{"id":221134,"date":"2009-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-20T14:38:02","modified_gmt":"2018-02-20T09:08:02","slug":"abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 4363 of 2006()\n\n\n1. ABDU S\/O.KKUNHAMMU CHUKKANPARAMBIL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SALIM, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. IBRAHIM MON S\/O.ALAVI,\n\n3. PATTARAKATH NAFEESA, D\/O.CHERIYA BAVA,\n\n4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :23\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.\n                  ----------------------------------------\n                     Crl.R.P.No.4363 of 2006\n                  ----------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009\n\n                                 ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.601 of<\/p>\n
1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I,<\/p>\n
Parappanagadi.     He filed the above complaint against the first<\/p>\n
respondent, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Thanur Police Station<\/p>\n
and as against respondents 2 and 3, alleging offence under<\/p>\n
Sections 109, 323, 324, 354, 506(i) read with Section 34 I.P.C. It is<\/p>\n
with an allegation that on 13\/7\/1998 a police constable attached to<\/p>\n
the Thanur Police Station went to the petty shop run by the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner at Unnyal and summoned the revision petitioner to go<\/p>\n
over to the Police Station on 14\/7\/1998 along with his wife. Though<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner was not informed about the reason for he<\/p>\n
being summoned to the police station, at 9.30 a.m. on 14\/7\/1998,<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner along with his wife and neighbours went to<\/p>\n
the police station and      with     the    permission     of the police<\/p>\n
constable on duty he went to the room of the first respondent<\/p>\n
wherein respondents 2 and 3 were present. Respondents 2 and 3<\/p>\n
pointed out the revision petitioner and stated that he knew the<\/p>\n
person to whom the respondents 2 and 3 paid money.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.4363 of 2006
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
Then, the first respondent went close to the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
and showered him with filthy language, hit his head against the<\/p>\n
table and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.15,000\/-.       Again, the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner was hit at his chest with a stick. When the<\/p>\n
wife of the revision petitioner intervened requesting not to hurt<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner, she was also hurt and her modesty was<\/p>\n
outraged by pulling out her saree .\n<\/p>\n
      2.   After taking cognizance process was issued. There<\/p>\n
after evidence was recorded under Section 244 of the Code of<\/p>\n
the Criminal Procedure and on finding that there are materials<\/p>\n
to sent the respondents for trial, a charge for offence under<\/p>\n
Sections 109, 323, 324, 354, 506(i) read with Section 34 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
was framed.      When it was read over and explained, the<\/p>\n
respondents 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty. Hence they were sent for<\/p>\n
trial. When the case was posted for cross-examination of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner and the witnesses, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
first respondent submitted that sanction under Section 197 of<\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure was not obtained to prosecute<\/p>\n
the first respondent who is a public servant. On the basis of the<\/p>\n
submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent,<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.4363 of 2006
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
either side was heard. Though the revision petitioner argued<\/p>\n
after giving reliance to a number of decisions that sanction is<\/p>\n
required to prosecute a public servant only when the offence<\/p>\n
alleged was committed during the course of discharge of the<\/p>\n
official duties and in this it is not so. The learned Magistrate did<\/p>\n
not accept the contention. Ultimately, the first respondent was<\/p>\n
acquitted for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure.      Assailing the legality, correctness and<\/p>\n
propriety of the above order, this revision petitioner was filed.<\/p>\n
      3.   Having heard either side, I find that there is no proof<\/p>\n
at present to come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
and his wife were summoned to the police station through a<\/p>\n
police constable that too, without issuing notice as contemplated<\/p>\n
under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the<\/p>\n
course of discharge of official duties. Even if it is assumed the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner and his wife were summoned to police station<\/p>\n
in discharge of any official duty, so long as there is no case that<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner and his wife had committed any breach of<\/p>\n
law in the police station, the first respondent had no authority to<\/p>\n
assault the revision petitioner or to outrage the modesty of the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.4363 of 2006
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
wife of the revision petitioner or to intimidate them. There is no<\/p>\n
material furnished by the revision petitioner to conclude that the<\/p>\n
offence alleged was committed during the course of the<\/p>\n
discharge of the duties. Where as it is vaguely stated that the<\/p>\n
first respondent is a public servant and to prosecute the first<\/p>\n
respondent sanction under Section 197 of the Code of the<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure is required. There is no finding by the lower<\/p>\n
court that there is any nexus between the official act and the<\/p>\n
offence committed by the first respondent. For that reason itself<\/p>\n
the order impugned is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The   learned    counsel   for  the   first respondent<\/p>\n
submitted that the revision petitioner and his wife were<\/p>\n
summoned to the police station upon the basis of a complaint<\/p>\n
filed by the second and third respondent and unfortunately those<\/p>\n
documents were destroyed as per the directions of the<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police.     However, at present, there is no<\/p>\n
documentary evidence. It is a matter of evidence as to whether<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner and his wife were summoned to the police<\/p>\n
station during the course of official duty or not. At present,<\/p>\n
there is no material to show that the revision petitioner and his<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.4363 of 2006
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
wife were summoned to the police station and assaulted and<\/p>\n
outraged the modesty during the course of discharge of official<\/p>\n
duties. Whatever may be the reasoning for the summoning them<\/p>\n
to the police station so long as there is no case that the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner or his wife had committed breach of law or that for<\/p>\n
any valid reason the first respondent had to exercise force<\/p>\n
against the revision petitioner and his wife, at any stretch of<\/p>\n
imagination, it could be held that the offence alleged was<\/p>\n
committed during the course of the discharge of the duties. It is<\/p>\n
also pertinent to note that there is no case that either the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner is an accused who had committed a<\/p>\n
cognizable offence. Even if it is assumed that they are witnesses,<\/p>\n
the summoning of the wife of the revision petitioner to the police<\/p>\n
station is forbidden by the proviso to section 160 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure. It is in violation the statutory bar she was<\/p>\n
summoned to the police station, assaulted and modesty was<\/p>\n
outraged. I fail to find that it was during the course of discharge<\/p>\n
of official duties. Learned magistrate palpably went wrong in<\/p>\n
concluding that the prosecution is bad for want of sanction under<\/p>\n
Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the above<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.4363 of 2006
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstance, I find that the order impugned is not sustainable<\/p>\n
and it is liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional<\/p>\n
powers.\n<\/p>\n
           In the result, the revision petition is allowed. While<\/p>\n
setting aside the order impugned the lower court is directed to<\/p>\n
proceed the trial and dispose the case in accordance with law at<\/p>\n
the earliest.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
skj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4363 of 2006() 1. ABDU S\/O.KKUNHAMMU CHUKKANPARAMBIL, … Petitioner Vs 1. SALIM, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, … Respondent 2. IBRAHIM MON S\/O.ALAVI, 3. PATTARAKATH NAFEESA, D\/O.CHERIYA BAVA, 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-20T09:08:02+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\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-20T09:08:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1115,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-20T09:08:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-20T09:08:02+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\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-20T09:08:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009"},"wordCount":1115,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009","name":"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-20T09:08:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdu-vs-salim-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdu vs Salim on 23 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221134","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=221134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}