposal of this Application.
d. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c).
e. Any other reliefs as may be deemed proper by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Following facts emerge for consideration as stated by the applicant herein :-
3.1 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant states that on 28.06.2012, online trading was facilitated to the tune of Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Seven Crores) at the branches of the applicant. By such trade monies were siphoned off by the perpetrators/accused by impersonating account holders of the bank and by using the confidential information of such account holders.
3.2 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant states that on 28.06.2012 at 11:28 am, a call was received by the Gandhidham Branch of Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 the applicant, from a mobile number i.e. 9016588891, in respect of an account belonging to one Mr. Vijay Chotubhai Parekh who is a customer of the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the "First Customer"). The said call was answered by an employee of the applicant i.e. Mrs. Bhumi Lodhia. The caller provided the requisite information i.e. the date of birth of First Customer and his D-mat Account Number.
After verifying the information, Mrs. Lodia provided the token ID '9064' to the caller; such token IDs are generated to facilitate transactions in Trading accounts, therefore are generated and given only after verification.
3.3 Subsequently, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant states that on the same date i.e. 28.06.2012, shares amounting to Rs.2,17,21,470/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventeen Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred Seventy only) were sold and shares of one M/s. Dinesh Allorga Ltd., were purchased to the tune of Rs.2,13,40,193/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirteen Lakhs Forty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Three only) from the Account of the First Customer by using the Token ID 9064. The detailed list of the transactions forms part of the FIR.
3.4 The learned advocate appearing for the Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 applicant further states that on the same day, at 11.57 a.m., another call was received at the Applicant's Simla Branch at Himachal Pradesh from mobile number i.e. 9016588891, which was answered by an employee of the applicant i.e. Mr. Nareshkumar Verma. The caller provided the relevant information in respect of another customer of the Applicant namely one Mr. Chandu Sirumal Israni (hereinafter referred to as "Second Customer") and therefore after such verification, was given Token ID no.'9578'.
3.5 Thereafter, at 12.00 p.m. the Udaipur Branch of the Applicant received a phone call from same mobile number i.e. 9016588891 and the employee, Mr. Ravikant Joshi was asked to carry out trading in the Second Customer's account by using the Toke ID 9578. In all shares amounting to Rs.1,93,11,864.7 (Rupees One Crore Ninety Three Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Four) were sold and shares of M/s. Dinesh Allorga Ltd., were purchased to the tune of Rs.1,61,74,699/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty One Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Nine Only). The detailed list of the transactions is mentioned in the FIR.
3.6 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant states that after carrying out the aforesaid transactions, intimations of the trade Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 were sent to First Customer and Second Customer on their respective email addresses and phone numbers.
3.7 Thereafter, First Customer and Second Customer submitted a written complaint with the applicant wherein they have stated that they never called for carrying out any trades and the transactions carried out on 28.06.2012 were carried out by somebody by impersonation and a fraud has been played on them as well as on the applicant.
3.8 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant states that the shares which were sold in these transactions were shares of A-listed companies and the shares which were purchased were of M/s. Dinesh Allorga Ltd. which is nothing but a sham company, floated only on paper and purely with the intention of manipulating share markets and share prices. It is highly unlikely that one would give away shares of a trusted and reputed company to buy shares of M/s. Dinesh Allorga Ltd. It is to be noted that the trading volume in M/s. Dinesh Allorga Ltd was at its highest on 28.06.2012, i.e. the day when the fraudulent transactions were carried out. A chart showing details of trading volumes of M/s. Dinesh Allorga can be found in the FIR.
Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 3.9 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant states that pursuant to the discovery of the fraud which was committed against the applicant leading to huge losses and siphoning off of the applicant's monies which is in turn public monies, to the tune of around seven crores of rupees and the malafide misuse of confidential information thereof, the applicant attempted to lodge a complaint with the EOW, Mumbai. The EOW, Mumbai in turn asked the complainant - applicant to approach Bhavnagar Police. Consequently, the applicant registered the said FIR with Bhavnagar Police on 21.10.2012. It is pertinent to note that despite there being a clear conspiracy by which the fraud was committed; Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not added by the respondent.
4. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant herein is company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and subsidiary of M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. The applicant herein is a trusted and reputed financial services intermediary.
4.1 The respondent has been investigating the FIR bearing No.I-C.R.204 of 2012 registered with 'A' Division Police Station, Bhavnagar for the Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 offences under Section 417, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal code, 1860.
4.2 It is the case of the applicant that the respondent without informing the representative of the applicant who were continuously following up with the matter, filed a charge-sheet with the sole intention of closing the matter with no real investigation and letting the perpetrators of the crime roam scot free.
4.3 It appears that the applicant had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 02.12.2014 passed in CRLMP/21334-21335/2014 had observed that the applicant had legal remedy to address the grievance and hence the applicant has approached this Court by filing the present application.
4.4 The applicant states that the present application is essentially filed for investigating the following aspects which were avoided and despite pointing it out neglected by the respondent authority. The following aspects go to the root of the matter and are required to be investigated to unearth the truth and put accused to their guilt for committing a planned fraud wherein crores of rupees belonging to public at large where being siphoned off.
Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 a. The modus operandi of the accused has not been specifically identified;
b. Though, in all, five accused have been charge-sheeted, the other accused and beneficiaries of the fraud have not been charge-sheeted despite there being availability of clear cut material in that regard;
c. The investigating agency has failed to secure and protect the money involved in the fraud;
d. There has been no real cooperation by the respondent to the applicant who is rigorously pursuing the matter.
e. No offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been leveled against the accused.
f. No handwriting expert's opinion has been sought in respect of the documents related to the accounts of beneficiaries.
g. Further, no statement has been recorded of any of the promoters of M/s Dinesh Allorga who has also benefited from the fraud as their shares were sold at a very high prize.
h. Further, no statement has been recorded of any of the promoters of M/s. dinesh Allorga who has also benefited from the fraud as their shares were sold at a very high prize.
i. No voice samples have been collected despite the fact that the fraud has been facilitated via telephonic conversations.
Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 j. The Investigating Officer has
arbitrarily directing the release of the monies which are part of fraud.
k. No statement of anyone from the M/s. Ratnakar Brokers who was the broker of Mrs. Geetaben has been recorded.
l. Interrelation and the contracts of the accused have not been verified.
4.5 It appears that the charge-sheet came to be filed on 21.10.2013 pursuant to the FIR being I-C.R. No.204/2012, which is duly produced on record at Annexure-E, page No.77. Subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed on 21.10.2013, which is duly produced on record at page No.179. Criminal Case being Criminal Case No.2392 of 2013 is pending adjudication before the concerned Court, Bhavnagar.
5. Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant fairly stated that pursuant to the supplementary charge-sheet, which came to be filed on 21.10.2013, charges have framed by the concerned Court.
6. The applicant herein approached the concerned Court seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by filing the application below Exh.51 which is duly produced on record at page No.39.
7. By order dated 20.07.2019, the concerned Court Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 declined to entertain the said application and dismissed the same placing reliance on the decision of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Versus Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others reported in Criminal Appeal No.1171 of 2016, and Atul Rav Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2019) CRA 1367 of 2017.
8. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, the applicant herein has approached this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT :-
9. Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the position of law has been changed after the decision of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others Versus State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1. Placing reliance on the same, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that it is open for the investigating officer to file report before the concerned court at any stage if the investigating officer found some further material which was required to be considered by the concerned court.Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022
R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022
10. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT - STATE:-
10.1 Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State submitted that the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhavnagar has vide order dated 20.07.2019 has correctly rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 173(8) being Criminal Case No. 2392 of 2013 considering the decision of Amrutlal.
10.2 Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate qua Criminal Case No. 2392 of 2013 in alternative has sought further investigation under Section 173(8).
10.3 Considering the fact that charge is framed and at the relevant point of time the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate considering the decision passed in the case of Amrutlal has correctly rejected the prayer of applicant for further investigation under Section 173(8).
10.4 Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State submitted that the recent Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Vinubhai Malavia would have a bearing on the issue in question. Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned APP further submitted that this Court may reject the present application considering the applicability of the decision of Vinubhai Malaviya reported in 2019 (17) SCC 1, but as the said judgment also envisages to consider the application under Section 173(8), to meet the ends of justice. Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned APP fairly submitted that the applicant to make an application before the concerned police officer or the higher officer under Section 173(2) and the police officer shall if deemed fit make an application under Section 173(8) before the Hon'ble Magistrate.
11. POSITION OF LAW :-
11.1 Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is apposite to refer to the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others Versus State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph No.42 as under :-
"42. There is no good reason given by the Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra);
Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may carry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision as stated above has laid down the ratio that the Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is very wide, for it is this judicial authority that must be satisfied that a proper investigation by the police takes place. To ensure that a "proper investigation" takes place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police - which such Magistrate is to supervise under Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary, which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which, without doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation after a report is received by him under Section 173(2) and which power would continue to ensure in such Magistrate at all stages of the criminal proceedings until the trial itself commences. The "investigation" referred to in Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code would, as per the definition of "investigation" under Section 2(h), includes all proceedings for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer which would undoubtedly includes proceedings by way of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, when Section 156(3) states that a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order "such an investigation", such Magistrate may also order further investigation under Section 173(8) considering the definition of "investigation" under Section 2(h).
13. It is apposite to refer to "Investigation"
define in Section 2(h) reads follows :-
"Section 2(h):- "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf."
14. It is also apposite to refer to Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which reads thus :-
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
15. It is also apposite to refer Section 173(8) Report of police officer on completion of investigation reads thus :-
Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 " xxx xxx xxx (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-
section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."
16. The applicant herein is aggrieved by the following:
Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 16.1 The applicant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Bhavnagar whereby the application of the applicant for transfer of further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the applicant has preferred this application to highlight the grounds on which impugned order is untenable. The impugned order of the Learned Magistrate is born out of non- application of mind. The magistrate ought to order further investigation at any given stage where the investigation falls short of the mark. The impugned order absurdly asks the applicant to resort to provision of section 311 and 319 of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate denied that material yet to be investigated is irrelevant or unimportant for the purpose of trial. The Magistrate has passed the impugned order on highly misconceived technicalities. As long as the quality of the material that remains to be identified and investigated is not questioned, it would have been appropriate for the Magistrate to order investigation in to the same so that potential evidence does not get affected or tampered or ignored and is rather collected and preserved. Section 319 of Cr.P.C as interchangeable with the scope of investigation Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 is wrong. The discretionary relief under section 319 of Crpc cannot be considered as an alternative to the mandate of investigation which is supposed to go the root of the case without the interference of the courts. Option available under section 319 is not one that the magistrate should have prescribed with the intention that it would cover the gaps left by the investigation.
16.2 The applicant has approached this court in lieu of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malavia (Supra) case wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined about the ample powers of this court to issue further investigation post cognizance stage and also in lieu of filing of the supplementary chargesheet the direction of further investigation is required for the effective evidences to be culled out and presented before the court below.
16.3 In the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malavia (Supra) has categorically opined that Ld. Court below will only have powers to order further investigation till the stage of commencement of trial and therefore also it is required by this court to order further investigation in the interest of justice. The nature of the crime being anti social and having Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 consequences upon society at large, it is the duty of the Magistrate to resort to the principle of equity and justice. The definition of victim is wide enough to include affected parties and it was unfounded for the magistrate to reject the application for further investigation on so called technical grounds that applicant does not have a right to make request for further investigation. Impugned order inter alia rejected the application of the applicant on the basis that evidence which does not feature in the chargesheet can be brought to the court under section 311 of Cr.P.C. Relief under section 311 of Cr.P.C cannot be considered an alternative to a thorough investigation. The investigation has been very superficial and charge sheets have been filed only for the sake of concluding the investigation in a way which favour the criminals.
16.4 Even the supplementary charge sheet which was supposed to be filed by District Superintendent of Police has been filed by a Police Inspector.
18. This Court has gone through the record of the present application and as stated by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant, the concerned Court has proceeded to frame charges. Considering the submissions advanced by Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022 the learned advocate appearing for the applicant and the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malavia vs State of Gujarat, and peculiar facts of the present case the order passed by the concerned court under Section 173(8) dated 20.07.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate Court at Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No.2392 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside with a liberty to the applicant herein to file an application stating the grievances before the respondent authority. As fairly submitted by Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned APP the respondent authority may consider the same in accordance with law following the dictum as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malavia (Supra) and decide the same preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the such application. The aforesaid order is passed in view of the fact that the ratio as laid down in case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Versus Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others reported in Criminal Appeal No.1171 of 2016, and Atul Rav Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2019) CRA 1367 of 2017 which was relied upon by the concerned Court while passing the impugned order on 20.07.2019 in Criminal Case No. 2392 of 2013 has been overruled in (2019) 17 SCC 1 - Vinubhai Haribhai Malavia vs State of Gujarat.
Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022R/SCR.A/9773/2019 ORDER DATED: 15/11/2022
19. With the aforesaid observation, the present application stands partly allowed.
Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Pallavi Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 06:21:50 IST 2022