{"id":128102,"date":"1966-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966"},"modified":"2016-03-02T22:16:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T16:46:56","slug":"ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966","title":{"rendered":"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 349, \t\t 1966 SCR 517<\/div>\n
Author: M R.<\/div>\n
Bench: Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM CHANDER PRASAD SHARMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/02\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nSARKAR, A.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  349\t\t  1966 SCR  517\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1967 SC 947\t (5)\n R\t    1983 SC 822\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian Electricity Act (9 of 1910), ss. 39 and\t50-Existence\nof  artificial\tmeans for  abstraction\tof  electricity-When\nevidence  of  dishonest abstraction-Complaint to  police  on\nbehalf\tof Company-if prosecution at the instance of  person\naggrieved.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellants mill was supplied with electric energy by the\nPatna  Electricity supply company. The electric\t  meter\t was\ntampered  With\tby breaking its seals opening its  stud\t and\ninserting  a  wire  which prevented  the   rotation  of\t the\ndisc,so\t that  the  consumption\t  of  electricity  was\t not\nperfected.  There was thus a perfected\tartificial means for\nabstraction  of\t energy.   At  the  instance  of  the  Chief\n'Engineer  of the Electricity Supply Company, who  had\tbeen\nspecifically  empowered to act on behalf of the\t company,  a\nreport\twas  made  by the  Assistant  Engineer\tagainst\t the\nappellant to the police and the appellant was prosecuted for\nan offence, under s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act,\t1910\nThe trial Court acquitted him but the High Court, on appeal,\nconvicted him.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:\t  (i) The appellant was guilty\nFor a conviction under s. 39, it must perfected\t  artificial\nmeans  for  abstraction\t dishonest abstraction\twas  by\t the\naccused\t tampering  was\t so blatant-  and  so  effect done\nwithout the appellant's knowledge or connivance.[524 B-C]\nJagannath  Singh atlas Jainath Singh and Sohari Lal v.\tB.S.\nRamrwamy, [1966] 1 S..C.R. 885, explained.\n(ii) Since  the\t Electricity_  Supply  company\twas  a\tbody\ncorporate it  must act\t only  through\tits  officers,\t and\ntherefore it would follow that the law was   set  in  motion\nby the \"person aggrieved' within the meaning of s.     50 of\nthe Act. [523 C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 48
\nto 51 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t from the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd  January
\n1963  of the Patna High Court in Government Appeals Nos.   ‘
\nof’  1960, 39 and 19 of 1959, and Criminal Appeal No. 42  of
\n1959 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
M\/s.  Nuruddin Ahmad and U. P. Singh, for the Appellants (Ir
\nCr.  As.  Nos 48 to 50 of 1963, and Appellant No. 2 (In\t Cr.
\nA. No. 51 of 1963) :\n<\/p>\n
M\/s.  D. P. Singh and U. P. Singh, for Appellant No. 1\t(Jr,
\nCr. A. No. 51 of 1963):\n<\/p>\n
M\/s.  A. N. Sahay, N. K. Prasad Bukhaiyer and D. Goburdhan,.
\nfor Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
M\/s.  A. N. Sahay and S. P. Varma, fog Respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
518<\/span><\/p>\n
The following judgment of the court was delivered by
\nMudholkar  J.-By a common judgment delivered on January\t 23,
\n1963 the High Court at Patna decided four appeals  preferred
\nby  the State of Bihar and two criminal revision  petitions,
\none on behalf of the complainant and another on behalf of an
\naccused\t  person.    Those  appeals  arose   out   of\tfour
\nprosecutions launched against certain persons running  mills
\nor  factories which were supplied with energy by  the  Patna
\nElectricity’ Supply Company (hereafter referred to as P.  E.
\nS.  Co., for the sake of brevity).  The offenses with  which
\nthey were charged were under ss. 39 and 44 (c) of the Indian
\nElectricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and r. 138 read with r. 56
\nmade  under  the Act.  The trying magistrate  acquitted\t all
\nthose  persons\twho are appellants before us in\t respect  of
\neach of these offenses, except Ram Chander Prasad, appellant
\nin  Crl.  A. 48 of 1963.  He was convicted of all the  three
\noffenses   and\tsentenced  variously.\tIn  appeal  he\t was
\nacquitted  of  the  offence under s. 39\t by  the  Additional
\nSessions  Judge,  Patna while his conviction  and  sentences
\nunder  the  other  two provisions were\tupheld.\t  The  State
\nthereupon preferred an appeal against his acquittal under s.
\n417, Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court.\t The
\nState  likewise preferred appeals against the  acquittal  of
\nthe  accused  persons  in the other three  cases.   All\t the
\nappeals were heard together and were substantially  allowed.
\nThe  complainant  Ram Chandar Parsad Sharma’s  petition\t was
\nallowed\t and  that  of an accused  person  dismissed.\tThe
\naccused\t persons  have, therefore,  preferred  four  appeals
\nbefore us and though we will deal with them in this judgment
\nwe will take them separately one after the other.
\nCriminal Appeal No.48 of   1963
\nAccording to the prosecution, on June 11, 1958 the Assistant
\n,Engineer  (Mains)  of the P. E. $. Co. by  name  Chatterjee
\nvisited\t the Ramji Mills situated at Dinapur.  The  mill  is
\nrun  with  a  15 horse power motor which  is  supplied\twith
\nelectric energy by P. E. S. Co. lt is provided with a  three
\nphase mater.  Chatterjee found the mill working but  noticed
\nthat the disc of the meter was not rotating with the  result
\nthat  the  consumption of electrical energy  was  not  being
\nregistered at all.  Upon inspection of the meter  Chatterjee
\nnoticed\t that  a piece of wire had been\t inserted  into\t the
\nmeter  through the top stud hole on the right hand  side  of
\nthe meter cover.  This h. d been done by unscrewing the\t nut
\nand  thus exposing the stud hole.  Eventually a\t report\t was
\nmade to the police by Chatterjee at he instance of Ramaswami
\nthe then Chief Engineer and General Manager of P. E. S.\t Co.
\nAfter  investigation  the  appellant was  placed  for  trial
\nbefore\tthe Judicial Magistrate, First Class,  Dinapur.\t  He
\nframed\tcharges\t against him in respect of  all\t the  three
\noffenses.   The\t appellant  pleaded not\t guilty\t and  denied
\nhaving\tinserted  the  wire  inside the\t meter\tor  to\thave
\ntampered with it in any way.  His main defence, however,
\n\t\t\t    519<\/span>
\nwas  that  the\tmill belonged to the joint  family  and\t its
\nmanagement  was in the hands of his father  Nathuni  Thakur.
\nHe  further  said that he was practicing  medicine  and\t was
\nrunning\t a homoeopathic dispensary in Dinapur.\tHe  did\t not
\ndeny that the meter had been tampered with but according  to
\nhim  this was done by Chatterjee himself because he was\t not
\ngiven  illegal\tgratification  which he\t had  demanded\tfrom
\nLohari Pandit, who was the munshi of the Mill.
\nAll the courts are concurrent in holding that the  appellant
\nwas running the mills and that he was a consumer as  defined
\nin  s. 2(c) of the Act.\t Moreover, his convictions under  s.
\n44(c)  and  under r. 138 read with r. 56 are  not  challenge
\nbefore\tus.  In the circumstances it is not open to him\t now
\nto  say\t that he had no concern with the  mills.   The\tonly
\nquestion  then is whether the offence Under s. 39  has\tbeen
\nbrought home to him Section 39 of the Act reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whoever\tdishonestly  abstracts\tconsumes  or
\n\t      uses  any\t energy\t shall\tbe  deemed  to\thave
\n\t      committed\t theft\twithin the  meaning  of\t the
\n\t      Indian   Penal  Code  and\t the  existence\t  of
\n\t      artificial means for such abstraction shall be
\n\t      prima   facie  evidence  of   such   dishonest
\n\t      abstraction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  has been concurrently found by the courts below that  at
\nthe  time  of the inspection the mill was  working  but\t the
\nmeter was not registering the consumption.  It has also been
\nfound  concurrently that the meter had been  tampered  with,
\nthat  its  seals were broken, that its stud was open  and  a
\nwire  had actually been inserted in it which  prevented\t the
\ndisc  from  rotating.  These findings  were  not  challenged
\nbefore\tus  and\t in our opinion quite  rightly.\t  What\twas,
\nhowever,  said\twas that in view of our recent\tdecision  in
\nJagannath  Singh alias Jainath Singh and Sohari La v.  B.  S
\nRamaswami(1) these facts by themselves would not justify the
\ninference that the appellant has committed an offence  under
\ns.  39.\t That was a am in which, though the meter  seal\t was
\nbroken\tand the sealing nut was loosened which\texposed\t the
\nstud hole of the meter there was no evidence to show that  a
\nwire or any other foreign matter had been introduced in\t the
\nmeter  which would have the effect of stopping or  retarding
\nthe   rotation\tof  the\t disc.\t The  meter   was   actually
\nregistering  consumption of energy and the  prosecution\t had
\nnot  established  by using a check meter or  otherwise\tthat
\nwhat was being registered was less than the current actually
\nconsumed  by  the mill.\t It is in the  background  of  these
\nfacts that this Court observed
\n\t      “The effect of the last part of s. 39 ‘is that
\n\t      the existence
\n\t      of  the unauthorised means for abstraction  is
\n\t      Prima facie
\n\t      (1)   [1966] 1 S.C.R. 885.\n<\/p>\n
\t      520<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      evidence\tof  dishonest  abstraction  by\tsome
\n\t      person.  The special rule of evidence goes  no
\n\t      further.\t The prosecution must prove  aliunde
\n\t      that  the accused made the  abstraction.\t The
\n\t      fact  that  the accused is in  possession\t and
\n\t      control\tof   the   artificial\tmeans\t for
\n\t      abstraction  coupled with other  circumstances
\n\t      showing  that he alone is responsible for\t the
\n\t      abstraction may lead to the inference that  he
\n\t      is guilty of the dishonest abstraction.” .
\n\t      This  Court  also. held that an  exposed\tstud
\n\t      hole  cannot  by\titself\tbe,  regarded  as  a
\n\t      perfected artificial means for abstraction  of
\n\t      electrical  energy.   In\tthe  present   case,
\n\t      however, the artificial means was\t ‘perfected’
\n\t      because  a wire had actually  been  introduced
\n\t      through  the stud hole and had the  effect  of
\n\t      preventing the rotation of the disc.  The High
\n\t      Court  has  held that the\t appellant  was\t not
\n\t      merely  a\t consumer  but was  the\t person\t who
\n\t      supervised  over the working of the  mill\t and
\n\t      the  custody  of and control  over  the  meter
\n\t      could  not  be  with  anyone  else  but\thim.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Tampering was so blatant and so effective that
\n\t      it  could\t no.  have  been  done\twithout\t his
\n\t      knowledge\t or  connivance.  Further  there  is
\n\t      evidence on record to the effect that it takes
\n\t      a\t considerable  time  and  requires   certain
\n\t      amount  of skill to do what has been found  to
\n\t      have  been  done\tto  this  meter.    Clearly,
\n\t      therefore,it could not be the work of any\t one
\n\t      other  than  an  interested  person.   Indeed,
\n\t      looking to the effectiveness of the  tampering
\n\t      it must follow that its object was to  prevent
\n\t      the recording of electrical energy consumed by
\n\t      the mill.\t The person interested in this would
\n\t      naturally\t  be  the  consumer.   The   learned
\n\t      Additional  Sessions Judge no doubt said\tthat
\n\t      the  possibility of the appellant’s father  or
\n\t      some other member of the family tampering with
\n\t      the  meter’ cannot be ruled out.\tIn our\tview
\n\t      such  a speculative possibility is not  enough
\n\t      to  create  reasonable doubt, the\t benefit  of
\n\t      which could be given to the appellant.  In our
\n\t      opinion,\ttherefore, the High Court was  right
\n\t      and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 193<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      This  case  deals\t with  Onkar  Mills   which,
\n\t      according\t to the prosecution, is run  by\t the
\n\t      appellant Jainarain Lal.\tWhen Chatterjee ins-
\n\t      pected  this  mill along\twith  Kamla  Prasad,
\n\t      Government  inspector,  on June  13,  1958  he
\n\t      found  that  two, seating wires of  the  meter
\n\t      were  broken.  He drew up a report of this  on
\n\t      August  2,1958 and submitted it to  Ramaswami.
\n\t      Before this date, however, that is, on July  1
\n\t      1958  Ramaswami  had visited the\tplace  along
\n\t      with  Chatterjee\tand  Srinivasan,  the\tthen
\n\t      mains  Superintendent.   Both  the  appellants
\n\t      took  these persons to the room in  which\t the
\n\t      meter had been installed.\t Ramaswami found the
\n\t      sealing  wires  cut near the  seals  and\talso
\n\t      found  that both the seals had  been  tampered
\n\t      with.\tAccording   to\t the\tprosecution,
\n\t      therefore, the appellants were guilty
\n\t      521<\/span>
\nof  offenses  not only under r. 138 read with r.  56  framed
\nunder that Act but also of offenses under s. 44(c) and s. 39
\nof  the\t Act.\tIn  so far as the offence  under  s.  39  is
\nconcerned  what is mainly relied upon by the prosecution  is
\nthat  while  between  June 28 and July\t1,  1958  the  meter
\nreading\t showed\t a daily consumption of electric  energy  at
\nabout  300 units, for the period prior to that it showed  an
\naverage daily consumption of only 100 units.
\nIn  so far as the. offence under s. 44(c) is  concerned\t the
\nfacts to be borne in mind are these : On July 1958 the meter
\nwas  bound  with  wires at the instance of  the\t P.  E.\t Co.
\nofficials.   It is, however, a fact that the meter.  stopped
\nregistering  the  current  used all of a  sudden  within  24
\nhours.\tIndeed, on this score the appellants themselves made
\na  complaint  to the P. E, S. Co. by telegram.\t When  the
\nmeter  was examined it was found that nitric acid  had\tbeen
\npoured\ton  it and thus the meter had  been  tampered  with.
\nThis evidence was not accepted by the trying magistrate\t who
\nfelt  that  things looked rather suspicious.  On  the  other
\nhand the High Court upon a consideration a the evidence\t has
\ncome to the conclusion that the meter had been\tdeliberately
\ntampered  with.\t The appellants have been found by the\tHigh
\nCourt  to  be  consumers and in\t our  opinion  rightly\tand,
\ntherefore, with respect to the offence of tampering which is
\npunishable  under s. 44(c) they must be held to\t be  guilty.
\nIt  is\tnot for us to re-assess the evidence  on  the  point
\nbecause\t it  is the High Court which as the final  court  of
\nfacts, has to assess evidence.\tIn the circumstances we\t see
\nno ground to E interfere with the convictions and  sentences
\npassed\ton the appellants by the High Court for the  offence
\nunder s. 44(c) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In  so\tfar as the offence under r. 138 read with r.  56  is
\nconcerned it is clear that the offence has been Established.
\nIndeed,\t it is not even the appellants’ case that the  meter
\nwas  not tampered with.\t But according to them all this\t was
\ndone  by Chatterjee.  This explanation has been rejected  by
\nthe  High Court and in our opinion rightly.  We,  therefore,
\ndismiss\t their\tappeal in respect of  their  conviction\t and
\nsentences for this offence.\n<\/p>\n
In  our opinion, the conviction of the offenses under s.  39
\nis  unsustainable.  It is no doubt true that the  meter\t had
\nbeen tampered with.  But there is nothing to show that there
\nwas  any  perfected artificial means in existence so  as  to
\nraise  the presumption of dishonest abstraction under s.  39
\nprior to the stopping of the meter.  The mere fact that\t the
\nconsumption of energy between June 28 and July 1, 1958 was a
\n300  units  per day whereas it was much less prior  to\tthat
\ndate does not necessarily lead to the inference that in\t the
\npast  there  was dishonest abstraction of  electric  energy.
\nThe rise in consumption between June 28 and July 1, could be
\naccounted for by circumstances such as longer working  hours
\nuser  of current in a wasteful manner, user of\tcurrent\t for
\nmore
\n522<\/span>
\nappliances  and so on.\tIn the circumstances, therefore,  we
\ndo not think that the High Court was right in convicting the
\nappellants  under 39 of the Act.  We, therefore,  set  aside
\ntheir  convictions and sentences in respect of\tthe  offence
\nunder S. 39.\n<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1963
\nThis  appeal concerns the tampering of seats of three  power
\nmeters\tinstalled  in  the mill belong\tinto  the  appellant
\nKrishna Prasad Sao.  Accepting the evidence of\tN. Ghosh,  a
\nmeter  inspector,’ the High Court has held  the\t prosecution
\ncase to be established. the assessing the evidence of  Ghosh
\nthe  prosecution has referred to the evidence  of  Ramaswami
\nwho  had inspected the meters in question three\t days  after
\nGhosh  had inspected them and also to the, evidence  of\t the
\nMains  Superintendent Bhattacharya and meter reader Sen\t who
\naccompanied  him.   The\t High Court has\t also  accepted\t the
\nprosecution case that at the inspection by Ramaswami it\t was
\nfound  that  the terminal covers of two of the\tmeters\twere
\ndislodged  from\t their normal positions\t and  were  actually
\nhanging\t by  the wires.\t It was also found  that  the  cover
\nseals  of  all the meters had been tampered  with.   Indeed,
\naccording to Ramaswami the seals had- been so cut and placed
\nthat  despite  what  had been done  they  gave\ta  deceptive
\nappearance  of\tbeing in tact.\tIt was\tfurther\t found\tthat
\nthere were no seals on two of the cut-outs that the seals on
\nthe terminal covers of all the three meters were not genuine
\nand  that  one\tof  the meters\thad  registered\t no  advance
\nwhatsoever subsequent to Ghosh’s visit on the 19th while the
\nother two had F registered only 49 and 50 units respectively
\nbetween that date and the 22nd July.\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t be mentioned that Krishan Prasad actually  made  an
\nextra-judicial\t confession  when  he  was   questioned\t  by
\nRamaswami  regarding the tampering.  He no  doubt  retracted
\nthe  confession\t but  the High Court  has  relied  upon\t it.
\nActing\ton  the\t evidence   the High  Court  set  aside\t the
\nacquittal  of Krishan Prasad in respect of all the  offenses
\nincluding the one under s. 39 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Before we come to the merits we will deal with an  objection
\nto the effect that the prosecution was incompetent as it was
\nnot  launched by a person competent to do so.  It  is  based
\nupon S.\t  50 of the Act which runs thus
\n\t      “No  prosecution shall be\t instituted  against
\n\t      any person for any offence against this Act or
\n\t      any rule, licence or order thereunder,  except
\n\t      at  the  instance\t of  the  Government  or  an
\n\t      Electric\tInspector, or of a person  aggrieved
\n\t      by the same.\n<\/p>\n
The  prosecution  here was commenced with  a  charges  sheet
\nsubmitted  by  the police to the Judicial  Magistrate.\t The
\noffenses  were\tinvestigated into by the  police  after\t the
\nfirst information reports was launched
\n523<\/span>
\nwith  them  by\tBhattacharya.  What  is\t contended  is\tthat
\ninformation  given  by him could not entitle the  police  to
\nsubmit the charge sheet.  It is also said that submission of
\na  charge  sheet  by the police is not\tthe  same  thing  as
\ninstitution of prosecution at the instance of the State.  It
\nis, however, not dispute 1 that if the law was set in motion
\nby  a person aggrieved by making a first information  report
\nto the police a charge sheet could properly be submitted  by
\nthe police.  It is true that Bhattacharya was not himself  a
\n“person\t aggrieved” and that the “person aggrieved” was\t the
\nP.  E. S. Co. The P. E S. Co. however, is a  body  corporate
\nand  must act only through its directors or officers.\tHere
\nwe have the evidence of Ramaswami to the effect that he held
\na general power of attorney from the P. E. S. Co., and\tthat
\nhe was specifically empowered thereunder to act on behalf of
\nP. E. S. Co., in all legal proceedings.\t The evidence  shows
\nthat  it was at his instance that Bhattacharya launched\t the
\nfirst  information  report and, therefore, it  would  follow
\nthat  the law was set in motion by, the “person\t aggrieved”.
\nThe objection based on s. 50 must, therefore, be held to  be
\nuntenable.\n<\/p>\n
Now  as\t to the merits.\t In so far as  convictions  for\t the
\noffenses  under s. 44(c) of the Act and r. 138 read with  r.
\n56  are concerned there is ample evidence.  In\taddition  to
\nthe  evidence  of Ramaswami and Bhattacharya  there  is\t the
\nevidence of Kamla Prasad, Assistant Electrical Inspector who
\nis  an independent person.  The evidence of these  witnesses
\nhas  been  believed by the High Court and it  shows  clearly
\nthat  the meters were tampered with and the seals cut.\t The
\nfinding\t of  the High Court that Krishna Prasad\t Sao  was  a
\nconsumer and that the meters Were in.-his custody and  under
\nhis control is also based upon adequate material.  The\tHigh
\nCourt was, therefore, justified in convicting the appellants
\nfor  offenses  under those provisions.\tThe High  Court\t has
\nalso  relied upon the extra-judicial confession\t of  Krishna
\nPrasad\twhich,\tit may be mentioned, was  retracted  by\t him
\nlater  in  the\tsense that he denied having  made  any\tsuch
\nconfession.   Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed on behalf of the  appellant
\ncontended  that no conviction can be based upon a  retracted
\nextra-judicial\tconfession.. The respondent  contended\tthat
\nthis  was  not a case of retracted confession to  which\t the
\nrule of prudence requiring corroboration applies.  It  would
\nnot  be\t profitable  to\t discuss the  merits  of  the  rival
\ncontentions and we will proceed on the assumption that\tthis
\nis  a case of retracted confession.  It seems to us that  in
\nany I event Mr. Nur-ud-din’s contention cannot be  accepted.
\nIn Pyarelal v. State(1) this Court, while pointing out\tthat
\nordinarily corroboration is required it is not a rule of law
\nbut only a rule of prudence.  It is also said that it is not
\nan  inflexible\trule  of practice or  prudence\tthat  in  no
\ncircumstances such a conviction can be used without corrobo-
\n(1)  [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 689.\n<\/p>\n
524<\/span><\/p>\n
ration,\t on a retracted confession.  We are  satisfied\tthat
\nthe  High Court had before it adequate material\t apart\tfrom
\nthe  retracted\tconfession for holding that the\t meters\t had
\nbeen tampered with and the seals broken.\n<\/p>\n
In so far as the conviction under s. 39 concerned the matter
\nstands on a different footing.\tIt is not sufficient to\t say
\nthat a meter had been tampered with a and that it was  under
\nthe control of the accused person.  It is further  necessary
\nto show that there was dishonest abstraction, consumption or
\nuse  of\t electrical energy by the  accused  person.   Before
\nraising\t a presumption thereunder that there  was  dishonest
\nabstraction the presence of an artificial means which  would
\nrender abstraction of energy possible has to be established.
\nHere  we have three-phase meters and, therefore, unless\t all
\nare  tampered  with abstraction of energy  without  fear  of
\ndetection is not possible.  It is difficult to presume\tthat
\nthe  appellant\twould have knowingly done something  to\t the
\nmeter  which  would not have escaped detection\tof  a  meter
\nreader\tand facilitated the abstraction of electric  energy.
\nIn  fact  what he had said in his confession  was  that\t Jai
\nNarain, a meter reader of the company had done something  to
\nthe  meter.  That may or may not be so.\t Jai Narain who\t was
\nco-accused  with  the appellant was acquitted by  the  trial
\ncourt  and  his acquittal was not challenged by\t the  State.
\nThere is no material on the bar is of which it could be held
\nthat  there  was  either a  perfected  artificial  means  of
\nabstraction  or\t there\twas  in\t fact  any  abstraction\t  of
\nelectrical  energy.   In the circumstances  the\t presumption
\npermissible  under s. 39 can not be raised in favour of\t the
\nprosecution.   It  follow, therefore, that  the\t appellant’s
\nconviction under s. 39 is unsustainable.  We accordingly set
\nit aside as also the sentences passed upon him in respect of
\nthat offence.\n<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1963
\nThe  appellant here is Durga Prasad.  The mains\t which\twere
\nalleged\t by  the  prosecution to  have\ttampered  with\twere
\ninstalled in Shankarji Mills.  According to the\t prosecution
\nthe appellant Durga Prasad and Chandra Mohan Prasad are\t the
\nproprietors  of\t the  mill, having  purchased  it  from\t one
\nMusanlal.  It is not disputed that the sale deed is in their
\nnames.\t According  to\tthe  appellants,  however,  it\t was
\npurchased  by  Sarju  Prasad  father  of  Durga\t Prasad\t and
\nmaternal  grandfather of Chandra Mohan.\t On June  18,  1958,
\nChatterjee  inspected the installation.\t Further,  according
\nto him the normal consumption of the mill would be 70  units
\nper day of eight hours working while the meter showed 700 to
\n750  units  per month.\tHe also found that  both  the  seals
\nprovided  on the top cover of the meter had   been  tampered
\nwith  and  the\ttop right sealing nut on  the  stud  to,  be
\nloosened  and-\traised\tup leaving stud hole  on  the  meter
\nexposed.  He also found lot of did in the
\n\t\t\t    525<\/span>
\nmeter.\tThe company’s seals on one of the cut-outs were also
\nfound  missing.\t  He,  therefore,  reported  the  matter  to
\nRamaswami  and\talso  on June 19, 1958\tthere  was  a  joint
\ninspection  by\tRamaswami  and\tChatterjee.   Eventually   a
\nprosecution   was  launched  against  the   appellants\t for
\noffenses-  under  s. 39 and s. 44(c) of the Act and  r.\t 138
\nread  with  r. 56.  As already stated, the  appellants\twere
\nacquitted by the trying magistrate but were convicted by the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
The main contention raised on the appellant’s behalf by\t Mr.
\nNur-ud-din is that the appellants cannot be regarded as con-
\nsumers and, therefore, they could not be convicted of any of
\nthe offenses.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tno  doubt true that in the  company’s  books  it  is
\nMusanlal,  the original owner who is shown as proprietor  of
\nthe mill.  But it is not denied that he sold the mill to the
\nappellants.   It  may be that the  consideration  came\tfrom
\nSarju Prasad but the evidence which has been accepted by the
\ncourts\tbelow shows that the mill was actually run  by\tboth
\nthe appellants.\t According to the prosecution the appellants
\nare  partners.\tThough it is true that the partnership\tdeed
\nhas not been placed before us there is other material  which
\nwould  justify the conclusion that they are  partners.\t The
\nfact  that the sale deed stands in the names of\t both  these
\npersons shows prima facie that both of them have interest in
\nthe  mill.   Then there is a statement of Ramaswami  to\t the
\neffect that they were partners.\t Then there is the  evidence
\nto the effect that both of them were taking part in  running
\nthe  mill.  In the circumstances they could both be held  to
\nbe  the co-owners of the mill.\tBefore its amendment in\t the
\nyear 1959 the definition of consumer in s.   2(c)   was\t  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Consumer  means any person who\tis  supplied
\n\t      with  energy by a licensee, or whose  premises
\n\t      are  for\tthe  time being\t connected  for\t the
\n\t      purposes of a supply of energy with the works,
\n\t      of a licensee.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tan admitted fact that the mill\twas  connected\twith
\nworks  of P. E. S. Co. If, therefore, the appellants  became
\nco-owners  by  reason  of  the purchase\t of  the  mill\tfrom
\nMusanlal  they\tmust be regarded as  consumers\teven  though
\nMusanlal’s  name still continues to be borne on the  records
\nof P. E. S. Co.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court has found as a fact, after consideration  of
\nthe evidence, that the meters had been tampered with and the
\ncompany’s  seals broken.  The appellants who  are  consumers
\nare  thus liable to be convicted under S. 44(c) and  r.\t 138
\nread with r. 56.\n<\/p>\n
In  so\tfar  as the offence under s.  39  is  concerned\t the
\nposition  is, however, different.  There is no\tmaterial  on
\nthe  basis of which it could be said that what was  done  to
\nthe meter was a perfected
\nM11Sup\/CI66-2
\n526<\/span>
\nartificial  means by reason of which dishonest\tabstraction,
\nconsumption  or use of electrical energy was possible.\t Nor
\nagain, is there evidence to show that electrical energy\t was
\nbeing consumed by the mill over and above what was  recorded
\nby the meters.\tIn these circumstances the conviction of the
\nappellants under s. 39 cannot be maintained.  We, therefore,
\nallow his appeal to this extent and set aside the conviction
\nand  sentence in respect of the offence under s. 39  of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
What we have said above is sufficient to dispose of all\t the
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal 48\/63 dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal Nos. 49, 50 and 51 of 63<\/span><\/p>\n
allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
527<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 349, 1966 SCR 517 Author: M R. Bench: Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: RAM CHANDER PRASAD SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/02\/1966 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SARKAR, […]<\/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-128102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966 - 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\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T16:46:56+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T16:46:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966\"},\"wordCount\":4135,\"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\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966\",\"name\":\"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T16:46:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966 - 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\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T16:46:56+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966","datePublished":"1966-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T16:46:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966"},"wordCount":4135,"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\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966","name":"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T16:46:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-chander-prasad-sharma-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-on-8-february-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Chander Prasad Sharma vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 February, 1966"}]},{"@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\/128102","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=128102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}