Modification of Order dtd.

undefined IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1378 of 2023 [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 16/10/2025 in R/SCR.A/1378/2023 ]

==========================================================

VIJAY MURLIDHAR UDHWANI @ VIJU SINDHI THRO DEEPABEN VIJAYKUMAR UDHWANI Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

RAHUL SHARMA(8276) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 5 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

Perused the note for speaking to minutes.

In order dated 16.10.2025, the name of the learned “APP Mr.

Manan Mehta” has wrongly been mentioned in the APPEARANCE.

Therefore, name of the learned APP be modified as “learned public prosecutor Shri Hardik Dave with Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shruti Pathak” in the APPEARANCE of order dated

16.10.2025.

Rest of the order shall remain as it is.

Present note for speaking to minutes is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Registry is directed to issue fresh writ accordingly.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

GARVITA undefined IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1378 of 2023 ==========================================================

VIJAY MURLIDHAR UDHWANI @ VIJU SINDHI THRO DEEPABEN VIJAYKUMAR UDHWANI Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

RAHUL SHARMA(8276) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 5 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

Rule. Learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule for the respective respondents.

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent No. 2 to withdraw and cancel the Red Corner Notice issued against the petitioner and also to withdraw the extradition request made to the United Arab Emirates for the extradition of the petitioner forthwith, and further to bear all expenses incurred by the petitioner in securing his bail, including legal expenses, as well as all expenses likely to be incurred by the petitioner, including legal expenses, for the recovery of his and his guarantor’s passports.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the present petitioner has challenged the Red Corner Notice issued at the instance of the State against him, as well as the extradition proceedings initiated at the instance of the State, on the ground that the petitioner has not committed any serious offence or any social crime for which such Red Corner Notice can be issued. Insofar as the extradition proceedings are concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that 38 prohibition offences are registered against the petitioner. However, even on the face of it, prohibition offences are not treated as offences under the law of Dubai. In such circumstances, prohibition is no offence in Dubai, and therefore, the principle of “Dual criminality” is not attracted. Hence, issuance of the Red Corner Notice is impermissible, as prohibition offences do not fall within the category of “serious” or “cultural crimes.”

3.1 It is further submitted that, as per the Interpol guidelines regarding issuance of Red Corner Notices, as well as the provisions relating to extradition proceedings, no case is made out for issuance or publication of any Red Corner Notice