{"id":221246,"date":"2010-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-18T01:30:56","modified_gmt":"2016-05-17T20:00:56","slug":"ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 27513 of 2010(L)\n\n\n1. M\/S. M.O.POONEN, PODOYADI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SOJAN JAMES\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :22\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                         C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J\n                   ---------------------------\n                      W.P(C) No. 27513 of 2010-L\n           Dated----------------------------2010.\n                   this the 22nd day of September,\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Ext.P5 order imposing penalty under Section 67(1) of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Value Added Tax Act is under challenge in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
Since the petitioner has got an effective remedy by way of appeal<\/p>\n
against Ext.P5, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in normal<\/p>\n
situations. But grievance voiced by the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is<\/p>\n
issued in total violation of principles of natural justice, without<\/p>\n
affording any opportunity to the petitioner to file objections against<\/p>\n
the proposal and also without affording an opportunity of personal<\/p>\n
hearing.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The proceedings was initiated subsequent to an<\/p>\n
inspection conducted on 30.12.2009 at the business place of the<\/p>\n
petitioner at Thiruvalla and at the branches at Maradu, Kochi and<\/p>\n
Kattakada, Thiruvananthapuram. It is the admitted case of both<\/p>\n
sides that out of the three shop inspections conducted, copy of<\/p>\n
report prepared with respect to inspection conducted at Thiruvalla<\/p>\n
alone was issued to the petitioner at the time of inspection. It was<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 27513 of 2010-L         2<\/span><\/p>\n
contended by the respondents that the copy of SIR was not issued<\/p>\n
with respect to other two places because the persons who were<\/p>\n
present at the premises in charge of the business had refused to<\/p>\n
sign the SIRs. Pursuant to the inspections Ext.P3 notice was issued<\/p>\n
proposing to impose penalty. The said notice, eventhough dated<\/p>\n
5.7.2010, was signed by the first respondent only on 4.8.2010.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, the said notice was served on the petitioner only on<\/p>\n
4.8.2010. In Ext.P3 the date of hearing stipulated was 6.8.2010, ie.<\/p>\n
on the second day after service of Ext.P3.\n<\/p>\n
       3.    It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P3<\/p>\n
notice, the petitioner made request as per Ext.P4 for supply of<\/p>\n
copies of SIRs with respect to the branches at Ernakulam and<\/p>\n
Thiruvanathapuram. According to the petitioner, the copies of SIRs<\/p>\n
were made available to the petitioner only on 21.8.2010. But before<\/p>\n
serving copies of the SIRs the penalty orders was finalised by the<\/p>\n
first respondent. Ext.P5, which was originally dated as 19.8.2010<\/p>\n
was corrected as 30.8.2010, is the conduction. According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the penalty order was finalised even prior to issuance of<\/p>\n
copies of SIRs and the same was issued subsequently by altering the<\/p>\n
date and by incorporating certain additional statements.            No<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 27513 of 2010-L          3<\/span><\/p>\n
opportunity to file objections nor any opportunity of personal<\/p>\n
hearing was afforded before finalising the proceedings, is the<\/p>\n
grievance of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       4.    Going by Ext.P5, it is mentioned that on receiving the<\/p>\n
notice for imposing penalty on 4.8.2010, the petitioner had applied<\/p>\n
for   copies     of   two  SIRs  with  respect    to    Ernakulam   and<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram, on 10.8.2010. It is further stated that the<\/p>\n
copies were taken from the office by the petitioner only on<\/p>\n
21.8.2010. Findings in Ext.P5 is that, only the SIRs pertaining to<\/p>\n
inspection at the branch at Maradu was not available with the<\/p>\n
petitioner and since all the books of accounts are maintained at the<\/p>\n
head office there was no difficulty for production of the books of<\/p>\n
accounts, and that the non-availability of copies of SIRs was not a<\/p>\n
valid ground for not producing the books of accounts. Rejecting the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the petitioner, penalty was confirmed through<\/p>\n
Ext.P5.\n<\/p>\n
       5.    In a statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is<\/p>\n
averred that the petitioner was not at all co-operative in producing<\/p>\n
books of accounts and in participating with the enquiry. According<\/p>\n
to the respondents, the request made for copies of SIRs are only by<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 27513 of 2010-L         4<\/span><\/p>\n
way of an excuse for delaying the matter. The petitioner had failed<\/p>\n
to produce books of accounts, inspite of filing returns before the<\/p>\n
Assessing Authority and inspite of filing annual returns pertaining to<\/p>\n
the year concerned.\n<\/p>\n
       6.    Considering the facts and circumstances, and on<\/p>\n
evaluating rival submissions, it is evident that the copies of SIRs<\/p>\n
were made available to the petitioner only on 21.8.2010. It is also<\/p>\n
clear from Ext.P5, that the petitioner has not filed objections against<\/p>\n
the proposal, but only requested for copies of the SIRs. Nothing is<\/p>\n
discernible from the impugned order or from the statement filed on<\/p>\n
behalf of the first respondent that an effective opportunity was<\/p>\n
afforded to the petitioner to file objections after supplying copies of<\/p>\n
the SIRs.     On a perusal of Ext.P5, it is evident that there is a<\/p>\n
correction effected on the date of the order as 30.8.2010, which was<\/p>\n
originally printed as 19.8.2010. Eventhough there is no materials to<\/p>\n
find that Ext.P5 order was finalised on an earlier date, the allegation<\/p>\n
of the petitioner regarding subsequent incorporation of certain facts<\/p>\n
could not be discarded in toto. However, I am not entering on any<\/p>\n
finding, regarding that controversy. It is evident that the petitioner<\/p>\n
was not afforded with opportunity to file objections after 21.8.2010<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 27513 of 2010-L          5<\/span><\/p>\n
and no personal hearing was afforded before finalising the order<\/p>\n
imposing penalty. Imposition of penalty under Section 67(1) of the<\/p>\n
KVAT Act is a penal procedure in which it is mandatory to ensure<\/p>\n
that all principles of natural justice has been complied with. As<\/p>\n
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has<\/p>\n
emphasised the needs for strict compliance of such formalities in a<\/p>\n
recent decision reported in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd V.<\/p>\n
C.T.O (2010(3) KHC 299).        There are ever so many precedents<\/p>\n
reiterating need for strict compliance of principles of natural justice<\/p>\n
in the matters of finalising penalty proceedings. Since it is evident<\/p>\n
that the petitioner was denied of an opportunity to file objections<\/p>\n
and opportunity of hearing, I am inclined to quash Ext.P5 and<\/p>\n
further to direct the first respondent to finalise the matter afresh<\/p>\n
after complying with such requirements.\n<\/p>\n
       7.    In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P5 is<\/p>\n
hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to file objections against<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from<\/p>\n
today. The first respondent is directed to afford an opportunity to<\/p>\n
the petitioner to produce documents and accounts in support of his<\/p>\n
contentions. He shall be afforded with an opportunity of personal<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 27513 of 2010-L        6<\/span><\/p>\n
hearing before finalising the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
       8.    Fresh proceedings in this regard will be issued after<\/p>\n
complying with such requirements at the earliest possible, at any<\/p>\n
rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy<\/p>\n
of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  C.K.ABDUL REHIM
\n                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
ab<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 27513 of 2010(L) 1. M\/S. M.O.POONEN, PODOYADI, … Petitioner Vs 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, … Respondent 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF For Petitioner :SRI.SOJAN JAMES For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM […]<\/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-221246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 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\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-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=\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-17T20:00:56+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\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-17T20:00:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1088,\"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\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-17T20:00:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 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":"M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 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\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-17T20:00:56+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\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-17T20:00:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010"},"wordCount":1088,"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\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010","name":"M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-17T20:00:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-m-o-poonen-vs-intelligence-officer-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. M.O.Poonen vs Intelligence Officer on 22 September, 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\/221246","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=221246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}