{"id":105830,"date":"2001-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001"},"modified":"2015-10-23T17:28:51","modified_gmt":"2015-10-23T11:58:51","slug":"gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.P.Mohapatra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Shivaraj V. Patil<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1126  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nGURDEV SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/11\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nD.P. Mohapatra &amp; Shivaraj V. Patil\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tLeave is granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis appeal,  filed by special leave, by Gurdev<br \/>\nSingh father of the detenu Swarn   Singh Sandhu, is<br \/>\ndirected against the judgment and order dated 1.12.2000<br \/>\nof the Delhi High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.352 of<br \/>\n2000, <a href=\"\/doc\/150399\/\">Gurdev  Singh vs. Union of India &amp; Ors.,<\/a> dismissing<br \/>\nthe writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>At the commencement of hearing of the case Shri<br \/>\nV.A.Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant    submitted that   though the detenu has already<br \/>\nundergone the period of detention  this\t  Court\t may decide<br \/>\nthe  legality  and validity of the  Detention Order since the<br \/>\nappellant apprehends that certain further actions may be<br \/>\ntaken on the basis of the order of detention which has spent<br \/>\nits force by afflux of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>In pursuance of the detention order passed by the<br \/>\nJoint Secretary to the Govt. of India in the Ministry of<br \/>\nFinance (Department of Revenue) on 2nd March, 2000 in<br \/>\nexercise of the power under Section 3(1) of the Conservation<br \/>\nof Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities<br \/>\nAct, 1974  as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\nCOFEPOSA Act); Swarn Singh Sandhu was detained and<br \/>\nkept in custody in Central Prision, Nasik.  In compliance with<br \/>\nthe provisions of Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act read<br \/>\nwith Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India the<br \/>\ngrounds of detention dated 2nd March, 2000 along with the<br \/>\ndocuments mentioned and relied upon therein were<br \/>\ncommunicated to the detenu.  On receipt of the detention<br \/>\norder and the grounds of detention, the detenu addressed<br \/>\nrepresentations to the Central Government on 5.4.2000<br \/>\nwhich were rejected on 11.4.2000.   This was followed by the<br \/>\nwrit petition filed on behalf of the detenu in the Delhi High<br \/>\nCourt which was dismissed by its judgment and order dated<br \/>\n1.12.2000. The said judgment\/order  is under challenge in<br \/>\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the grounds of detention covering 35 pages the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has set out in detail the informations<br \/>\nreceived from different quarters regarding misuse of the<br \/>\nfacilities provided under  the Export Incentive Scheme<br \/>\nintroduced by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce,<br \/>\ncalled Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme as a part<br \/>\nof the Export-Import Policy for the period 1997-2002.  The<br \/>\nobjective of the scheme was to neutralize the incidence of<br \/>\nbasic customs duty on the import content of the export<br \/>\nproduct.  The scheme provided for credit of duty calculated<br \/>\nby taking into account the duty payable on the deemed<br \/>\nimport content used in the manufacture of the export<br \/>\nproduct. Under the scheme, an exporter is eligible to claim<br \/>\ncredit at a specified percentage of FOB value of exports.<br \/>\nThe credit is made available against the products exported<br \/>\nas per the rates specified in this behalf by the Director<br \/>\nGeneral of Foreign Trade (DGFT).  Under the scheme all<br \/>\nitems except those appearing in the negative list of imports<br \/>\nare allowed to be imported without payment of customs duty<br \/>\nagainst the credit available under a DEPB.   The procedure<br \/>\nspecified for issue of DEPB scrips entails submission of an<br \/>\napplication to the DGFT by the exporter along with the<br \/>\noriginal EP (Export Promotion) copy of the shipping bill<br \/>\nagainst which the exports have actually been effected and a<br \/>\ncertificate of realisation of export proceeds (BRC) from the<br \/>\nrespective banks.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is<br \/>\nstated by the detaining authority that an intelligence was<br \/>\nreceived by the officers of the Directorate of Vigilance,<br \/>\nMumbai, indicating that certain persons\/firms are misusing<br \/>\nthe DEPB scheme by manipulating\/forging the particulars of<br \/>\nthe shipping bills and obtaining the DEPB benefit from the<br \/>\noffice of the Joint DGFT, Mumbai.  Initially, three such firms<br \/>\nnamely, (I) M\/s.Samarth Enterprises, (ii) M\/s.Sharp<br \/>\nMedicals, (iii) M\/s.Pragati Sales Corporation were identified.<br \/>\nFurther investigation made after search of the premises of<br \/>\nthese firms revealed that one more company, namely<br \/>\nKnomo Exports Ltd. (later changed to M\/s.KEL Exports Ltd.)<br \/>\nwas also related to exports made by the said three firms.<br \/>\nThe detenu was a Director of Knomo Exports Ltd. (renamed<br \/>\nas M\/s.KEL Exports Ltd.).  It was further stated in the<br \/>\ngrounds of detention that investigations revealed that the<br \/>\naforementioned three firms have claimed the benefit of<br \/>\nDEPB scheme against exports of various bulk consignments<br \/>\nof drugs covered by 32 shipping bills.\tThese exports were<br \/>\nmade from the port of Mumbai.  The total FOB value of the<br \/>\nbulk drugs shown to have been exported under these 32<br \/>\nshipping bills amounted to Rs.29,14,59,690.00 and the said<br \/>\namount was adjusted against the advance remittances<br \/>\nreceived by M\/s.Knomo Exports Ltd.  It was stated in the<br \/>\ngrounds that all the 32 bank certificates of export realisation<br \/>\nshow that the total foreign exchange equivalent to total FOB<br \/>\nvalue has been shown to have been received by M\/s.Knomo<br \/>\nExports Ltd. and the detenu had signed as Director on all<br \/>\nthese certificates.  The said certificates signed by the detenu<br \/>\nwere submitted to the office of the Joint DGFT along with the<br \/>\ncopies of the DEPB shipping bills and accordingly DEPB<br \/>\nscrips were issued in the name of exporters on record.\tThe<br \/>\npapers submitted to Custom House, Mumbai for verification<br \/>\nand release of DEPB scrips revealed that one Prashant<br \/>\nD.Divekar had signed as Proprietor for all the three aforesaid<br \/>\nexport firms, whereas the entire  foreign exchange<br \/>\nremittance of these exports had been received by<br \/>\nM\/s.Knomo Exports Ltd.\tIt was stated in paragraph 5 of the<br \/>\ngrounds of detention that on detailed examination and<br \/>\nverification of the 32 shipping bills against which DEPB<br \/>\nscrips were obtained by the detenu revealed that the<br \/>\nparticulars in the shipping bills had been manipulated in<br \/>\nrespect of value, quantity and also in respect of names of the<br \/>\nmanufacturing companies of the drugs. The values have<br \/>\nbeen inflated by forging the original entries in the shipping<br \/>\nbills including the signatures of the concerned officers as<br \/>\nevident from the documents (i) to (xi) described in the said<br \/>\nparagraph.  The said documents included the statement<br \/>\ndated 30.8.1999 of the concerned appraiser Shri<br \/>\nM.K.Srivastava who was shown to have finally assessed the<br \/>\n32 shipping bills;  the fax letter dated 2.11.1999 from the<br \/>\nAsst.Commissioner, Central Excise, Shimla; Forensic<br \/>\nexamination report of Central Forensic Laboratories, CBI,<br \/>\nNew Delhi dated 15.12.1999 relating to sample shipping bills<br \/>\nof M\/s.Empire Exports and M\/s.Sharp Medicals.  In<br \/>\nparagraph 6 of the grounds of detention, the detaining<br \/>\nauthority set out in detail  various steps taken by the officers<br \/>\nof the Customs Department to ascertain the truth or<br \/>\notherwise of the allegations of organised activities of the<br \/>\ndetenu,\t Ajay Vyas and some others in taking advantage of<br \/>\nthe benefit of neutralization of  customs duty on imports by<br \/>\nusing large number of forged and manipulated shipping bills<br \/>\nand altering the description of the goods and inflating its<br \/>\nquantity and value. In the averments made in several<br \/>\nparagraphs of the grounds of detention, the detaining<br \/>\nauthority has given the results of the investigations made by<br \/>\nthe department at different stages; statements\t of different<br \/>\npersons involved in the case recorded under Section 108 of<br \/>\nthe Customs Act, 1962; the steps taken for prosecuting the<br \/>\ndetenu and his associate Ajay Vyas under the provisions of<br \/>\nthe Customs Act; the unsuccessful attempts  made by the<br \/>\ndetenu and his associate to get bail; the order of conditional<br \/>\nbail granted to the detenu and his attempt to leave Mumbai<br \/>\nfor Delhi violating the condition in the bail order.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the grounds of detention the detaining authority has<br \/>\nalso set out in detail the organised move made by the<br \/>\ndetenu and his associates to secure similar benefits of the<br \/>\ncustoms duty in respect of 58 forged and manipulated<br \/>\nshipping bills showing export of garments from Nhava Sheva<br \/>\nport in Gujarat. The FOB value of the 58 shipping bills was<br \/>\naround 30 crores and this amount was also adjusted against<br \/>\nthe advance remittances received by M\/s.Knomo Exports<br \/>\nLtd. (later renamed as M\/s.KEL Exports Ltd.)  All the related<br \/>\nbank certificates of export realisation show that the total<br \/>\nforeign exchange equivalent of the cumulative FOB value<br \/>\nhas been shown to have been received by erstwhile<br \/>\ncompany M\/s.Knomo Exports Ltd. and the detenu has<br \/>\nsigned as Director of M\/s.KEL Exports Ltd. on these<br \/>\ncertificates.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the narration of facts in the grounds of detention,<br \/>\nit is clear that the detaining authority has not only taken note<br \/>\nof the allegations made against the detenu; the materials<br \/>\ncollected by the investigating agency of the department<br \/>\nagainst him but has also taken note of the reply given by the<br \/>\ndetenu at different stages denying the allegations and<br \/>\nlevelling counter allegations against the officers of the<br \/>\ndepartment to implicate him.\n<\/p>\n<p>In paragraphs 40 and 41 of the grounds of detention,<br \/>\nthe detaining authority has stated :\n<\/p>\n<p>40.\tWhile arriving at the subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction in your case I have also<br \/>\ntaken into consideration the allegations<br \/>\nmade and pleas taken in various<br \/>\nrepresentations\/replies made on your<br \/>\nbehalf and on behalf of Shri Ajay Vyas.<br \/>\nHowever, in view of the materials placed<br \/>\nbefore me, I do not find any merit in<br \/>\nthese representations\/replies and I<br \/>\naccordingly reject them.\n<\/p>\n<p>41.\tOut of the DEPB scrips obtained<br \/>\nby you against the said exports in the<br \/>\nname of M\/s.Prism Exports A\/c M\/s KEL<br \/>\nExports Ltd., on the basis of<br \/>\nmanipulations and fraud as explained<br \/>\nabove, duty credit against four DEPB<br \/>\nscrips have been utilised for clearance<br \/>\nof four consignments of imported goods<br \/>\nwithout payment of duty to the extent of<br \/>\nRs.53.3 lakhs approx.  These four<br \/>\nconsignments were cleared in the name<br \/>\nof (i) M\/s.Calyx Chem. &amp;<br \/>\nPharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (ii)<br \/>\nM\/s.Mangalam Cement, Rajasthan,\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)M\/s.Krishna Gargi Pvt. Ltd., Dadras<br \/>\n(and also Mumbai) and (iv) M\/s.Enpro<br \/>\nSpeciality Chemicals Ankaleshwar, has<br \/>\ndirectly resulted into evasion of import<br \/>\nduty for imports made against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn paragraph 43, the detaining authority has<br \/>\nconcluded: Taking into consideration the foregoing facts<br \/>\nand the material on record, I am reasonably satisfied that<br \/>\nyour activities amount to smuggling of goods as defined in<br \/>\nSection 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as adopted in<br \/>\nthe COFEPOSA Act, 1974 Section 2(e) thereof since your<br \/>\nacts and omissions have rendered the goods involved liable<br \/>\nto confiscation under Section 111 and 113 of the Customs<br \/>\nAct, 1962 read inter alia with Rule 11 and Rule 14 of Foreign<br \/>\nTrade (Regulation) Rule, 1993, framed under<br \/>\nForeign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>In para 44 of the ground of detention, the detaining<br \/>\nauthority stated that in view of the facts mentioned in the<br \/>\nforegoing paragraphs, he had no hesitation in arriving at the<br \/>\nconclusion that the detenu had been engaged in smuggling<br \/>\ngoods. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and<br \/>\nthe well organised manner in which the prejudicial activities<br \/>\nhad been indulged in by the detenu, his role therein as well<br \/>\nas his dubious conduct as brought out in the statements in<br \/>\nthe grounds,  all of which reflect his high potentiality and<br \/>\npropensity to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future,<br \/>\nthe authority was fully satisfied  that there was need to<br \/>\nprevent the detenu from indulging in such prejudicial<br \/>\nactivities in future by a detention order under the<br \/>\nCOFEPOSA Act, 1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>The main thrust of the arguments advanced by Shri<br \/>\nV..A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant was that the order of detention was vitiated by non-<br \/>\nconsideration of relevant materials by the detaining authority<br \/>\nand non-application of mind and\t the High Court erred in<br \/>\nconfirming such illegal and invalid order of detention.<br \/>\nElucidating his contention the learned senior counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that the detaining authority has not verified the<br \/>\ncopies of the shipping bills submitted to different authorities<br \/>\nin course of the transactions of export to ascertain whether<br \/>\nthe allegations of forgery and manipulation of the shipping<br \/>\nbills levelled against the detenu were true or not.  It was the<br \/>\nfurther submission of Shri V.A. Mohta that since the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has referred to 90 shipping bills relating<br \/>\nto exports from the Port  at Mumbai and Nhava Sheva Port<br \/>\nin Gujarat sending a few samples to the forensic experts and<br \/>\narriving at a subjective satisfaction that the signatures of the<br \/>\nAsst.Commissioner of the Customs Department and other<br \/>\nofficers borne on the shipping bills were forged suffers from<br \/>\nnon-application of mind to the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tPer contra, Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned<br \/>\nAdditional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents<br \/>\ncontended that in the grounds of detention  communicated to<br \/>\nthe detenu the detaining authority has described in great<br \/>\ndetail the nature of organised activities in which the detenu<br \/>\nand his associates were involved; and the manner in which<br \/>\nthey have reaped the benefit by avoiding customs duty to the<br \/>\ntune of lakhs of rupees by using the forged and manipulated<br \/>\nshipping bills.\t In such a case it is not necessary for the<br \/>\ndetaining authority to send each and every shipping bill to<br \/>\nthe forensic expert for examination for arriving at a<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction whether the detenu should be<br \/>\ndetained under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act.\tThe<br \/>\nfurther contention raised by Shri Mukul Rohtagi is that the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has taken into consideration all the<br \/>\nrelevant materials placed before him including the<br \/>\nstatements made by the detenu and his associates; has<br \/>\nconsidered all the relevant materials and has arrived at a<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction about the necessity of detaining the<br \/>\ndetenu under the COFEPOSA Act in a fair and proper<br \/>\nmanner.\t It is the contention of Sri Mukul Rohtagi that the<br \/>\norder of detention warrants no interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/817576\/\">A.Sowkath Ali vs. Union of India &amp; Ors.,<\/a><br \/>\n(2000) 7 SCC 148, this Court considered the contention<br \/>\nraised on behalf of the detenu that the detention order was<br \/>\nvitiated as sponsoring authority placed the confessional<br \/>\nstatements of P &amp; I before the detaining authority but did not<br \/>\nplace their retractions from the said confession.  This Court<br \/>\nheld :\n<\/p>\n<p>The sponsoring authority should place<br \/>\nall the relevant documents before the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.  It should not<br \/>\nwithhold any such document based on<br \/>\nits own opinion.  All documents, which<br \/>\nare relevant, which have bearing on the<br \/>\nissue, which are likely to affect the mind<br \/>\nof the detaining authority should be<br \/>\nplaced before it.  Of course a document<br \/>\nwhich has no link with the issue cannot<br \/>\nbe construed as relevant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this<br \/>\nCourt held :\n<\/p>\n<p>    .The confessional statement and the<br \/>\nretraction, both constituting a composite<br \/>\nrelevant fact should have been placed.<br \/>\nIf any one of the two documents alone is<br \/>\nplaced without the other, it would affect<br \/>\nthe subjective satisfaction of the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.  Therefore, non-<br \/>\nplacement of the retraction affects the<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn Union of India &amp; Ors. Vs. Arvind Shergill &amp;<br \/>\nAnr., (2000) 7 SCC 601, this Court, taking an exception to<br \/>\nthe approach of the High Court in deciding the writ petition<br \/>\nfiled on behalf of the detenu under Section 3 of the<br \/>\nCOFEPOSA Act, 1974  held :\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court has virtually decided<br \/>\nthe matter as if it was sitting in appeal<br \/>\non the order passed by the detaining<br \/>\nauthority.  The action by way of<br \/>\npreventive detention is largely based on<br \/>\nsuspicion and the court is not an<br \/>\nappropriate forum to investigate the<br \/>\nquestion whether the circumstances of<br \/>\nsuspicion exist\t warranting the restraint<br \/>\non a person.  The language of Section 3<br \/>\nclearly indicates that the responsibility<br \/>\nfor making a detention order rests upon<br \/>\nthe detaining authority which alone is<br \/>\nentrusted with the duty in that regard<br \/>\nand it will be a serious derogation from<br \/>\nthat responsibility if the court substitutes<br \/>\nits judgment for the satisfaction of that<br \/>\nauthority on an investigation undertaken<br \/>\nregarding sufficiency of the materials on<br \/>\nwhich such satisfaction was grounded.<br \/>\nThe court can only examine the grounds<br \/>\ndisclosed by the Government in order to<br \/>\nsee whether they are relevant to the<br \/>\nobject which the legislation in view, that<br \/>\nis, to prevent the detenu from engaging<br \/>\nin smuggling activity.\tThe said<br \/>\nsatisfaction is subjective in nature and<br \/>\nsuch a satisfaction, if based on relevant<br \/>\ngrounds, cannot be stated to be invalid.<br \/>\nThe authorities concerned have to take<br \/>\nnote of the various facts including the<br \/>\nfact that this was a solitary incident in<br \/>\nthe case of the detenu and that he had<br \/>\nbeen  granted bail earlier in respect of<br \/>\nwhich the application for cancellation of<br \/>\nthe same was made but was rejected by<br \/>\nthe Court.  In this case, there has been<br \/>\ndue application of mind by the authority<br \/>\nconcerned to that aspect of the matter<br \/>\nas we have indicated in the course of<br \/>\nnarration of facts.  Therefore, the view<br \/>\ntaken by the High Court in the<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case cannot be<br \/>\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1221179\/\">Ahmed Nassar vs. State of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu &amp; Ors.,<\/a> (1999) 8 SCC 473, this Court, taking a similar<br \/>\nview, held :\n<\/p>\n<p>Every conceivable material which is<br \/>\nrelevant and vital which may have a<br \/>\nbearing on the issue should be placed<br \/>\nbefore the detaining authority.\t The<br \/>\nsponsoring authority should not keep it<br \/>\nback, based on his interpretation that it<br \/>\nwould not be of any help to a<br \/>\nprospective detenu.  The decision is not<br \/>\nto be made by the sponsoring authority.<br \/>\nThe law on this subject is well settled; a<br \/>\ndetention order vitiates if any relevant<br \/>\ndocument is not placed before the<br \/>\ndetaining authority which reasonably<br \/>\ncould affect his decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1769582\/\">Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union<br \/>\nof India &amp; Ors.,<\/a>   (1990) 3 SCC 309, this Court, referring to<br \/>\nthe grounds of detention, held:\n<\/p>\n<p>    It can therefore be seen that the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has considered the<br \/>\nallegations that the detenu was<br \/>\nmanhandled etc.\t At any rate, the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has clearly noted that<br \/>\nthe detenu has retracted from the<br \/>\nalleged statement, therefore it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that there is non-application of mind<br \/>\nin this regard, namely, in considering the<br \/>\nrepresentation<\/p>\n<p>This Court repelled the contention of non-application of mind<br \/>\nby the detaining authority. Relying on the averments made in<br \/>\nthe counter affidavit, this Court observed :<br \/>\nThe next submission of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel is that the detaining authority<br \/>\nhas not applied his mind properly in<br \/>\nrejecting the representation made by the<br \/>\ndetenu.\n<\/p>\n<p>Xxx\t\t\t xxx\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n<p>It can therefore be seen that the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has considered the<br \/>\nallegations that the detenu was<br \/>\nmanhandled etc.\t At any rate, the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has clearly noted that<br \/>\nthe detenu has retracted from the<br \/>\nalleged statement, therefore it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that there is non-application of mind<br \/>\nin this regard, namely, in considering the<br \/>\nrepresentation.\t The same principles<br \/>\napplies to the Advisory Board also.\n<\/p>\n<p>According to the submissions of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel, these documents were<br \/>\nnot placed before the Advisory Board in<br \/>\nits meeting on September 18, 1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>Whatever statement was made by the<br \/>\npetitioners on June 22, 1989 prior to the<br \/>\ndetention and the grounds clearly<br \/>\ndisclose that there was retraction.  It<br \/>\nmust also be noted in this context that in<br \/>\nthe grounds in paragraph 10 also it is<br \/>\nmentioned that a telegram was received<br \/>\non June 9, 1989 alleging about the<br \/>\nwrongful arrest and extraction of the<br \/>\nstatements and the detaining authority<br \/>\nhas also taken note of the allegations<br \/>\nmade against the DRI officers which<br \/>\nwere found to be false and baseless.\n<\/p>\n<p>The same material was there before the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board.\t Therefore there is no<br \/>\nforce in this submission.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the case of Ashadevi wife of <a href=\"\/doc\/1484079\/\">Gopal Ghermal Mehta<br \/>\n(Detenu) v. K.Shivraj, Addl. Chief Secretary<\/a> to the Govt. of<br \/>\nGujarat &amp; Anr., (1979) 1 SCC 222, this Court held that :\n<\/p>\n<p>The principle that could be clearly<br \/>\ndeduced from the above observations is<br \/>\nthat If material or vital facts which would<br \/>\ninfluence the mind of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority one way or the other on the<br \/>\nquestion whether or not to make the<br \/>\ndetention order are not placed before or<br \/>\nare not considered by the detaining<br \/>\nauthority, it would vitiate its subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction rendering the detention<br \/>\norder illegal.\tAfter all the detaining<br \/>\nauthority must exercise due care and<br \/>\ncaution and act fairly and justly in<br \/>\nexercising the power of detention and if<br \/>\ntaking into account matters extraneous<br \/>\nto the scope and purpose of the statute<br \/>\nvitiates the subjective satisfaction and<br \/>\nrenders the detention order invalid then<br \/>\nfailure to take into consideration the<br \/>\nmost material or vital facts likely to<br \/>\ninfluence the mind of the authority one<br \/>\nway or the other would equally vitiate<br \/>\nthe subjective satisfaction and invalidate<br \/>\nthe detention order.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the case of Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. &amp; Anr., (1989)<br \/>\n1 SCC 374, this Court held :\n<\/p>\n<p>What weight the contents and<br \/>\nassertions in the telegram should carry<br \/>\nis an altogether a different matter.  It is<br \/>\nnot disputed that the telegram was not<br \/>\nplaced before and considered by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.  There would be<br \/>\nvitiation of the detention on grounds of<br \/>\nnon-application of mind if a piece of<br \/>\nevidence, which was relevant though<br \/>\nnot binding, had not been considered at<br \/>\nall. If a piece of evidence which might<br \/>\nreasonably have affected the decision<br \/>\nwhether\t or not to pass an order of<br \/>\ndetention is excluded from<br \/>\nconsideration, there would be a failure<br \/>\nof application of mind which, in turn,<br \/>\nvitiates the detention.\t The detaining<br \/>\nauthority might very well have come to<br \/>\nthe same conclusion after considering<br \/>\nthis material; but in the facts of the case<br \/>\nthe omission to consider the material<br \/>\nassumes materiality.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t    (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\tTesting the case at hand on the touchstone of the<br \/>\nprinciples laid down in the decisions noted above, we find<br \/>\nthat the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining<br \/>\nAuthority  in the case is based on consideration of all the<br \/>\nrelevant materials placed before it by the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority.  It is not the case of the appellant that the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority did not place before the detaining<br \/>\nauthority any material in its  possession which is relevant<br \/>\nand material for the purpose and such material, if considered<br \/>\nby the detaining authority, might have resulted in taking a<br \/>\ndifferent view in the matter. All that is contended on behalf of<br \/>\nthe detenu is that the detaining authority should have taken<br \/>\nfurther steps before being satisfied that a case for detention<br \/>\nunder the COFEPOSA Act has been made out against the<br \/>\ndetenu. Whether the detention order suffers from non-<br \/>\napplication of mind by the detaining authority is not a matter<br \/>\nto be examined according to any straight-jacket formula or<br \/>\nset principles.\t It depends on the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case, the nature of the activities alleged against the<br \/>\ndetenu, the materials collected in support of such<br \/>\nallegations, the propensity and potentiality of the detenu in<br \/>\nindulging in such activities, etc.  The Act does not lay down<br \/>\nany set parameters for arriving at the subjective satisfaction<br \/>\nby the detaining authority.  Keeping in view the purpose for<br \/>\nwhich the enactment is made and the purpose it is intended<br \/>\nto achieve, the Parliament in its wisdom, has not laid down<br \/>\nany set standards for the detaining authority to decide<br \/>\nwhether an order of detention should be passed against a<br \/>\nperson.\t The matter is left to the subjective satisfaction of the<br \/>\ncompetent authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned senior counsel Sri V.A.Mohta raised another<br \/>\ncontention that the detenu had annexed to his representation<br \/>\ncertain document written in Urdu language; the detaining<br \/>\nauthority did not take any step for translation of the said<br \/>\ndocument into English, and therefore, the said material could<br \/>\nnot be considered by the authority concerned while<br \/>\ndisposing of the representation. The contention raised by Sri<br \/>\nMohta can  not\tbe accepted. The judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt does not show that such a contention was raised<br \/>\nbefore the Court  when the case was argued. Further, our<br \/>\nattention has not been drawn to any material to show that<br \/>\nthe document in question was not translated into English, or<br \/>\nwhether the  authority concerned  had not perused the<br \/>\ncontents of the document. There is also no material to show<br \/>\nthat the detenu had sought the help of the authorities to get<br \/>\nthe document in question translated into English since that<br \/>\nwas a piece of material which was relied upon by him in<br \/>\nsupport\t of the representation.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is our<br \/>\nconsidered view that the contention raised on behalf of the<br \/>\ndetenu that the order of detention was vitiated due to non-<br \/>\napplication of mind of the detaining authority, cannot be<br \/>\naccepted.  The High Court committed no error in declining to<br \/>\ninterfere with the detention order and in dismissing the writ<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tTherefore, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\tJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(D.P.Mohapatra)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\tJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Shivaraj V. Patil)<br \/>\nNovember 5, 2001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001 Author: D.P.Mohapatra Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Shivaraj V. Patil CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1126 of 2001 PETITIONER: GURDEV SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/11\/2001 BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra &amp; Shivaraj V. Patil JUDGMENT: D.P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001 - 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\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-23T11:58:51+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-23T11:58:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":4082,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001\",\"name\":\"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-23T11:58:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001 - 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\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-23T11:58:51+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-23T11:58:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001"},"wordCount":4082,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001","name":"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-23T11:58:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-5-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurdev Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 5 November, 2001"}]},{"@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\/105830","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=105830"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105830\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}