{"id":217617,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-01T03:09:06","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T21:39:06","slug":"g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDated this the 24\"' Day of February 2010\nBEFORE V. \nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM \nCRL.RP.NO. 771\/2009 \" I L'\n\nBETWEEN:\nG.S.MOHAMMED IMTIAZ, \nS\/O LATE G.MOHAMMED SULAIMAN, A'\nAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,\nNEW SHAKTI ELECTRICALS,\nDOOR NO.1923,\nPOLICE BAR LINE ROAD,\nCHIKAMAGALORE.   \" \"\n\n  _   .  \".I._PETITIONER\n[By Sri MqhanE~-Bhat, _Ad~vE;']. ' 2\n\nAND:\n\nAJMULSHAREVEF', 15., 1,\n5\/0 GHOUSE A.SH,ERIFIF, _\nAGED ABOUT 46-I'EARS,'\u00ab..,, . '\nHAMDARD CLINIC,   \"\nAZAD ROAD,' HASSAN.  _ \n\n . . I. ..RESPONDENT\n\n[Ey'*--Sri_ Vigneshwar S.Shastri, Adv.]\n\nT,HIS--4CR--L.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R\/W 401\n\n_C'R._P'.'C _P43AYI'r~IG\"_TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER\nDATED '3\u00ab.1\u00a7\u00a7~0_8*~2'009 IN CRL.A.NO.167\/2008 PASSED BY THE\n\nPRI,_I\\?ICIPALI~S_E'SSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND THE JUDGMENT\nAND-OR._DEP,\"\"OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22-10-\n\n 20D8 IN'j_C.C.NO.1208\/2000 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL\n '--VICIVIL BUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC, II COURT, HASSAN\nCONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE\n\nA :U\\lDE'R SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE\n\nPETITIONER FROM THE OFFENCE P\/U\/S 138 OF N.I ACT.\n\nTHIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,\nTHE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\nW\n\n\n\n2\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Convicted accused is in revision againvste’.._”the<\/p>\n
judgment in Crl.A.No.167\/2008 dated <\/p>\n
file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan,  <\/p>\n
judgment in cc No.12’O8\/2000 daptedjxzi.ity\u00e9oos-on, ,tVne’:’<\/p>\n
file of the II Additional Civil Judge;.,p,(3–r.on.)t’3g “I: <\/p>\n
Court, 1-lassan, convicting the’Vl’l’p.e’titiVone’r~for”the; offence
\npunishable under Section ‘l\\_ie,go.ti_able Instrument
\nAct, (for short ‘the N.I.Act7:)_.’~.,    A it<\/p>\n
2. The”:na.tterIis.’Iis_ted’\u00bbfohladf\ufb02ission.<\/p>\n
   isjvjpladrnitted and taken up for final
\ndisposal as the   du ly represented.\n<\/p>\n
_; ‘4.,_Before..adverting to the contentions urged and the<\/p>\n
v:’isls_’ue  the learned counsel for the petitioner, a<\/p>\n
“brifi-;_f irefe’reV_ncxetb the factual matrix is necessary, it is;<\/p>\n
 The-.A::”espondent initiated prosecution against the<\/p>\n
  iieitltionelr for the offence punishable under Section 138 of<\/p>\n
A ‘~th’e Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) on the<\/p>\n
  -\u00bb-premise that he owned three sites. He transacted with the<\/p>\n
respondent to sell one of the sites for Rs.55,000\/– and the<\/p>\n
agreement Ex.P.9 came to be executed interalia between<\/p>\n
6*”\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nthe parties specifying the terms of the contract. In
\nrelation to the said transaction, the petitioner was to pay<\/p>\n
Rs.55,000\/~. As part payment of the sale considerat~i.o:n.,’_lhe<\/p>\n
paid Rs.15,000\/- under Ex.P.9 and <\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- on completion of the tra.nsactio’n,”‘ of’ 9″<\/p>\n
the said transaction, the petitio’n’er:’_’_’was ‘l.ia’ble to,”jpa*,r.:<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/~ on 1.8.1997. “i”_o’wards”paym_en.tef~th.e said <\/p>\n
amount, the accused ,__lssued,_…th’e.,impugnedpgchveque for
\nRs.40,000\/-. l-ioweve”r,V:r},men_  was presented
\nto the Bank, it was disl1’o’noTured..fo_r l.iV’lS.l,.J..’Vl’:l’7’l”CZ!.l\u20acl’lC\\\/ of funds.<\/p>\n
It necessitated ,_of_,..sta\u00abt:3ftory,’notice as envisaged<\/p>\n
underzijhvtilaluse\ufb01p)  of the N.I.Act. Despite<\/p>\n
service of,Vn’otice,.,_th1e*–res-pendent failed to comply.<\/p>\n
  thllis’-ba,S_i_s,. the learned jurisdictional Magistrate<\/p>\n
 ‘t,o’o!<_co,g'niz\u00aba,rl'ce_ and secured presence of the accused who<\/p>\n
a~p\u00abpeared'h7and,:= after entering appearance, appears to have<\/p>\n
 defaulted  appearance resulting in 9 years delay in<\/p>\n
  prosecution of the case. However, the complainant on his<\/p>\n
palrtliilead evidence in trial PW.1 and placed reliance on 9<\/p>\n
9' "documents, which comprised Ex.P.1–Cheque, Exs.P.2 to 5<\/p>\n
endorsements issued by the Bank, Ex.P.6-Bank note,<\/p>\n
Ex.P.7–copy of the legal notice, Ex.P.8*acknow|edgment<\/p>\n
W'<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
signed by the accused and Ex.P.9–copy of the agreement<\/p>\n
of sale.\n<\/p>\n
6. In negation of the evidence so tend~e–red,’__’__’t’he”<\/p>\n
petitioner-accused also tendered eviden.C.\u20ac,V_A’Banidf _has*<\/p>\n
examined himself as DW.1. He filed  _General:_’:Pow,e;r’VofVi’<\/p>\n
Attorney executed in his favour by tii–e”r’espond’lerlt’ marked <\/p>\n
as Ex.D.1. Considering the evid’e:n’ce so  er; record,
\nthe trial Eudge held th\u00e9ythe_’ev’i_dence.vvvi’ofthelycornplainant
\noutweighed the defence_of’thVe him.\n<\/p>\n
Consequent s.g,vn’i:’\u00a7,i’1,,?ie vti_as:gpassed:;i”~1.”*Agigriieved by it, the<\/p>\n
respondentivvas”inCr!.\/’i,l’iJ.’e.,V.i6\u00a7?\/iQ08′ reiterating the plea<\/p>\n
of innocence and ‘:de,nyinlg.__:t’he charge. On re–examination<\/p>\n
of the evid’ence.,on  the light of the grounds urged<\/p>\n
 by vth\u00a7evva’ccused”the____A,ppellate Judge found no merit and<\/p>\n
 re3’e\u00bbc_ted:_the.:ap_peal. Against the concurrent finding of<\/p>\n
guii’t–.,recordgedg’,::.against him, the convicted accused is in<\/p>\n
A revision,’  A if<\/p>\n
if   With vehemence, learned counsel would contend<\/p>\n
Hth\ufb01at there has been traversity of justice before the trial<\/p>\n
 Court as also Appellate Court, as there is the so–called<\/p>\n
non~appreciation of the evidence in correct perspective.<\/p>\n
\u00a39″\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
He refers to the evidence on record, which comprised the<\/p>\n
ocular testimony of the complainant and the docuVn’iehts.<\/p>\n
He teased out the avermerit in the deposition  <\/p>\n
complainant has taken different stands from,’v_A4th.e’:t.irne <\/p>\n
issuance of notice tiii the evidence’wa:sygle.d’;’.p_ <\/p>\n
him, the first stand of the co=’n.piain’a*nt”is thatiiv-irayeviih\u00e9as\u00b0so’i’d <\/p>\n
the site to the accused on 20.’i’;vJ;_’996. l3ut:_th*at statement
\nremains only a staternent i:iecause.__i\ufb01\ufb01yfailediiitov produce
\nindenture of sate by wAhichi._such::a~”‘tra’ns;action is said to<\/p>\n
have been co_%n’p:ijeted..:3-.  the complainant<\/p>\n
produced itheigia_gvreeinje’nit-‘preceding the alleged sale
\nmarked asi’E\u00a7\u20acs,..P,}\u00a7firVvvh:i:ch’_’__itse_ifV”shows that it relates to
\ndifferent’    submits that payment of<\/p>\n
Rs.1s,ioo0\/Qayggtha accused was not disputed but what is<\/p>\n
– -,.s.,diVs’putc\u00a7ld’iwas theiiabiiility to pay Rs.40,000\/~ He submits<\/p>\n
~..th.a.tV’iiss’u.aVrtce-of cheque was in anticipation of sale of<\/p>\n
property ~ir’_1gjhis favour. Since the sale did not materialise,<\/p>\n
the liabitity became enforceable. Thus, the cheque<\/p>\n
” –..\u00a7iTi.p_l,i5gned was issued on promise and not in relation to any<\/p>\n
  _,s_s}ale transaction or for consideration. On this ground he<\/p>\n
submits that the trial Court has erred in recording a finding<\/p>\n
that the accused had on his own volition entered the<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
transaction between the complainant and himself and<\/p>\n
based on such transaction the accused got admittedvthe<\/p>\n
liability to pay Rs.40,000\/-. He submits that t’h.e_”:!Ve”a–rne’d4 x<\/p>\n
trial Judge has also totally given a go-bye to n’tod:e’ua:%n\u00bbdf <\/p>\n
manner in which the evidence ha;s”to”be_ <\/p>\n
the standard of proof expected ot<the_zcorriii?ieii'i\u00bbaritit<\/p>\n
higher decree. He submits th.atithe xdictumepex it<\/p>\n
Court found in the jud_gment"'irepofr"ted in"t'he"V:case of
\nKrishna Janardhan shat' 'if;  (AIR
\n2003 sc 13i2s\u00a7liVgihas  a go-by. The
\nprinciples  judgment has been
\nbrought  t_h'eiVAppellate Court, but the
\n ignoring the said principles<\/p>\n
and :. pixtting' .the~.7burden" on the accused to prove his<\/p>\n
inn'oceh"ce.'"'..__He subrnits that the accused was expected<\/p>\n
  onlv'to::'ra%iseV"probable defence and when such defence was<\/p>\n
taken V_up_b=yAithe accused, the case of the compiainant<\/p>\n
 should-,h'ave been held as demolished. Neither the trial<\/p>\n
  nor the Appellate Court has considered this aspect.<\/p>\n
id   __..':\u00a7'herefore, interference by this Court under the provisions<\/p>\n
of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is a must.\n<\/p>\n
dr\ufb01’<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
8. Be that as it may, his core contention is that<\/p>\n
justice has suffered by floating the functional procedure<\/p>\n
reiating to law and ignoring the binding ciecisioni..’of_:t’i’ie”<\/p>\n
Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
9. Per contra, the iearned co:un’sel\u00abfor”..the. respondent*;<\/p>\n
in negation of what is urged by thea’iea’l~<netd counsel <\/p>\n
petitioner supports the impugn-ed"judg.ment*and wwpointstttout it<\/p>\n
to the fact that complainant had oniy discharged initiai
\nburden of Proof that the"ac_c'used" With him the
\ntransaction of  .of~.'.t"{ti-rev' properties and in
\nreiation to'   _.entrusted with the
\nassignrhyen-tofVsaie-.of..p'ro:p'erty' to the compiainant. Three<\/p>\n
sites owned by the.'4'com:'p.irainant were disposed of by the<\/p>\n
 accus:edi'*on Vhis~.Vo_wgn and to the detriment of the<\/p>\n
 \u00bbcorhpla.ivnan*t..fHe accounted only for sale of two properties<\/p>\n
".anVd-did.'nVo_t:..aocount for the 3"' property. Towards the 3*"<\/p>\n
–V prop”erty_soid by the accused he is liable to pay<\/p>\n
it ‘::~.,Rs’.4.Q,oVGO\/–. That liability subsists and was existing as on<\/p>\n
—   date of filing of the complaint. He therefore seeks<\/p>\n
“confirming of the impugned judgments and aiso request<\/p>\n
the Court to take into consideration the limited scope of<\/p>\n
revision under Section 396&,Qr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
for insufficiency of funds. Produced copy of the notice and<\/p>\n
acknowledgement signed by the accused to show”‘—-that<\/p>\n
statutory requirement as envisaged under clayyusje.VV(b..)\u00bb;..Vofu<\/p>\n
Section 138 was complied with. Now remainsthie~re.bVu’ttai.f  <\/p>\n
In view of such evidence led bymntlhei ..ci3m.playi’r.}a_n:t;’*the’:<\/p>\n
accused had the right to rebut. V4’V__PreVsump.ti_-on<\/p>\n
available under Section 118-a”‘a.nd. 1343 ofVtla.ej”.NV.’T.v;AVct.it An A<\/p>\n
attempt has been made.,~A_befoire”tlh’e  Court’  perhaps
\nbefore the Appellate   of the Apex
\nCourt in the}.  Bhat (supra)
\ncompels  lead’ evidence of higher
\ndegree.  jvbecomesllllnlecessary at this juncture
\nto  of the decision cited by the
\nlearnedggcourisegl;-.7′ A A A<\/p>\n
 13. The question that arose before the Apex court<\/p>\n
 wyas;wiiether:presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of<\/p>\n
N.-Ia.Act.-~we’.reV’ automatic in its application requiring no<\/p>\n
 Afurtherkproof from the complainant. Is the presumption<\/p>\n
 ‘u.ndfer Section 139 of the N.I Act, of such a nature as to<\/p>\n
  ___dispense with any proof regarding existing debt and<\/p>\n
liability? The Apex Court considered the fact situation in<\/p>\n
that case. The case related to prosecution of a person on<\/p>\n
M,<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
the basis that he had borrowed money and issued cheques<\/p>\n
in a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- which was denied byfthe<\/p>\n
accused. The accused had urged, issuance of cihe-aue_”__is’  <\/p>\n
goodfaith but had disputed having borrowecli’*~tnolnfely or<\/p>\n
having issued the cheque for con. <\/p>\n
were noticed from the evidence befoijethe <\/p>\n
the comzillainant in that    have
\nadva nced RS.1,50,000\/tf’.\ufb01t0  . faailed ‘Atoll establish
\nhis financial position.   noticed that
\nthe circumsta’n4c’es.1′”underiwhic\u00e9hiither-cheque came to be
\nissued was  Eince the conviction of
\nthe  theuwbasis of the i\ufb01resumption
\navaiiable xundler’  the N.I Act, the Apex Court<\/p>\n
reiiec! on its’ earlier decision reported in 1999 AIR scw<\/p>\n
  afr.Id’i’.2Q\u00abOO.tVA1″IA’x’V-Kant HCR 2154 and similar other<\/p>\n
  de_cisio,n’s._’Mh’eld_as follows;\n<\/p>\n
21,…  proviso appended to the said section
\n..p’ro_vides for compliance of legal requirements
\n‘ before a complaint petition can be acted upon by a
\n court of law. Section 139 of the Act merely raises
\na presumption in regard to the second aspect of
\nthe matter. Existence of legally recoverable debt is<\/p>\n
not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of<\/p>\n
the Act. It merely rais resumption in favour
\n\/<\/p>\n
il<\/p>\n
of a holder of the cheque that the same has been<\/p>\n
issued for discharge of any debt or other liability.<\/p>\n
22. The courts below, as noticed herein-befo’re,”..:”g:’-tr’~.<\/p>\n
proceeded on the basis that Section 139 raises’ ‘V’ <\/p>\n
presumption in regard to existence of a_deb_t”-e.also:;’ ,<\/p>\n
The courts below, in our oprn’ion,\u00ab.colmmitted._ a  in<\/p>\n
serious error in proceeding on. th:e”basis\u00bb._tha_t’ forf”—-. <\/p>\n
proving the defence the accused is renuired”te.s:tep  3
\ninto the witness box and-vtunlless “he.does_:  it
\nwould not be discharging…h:is..burden.’ “‘Such,,:\u00a7an
\napproach on the paffpf the ,coiurts’..r’i.’!\/e feel, is not<\/p>\n
correct.\n<\/p>\n
23. An acc:’is_e_’d for discharging ‘[th.e_._b:u’rden of proof<\/p>\n
placed”‘u’ponA3s.him “un_d_e”r\u00bb..a statue need not examine<\/p>\n
;g’vi:vin1seAlif’.”ei,i”.V’#,le  dischargehis burden on the basis<\/p>\n
of the  brought on records. An
\naccused has  constitutional right to maintain
\n_.5ilence;  Sta’ndard\u00abvof proof on the part of an
\n accused aano’*th–at of the prosecution in a criminal<\/p>\n
‘ 2 , _ case  ‘different.\n<\/p>\n
A 14.\u00e97Con,cluding the discussion, the Apex Court held in<\/p>\n
 paras,-25 and 26 as ;\n<\/p>\n
if  “Vb Furthermore, whereas prosecution must
\nif prove the guilt of an accused beyond all
\nreasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as<\/p>\n
to prove a defence on the part of an accused is
\n“preponderance of probabilities”. Inference of
\npreponderance of probabilities can be drawn<\/p>\n
\ufb01xk<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
not only from the materials brought on records
\nby the parties but also by reference to the.’
\ncircumstances upon which he relies. ” h<\/p>\n
A statutory presumption has3V_:w’aiiV.’cj’g:’–: <\/p>\n
evidentiary value. The question as  , V
\nthe presumption whether .<.."to'od"~.r_ebutted:" <\/p>\n
not, must, therefore, be determinetiv keeping' in <\/p>\n
view the other evidences 4-on record.' iV.i:=ioif.j.th.eVV
\nsaid purpose, stepping inte.._Vti7e witness boxiiby
\nthe appellant is crie.\u00a7 fmp\u00e9'ratii(e.V""in a icase of
\nthis nature, where  of false
\nimplication. ~. cannot… :1-.be~     out, the
\nbackgrounLi;fact.\u00e9.na' the  the parties
\ntogether:_'*–wii'h?._ th'eir  {requirements are
\nrequiredlto;  ..tairen_:Vinto— consideration.<\/p>\n
IS. *I'he'reforej,~.hsiunfiming up of the conclusion by the<\/p>\n
Apex _Courxt"i'n% Para~._26–._ihs"the reminder that there is no easy<\/p>\n
*'~..,_go the"'ac-eused or the complainant. What the<\/p>\n
_ was with reference to presumption<\/p>\n
ava'i'Iab|ehuhn_der Section 139 of the |\\i.I Act. The words<\/p>\n
''._used  Apex Court are 'A statutory presumption has<\/p>\n
("antievidentiary value'. Regarding the question as to<\/p>\n
  \\hi\u00a7h@th\u20acI' the presumption stood rebutted or not, what the<\/p>\n
Apex Court has heid is, the presumption avaiiable does not<\/p>\n
dispense with burden on the complainant. To what extent<\/p>\n
N'\/"\n<\/p>\n
13<\/span>
\nit can be heid the presumption has been rebutted depends
\non the facts and circumstances of the case. In other<\/p>\n
words the presumption avaiiabie under Section 139 h,a’s,.to<\/p>\n
be rebutted. The standard of proof requiring  <\/p>\n
not same as is required for establishing’,_A’_’~\u00abaVvV:cha,rge;”l.,,l*<\/p>\n
Therefore, it held that the accused  <\/p>\n
Court to rebut the presumption fro\u00e9rndthe eveijd\u00e9-:nce”of:’3tbh’e <\/p>\n
complainant or other circumstances_without*step:ping into
\nthe witness box. when_ .ac~c,used taxes upon
\nhimself the task of establ_ivshir.lg__VVthe-‘fac1:\\fjn._issue, then his<\/p>\n
evidence has;_”to”,;:,.u:be tested’, lisvprovided under the<\/p>\n
  case, the accused has
\nshouldered ‘*heim’se.EfAI.the”*ta”sk=”of proving his case by direct<\/p>\n
evidence aoainst-the.”-charge raised by the complainant.<\/p>\n
-“~._.\ufb01e””hasi,exa’lmined\u00abhimself as DW.1 and also produced the<\/p>\n
,di\u00a2;,.imer.sis, was not required of him to have done.<\/p>\n
But.,,__Vsin_ce  done so, the trial Court was required to<\/p>\n
7-‘~.__”–consid’er_A’the same and that evidence has to be examined<\/p>\n
 Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which comes into<\/p>\n
uh”‘-‘.:’_,,_operation. The evidence by the complainant or<\/p>\n
respondent has to be appreciated in terms of Section 3 and<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
while appreciating that evidence,  has to examine its<\/p>\n
14<\/span>
\nevidentiary value. The trial Court has considered the fact
\nthat the complainant had established three ingredients of<\/p>\n
Section 138 of the N.I.Act and accused was required to<\/p>\n
rebut the presumption that cheque was issued:.f”g:’fo’r,4<\/p>\n
consideration and it was not in respect of exis–t,ir.igVdebt”o.r_”* ”<\/p>\n
liability. To this extent, the a<v:cu'secly was_:reo;ii'5red'.i'itol'-.' 2<\/p>\n
tender evidence.\n<\/p>\n
16. it is material to no–t,e’thatc’crnplaAiln’ant;Vinitiajted ‘ A<\/p>\n
prosecution against the pe-t–ition.era=acused’~..specifically
\nalleging that he was th”re_e.V:%sites. He had
\nauthorised the Vpetil:_i_one_’rV\u00a5accuseci-to’sell  sites for value<\/p>\n
and to V’acc-o’untV’i’o1f…the4’rngo”:”;.ey”received. The terms were<\/p>\n
incorporated in ttie’4Va’gre:e’ment in the nature of banking<\/p>\n
  The Vaccuse_dg.sold all the three sites but paid him<\/p>\n
 con-side.tratiyonu'”in respect of only two sites. The accused<\/p>\n
lwithhteldv’tVp’a._yrttent towards the 3*’ site soid by him.<\/p>\n
-V Therefore, the dispute boils down to the claim of the<\/p>\n
 in’a\u00bb.Corn–p’lain’ant regarding saie price of the 3″‘ site.<\/p>\n
it 17. The accused has not disputed that he had<\/p>\n
 undertaken to sell the sites belonging to the complainant,<\/p>\n
but has urged”, he did not pur e any site from the<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant. The complainant has clarified it explaining<\/p>\n
that he had placed all the three sites with the accusedfor<\/p>\n
disposal in consideration of which the accused naa,aglre\u00bbe:ir <\/p>\n
to pay him certain amounts. As desired by  i*.e’5  l <\/p>\n
(complainant) executed sale deeds <\/p>\n
three sites in favour of prospective,_p’urcha,seirs’:’but’the <\/p>\n
accused paid him value of onlyVl’i’two_siteVs;..’fi’E1eref’ore it is
\nclear that complainantiis not that he had
\nexecuted sale deed in respe_ctl.vof:’the~~.v3’d:’._’;.ite in favour of<\/p>\n
the accused. the;i\u00ab.com’pllai’na:nt-V”ha.d.:alleged is that he<\/p>\n
had authorised-:j_4e’;;evcu’tio,n’:ro’f deed in respect of all the<\/p>\n
three s,itesi_n’ the accused, and the
\naccusedllhad collecteVd.llthe:”money. In his ocular testimony<\/p>\n
the complainant has in unequivocal terms stated about the<\/p>\n
. if””aut’h–oris.ation\u00ab issueclwby the complainant in the nature of<\/p>\n
 -.p:o.wer  in favour of the accused and therefore,<\/p>\n
the\u00bb..,accusecli’..wlas liable for all the money received. During<\/p>\n
1″”‘~.__V”‘\u00bbcross-evxamination by the accused, the complainant has<\/p>\n
V.”Vl.reve:\u00e9’|ed that the accused paid him value of two sites at<\/p>\n
  _yV_R,s.30,0OO\/- each but failed to pay the amount towards the<\/p>\n
value of the 3″‘ site. dk\/Q1
\n\/<\/p>\n
16<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
18. Against such evidence, the only plea
\nputforward by the accused is that there is no sale deed<\/p>\n
executed by the complainant in his favour and therefore,<\/p>\n
he was not liable to pay Rs.40,000\/- or any amoufn’t:f”,:\u00ab.VI:n.,,’<\/p>\n
this context, the learned Counsel for <\/p>\n
assertively contends that in thev.a*bs–ence’_’ <\/p>\n
evidencing transaction between th’e.Vco.Amplain–aV’ni:.<\/p>\n
accused no iiability could be –fa’s~t_ened” on  pet’lti~oner\u00bb
\naccused.\n<\/p>\n
19. None of   worthy of<\/p>\n
acceptance and_:rightly_”the:Vtri_ai-fvcouyrtghas rejected the<\/p>\n
same.  of the evidence, I find that<\/p>\n
complainaintohasx’r1o2’Aw’liVe_re pleaded that accused is the<\/p>\n
.~v..,_vpurvcl’i.aselr of the.,3_r__’_’,,\u00bbsite. What the complainant has<\/p>\n
 ‘av’e’rrec:E~.__a’rici’..proved is that he had authorised the accused<\/p>\n
to,s’el’l  sites and by virtue of that authorisation<\/p>\n
 the \u00e9acycusehdx received the amodunt from the prospective<\/p>\n
 tpiurchasers but failed to pay him Rs.-40,000\/-.<\/p>\n
‘  C”omplainant’s evidence supports his accusation against the<\/p>\n
 “accused establishing that the accused was liable to pay to<\/p>\n
the complainant Rs.40,000\/- in terms of the agreement.<\/p>\n
He has also established that the impugned cheque was<\/p>\n
N;\n<\/p>\n
.\u00ab_ cheque{~<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
issued by the accused towards discharge of such liability<\/p>\n
and as the cheque was dishonored, necessarily the catnse<\/p>\n
of action was generated since the accused failed:V~to.’co’_rnply” <\/p>\n
with the demands made in the notice. The__,ac-cuse:dl’,_ha’s5<\/p>\n
not disputed he had acted for<\/p>\n
complainant by virtue of auth_orisat-io’n’- by t.h%:–:.’..po’weifoft’?<\/p>\n
attorney issued in his favour iunzriespectwof. three sites and
\ntherefore, the accused’  dealt propertives of the
\ncomplainant as he liked and liable to account
\nfor the      <\/p>\n
2oy.%__V ,,sitl:.i’5.;m\u00a7’r%.i, will be improper to hold that
\nthe co’mpiain,an’t’:f’h,ad.,iFailed’ to establish subsistence of
\nenforceable,legalii_abi’l_it;ri:on’ the date of presentation of the<\/p>\n
  T21}, ‘_’The._|ast contention of the petItioner~accused is<\/p>\n
th.at~if  complainant’s case he would be liable to<\/p>\n
 payiillonylly; lis.30,000\/- and not Rs.40,000\/- because two<\/p>\n
V’  other sites were sold only for Rs.30,000\/-. This is also not<\/p>\n
acceptable as the accused has issued the cheque towards<\/p>\n
the accepted liability which was determined on the basis of<\/p>\n
sale transaction. In the circumstances, the use of words<\/p>\n
N5<\/p>\n
19<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
23. Based on the facts discussed above I am
\nsatisfied that the trial Court has rightly accepted the<\/p>\n
evidence of the complainant as establishing, accu.sedf\u00ab.ha–d<\/p>\n
issued the impugned cheque towards subsistinigiv—leg’a~l.i’,jdei$i;._T’ _<\/p>\n
or liability and hence it was enforceable, the_ C”<\/p>\n
trial Court that failure on the paritcof’-gthe acc_used:Vto_i”–~pa*,k:<\/p>\n
the amount as demanded ingthe notice to v C’<\/p>\n
penal action is also wei.l.justifAi,ed,,'”All\u00abconten*ti.oAnsA,,-urged by
\nthe petitioner-accused to’tithe”\u00ab:olntvi’a’ry,farVe, therefore, liable
\nto be rejectedg” ._Theg’ap’peliate.,,,[C9uVrt{webs also right in
\naffirming the crime -i:ria..i’ <\/p>\n
 1  constrained to hold that the<\/p>\n
revision i”s.._devoid_ of.m.e:”r\u00a7t and in view of the agreement,<\/p>\n
 thefinding _recorcie_d_.by the trial Court should have been<\/p>\n
‘ dismis.sed’\u00abat’~,the stage of ad-mission itself. However,<\/p>\n
H ‘despite limited scope under Section 397 Cr.P.C, I have<\/p>\n
Q allo’w.ed.,Vth’e petitioner’s counsel to elaborate on issue to his<\/p>\n
2 nsaitisfaction, despite which, I am not persuaded to accept<\/p>\n
 the impugned judgments need interference.<\/p>\n
 “‘Therefore, they are confirmed and since the order<\/p>\n
regarding sentence is reasonable, it calls for no<\/p>\n
interference. For the accused to deposit the amount so<\/p>\n
N”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010 Author: Jawad Rahim 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 24″‘ Day of February 2010 BEFORE V. THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRL.RP.NO. 771\/2009 ” I L’ BETWEEN: G.S.MOHAMMED IMTIAZ, S\/O LATE G.MOHAMMED SULAIMAN, A’ AGED […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217617","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010 - 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\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-31T21:39:06+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T21:39:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3432,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T21:39:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010 - 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\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-31T21:39:06+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T21:39:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":3432,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010","name":"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T21:39:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-s-mohammed-imtiaz-vs-ajmul-shareef-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G S Mohammed Imtiaz vs Ajmul Shareef on 24 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/217617","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=217617"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217617\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217617"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}