{"id":183232,"date":"2002-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002"},"modified":"2018-03-09T11:17:58","modified_gmt":"2018-03-09T05:47:58","slug":"sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  450 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nSUNDER\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/07\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nY.K. SABHARWAL &amp; H.K. SEMA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2002 Supp(1) SCR 277<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>Criminal Appeal No. 450\/ 2002 has been filed by Sunder and Criminal Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 602\/2002 by Satbir Singh under Section 19 of the Terrorist and<br \/>\nDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA in short) against the<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 5th and 6th May, 1998 passed by the Designated<br \/>\nCourt, Delhi. By the said judgment the appellants have been convicted for<br \/>\noffences under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. as also Section 25 of the Arms<br \/>\nAct. Besides these two appellants, the three other accused who were<br \/>\nconvicted by the Designated Court by common Judgment were Suleman , Chiman<br \/>\nand Sadhu Ram. Suleman and Sadhu Ram were also convicted under Section 5 of<br \/>\nthe TADA Act. We are, however, not concerned with their cases since the<br \/>\nappeals filled by the said three were decided by this Court in case<br \/>\nreported in [1999] 4 SCC 146, Suleman&#8217;s Ors. v. State of Delhi, and their<br \/>\nconviction under Section 399 and 402 I.P.C. was set aside. The conviction<br \/>\nand sentence under TADA Act was, however, maintained and also the<br \/>\nConviction and sentence for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. For<br \/>\noffence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the Designated Court has imposed<br \/>\non each of the appellants Sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 400<\/p>\n<p>It is not in question that for reasons stated in Suleman&#8217;s case (supra) the<br \/>\nconviction and Sentence of the appellants as well for offences under<br \/>\nSection 399 and 402 IPC deserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>That leaves the question in respect of conviction and sentence of the two<br \/>\nappellants before us for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Challenging the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants have made two<br \/>\nsubmissions: (1) Designated Court had no jurisdiction to try the case<br \/>\nagainst the appellants, and (2) Recovery of knives from the appellants has<br \/>\nnot been proved and therefore the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the<br \/>\noffence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The basis of the first submission is the non-framing of charge under any<br \/>\nprovision of TADA Act against the appellants. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants submits that in view of the non-framing of charge against the<br \/>\nappellants under TADA Act, the Designated Court had no jurisdiction to try<br \/>\nthem for offences under Section 399 and 402 IPC and under Section 25 of the<br \/>\nArms Act as Sections 11 and 12 of the TADA Act only confer power on the<br \/>\nDesignated Court to try offences under TADA Act and under other penal laws<br \/>\nonly when there is also a charge under the TADA Act. The submission is that<br \/>\nif there is no charge against the accused under TADA Act the only course<br \/>\nopen to the Designated Court is to transfer the case under Section 18 of<br \/>\nthe TADA Act for trial of other offences by a court having Jurisdiction<br \/>\nunder the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support, reliance has been placed<br \/>\non the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/526111\/\">Sukhbir Singh&#8217;s Ors. v. State of Haryana,<br \/>\n(JT)<\/a> [1997] 8 SC 379.\n<\/p>\n<p>In support of the second contention, learned counsel for the parties have<br \/>\ntaken us through the testimony of PWs 2,3 and 6, PW2 is a Head Constable<br \/>\nChand Singh, PW3 is Inspector Ram Pal Sharma and PW6 is S.I. Om Prakash.<br \/>\nThe testimony of PW3 has no relevance in so far as the recovery from the<br \/>\nappellants is concerned. According to the case of the prosecution, knives<br \/>\nwere recovered from the appellants. The recovery of knives is evidenced by<br \/>\nrecovery Memos. PW2\/P (in respect of Sunder) and PW2\/Q (in respect of<br \/>\nSatbir Singh). The recoveries were sought to be proved in the testimony of<br \/>\nPW2 Chand Singh. The said witness was, however , declared hostile. We have<br \/>\nexamined his testimony. It is not possible and safe to place any reliance<br \/>\non testimony of PW2. The aforesaid two documents of recovery are witnessed<br \/>\nby Head Constable Prakash Chand and ASI Rajbir Singh besides PW2. Despite<br \/>\nthe fact that PW2 was declared hostile, prosecution did not think it<br \/>\nappropriate to examine the aforesaid other two witnesses of Recovery Memos,<br \/>\nor at least one of them. Out of three witnesses of recovery, the senior<br \/>\nmost was ASI, other being two Head Constables. We have also examined the<br \/>\ntestimony of PW6 S.I. Om Prakash. There are material contradictions in the<br \/>\ntestimony of PW2 and PW2 and PW6. Under these circumstances we have no<br \/>\noption but to hold that the seizure of knives from the appellants has not<br \/>\nbeen proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the decision in<br \/>\nSuleman&#8217;s case (supra) the recovery against the appellants also stands<br \/>\nproved. In the said decision the Court relying on the aforesaid prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses held that the seizure of the fire arms against the appellants<br \/>\nbefore the Court in Suleman&#8217;s case stood proved. We are not concerned with<br \/>\nthe seizure of the fire arms. Regarding recovery of knives except a passing<br \/>\nreference there is no discussion in Suleman&#8217;s case. In any event, we are<br \/>\nnot concerned in these appeals with the question of recovery of fire arms<br \/>\nor knives from Suleman, Chiman or Sadhu Ram, the appellants in Suleman&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the recovery of the<br \/>\nknives from the two appellants. It cannot be said that since the recovery<br \/>\nagainst the three appellants in Suleman&#8217;s case was held to be proved, it is<br \/>\nnot open to the appellants in the present appeals, to urge to the contrary.<br \/>\nThese appellants were not parties in Suleman&#8217;s case and factural finding<br \/>\ntherein cannot bind them. Keeping in view Suleman&#8217;s judgment, with the<br \/>\nassistance of learned counsel for the parties, we minutely examined the<br \/>\noriginal case record since the State had not filed the record as was<br \/>\nrequired by it under the Rules. On examination thereof , we have no doubt<br \/>\nthat the recovery from the appellants of the knives has not been proved<br \/>\nand, therefore, their conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot be<br \/>\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the aforesaid, it is not necessary to decide the first<br \/>\nsubmission regarding the jurisdiction of the Designated Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals, set aside the conviction<br \/>\nand sentence of the appellants under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and under<br \/>\nSection 25 of the Arms Act and acquit them. Appellant-Satbir Singh shall be<br \/>\nset at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appellant-<br \/>\nSunder is on bail. Bail bonds executed by him will stand cancelled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002 Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 450 of 2002 PETITIONER: SUNDER RESPONDENT: STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/07\/2002 BENCH: Y.K. SABHARWAL &amp; H.K. SEMA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(1) SCR 277 The following Order of the Court [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-09T05:47:58+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T05:47:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1106,\"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\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T05:47:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-09T05:47:58+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T05:47:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002"},"wordCount":1106,"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\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002","name":"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T05:47:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sunder-vs-state-n-c-t-of-delhi-on-23-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/183232","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=183232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}