{"id":146948,"date":"2009-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-16T02:49:08","modified_gmt":"2017-03-15T21:19:08","slug":"r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: R. S. Dalvi<\/div>\n
                                     1\n\nPGK\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                        APPELLATE SIDE\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n          Criminal Revision Application No.221 of 2003\n\nR. Narasimhan            ...                          ... Applicant\n                                                  (Orig.Accused No.4)\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    v\/s.\nThe State (C.B.I., A.C.B., Mumbai)                    ... Respondent\n                                                  (Orig.Complainant)\n\n\n\n\n                                        \nMr.Yusuf Iqbal with Mr.Neville             Majra        i\/by        M\/s.Yusuf             &\nAssociates for Applicant.    \nMr.Mangar Goswami with Mr.A.S. Gadkari for Res.No.1-CBI.\n                            \nMrs.A.A. Mane, APP for State.\n    -----\n\n                                CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.\n            \n\n\nDate for reserving the judgment :           15th December 2009\n         \n\n\n\nDate for pronouncing the judgment :              19th    December 2009\n\nJUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
    1.   This   Application    has   challenged         the      order        of      the
\n         learned    Special     Judge,     CBI\/Additional                   Sessions<\/p>\n
         Judge,    Greater   Bombay,     dated    13.3.2003,              rejecting
\n         the Discharge Application of the Applicant herein,
\n         who was accused No.4 in Special Case No.61 of 1999
\n         before the learned Judge and also of accused No.3
\n         therein.    Accused No.3 has not challenged the said<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
         order.\n<\/p>\n
    2.   The Applicant\/accused No.4 herein was charged with
\n         having committed offences under Section 120B of the<\/p>\n
         Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1)\n<\/p>\n
         (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PC<\/p>\n
         Act) corresponding to Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of
\n         the PC Act, 1988.               The Applicant served as Vice
\n         President at New York Branch, Bank of Baroda. The<\/p>\n
         Applicant       was     appointed          to     the       said         post         in
\n         September       1987,    which
\n                                 ig           he    continued         to     hold        until
\n         December 1990.           The acts committed by the various
\n         officers of the Bank as also the third parties with<\/p>\n
         whom they had certain transactions of sanctioning an
\n         overdraft facility, credit facility and Letters of<\/p>\n
         Credit   (LCs)         were    stated       to    be     for        the       period
\n         between 1984 and 1988.                    Hence, in respect of the<\/p>\n
         Applicant,       the    period       between      September             1987        and
\n         December    1988       would     be       material.           The       Applicant<\/p>\n
         returned     to    India       in     1991       and     retired           on       27th
\n         February 1999.          The case was registered by the CBI
\n         in the year 1992.\n<\/p>\n
    3.   The charge-sheet contains documents of the relevant
\n         period     as     also        several       other       documents               being
\n         letters, notes etc. of the accused\/Applicant of the
\n         period between 1989-90, which has been argued upon<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
         on behalf of the accused\/Accused.\n<\/p>\n
    4.   The Applicant was arraigned along with 3 other Bank
\n         Officers.      They        had       previously            retired.               The<\/p>\n
         prosecution applied for sanction to prosecute the
\n         Applicant.         The     competent        Authority             being           the<\/p>\n
         Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank, refused
\n         to sanction prosecution against the Applicant.                                    The
\n         charge-sheet came to be served upon the Applicant<\/p>\n
         after   his        retirement        on   the     premise            that         the
\n         sanction      to     prosecute
\n                                ig             him    would          not        then         be
\n         required.\n<\/p>\n
    5.   Disciplinary proceedings were instituted by way of a
\n         departmental        inquiry      against     the      Applicant.                  The<\/p>\n
         Applicant was served with the articles of charge and
\n         the   statement       of   allegations          in    that        inquiry           on<\/p>\n
         12.2.1999.         The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
\n         is stated to have conducted that inquiry.                                The CVC<\/p>\n
         has exonerated the Applicant of the charges levelled
\n         against him under its Report dated 22.10.1999.                                    The
\n         Applicant claims that the inquiry was conducted on
\n         identical charges upon the same documents.\n<\/p>\n
    6.   The charge against the Applicant showed that accused
\n         No.1-K.C. Chokshi, who was the then Executive Vice
\n         President at the New York Branch                     of Bank of Baroda,<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
         accused No.2 one Premjit Singh, who was then the
\n         Chairman and Managing Director, Central Office, Bank<\/p>\n
         of Baroda in Mumbai and accused No.3-Dr. A.C. Shah,
\n         who was then the Executor Director of the Central<\/p>\n
         Office of Bank of Baroda in Mumbai, were charged
\n         along with the Applicant.                  The prosecution case is<\/p>\n
         that the Applicant granted and recommended various
\n         credit facilities by increasing credit limits from 1
\n         Million    U.S.       Dollars       to    5    Million        U.S.         Dollars<\/p>\n
         (USD),    granted      the    overdraft         facility          as     well        as
\n         allowed     opening    igof     LCs       to    one     M\/s.Kulmer               INC.
\n         (Kulmer), a Private Firm based in New York.                                   It is
\n         also     the    prosecution         case       that     based          upon        the<\/p>\n
         recommendations         of    the     Applicant         put        up      through
\n         accused No.3 to accused No.2, these facilities were<\/p>\n
         granted and enhanced.                 This was despite the said
\n         Firm    being    classified          as    having       doubtful             credit<\/p>\n
         limit     by    the    Regulatory          Authority,           the        Federal
\n         Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) of the U.S.A.\n<\/p>\n
    7.   The     prosecution          case         is    based          upon          source
\n         information.          It is made out despite the fact that
\n         the account of Kulmer was not treated as fraudulent<\/p>\n
         by the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
    8.   The prosecution has, inter alia, relied upon several
\n         letters of the Applicant with the Central Office in<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
          Mumbai as well as two Telexes dated 10.9.1987 and
\n          12.2.1988 and the Fax dated 2.12.1987, which have<\/p>\n
          been recited and considered in the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
    9.    To     understand       a    prima          facie        case         against            the
\n          Applicant,       the        documents            relied           upon          by       the<\/p>\n
          prosecution and which are a part of the CVC inquiry
\n          must be seen.          A telex message sent by the Applicant
\n          as the Senior Vice President, New York to the DGM<\/p>\n
          (International) in the Main Office at Bombay, does
\n          show    that    the     LC
\n                                  ig    of       USD       4    Lakhs        had       not       been
\n          considered favourably.                 The Applicant has requested
\n          to consider it favourably for the reasons that the<\/p>\n
          Company had shown improvement in its performance, it
\n          had    made    profits       and       reduced          the       carry          forward<\/p>\n
          losses, it had          substantial orders in hand and its
\n          liquidity problems were due to direct payment.                                           The<\/p>\n
          Applicant proposed that the LC would help it to meet
\n          the orders on hand, as was the case of the Company,<\/p>\n
          and hence recommended reconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
    10.   After    the    appointment            of    the      Applicant            as      Senior
\n          Vice    President       of    Bank          of   Baroda,           New       York,         in<\/p>\n
          September 1987, the telex issued by the New York
\n          Branch    upon    the       DGM    (International)                   at      the       Head
\n          Office in Mumbai dated 12.12.1988, does show that
\n          sanction       limit     enjoyed            by       Kulmer        was        USD        2.4<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
        Millions   since     16th   December     1987.          Ad-hoc          limits
\n        have    been   allowed      by    the    Chairman        and        Managing<\/p>\n
        Director. Their overdraft has been overdrawn due to
\n        payment of bills under the LCs.              They had approached<\/p>\n
        the Bank to sanction the credit limit of USD 3.5
\n        Million immediately.         The Bank was required to open<\/p>\n
        further LCs.       The Fax further states that they could
\n        not achieve their sales target because of certain
\n        embargo    placed     by    the     US   Government            and        quota<\/p>\n
        restrictions in India.            They were hopeful to achieve
\n        the sales target during that current year.\n<\/p>\n
                             ig                                                 Hence,
\n        the Fax shows that, the ad-hoc limits of USD 3.5
\n        Million may be sanctioned for 3 months.\n<\/p>\n
    11. The    aforesaid    Telex     and    the    Fax      thus         show        the<\/p>\n
        advocacy on the part of the Applicant on behalf of
\n        Kulmer.\n<\/p>\n
    12. However, there are several other letters which show<\/p>\n
        a restraint on further recommendations, calling upon
\n        Kulmer to strengthen its account and make payment
\n        and thereafter refusing to allow or recommend any
\n        further facilities.\n<\/p>\n
    13. The charge-sheet contains a last of correspondence
\n        relied upon by the CBI.             The Advocate on behalf of
\n        the Applicant has produced copies of the documents<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
          considered by the CVC in the departmental inquiry
\n          which are much the same.\n<\/p>\n
    14.   The   letter    dated       20th       June    1988   addressed             by      the<\/p>\n
          Applicant to Kulmer shows that its operations are
\n          below   targets       despite          the    increase       in     the       credit<\/p>\n
          limit from USD 2.5 Million to USD 3.5 Million.                                      The
\n          cheque was returned.                   The matter was referred to
\n          higher Authorities.                It calls upon Kulmer to sort<\/p>\n
          out   the   matter     by     proper          planning      before          further
\n          increase in credit limit to USD 5 Million could be<\/p>\n
          considered.      In    the         letter       dated      24.6.1988,               the
\n          Applicant has informed the DGM (International) at<\/p>\n
          Mumbai that Kulmer has requested the increase to USD
\n          5    Million    without      proper           justification           either          to<\/p>\n
          continue the ad-hoc credit or to increase it.                                   It is
\n          not able to reduce the credit.                    The said letter sets<\/p>\n
          out the limit granted and calls upon Bombay Office
\n          to    confirm    the    action          of     continuing           the       ad-hoc<\/p>\n
          excess credit limit.               That letter does not recommend
\n          further increase in the credit limit asked for by
\n          Kulmer.\n<\/p>\n
    15. On 26.7.1988, a note has been sent by the Deputy
\n          General Manager (International) to the then Chairman
\n          and the Managing Director, who is accused Premjit
\n          Singh in the aforesaid case based upon the letter of<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
          the Applicant advising that he was unable to give
\n          his recommendations and had proposed to decline the<\/p>\n
          request of Kulmer to open ad-hoc LC.\n<\/p>\n
    16.   Thereafter       the       Applicant      wrote         to      Kulmer           on      4th
\n          October 1988 putting on record that ad-hoc LCs were<\/p>\n
          opened purely to accommodate its requirements and
\n          calling      upon     it    to    reduce       its      limit         to     USD       2.4
\n          Million      with    a     sub-limit      for    overdraft                 of    USD       1<\/p>\n
          Million.      In a letter dated 14th October 1988 of the
\n          Applicant to the DGM (International) Mumbai, he put<\/p>\n
          on record the strained relationship between the Bank
\n          and the Company as also the Bank s Attorneys and<\/p>\n
          called for suggestions and comments.                              Thereafter on
\n          13th    December       1988,      the    Applicant              wrote           to     the<\/p>\n
          Company that the Bank would not be able to exceed
\n          the     limits   in       view    of    the    classification                   by     the<\/p>\n
          regulatory Authority of its account as doubtful.                                         He
\n          called upon Kulmer to quicken collection, meet the<\/p>\n
          commitments         and    take    necessary           measures            to        avoid
\n          requiring the Bank to initiate steps against it.\n<\/p>\n
    17. He       has    thereafter          not    recommended                any         further<\/p>\n
          additional credit limits for any other facilities to
\n          be granted to Kulmer.\n<\/p>\n
    18.   It     is,   therefore,       seen      that    though           ad-hoc          limits<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
        were increased initially upon recommendations of the
\n        Applicant for Kulmer and Kulmer was allowed to open<\/p>\n
        ad-hoc LC, when it was seen that Kulmer was not
\n        achieving its target and reducing its limits and yet<\/p>\n
        calling     for    further        increase        in       the      limit          and
\n        further   ad-hoc         LCs,     the       Applicant       had        exercised<\/p>\n
        restraint and had recommended that such limits be
\n        declined.         Consequent          upon    such    letters,           the       DGM
\n        (International) had recommended confirmation of the<\/p>\n
        Applicant s       actions         and        declined       the        Company s
\n        request for opening the ad-hoc LCs to the Chairman<\/p>\n
        and   Managing      Director          and     other     accused          in      this
\n        case.\n<\/p>\n
    19. The   aforesaid      are    the        relevant       documents            of      the<\/p>\n
        period    1984      to     1988       showing        the     acts         of       the
\n        Applicant, for which he is charged.\n<\/p>\n
    20. The Applicant has continued to write further letters<\/p>\n
        to Kulmer, calling for explanation and reprimanding
\n        it in the year 1989 onwards, which is not the period
\n        considered    in     the    charge.            However,         the      CVC       has
\n        considered the documents of that period also.                                      The<\/p>\n
        Applicant unaware of the charge that would be framed
\n        against him later, is shown to have written certain
\n        letters to which my attention has been drawn by the
\n        learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
    21.   The    letter    dated    27.1.1989     calls     upon        Kulmer          to<\/p>\n
          explain certain anomalies and clarify its position.
\n          The letter dated 8.2.1989 shows that there was a<\/p>\n
          shortfall in its deposits into the account with the
\n          Bank and the collection efforts have considerably<\/p>\n
          slowed down.       It calls for certain Bank statements.
\n          The letter dated 28.2.1989 of the Applicant to the
\n          DGM (International) at Mumbai, sets out the position<\/p>\n
          of Kulmer.      It calls for advice upon the decision to
\n          release additional overdraft facility.\n<\/p>\n
                              ig                                       A note to
\n          the then Chairman and Managing Director through the
\n          Executive Director (both of whom are accused) sent<\/p>\n
          by    the   Assistant     General   Manager     at      Mumbai          dated
\n          3.3.1989, shows an endorsement that the Applicant,<\/p>\n
          as the Senior Vice President, has not recommended
\n          the facilities and overdraft mentioned therein.                             The<\/p>\n
          note specifically sets out thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                      Senior Vice President, New York is unable to
\n                  offer recommendations as the Company has not
\n                  been    able     to   explain   the   reasons           for       poor
\n                  recovery. &..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    22. Despite this, Premjit Singh, the co-accused of the
\n          Applicant,       sanctioned         further       facilities                  on
\n          15.5.1989 on the ground that there were reasonable<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
          requests considered on merits by him.                      Under those
\n          circumstances, the Applicant contends that he was<\/p>\n
          obliged    and    bound     to   grant    further             facilities
\n          specifically not recommended by him.\n<\/p>\n
    23.   On   16.8.1989,    the    Applicant   wrote       to      the       General<\/p>\n
          Manager, International, Mumbai, that Kulmer had not
\n          heeded his request and he was not in a position to
\n          monitor the account in an effective manner.                              In a<\/p>\n
          similar letter dated 18.8.1989, he has informed the
\n          General Manager, International, that Kulmer had not<\/p>\n
          fulfilled its commitments and the balance overdraft
\n          account was well above the stipulated limit. In a<\/p>\n
          further letter dated 11.9.1989, he has informed the
\n          General    Manager,      International     (referring               to      the<\/p>\n
          Telex of Mumbai, requesting for his recommendations
\n          on the request of Kulmer for additional ad-hoc loan<\/p>\n
          of USD 3 Lakhs) that the account was classified as
\n          doubtful    by    the    regulatory      Authorities,               despite<\/p>\n
          which the Chairman (the co-accused\/ Premjit Singh)
\n          by his letter dated 5th May 1989, had opted to give
\n          additional finance to the Company.                   He, therefore,
\n          requested suitable decision on the request of the<\/p>\n
          Company for additional loan in the overall interest
\n          of the Bank. In the year 1990, similar letters have
\n          been addressed by the Applicant to Kulmer, calling
\n          upon it to improve its financial position with the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
        Bank and regretting that he was not in a position to
\n        open further LCs, requested by the Company in the<\/p>\n
        letter dated 12th April 1990.\n<\/p>\n
    24. The aforesaid documents would show that though the
\n        Applicant       did     recommend          additional              credit           limits<\/p>\n
        initially, he stopped after he saw that the account
\n        of    Kulmer    did     not    improve          as      called           upon.            The
\n        contention       on    his     behalf         is       that     though,           as      the<\/p>\n
        Senior   Vice        President,          he     had      to     take        a     certain
\n        amount     of    risk   ig  and      allow         a     certain           amount           of
\n        discretion of recommending credit limit, he has not
\n        exceeded       his    authority.                When       he      realized             that<\/p>\n
        Kulmer did not improve its position, he called for
\n        the opinion from the Bombay Office.                                      He did not<\/p>\n
        recommend further limits.                       He recommended that it
\n        not be increased.               Despite his recommendations he<\/p>\n
        was    overruled       by     the        then      Chairman           and       Managing
\n        Director,       the     co-accused\/             Premjit          Singh.               These<\/p>\n
        aspects have been considered by the CVC.                                           He has
\n        been fully exonerated.\n<\/p>\n
    25. The loan of Kulmer has been written off in 1991.\n<\/p>\n
        The    case     has     been      filed         in      1992.        Investigation
\n        continued       until    1997.            Sanction          to      prosecute             was
\n        applied for and refused on 15.1.1998. A departmental
\n        inquiry was instituted on 12.2.1999.                                 The Applicant<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
          was     exonerated           after     extensive             evidence               was
\n          considered on 22.10.1999.               The Bank passed its order<\/p>\n
          of exoneration of the charges against the Applicant
\n          on     31.5.2000       based    upon     the       CVC s         order          dated<\/p>\n
          22.10.1999.         Thereafter the charge-sheet came to be
\n          filed, levying the aforesaid charges, inter alia,<\/p>\n
          upon the Applicant.\n<\/p>\n
    26. The prosecution of a public officer for corruption<\/p>\n
          charges is required to be made under the PC Act,
\n          1988    by    the    CBI.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ig      CBI    is     a    watch-dog            for       that
\n          purpose; it cannot be a bloodhound to persecute a
\n          public       officer    in     the    place       of    prosecuting               him.\n<\/p>\n
          Therefore, the salutary provision for sanction to be
\n          obtained by the competent Authority is required.\n<\/p>\n
    27.   The competent Authority has refused sanction in a<\/p>\n
          detailed letter spanning 10 pages, setting out the
\n          reasons for refusal.             It sets out the establishment<\/p>\n
          of the New York Branch of the Bank in February 1978,
\n          the licence for lending activities obtained by it in
\n          1982.     The       account     with     Kulmer           was        opened           in
\n          September 1983 well before the Applicant was posted<\/p>\n
          at the Branch.          The default for recoveries by Kulmer
\n          despite increased sales has been set out.                                It shows
\n          that Kulmer did not reduce outstandings despite its
\n          increased sales and profitability in the period 1987<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
          to   1989.         It    also     sets       out     that        investigation
\n          commenced in 1992 for the period 1983 to 1989-90,<\/p>\n
          which     were        completed       only     in       1997,          which          de-
\n          motivated       the     Applicant       and    hampered             his       career,<\/p>\n
           though his contribution and performance has always
\n          been to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors.\n<\/p>\n
          It also sets out that from 1983 till 1987 Kulmer s
\n          account      was        functioning          normally.              Hence           when
\n          occasions       for     higher    credit       facilities               arose         the<\/p>\n
          Bank    Authorities        deemed       it    fit      to     accede          to      its
\n          request.         At     that
\n                                   ig     time,    the       true       status          of      the
\n          account was reported by the Branch Authorities to
\n          the Central Office and hence the case for criminal<\/p>\n
          conspiracy to cheat the Bank of its commitments was
\n          not at all made out any where or at any stage.\n<\/p>\n
    28.   The letter sets out the various facilities granted<\/p>\n
          to     Kulmer      beginning          9.3.1983         well          before           the
\n          Applicant was posted              in May 1987 and worked under<\/p>\n
          K.C. Choksi, the co-accused, who was the Executive
\n          Vice President.           He became Senior Vice President in
\n          September 1987 when K.C. Choksi was repatriated to
\n          India.     The credit limit was then USD 1.4 Million.\n<\/p>\n
          It was raised to USD 2.08 Million due to overdrafts
\n          in its bills portfolio.                 It also sets out that the
\n          recommendation made by the Applicant initially was
\n          for regularisation of the ad-hoc credit given.                                        The<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        15<\/span><\/p>\n
        request   for     reconsideration           was       submitted            by      the
\n        Applicant       since       Kulmer         showed          the         increased<\/p>\n
        profitability and substantial orders. It sets out
\n        that the Applicant, as the Senior Vice President,<\/p>\n
        reported the entire picture to the Head Office.                                    The
\n        ad-hoc proposal was not recommended by the New York<\/p>\n
        Office.     The reconsideration was called for by the
\n        Applicant    because         the         outstanding           had         already
\n        reached saturation level and without further LC and<\/p>\n
        further   ad-hoc       facilities,         the       operations            in      the
\n        account     would       have
\n                               ig           come        to      a        stand-still.\n<\/p>\n
        Consequently,         the    additional           ad-hoc           limit           was
\n        increased for commercial considerations for keeping<\/p>\n
        the operations in the account alive at that time.
\n        The   proposal    for       still    further         limit        of     USD       3.5<\/p>\n
        Million   was     submitted         to    the    Central           Office          for
\n        consideration.         This was in turn submitted by the<\/p>\n
        Deputy    General       Manager          (International)                  to       the
\n        Executive Director.            Hence it is concluded in the<\/p>\n
        letter that no fault, deficiency or omission of duty
\n        can be imputed upon the Applicant.\n<\/p>\n
    29. Further   the     letter      has    considered             the      Fax       dated<\/p>\n
        2.12.1987    of       the     Applicant,             which         recommended
\n        increase because the sales position of the Company
\n        had improved.          The additional ad-hoc facility was
\n        considered      and     sanctioned          by       the      Chairman             and<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
        Managing Director (the co-accused).                               It shows that
\n        the limit was recommended to be increased to USD 3.5<\/p>\n
        Million,         which          effectually                     amounted                  to
\n        regularization of the limits enjoyed by the Company.\n<\/p>\n
        This was discussed and approved by the Chairman and
\n        Managing Director and confirmation for excess grant<\/p>\n
        of   credit     was    conveyed       to    New         York        Branch          under
\n        letter dated 24.2.1988.                Similarly, the opening of
\n        the LC of USD 35,000 has been justified.                                 It is also<\/p>\n
        set out that after the account was termed doubtful
\n        by the FDIC, no further limit was recommended.\n<\/p>\n
                                ig                                                              The
\n        letter, therefore, refuses to sanction prosecution
\n        to the Director, Central Vigilance Commission.\n<\/p>\n
    30. No   such     sanction        has    been    obtained                  by     the       CBI<\/p>\n
        either.\n<\/p>\n
    31. From a reading of these documents, it can be seen
\n        that there is no prima facie case of conspiracy or<\/p>\n
        any act of corruption shown against the Applicant.
\n        Mere recommendations do not tantamount to conspiracy
\n        or   corruption.         They        have        to       be       independently
\n        considered       and     appreciated.             Where            a        particular<\/p>\n
        employee has stopped short has to be seen.                                              The
\n        officer,       who     acts    upon        the        directions               of       his
\n        superiors, despite his own opinion being made known,
\n        cannot    be    prosecuted           for    an    act          done         upon        the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                          17<\/span><\/p>\n
          directions of his superiors.                 Consequently, from the
\n          documents       relied    upon       by     the      prosecution,                  more<\/p>\n
          specially       the     aforesaid          Telexes,          Fax         and        the
\n          letters,    the    charge      is    not     made       out       against           the<\/p>\n
          Applicant.\n<\/p>\n
    32.   It has been argued on behalf of the Applicant that
\n          in the case of P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar, (1996)
\n          9 Supreme Court Cases 1, it has been held by the<\/p>\n
          Hon ble    Supreme       Court      that    once        the       departmental
\n          inquiry has exonerated the Applicant, the criminal<\/p>\n
          prosecution       would    not      lie    since        the       standard            of
\n          proof is much higher than the criminal prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
          Nevertheless, I have gone through the material to
\n          satisfy myself upon whether the charge can be prima<\/p>\n
          facie made out against the Applicant, based upon the
\n          factual evidence relied upon by the CBI.                                     I have<\/p>\n
          found that it cannot be, since the two documents
\n          cannot be read in isolation when the charge-sheet<\/p>\n
          contains    a    bulk     of   documentary             evidence.                I     am
\n          satisfied       that    the    Applicant          is     required             to      be
\n          discharged upon the material produced by the CBI on
\n          merits and upon the fact that sanction to prosecute<\/p>\n
          was   earlier      refused       and      the     Applicant             has       been
\n          charge-sheeted only after his retirement to evade
\n          the statutory provision regarding the obtaining of
\n          sanction to prosecute the Applicant.                               The learned<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           18<\/span><\/p>\n
          Special Judge\/Sessions Judge has not considered any
\n          documentary        evidence     to    see    any      prima         facie         case<\/p>\n
          against the Applicant herein.                  In a charge such as
\n          this,      the   main    case    would       be      made         out       by      the<\/p>\n
          documentary           evidence          which               consists                  in
\n          correspondence over a large period of time forming a<\/p>\n
          chain of correspondence which has to be looked into
\n          as a whole.\n<\/p>\n
    33. I am gratified to have received exemplary assistance
\n          from the Counsel on behalf of the Applicant who has<\/p>\n
          in   the    most    lucid     manner    set       out       before          me      the
\n          entire       documentary         evidence             to         unfold             the<\/p>\n
          Applicant s act as the Senior Vice President of the
\n          Bank at its New York Branch over a period of years<\/p>\n
          from the compilations of the CBI as well as the CVC.\n<\/p>\n
    34.   Consequently,        the      order    of     the        learned            Special
\n          Judge\/Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, is seen to be<\/p>\n
          suffering from a material irregularity.                                Hence the
\n          order of the learned Judge dated 13.3.2003 is set
\n          aside.      The Criminal Revision Application is allowed
\n          accordingly.            The    Applicant       is        discharged               from<\/p>\n
          Special Case No.61 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:27:07 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009 Bench: R. S. Dalvi 1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Revision Application No.221 of 2003 R. Narasimhan … … Applicant (Orig.Accused No.4) v\/s. The State (C.B.I., A.C.B., Mumbai) … Respondent (Orig.Complainant) Mr.Yusuf Iqbal with Mr.Neville […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009 - 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\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-15T21:19:08+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-15T21:19:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3406,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009\",\"name\":\"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-15T21:19:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009 - 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\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-15T21:19:08+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-15T21:19:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009"},"wordCount":3406,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009","name":"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-15T21:19:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-narasimhan-vs-the-state-c-b-i-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Narasimhan vs The State (C.B.I. on 19 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/146948","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=146948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146948\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}