{"id":164029,"date":"1981-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981"},"modified":"2015-11-01T18:16:12","modified_gmt":"2015-11-01T12:46:12","slug":"s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981","title":{"rendered":"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & … on 8 May, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & … on 8 May, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1395, \t\t 1981 SCR (3) 864<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.S. DHANOA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DELHI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/05\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1395\t\t  1981 SCR  (3) 864\n 1981 SCC  (3) 431\t  1981 SCALE  (1)919\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1986 SC1571\t (56)\n D\t    1991 SC 855\t (16,23)\n\n\nACT:\n     Public servant-Services  of an Officer belonging to the\nIndian\tAdministrative\t Service  loaned  to  a\t Cooperative\nSociety-Prior approval\tof Central  Government under section\n197 Cr. P.C. if required for prosecution under Prevention of\nFood Adulteration  Act-Officer,\t whether  a  public  servant\nwithin the meaning of clause Twelfth of section 21 I.P.C.\n     Penal  code-Clause\t Twelfth  of  section  21-Scope\t of-\nServices of  a government  servant loaned  to a\t Cooperative\nSociety-Government servant  if\tcontinued  to  be  a  public\nservant.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The services  of the  appellant,  a  Member  of  Indian\nAdministrative Service,\t were placed  at the disposal of the\nCo-operative Store  Ltd. for  being appointed as the General\nManager of the Super Bazaars run by the Co-operative Store.\n     On a  complaint being  filed against  the appellant for\ncommission of  alleged offence\tpunishable under  section  7\nread with  s. 16  of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act\n1954 before  the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi the appellant\ncontended that he was a public servant within the meaning of\nclause Twelfth of section 21 of the Penal Code, that the act\ncomplained of was done by him in the discharge of his duties\nas a  public servant  and that since, as required by section\n197, Cr.  P.C., previous  sanction of the Central Government\nhad not\t been obtained\tthe court  was not competent to take\ncognizance of the offence.\n     The Magistrate  rejected all these contentions. He held\nthat the appellant could not be regarded as a public servant\nwithin the  meaning of clause Twelfth of section 21 and that\nat the relevant time he was neither in the service or pay of\nthe Government\tnor was\t he employed \"in connection with the\naffairs of the Union\".\n     The High  Court, on  appeal, upheld  tho  view  of\t the\nMagistrate.\n     Before this  Court\t it  was  contended  that  the\tterm\n\"corporation\" used  in clause  Twelfth of section 21 is wide\nenough to  include not\tmerely a  statutory corporation\t but\nalso a body corporate such as the Cooperative Stores\n865\nestablished under  the State Act like the Bombay Cooperative\nSocieties Act,\t1925 and  that as  General  Manager  he\t was\nemployed in  connection with  the affairs  of the  Union  by\nreason of  the fact that the Central Government had advanced\na huge\tloan to\t the  Society  for  carrying  on  commercial\nactivities.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD:  The\t  appellant  does  not\tanswer\tany  of\t the\nessential requirements\tof  clause  Twelfth  of\t section  21\nI.P.C. He  was neither\tan officer  in the service or pay of\nthe Government\tnor of\ta  local  authority,  a\t corporation\nestablished by or under an Act or a Government company. [869\nD]\n     Mere incorporation\t of a  society under  a\t Central  or\nState Act  does not  make a  body a  corporation within\t the\nmeaning of  clause Twelfth  of section\t21.  The  expression\n\"corporation\" must,  in\t the  context,\tmean  a\t corporation\ncreated by the legislature and not a body or society brought\ninto existence\tby an  act of  a  group\t of  individuals.  A\ncooperative  society   is,  therefore,\t not  a\t corporation\nestablished by\tor under  an Act  of the  Central  or  State\nlegislature. [870 B]\n     Corporation  in   its  widest   sense  may\t  mean\t any\nassociation of individuals entitled to act as an individual.\nBut that  is not  the sense  in which  it is  used in clause\nTwelfth of  section 21.\t There is  a well marked distinction\nbetween a  body created by a statute and a body which, after\ncoming into  existence, is  governed in\t accordance with the\nprovisions of  a statute.  A corporation  established by  or\nunder an  Act of  legislature can only mean a body corporate\nwhich owes  its existence,  and\t not  merely  its  corporate\nstatus to  the Act.  An association  of persons constituting\nthemselves into\t a company  under the  Companies  Act  or  a\nsociety under Societies. Registration Act owes its existence\nnot to\tthe Act of legislature but to acts of parties though\nit may\towe its\t status as a body corporate to an Act of the\nlegislature. [871 C-G]\n     In the  instant case  the\tCooperative  Society  was  a\nsociety registered  under the  Bombay Cooperative  Societies\nAct. It\t is not\t a body\t created by  a statute\tbut  a\tbody\ncreated by  an act  of a  group of individuals in accordance\nwith the provisions of the statute. [872 F]\n     Nor did  the  fact\t that  the  Central  Government\t had\nadvanced a huge loan to the Society and held major shares in\nthe total shareholding of the Society make the Super Bazaars\nrun by\tthe Society  an instrumentality of the State and the\nappellant \"employed  in connection  with the  affairs of the\nUnion\" within  the meaning  of section 197, Cr. P.C. [872 H-\n873 B]\n     The clause\t in the\t agreement advancing the loan to the\nSociety which  provided that  the General  Manager and other\nimportant incumbents  of key posts shall not be appointed or\nremoved from  their posts  by the  Society except  with\t the\nprior approval\tof the\tGovernment  in\twriting\t was  merely\nincorporated to\t safeguard  the\t interests  of\tthe  Central\nGovernment. Legally the Super Bazaars were owned and managed\nby the Society and not by the Central Government [873 E-F]\n     Explanation to  rule 2  (a) of  the All  India Services\n(Conduct) Rules,  1968 which  provides that  a member of the\nservices whose services were Placed at the\n866\ndisposal of  any  organisation\tby  the\t Central  Government\nshall, for  the purposes  of these  rules, be deemed to be a\nmember of the service serving in connection with the affairs\nof the\tUnion notwithstanding  that his salary is drawn from\nsources other  than the\t Consolidated Fund of India serves a\nlimited purpose, that is, \"for the purposes of these Rules\".\nSimilarly rule\t2(c) of\t the All  India Services (Discipline\nand Appeal)  Rules, 1969 is for the purposes of these Rules.\nThese two  Rules could\tnot  be\t pressed  into\tservice\t for\nimproving the  language of  clause Twelfth  of section 21 of\nthe Penal Code. [873 G, 874 D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n520, of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t judgment and  order
\ndated the  17th September,  1975 of  the Delhi High Court in
\nCriminal Misc. (M) 212 of 1974
\n     D. Mukherjee, and O.P. Sharma for the Appellant.
\n     P.R. Mridul,  B.P. Mridul,\t B.P. Maheshwari  and Suresh
\nSethi for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SEN, J. This appeal by special leave from a judgment of
\nthe Delhi  High Court upholding an order of the Metropolitan
\nMagistrate,  Delhi,   raises  a\t  question  of\tsome  public
\nimportance. The question is as to whether the appellant, who
\nis a  member of the Indian Administrative Service, and whose
\nservices were  placed at  the disposal\tof  the\t Cooperative
\nStore  Ltd.,   a  society   registered\tunder\tthe   Bombay
\nCooperative Societies  Act,  1925  (hereinafter\t called\t the
\nSociety), was  a public\t servant within\t the meaning  of cl.
\nTwelfth of  s. 21  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860,\t for
\npurposes of  s. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
\nThe question arises in this way.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  is a member of the Indian Administrative
\nService. By  notification No.  27-942-Estt.  1,\t dated\t23rd
\nApril, 1972,  issued by\t the  Government  of  India  in\t the
\nMinistry  of   Agriculture  (Department\t  Agriculture),\t the
\nservices of  the appellant,  who was  a\t Joint\tCommissioner
\n(State\tLiaison)  in  that  Ministry,  were  placed  at\t the
\ndisposal of  the  Department  for  his\tappointment  as\t the
\nGeneral Manager,  Super Bazaar,\t Connaught Place,  New Delhi
\nwith effect  from April\t 7, 1972, on which date he took over
\ncharge as  General Manager.  At the  request of the Managing
\nCommittee of  the Society,  the Government of India extended
\nthe period  of his  deputation for  a further  period of one
\nyear with effect from April 7, 1973. On completion
\n867<\/span>
\nof his period of deputation, the appellant reverted as Joint
\nSecretary in the Ministry of Agriculture.\n<\/p>\n
     On October\t 10, 1973,  the Food  Inspector purchased  a
\nsealed bottle  of honey\t from the  Super Bazaar\t at the\t INA
\nMarket. The  Public Analyst’s  report showed the honey to be
\nadulterated. On\t April 5,  1974, the  Municipal Corporation,
\nDelhi, filed  a complaint  against the\tappellant and  other
\nofficials  of\tthe  Super   Bazaar  as\t  also\tagainst\t the
\nmanufacturer  of  honey\t for  having  committed\t an  offence
\npunishable under  s. 7 read with s. 16 of Prevention of Food
\nAdulteration  Act,   1954.  On\t being\t summoned   by\t the
\nMetropolitan Magistrate,  Delhi, to  appear before him as an
\naccused, the  appellant raised\ta preliminary objection that
\nthe taking  of cognizance  of the  alleged  offence  by\t the
\nMagistrate was\tbarred under  s. 197 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure,  1973,  for\twant  of  sanction  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment, since  the act  complained of was nothing but an
\nact done  by him  in the discharge of his duties as a public
\nservant.\n<\/p>\n
     The Metropolitan  Magistrate, Delhi, by his order dated
\nOctober 9,  1974, rejected  the objection,  holding that the
\nappellant, at the time of commission of the alleged offence,
\nwas not\t a public  servant within the meaning of cl. Twelfth
\nof s.  21 of  the Indian  Penal Code  and, therefore, he was
\ncompetent to  take cognizance  of the  alleged\toffence.  In
\ncoming to  that conclusion, the learned Magistrate held that
\nthe services  of the  appellant having\tbeen placed  at\t the
\ndisposal of  the Society, he was in foreign service under FR
\n9 (7)  and, therefore,\tcould not  be regarded\tas a  public
\nservant within\tthe meaning  of cl.  Twelfth of s. 21 of the
\nIndian Penal  Code for\ttwo  reasons,  namely:\t(a)  as\t the
\nGeneral Manager, he was not an officer in the service or pay
\nof the\tGovernment, and\t (b) while  functioning\t as  General
\nManager, he  was not employed in connection with the affairs
\nof the\tUnion. On  appeal, the High Court confirmed the view
\nof the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
     The short\tquestion that falls for our determination in
\nthis appeal is whether a member of the Indian Administrative
\nservice, whose\tservices are  placed at\t the disposal  of an
\norganisation which  is neither\ta  local  authority,  nor  a
\ncorporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or
\nState  Act,   nor  a  Government  Company,  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment or  the Government  of a State, can be treated to
\nbe a  ‘public servant’\twithin the meaning of cl. Twelfth of
\ns. 21 of the Indian Penal Code for purposes of s. 197 of
\n868<\/span>
\nthe Code  of Criminal  Procedure, 1973.\t The answer  to\t the
\nquestion turns\ton the\tconstruction of cl. Twelfth of s. 21
\nof the\tIndian Penal  Code, 1860  and s.  197 of the Code of
\nCriminal  Procedure,   1973,  which,  so  far  as  they\t are
\nrelevant, are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  21. The  words ‘public  servant’ denote  a  person
\n     falling  under  any  of  the  descriptions\t hereinafter
\n     following, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Twelfth: Every person-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  in  the  service  or\tpay  of\t the  Government  or
\n\t  remunerated  by   fees  or   commission  for\t the
\n\t  performance of any public duty by the Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   in the  service or  pay of  a local\tauthority, a
\n\t  corporation established  by or  under\t a  Central,
\n\t  Provincial or State Act or a Government company as
\n\t  defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
\n\t  S. 197 Prosecution of Judges and public servants.
\n     (1)   When\t any  person  who  is  or  was\ta  Judge  or
\n\t  Magistrate or\t a public servant not removable from
\n\t  his office  save by  or with\tthe sanction  of the
\n\t  Government is\t accused of  any offence  alleged to
\n\t  have\tbeen   committed  by  him  while  acting  or
\n\t  purporting to act in the discharge of his official
\n\t  duty, no  Court  shall  take\tcognizance  of\tsuch
\n\t  offence except with the previous sanction:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  in the case of a person who is employed or, as the
\n\t  case may  be, was at the time of commission of the
\n\t  alleged offence  employed, in\t connection with the
\n\t  affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In support\t of the\t appeal,  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant has urged two grounds. The first is that the chain
\nof Departmental\t Stores known  as Super\t Bazaar at Connaught
\nPlace, New  Delhi, together  with 12  other super bazaars in
\nthe metropolitan city of Delhi, including the one at the INA
\nmarket, is nothing but a com-\n<\/p>\n
869<\/span><\/p>\n
mercial activity  of the  Central Government and, therefore,
\nthe appellant  was, at\tthe time  of the,  commission of the
\nalleged offence,  employed in connection with the affairs of
\nthe Union.  That being\tso, the\t prosecution  could  not  be
\nlaunched without  sanction from the Central Government under
\ns. 197\tof the\tCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second
\nis that\t the Cooperative  Store Limited which runs the super
\nbazaars, having\t been registered  under s.  10 of the Bombay
\nCooperative Societies  Act, 1925,  was a  body corporate  by
\nvirtue of  s. 23  of that  Act and, therefore, the appellant
\nwas a public servant within the meaning of cl. Twelfth of s.
\n21 of  the Indian  Penal Code.\tIt is said that although the
\nappellant may not be covered by sub-cl. (a), he falls within
\nthe ambit  of  sub-cl.\t(b)  of\t cl.  Twelfth.\tWe  find  it
\ndifficult to accept these submissions.\n<\/p>\n
     Clause Twelfth  of s.  21\tof  the\t Indian\t Penal\tCode
\nprotects two  classes of  public servants,  viz., (a)  every
\nperson\tin   the  service   or\tpay  of\t the  Government  or
\nremunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any
\npublic duty  by the  Government, and (b) every person in the
\nservice\t or   pay  of\ta  local  authority,  a\t corporation
\nestablished by\tor under  a Central, Provincial or State Act
\nor a  Government company  as defined  in section  617 of the
\nCompanies Act,\t1956. The  appellant does  not answer any of
\nthese descriptions.  During his period of deputation, he was
\nnot an\tofficer in the service or pay of the Government, nor
\nwas he\tin the\tservice of  a local authority, a corporation
\nestablished by\tor under  an Act or a Government company. It
\nis,  however,\turged  that   the  expression  ‘corporation’
\nappearing in  sub-cl. (b)  of cl.  Twelfth of  s. 21  of the
\nIndian Penal  Code is  wide enough  to include\tnot  only  a
\ncorporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or
\nState  Act,  but  also\ta  body\t corporate.  The  submission
\nproceeds on  the basis\tof s.  23 of  the Bombay Cooperative
\nSocieties Act, 1925, which reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  23. The  registration of a society shall render it
\n     a\tbody  corporate\t by  the  name\tunder  which  it  is
\n     registered, with  perpetual  succession  and  a  common
\n     seal, and\twith power  to hold  property, to enter into
\n     contracts, to  institute and  defend  suits  and  other
\n     legal proceedings\tand to\tdo all\tthings necessary for
\n     the purposes of its constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Clause Twelfth\tdoes not use the words “body corporate”, and
\nthe  question\tis  whether   the  expression  “corporation”
\ncontained  therein,   taken  in\t collocation  of  the  words
\n“established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act”
\nwould bring within its sweep a cooperative
\n870<\/span>
\nsociety. Indubitably, the Cooperative Store Limited is not a
\ncorporation established\t by a Central or State Act. The crux
\nof the\tmatter is  whether the word ‘under’ occurring in cl.
\nTwelfth\t of   s.  21  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  makes  a
\ndifference. Does  the mere act of incorporation of a body or
\nsociety under a Central or a State Act make it a corporation
\nwithin the  meaning of cl. Twelfth of s. 21? In our opinion,
\nthe expression\t‘corporation’ must,  in the  context, mean a
\ncorporation created  by the  Legislature and  not a  body or
\nsociety brought\t into existence\t by an\tact of\ta  group  of
\nindividuals. A\tcooperative society  is,  therefore,  not  a
\ncorporation established by or under an Act of the Central or
\nState Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
     A corporation  is an  artificial being  created by\t law
\nhaving a  legal entity\tentirely separate  and distinct from
\nthe  individuals   who\tcompose\t it  with  the\tcapacity  of
\ncontinuous existence and succession, notwithstanding changes
\nin its membership. In addition, it possesses the capacity as
\nsuch legal entity of taking, holding and conveying property,
\nentering  into\t contracts,  suing   and  being\t  sued,\t and
\nexercising such\t other\tpowers\tand  privileges\t as  may  be
\nconferred on it by the law of its creation just as a natural
\nperson may.  The following  definition\tof  corporation\t was
\ngiven by  Chief Justice Marshall in the celebrated Dartmouth
\nCollege case :\n<\/p>\n
\t  A corporation\t is an\tartificial being, invisible,
\n     intangible, and  existing only in contemplation of law.
\n     Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only these
\n     properties which  the charter  of its creation, confers
\n     upon it,  either expressly or as incidental to its very
\n     existence.\t These\t are  such   as\t are  supposed\tbest
\n     calculated to  effect  the\t object\t for  which  it\t was
\n     created. Among the most important are immortality, and,
\n     if the expression may be allowed, individuality; proper
\n     ties, by  which a\tperpetual succession of many persons
\n     are considered  as the  same, and\tmay act\t as a single
\n     individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own
\n     affairs, and  to hold  property, without the perplexing
\n     intricacies, the  hazardous and  endless necessity,  of
\n     perpetual conveyances  for the  purpose of transmitting
\n     it from hand to hand. It
\n871<\/span>
\n     is chiefly\t for the  purpose of clothing bodies of men,
\n     in A  succession, with  these qualities and capacities,
\n     that corporations\twere invented,\tand are\t in use.  By
\n     these means,  a perpetual succession of individuals are
\n     capable of\t acting for  the promotion of the particular
\n     object, like one immortal being.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The term ‘corporation’ is, therefore, wide enough to include
\nprivate corporations.  But, in the context of cl. Twelfth of
\ns. 21 of the Indian Penal Code, the expression ‘corporation’
\nmust be given a narrow legal connotation.\n<\/p>\n
     Corporation,  in\tits  widest   sense,  may  mean\t any
\nassociation of individuals entitled to act as an individual.
\nBut that  certainly is\tnot the\t sense in  which it  is used
\nhere.  Corporation   established  by  or  under\t an  Act  of
\nLegislature can\t only mean  a body  corporate which owes its
\nexistence, and\tnot merely its corporate status, to the Act.
\nFor example,  a Municipality,  a Zilla\tParishad or  a\tGram
\nPanchayat owes\tits  existence\tand  status  to\t an  Act  of
\nLegislature. on\t the other  hand, an  association of persons
\nconstituting themselves\t into a\t Company under the Companies
\nAct or\ta Society  under the Societies Registration Act owes
\nits existence  not to  the Act of Legislature but to acts of
\nparties though, it may owe its status as a body corporate to
\nan Act of Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
     There  is\t a   distinction   between   a\t corporation
\nestablished by or under an Act and a body incorporated under
\nan Act.\t The distinction  was brought  out by  this Court in
\nSukhdev Singh & ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi &
\nors. It<\/a> was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  A company  incorporated under the Companies Act is
\n     not  created  by  the  Companies  Act  but\t comes\tinto
\n     existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is  thus a  well-marked  distinction  between  a\tbody
\ncreated by  a statute  and a  body which,  after coming into
\nexistence, is  governed in accordance with the provisions of
\na statute. In Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and<\/a> ors\t the
\nquestion  arose\t  whether  the\tCouncil\t of  Scientific\t and
\nIndustrial Research which was a society registered under the
\nSocieties Registration Act, was a statutory body. It was
\n872<\/span>
\nurged that  because the Council of Scientific and Industrial
\nResearch had  government nominees  as the  President of\t the
\nbody  and  derived  guidance  and  financial  aid  from\t the
\nGovernment,  it\t  was  a   statutory  body.   Repelling\t the
\ncontention, the Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  The Society  does not\t have a\t statutory character
\n     like the  Oil and\tNatural Gas  Commission, or the Life
\n     Insurance\t  Corporation\t or    Industrial    Finance
\n     Corporation. It is a society incorporated in accordance
\n     with the  provisions of the Societies Registration Act.
\n     The fact  that the\t Prime Minister\t is the President or
\n     that the  Government appoints nominees to the Governing
\n     Body  or\tthat  the   Government\tmay   terminate\t the
\n     membership will  not establish  anything more  than the
\n     fact that\tthe Government\ttakes special  care that the
\n     promotion, guidance  and co-operation of scientific and
\n     industrial research,  the institution  and financing of
\n     specific researches,  establishment or  development and
\n     assistance to  special institutions  or departments  of
\n     the  existing  institutions  for  scientific  study  of
\n     problems affecting\t particular industry in a trade, the
\n     utilisation of  the result\t of the researches conducted
\n     under  the\t  auspices  of\t the  Council\ttowards\t the
\n     development of  industries in  the country\t are carried
\n     out in a responsible manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Whatever has  been  said  with\tregard\tto  the\t Council  of
\nScientific and\tIndustrial Research,  which  was  a  society
\nregistered under  the Societies\t Registration  Act,  equally
\napplies to the Cooperative Store Limited, which is a society
\nregistered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
\nIt is  not a  statutory body  because it is not created by a
\nstatute. It  is a  body created\t by an\tact of\ta  group  of
\nindividuals in\taccordance with the provisions of a statute.
\nThe Super  Bazaar at  Connaught Place  together with  its 12
\nbranches in  Delhi, is\tnot an instrumentality of the State.
\nIn a welfare State like ours, there is greater participation
\nby Government  in various  commercial activities. Some times
\nthe Government\tdirectly engages  itself in  such commercial
\nactivities by  acquiring a  monopoly in\t trade in the public
\ninterest. Or  it may,  by an  Act of  Legislature, establish
\nstatutory corporations\tlike the  State Trading Corporation,
\nLife Insurance\tCorporation of India, the Industrial Finance
\nCorporation, the  Oil and Natural Gas Commission etc., or it
\nmay  set  up  Government  companies  under  s.\t617  of\t the
\nCompanies Act,\t1956, like  the Hindustan Steel Limited etc.
\nBy no  stretch of  imagination, could  it be  said that\t the
\nappellant was employed in connection with the
\n873<\/span>
\naffairs of  the Union  within the  meaning of  s. 197 of the
\nCode of\t Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Super Bazaars are not
\nowned by  the Central Government. They are owned and managed
\nby the\tCooperative Store  Limited. Pursuant to an agreement
\nexecuted between the Cooperative Store Limited and the Union
\nof India,  the Central Government has advanced a loan of Rs.
\n40,00,000\/- to\tthe Society for establishment and management
\nof the\tSuper Bazaars, and the Central Government also holds
\nmore than  97% shares  in the  total  share-holding  of\t the
\nSociety. Clause 6 of the Agreement provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  That the  incumbents of  supervisory and other key
\n     posts  including\tthose  of  General  Manager,  Deputy
\n     General  Manager,\t Finance  Manager,   Asst.   General
\n     Manager, Purchase\tManager, Sales\tManager and Accounts
\n     Manager, by  whatever other  designation  they  may  be
\n     known shall  not be  appointed or\tremoved\t from  their
\n     posts by  the Debtor  except with the prior approval of
\n     the Creditor in writing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Super  Bazaar at  Connaught Place  and at  various other
\nplaces are  run by  the Cooperative  Store Limited under the
\ncontrol\t of  the  Ministry  of\tAgriculture  (Department  of
\nCooperation). The  incumbents of  supervisory and  other key
\nposts including\t that  of  the\tGeneral\t Manager  cannot  be
\nappointed or  removed without  the  prior  approval  of\t the
\nCentral Government.  The whole\tpurpose\t of  cl.  6  of\t the
\nAgreement in  the matter  of appointment  of General Manager
\nand other  incumbents holding  key  posts  is  to  safeguard
\ninterests of  the Central  Government. Legally speaking, the
\nSuper Bazaars  are owned  and managed by the Society and not
\nby the\tCentral Government and, therefore, the appellant was
\nnot employed  in connection  with the  affairs of  the Union
\nwithin the  meaning of\ts.  197\t of  the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation to  r. 2  (a) of  the\tAll  India  Services
\n(Conduct) Rules, 1968 and r. 2 (c) of the All India Services
\n(Discipline and\t Appeal) Rules,\t 1969, on which reliance was
\nplaced, can be of no avail. Explanation to r. 2 (a) enlarges
\nthe meaning  of the  expression “serving  in connection with
\nthe affairs  of the  Union or in connection with the affairs
\nof the\tState”. It  provides that  a member  of the  Service
\nwhose services\tare placed  at the  disposal of\t a  company,
\ncorporation or\tother organisation  or a  local authority by
\nthe Central  Government or the Government of a State. shall.
\nfor the
\n874<\/span>
\npurpose of  those rules,  be deemed  to be  a member  of the
\nService serving\t in connection with the affairs of the Union
\nor in  connection with the affairs of the State, as the case
\nmay be,\t notwithstanding that  his salary  is drawn from the
\nsources other  than the\t Consolidated Fund  of India  or the
\nConsolidated Fund of that State. The legal fiction contained
\nin Explanation\tto r.  2 (a), is for a limited purpose. This
\nis evident  by the  use of  the words “for purposes of these
\nrules”. Rule 2 (c) of the All India Services (Discipline and
\nAppeal) Rules,\t1969 defines  Government to  mean (i) in the
\ncase of\t a member  of the Service serving in connection with
\nthe affairs of a State, or who is deputed for service in any
\ncompany,  association\tor  body   of  individuals   whether
\nincorporated or\t not, which is wholly or substantially owned
\nor controlled  by the  Government of  a State, or in a local
\nauthority set  up by  an Act  of Legislature of a State, the
\nGovernment of  that State;  and (ii)  in any other case, the
\nCentral Government.  That again\t is for\t purposes  of  these
\nrules. These  provisions cannot\t be pressed into service for
\nimproving upon\tthe language  of cl. Twelfth of s. 21 of the
\nIndian Penal Code, 1860.\n<\/p>\n
     Before parting  with the  case, we would like to advert
\nto one\taspect. It  is\tcommon\tground\tthat  the  honey  in
\nquestion  was\tsold  in  a  sealed  container\tbearing\t the
\nmanufacture’s warranty\tas to  quality as  required under r.
\n12-A of\t the Prevention\t of Adulteration  Rules, 1955.\tThat
\nbeing so,  the\tlearned\t Magistrate  shall  first  determine
\nwhether or  not the  appellant was protected under s. 19 (2)
\nof the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.\n<\/p>\n
     Subject to\t this observation,  the appeal\tfails and is
\ndismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n875<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & … on 8 May, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1395, 1981 SCR (3) 864 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: S.S. DHANOA Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DELHI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/05\/1981 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. […]<\/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-164029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ... on 8 May, 1981 - 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\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ... on 8 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981\" \/>\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=\"1981-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-01T12:46:12+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & … on 8 May, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T12:46:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981\"},\"wordCount\":3244,\"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\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981\",\"name\":\"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ... on 8 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T12:46:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & … on 8 May, 1981\"}]},{\"@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":"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ... on 8 May, 1981 - 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\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ... on 8 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-01T12:46:12+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & … on 8 May, 1981","datePublished":"1981-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T12:46:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981"},"wordCount":3244,"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\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981","name":"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ... on 8 May, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T12:46:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-dhanoa-vs-municipal-corporation-delhi-on-8-may-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & … on 8 May, 1981"}]},{"@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\/164029","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=164029"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164029\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}