{"id":225108,"date":"2000-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2"},"modified":"2016-01-31T00:28:05","modified_gmt":"2016-01-30T18:58:05","slug":"k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2","title":{"rendered":"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, &#8230; on 4 December, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, &#8230; on 4 December, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S S Quadri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.S.M.Quadru, S.N.Phukan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1054 2000\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.R.SURAJ\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE EXCISE INSPECTOR, PARAPPANANQADI &amp; ANR.  ..\t .\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t04\/12\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.S.M.quadru, S.N.Phukan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<br \/>\n      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>      SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Leave  to\t appeal is granted in all the special  leave<br \/>\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      These  appeals arise from judgments and orders of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  of Kerala at Ernakulam in\tCrl.M.C.Nos.2409\/97,<br \/>\n431,  435,  444 and 448\/98, 502, 503, 504 and 506\/97,  4000,<br \/>\n2158,  2159\/97,\t 791\/98 and 788\/98, passed on May 19,  1998.<br \/>\nThe  common question that arises for consideration in  these<br \/>\nappeals,  is:\twhether the impugned  proceedings  initiated<br \/>\nagainst\t the  appellants on the basis of  samples  collected<br \/>\nfrom  their shops under Section 31 of the Kerala Abkari Act,<br \/>\n1077 (before its amendment in 1997) are liable to be quashed<br \/>\nunder  Section\t482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.   Briefly<br \/>\nstated,\t the following facts give rise to these appeals.  In<br \/>\n1993,  under Section 31 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077\t(for<br \/>\nshort,\tthe Act), the Excise Inspectors of various  ranges<br \/>\nof  Kerala State, collected samples from the liquor shops of<br \/>\nthe appellants who were licensed to carry on the business of<br \/>\nliquor.\t The Excise Inspectors lodged complaints against the<br \/>\nappellants  under various provisions, including Section 57A,<br \/>\nof  the\t Act  alleging, inter alia, that  the  samples\tshow<br \/>\nadulteration  of  liquor or intoxicating drugs with  noxious<br \/>\nsubstance.   The learned Magistrates took cognizance of\t the<br \/>\noffences.   The\t appellants  then moved the  High  Court  by<br \/>\nfiling\tCrl.M.Cs.  to have the proceedings, initiated on the<br \/>\nreport of the Excise Inspector, quashed under Section 482 of<br \/>\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.).  They<br \/>\nwere  dismissed\t by the High Court on the date noted  above.<br \/>\nIt  is\tfrom  those orders that the present  appeals  arise.<br \/>\nMr.Mahendra  Anand,  the learned Senior Advocate,  appearing<br \/>\nfor  the  appellants in Criminal Appeal Nosof  2000  [@<br \/>\nS.L.P.\t Nos.692-95\/99 &amp; 1708- 10\/99], contended that on the<br \/>\ndate  the  Excise Inspector collected the samples  from\t the<br \/>\nshops  of the appellanats under unamended Section 31 of\t the<br \/>\nAct,  he had no authority to do so in respect of the offence<br \/>\nunder Section 57A of the Act, so no prosecution for the said<br \/>\noffence\t can  be  launched  against   them  based  on\tsuch<br \/>\ncollection  of\tmaterial.  Mr.Anand has argued that  if\t the<br \/>\nlast  part of Section 31 is to be interpreted as authorising<br \/>\nsearch\tfor  offences not mentioned in the first  part\tthen<br \/>\nspecifying offences in the first part will become redundant.<br \/>\nHis  further  contention  is that the  first  part  contains<br \/>\noffences  which\t are  triable by a  Magistrate\twhereas\t the<br \/>\noffence\t under Section 57A is triable by a Court of  Session<br \/>\nfor  which no machinery was provided on its insertion in the<br \/>\nAct till 1997 when Section 31 was amended, Section 50 of the<br \/>\nAct  was substituted and Section 50A was inserted to provide<br \/>\nfor trial of offence under Section 57A.\t As such before 1997<br \/>\ncollection  of samples under Section 31 and booking of cases<br \/>\nfor  violation\tof  Section  57A,   not\t being\twithin\t the<br \/>\ncontemplation of the Act, was illegal.\tThe proceedings are,<br \/>\ntherefore, liable to be quashed.  After insertion of Section<br \/>\n50A,  if the offence under Section 57A, alleged to have been<br \/>\ncommitted  in  1993, is permitted to be tried now, it  would<br \/>\namount\tto giving retrospective effect to Section 50A which,<br \/>\nin   the  absence  of  any   specific  provision,  will\t  be<br \/>\nimpermissible.\t Mr.Sukumaran,\tthe learned  senior  counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for the appellants in Criminal Appeal  Nosof<br \/>\n2000  [@ S.L.P.\t Nos.3312-15\/98, 1536\/99 &amp; 153799] canvassed<br \/>\nfor the plea that collection of samples under Section 31 for<br \/>\nprosecution  under Section 57A was illegal.  He invited\t our<br \/>\nattention  to Sections 63, 64 and 67 of the Act to urge that<br \/>\nunder  the  scheme  of\tthe Act before\tamendment  of  1997,<br \/>\noffences  under the Abkari Act were minor offence triable by<br \/>\na  Magistrate  for which maximum punishment  prescribed\t was<br \/>\nless than two years and they were also compoundable;  but an<br \/>\noffence\t under\tSection\t 57A is a grave offence\t triable  by<br \/>\nCourt  of  Session.  He contended that a search qua  offence<br \/>\nSection\t 57A  was  different from a search qua\tany  of\t the<br \/>\noffences  mentioned  in\t the first part of Section  31\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore,  on\tthe material collected during the search  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the said offences, no prosecution for  violation<br \/>\nof  Section  57A  can  be   launched.\tHe  submitted\tthat<br \/>\namendments  of some provisions including Sections 30 and  31<br \/>\nand  insertions\t of  some other provisions in the  Act\twere<br \/>\npurposive  amendments  to enable the Excise Officer to\tmake<br \/>\nsearch\tfor  all the offences and to provide  machinery\t for<br \/>\ntrial  of all the offences in the Act and they could not  be<br \/>\ntreated as mere declaratory amendments.\t The learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for the appellants in other appeals adopted their<br \/>\narguments.    Mr.Mukul\tRohtagi,   the\tlearned\t  Additional<br \/>\nSolicitor General, contended that the last part of unamended<br \/>\nSection\t 31  was  not controlled by the first part  of\tthat<br \/>\nsection\t and  that  on the basis of  collection\t of  samples<br \/>\nprosecution  was  properly initiated against the  appellants<br \/>\nwho  could  raise  all\tquestions  relating  to\t absence  of<br \/>\nmachinery,  retrospectivity of Section 50A and other related<br \/>\naspects\t before\t the Trial Court and the High Court  rightly<br \/>\ndeclined  to  quash  the proceedings.\tWhile  adopting\t the<br \/>\narguments  of  the  learned  Additional\t Solicitor  General,<br \/>\nMr.Rajiv  Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the State  of<br \/>\nKerala,\t added\tthat Section 57A was inserted in the Act  in<br \/>\n1984,  and the offence was committed in 1993, therefore, the<br \/>\nappellants  were  liable  to  be  prosecuted  for  the\tsaid<br \/>\noffence.   On these submissions we shall ascertain the\ttrue<br \/>\nposition in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act.<br \/>\nSections 30 and 31 of the Act dealing with search and arrest<br \/>\nas  on the material date, read as under :  30.\tMagistrate<br \/>\nmay   issue  a\tsearch\twarrant\t  on  application:   &#8211;\t The<br \/>\nCommissioner  of Excise or any Magistrate, upon\t information<br \/>\nobtained  and after such enquiry as he thinks necessary, has<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe  that  an offence under  Section  55  or<br \/>\nSection\t 57 or Section 58 of this Act has been committed, he<br \/>\nmay  issue  a  warrant\tfor   the  search  for\tany  liquor,<br \/>\nintoxicating  drug, materials, stills, utensil, implement or<br \/>\napparatus  in respect of which the alleged offence has\tbeen<br \/>\ncommitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Before  issuing  such  warrant,  the  Commissioner  of<br \/>\nExcise, or Magistrate shall examine the informant on oath of<br \/>\naffirmation,  and  the\texamination shall  be  reduced\tinto<br \/>\nwriting\t in a summary manner and be signed by the  informant<br \/>\nand also by the Commissioner of Excise or Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n<p>      31.   Power  to certain abkari and police officers  to<br \/>\nsearch\t houses,  etc.\t without   warrant  &#8211;  Whenever\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  of Excise or any Abkari Officer not below such<br \/>\nranks  may be specified by the Government in this behalf  or<br \/>\nany  Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or a<br \/>\nPolice\tStation\t Officer,  has\treason to  believe  that  an<br \/>\noffence\t under\tSection\t 8 or Section 15C or Section  55  or<br \/>\nSection\t 58B  or Section 56A or Section 57 or Section 58  or<br \/>\nSection\t 58A  or Section 58B of this Act has been  committed<br \/>\nand  that the delay occasioned by obtaining a search warrant<br \/>\nunder  the  preceding  section will  prevent  the  execution<br \/>\nthereof, he may, after recording his reasons and the grounds<br \/>\nof  his belief at any time by day or night, enter and search<br \/>\nany  place and may seize anything found therein which he has<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe to be liable to confiscation under\tthis<br \/>\nAct,  and  may detain and search and, if he  thinks  proper,<br \/>\narrest\tany person found in such place whom he has reason to<br \/>\nbelieve to be guilty of any offence under this Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Provided that every person arrested under this section<br \/>\nshall  be  admitted to bail by such officer as aforesaid  if<br \/>\nsufficient bail be tendered for his appearance either before<br \/>\na  Magistrate or before an Abkari Inspector as the case\t may<br \/>\nbe<\/p>\n<p>      From  a perusal of the provisions, extracted above, it<br \/>\nis  clear that under Section 30 of the Act the\tCommissioner<br \/>\nof Excise or any Magistrate was empowered to issue a warrant<br \/>\nfor  the search of any liquor, intoxicating drug, materials,<br \/>\nstills,\t utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of which<br \/>\nhe  had, upon information obtained and after such enquiry as<br \/>\nhe  might deem necessary, reason to believe that an  offence<br \/>\nunder  Sections 55, 57 or 58 of the Act had been  committed.<br \/>\nSection\t 31 authorised the Excise Commissioner or any of the<br \/>\nofficers specified therein including the Excise Inspector to<br \/>\nsearch\tthe houses without warrant, at any time by day or by<br \/>\nnight,\twhen  he had reason to believe that (a)\t an  offence<br \/>\nunder  Section 8 or Section 15C or Section 55 or Section 58B<br \/>\nor Section 56A or Section 57 or Section 58 or Section 58A or<br \/>\nSection 58B of the Act, had been committed and (b) the delay<br \/>\noccasioned  by\tobtaining a search warrant under Section  30<br \/>\nwould  prevent the execution thereof.  In such a case, after<br \/>\nrecording  his reasons and the grounds of his belief, he was<br \/>\nenabled\t to  enter and search, at any time by day or  night,<br \/>\nany  place  and\t seize anything found therein which  he\t had<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe to be liable to confiscation  under\t the<br \/>\nAct,  and to detain and search and, if he thought proper, to<br \/>\narrest\tany person found in such place whom he had reason to<br \/>\nbelieve\t to be guilty of any offence under the Act.  Whereas<br \/>\nin  Section  30\t there\twas no mention\tof  seizure  of\t any<br \/>\nmaterial  or  arrest of any person, Section 31\tspecifically<br \/>\nprovided  for  seizure\tof anything liable  to\tconfiscation<br \/>\nunder the Act and detention and search as also arrest of any<br \/>\nperson\tfound  in the place of search whom the\tofficer\t had<br \/>\nreason to believe to be guilty of any offence under the Act.<br \/>\nIt  may be pointed out here that though the power of  search<br \/>\nunder  Section 31 of the Act was available in respect of  an<br \/>\noffence for which warrant could be obtained under Section 30<br \/>\nof  the Act yet it appears that before incorporation of\t the<br \/>\namendments in the Act in 1997, issuance of warrant of search<br \/>\nwas  confined  to  offences  under Sections 55,\t 57  and  58<br \/>\nwhereas\t under\tSection\t 31 search could have been  made  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  any of the offences under Sections 8, 15C,\t 55,<br \/>\n55B,  56A, 57, 58, 58A or 58B of the Act.  Such a  situation<br \/>\narose  because\twhen Sections 8, 15C, 55B, 56A, 58A and\t 58B<br \/>\nwere inserted in Section 31 in 1967, the legislature did not<br \/>\namend  Section\t30  correspondingly.  In the same  way\twhen<br \/>\nSection\t 57A  was  inserted in the Act in 1984,\t Section  31<br \/>\ncontinued  to remain unamended.\t Be that as it may, a  close<br \/>\nreading\t of  Section 31 discloses that it had  three  limbs.<br \/>\nThe first limb specified the officers who should have reason<br \/>\nto  believe  that  an offence under any\t of  the  provisions<br \/>\nenumerated   therein  had  been\t  committed;\tthe   second<br \/>\nauthorised  any of the specified officers to enter any place<br \/>\nand search without a search warrant under Section 30, at any<br \/>\ntime  by day or night, if in the opinion of any of them\t the<br \/>\ndelay occasioned by obtaining such warrant would prevent the<br \/>\nexecution  thereof  and\t he  had recorded  the\treasons\t and<br \/>\ngrounds\t of  his belief and the third enabled him  to  seize<br \/>\nanything found in the place of search which he had reason to<br \/>\nbelieve\t to  be liable to confiscation under the Act and  to<br \/>\ndetain\tand  search and if he thought proper to\t arrest\t any<br \/>\nperson\tfound in such place whom he had reason to believe to<br \/>\nbe guilty of any offence under the Act.\t In the absence of a<br \/>\nwarrant\t of search, for entering any place what is necessary<br \/>\nis  existence of reason for any of the specified officers to<br \/>\nbelieve\t that any of the offences mentioned therein has been<br \/>\ncommitted.   Once an officer gains entry in any place he can<br \/>\nexercise  any  of  the powers authorised in the\t third\tlimb<br \/>\nwhich  are  not confined to offences specified in the  first<br \/>\nlimb.  It is too banal a contention to merit acceptance that<br \/>\nhaving\tseized\tan article liable to confiscation under\t the<br \/>\nAct  or having detained and searched a person found in\tsuch<br \/>\nplace  who is believed to be guilty of an offence under\t the<br \/>\nAct,  no person can be prosecuted in respect thereof for  an<br \/>\noffence\t under the Act except for the offences mentioned  in<br \/>\nthe  first limb of Section 31.\tIt is true in Roy V.D.\t vs.<br \/>\nState of Kerala [Criminal Appeal No.967 of 2000 @ SLP (Crl.)<br \/>\nNo.2705\t of  1998  decided on November 10,  2000],  we\thave<br \/>\nobserved  that\tthe life and liberty of an individual is  so<br \/>\nsacrosanct  that  cannot  be allowed to be  interfered\twith<br \/>\nexcept\tunder  the authority of law.  That is because  under<br \/>\nour  Constitution there is no protection against search\t and<br \/>\nseizure\t as  is\t the  case under the fourth  and  the  fifth<br \/>\namendment  to  the  <a href=\"\/doc\/1306519\/\">U.S.Constitution.\t In  M.P.Sharma\t vs.<br \/>\nSatish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi &amp; Ors.<\/a>  [1954 SCR<br \/>\n1077  at 1096], a Constitution Bench of this Court  observed<br \/>\nthus  :\t  A  power of search seizure is in any\tsystem\tof<br \/>\njurisprudence  an  overriding  power of the  State  for\t the<br \/>\nprotection  of social security and that power is necessarily<br \/>\nregulated by law.  When the Constitution makers have thought<br \/>\nfit  not  to  subject\tsuch  regulation  to  constitutional<br \/>\nlimitations  by\t recognition  of  a  fundamental  right\t  to<br \/>\nprivacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, we have<br \/>\nno  justification  to  import it, into a  totally  different<br \/>\nfundamental right, by some process of strained construction.<br \/>\nNor  is\t it  legitimate to assume  that\t the  constitutional<br \/>\nprotection  under  Article  20(3) would be defeated  by\t the<br \/>\nstatutory provisions for searches.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  1984,\t as noted above, a new offence\twas  created<br \/>\nunder  Section\t57A  which  is\tin  the\t following  terms  :<br \/>\nWhoever\t possess any liquor or intoxicating drugs in which<br \/>\nany  substance\treferred  to in sub-section  (1)  is  mixed,<br \/>\nknowing\t that  such substance is mixed with such  liquor  or<br \/>\nintoxicating  drug  shall on conviction be  punishable\twith<br \/>\nimprisonment  for  a term which shall not be less  than\t one<br \/>\nyear  but which may extend to ten years and with life  which<br \/>\nmay extend to twenty five thousand rupees.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  find no force in the contention that on and  after<br \/>\ninsertion  of  Section\t57A,  no   person  could  have\tbeen<br \/>\nprosecuted  thereunder due to absence of machinery under the<br \/>\nAct  as neither Section 31 authorised collections of samples<br \/>\nnor  Section  50  which\t dealt with offences  triable  by  a<br \/>\nMagistrate  could  have\t been pressed into  service  because<br \/>\noffence\t under Section 57A is triable by a Court of Session.<br \/>\nIt  is too plain to overlook that this Section was in  force<br \/>\nwhen  samples  were collected in 1993.\tWe have\t held  above<br \/>\nthat under unamended Section 31, on the basis of the samples<br \/>\ncollected  from\t the  shops of the  appellants,\t the  Excise<br \/>\nInspector could file report before the concerned Magistrate.<br \/>\nIt  is\ttrue  that  Section  50\t postulates  trial  by\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate.   But  it must be borne in mind that Section  50<br \/>\nenjoins\t that upon receipt of a report from Excise Inspector<br \/>\nthe  Magistrate shall inquire into such offence and try\t the<br \/>\nperson\taccused\t thereof in like manner as if complaint\t had<br \/>\nbeen  made  before him as prescribed in the Cr.P.C.  On\t the<br \/>\nreport\tof  the Excise Inspector in respect of\tthe  offence<br \/>\nunder  Section 57A, the concerned Magistrate has to  inquire<br \/>\ninto  offence  and  commit the appellants to  the  Court  of<br \/>\nSession.   On June 3, 1997, Sections 31 and 50 were  amended<br \/>\nand  Section  50A  was inserted in the Act,  Section  31  as<br \/>\namended\t in  1997 is extracted hereunder :  31.\t Power\tto<br \/>\ncertain\t abkari\t and police officers to search houses,\tetc.<br \/>\nwithout warrant:- whenever the Commissioner of Excise or any<br \/>\nAbkari\tOfficer not below such ranks may be specified by the<br \/>\nGovernment  in\tthis behalf or any Police Officer not  below<br \/>\nthe  rank of Sub-Inspector or a Police Station Officer,\t has<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe that an offence under this Act has\tbeen<br \/>\ncommitted  and\tthat  the delay occasioned  by\tobtaining  a<br \/>\nsearch\twarrant under the preceding section will prevent the<br \/>\nexecution  thereof, he may, after recording his reasons\t and<br \/>\nthe grounds of his belief at any time by day or night, enter<br \/>\nand  search  any place and may seize anything found  therein<br \/>\nwhich  he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation<br \/>\nunder  this Act, and may detain and search and, if he thinks<br \/>\nproper,\t arrest\t any person found in such place whom he\t has<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe to be guilty of any offence\t under\tthis<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>      From  a  compassion  of unamended Section 31  and\t the<br \/>\namended\t Section  31, it is clear that under  the  unamended<br \/>\nprovision  the\tpower to enter and search any place, at\t any<br \/>\ntime  by  day or night, was confined to a case where any  of<br \/>\nthe  specified\tofficers including the Excise Inspector\t had<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe that any of the following  offences\t had<br \/>\nbeen  committed\t &#8211; viz., Sections 8, 15C, 55, 58B, 56A,\t 57,<br \/>\n58, 58A and 58B which obviously did not include Section 57A.<br \/>\nIn  any given case, whether the Excise Inspector had  reason<br \/>\nto  believe  that an offence was committed and that  offence<br \/>\nwas  one  of the specified offences, are questions of  facts<br \/>\nwhich  must be established in each case on evidence.  Should<br \/>\nthe  prosecution  fail to prove these facts, the  entry\t and<br \/>\nsearch\tof any place per se would be illegal and so also the<br \/>\ncollection   of\t  samples  by\thim  and  consequently\t the<br \/>\nprosecution of the alleged offender will equally be illegal.<br \/>\nBut  under  the\t amended provision such a power\t extends  to<br \/>\nevery  case where the Excise Inspector has reason to believe<br \/>\nthat  an offence under the Act has been committed.  Even  so<br \/>\non  a  valid  entry and search of any place in\texercise  of<br \/>\npower  under  unamended\t Section 31 of the  Act,  should  an<br \/>\nExcise\tInspector find material suggestive of commission  of<br \/>\nan  offence  under the Act in addition to or instead of\t the<br \/>\nspecified  offences,  he can, on the basis of such  material<br \/>\nfile  a\t complaint\/a report regarding commission of such  an<br \/>\noffence\t also  in addition to or in lieu of the offences  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  which  search  was\t  made.\t  It  is,   however,<br \/>\nsignificant  to note that under both the unamended provision<br \/>\nas  well  as the amended provision of Section 31  conditions<br \/>\nfor  exercising\t the  powers of seizure\t and  arrest  remain<br \/>\nunchanged  &#8212;  the power to seize anything found therein  is<br \/>\nconditioned  upon  the\tspecified   officer  including\t the<br \/>\ninspector  having reason to believe that it is liable to  be<br \/>\nconfiscated  under the Act.  So also the power to arrest any<br \/>\nperson\tfound  in  such place is conditional on\t his  having<br \/>\nreason\tto  believe such person to be guilty of any  offence<br \/>\nunder  the  Act.   Thus, it is clear that the last  limb  of<br \/>\nSection\t 31  was  not controlled by the first limb  of\tthat<br \/>\nsection both before and after amendment of Section 31 of the<br \/>\nAct.   We  have\t already referred to the  substance  of\t the<br \/>\nunamended  Section 50.\tThe amended provision of Section  50<br \/>\nrequires  the  Abkari  Officer to forward to  the  concerned<br \/>\nMagistrate a report as provided in Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.<br \/>\non  completing the investigation into the offence.   Section<br \/>\n50A  provides  that the Magistrate shall inquire  into\tsuch<br \/>\noffence\t and  commit to Court of Session if the\t offence  is<br \/>\nexclusively  triable by a Court of Session or try the person<br \/>\naccused\t thereof  as if a case is instituted upon  a  police<br \/>\nreport\tas provided in Cr.P.C.\tThe above examination of the<br \/>\nrelevant  provisions  demonstrates that before amendment  of<br \/>\nthe  aforesaid provision in 1997, the position was much\t the<br \/>\nsame except to the extent indicated above.  The amendment of<br \/>\nSections  31  and  50 and insertion of Section 50A  has\t not<br \/>\nchanged\t  the  law  but\t has   placed  the   matter   beyond<br \/>\ncontroversy.   In  this view of the matter  the\t contentions<br \/>\nthat the offence under Section 57A could not have been tried<br \/>\nbefore\tJune  1997 for want of machinery under the  Act\t and<br \/>\nallowing  the  trial  to proceed after the said\t date  would<br \/>\namount\tto giving retrospective effect to Section 50A in the<br \/>\nabsence\t of specific provision to that effect, have to\tfail<br \/>\nas  being untenable.  It is thus clear that, in the  instant<br \/>\ncases, on the basis of the samples of arrack collected while<br \/>\ncarrying  out search under unamended Section 31, prosecution<br \/>\nunder  Section\t57A  was  rightly initiated  by\t the  Excise<br \/>\nInspector.   Whether any ground in law existed to enter\t the<br \/>\nshops  and  collect  samples has to be\testablished  by\t the<br \/>\nprosecution.   In  Roy V.D.s case (supra), the question\t we<br \/>\nhad  considered,  was:\t the effect of\tsearch\tand  seizure<br \/>\nconducted  by  an officer not empowered under  the  Narcotic<br \/>\nDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.  Therefore, the<br \/>\njudgment  in  that  case  is of\t little\t assistance  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant  as  in these cases the point is different.\tFrom<br \/>\nthe  above discussion, it follows that the question  whether<br \/>\ncollection  of samples of arrack by the Excise Inspector  in<br \/>\nthese  cases under unamended Section 31 was not unauthorised<br \/>\nand  was  legal\t has to be established at the trial  of\t the<br \/>\noffence,  therefore,  it cannot be said that the High  Court<br \/>\ncommitted  any\tillegality in not quashing  the\t proceedings<br \/>\ninitiated in respect of the offence under Section 57A on the<br \/>\nreport\t of   the  Excise   Inspector.\t The  appeals\tare,<br \/>\naccordingly,  dismissed.   Crl.A.  No.\t..  of 2000[@  of<br \/>\nS.L.P.\t(Crl.) NO.538\/2000] This appeal is from the order of<br \/>\nthe  Kerala  High  Court in Crl.   M.C.\t  No.497\/2000  dated<br \/>\nJanuary\t 28, 2000 dismissing the said Criminal Miscellaneous<br \/>\nCase  following the order passed by the High Court  impugned<br \/>\nin the aforesaid appeals.  It was contended that this appeal<br \/>\nis different from the afore-mentioned appeals inasmuch as in<br \/>\nthe charge-sheet against the appellant only Sections 57A and<br \/>\n56(b)  of Abkari Act, 1077 are mentioned which are not among<br \/>\nthe  provisions\t specified in the first limb of Section\t 31,<br \/>\ntherefore,  the appeal has to be allowed.  We are afraid, we<br \/>\ncannot\taccede to the contention of the learned counsel.  We<br \/>\nhave  already  held  above that to authorise  entry  in\t and<br \/>\nsearch of any place what is required to be shown is that the<br \/>\nExcise Inspector had reason to believe that an offence under<br \/>\none of the Sections mentioned in the first limb of unamended<br \/>\nSection\t 31 was committed to justify entry into the shops of<br \/>\nthe  appellant,\t if on a valid entry samples were  collected<br \/>\nwhich  indicate commission of any other offence in  addition<br \/>\nto  or\tin  lieu of the said specified offence,\t the  Excise<br \/>\nInspector can file a report before the Magistrate in respect<br \/>\nof the said offence.  The prosecution has to make out a case<br \/>\nunder  the first limb of Section 31, which can be determined<br \/>\nonly  on examination of the Excise Inspector and decided  on<br \/>\ntrial.\t In  such a case if the proceedings are not  quashed<br \/>\nunder  Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court,  it  cannot  be said that the  High  Court\t has<br \/>\ncommitted any error in law.  This appeal is also dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, &#8230; on 4 December, 2000 Author: S S Quadri Bench: S.S.M.Quadru, S.N.Phukan CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1054 2000 PETITIONER: K.R.SURAJ Vs. RESPONDENT: THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, PARAPPANANQADI &amp; ANR. .. . DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/12\/2000 BENCH: S.S.M.quadru, S.N.Phukan JUDGMENT: L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J J U D G M E N [&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-225108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, ... on 4 December, 2000 - 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\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, ... on 4 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2\" \/>\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=\"2000-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-30T18:58:05+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, &#8230; on 4 December, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-30T18:58:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2\"},\"wordCount\":3746,\"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\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2\",\"name\":\"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, ... on 4 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-30T18:58:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, &#8230; on 4 December, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, ... on 4 December, 2000 - 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\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, ... on 4 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-30T18:58:05+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, &#8230; on 4 December, 2000","datePublished":"2000-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-30T18:58:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2"},"wordCount":3746,"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\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2","name":"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, ... on 4 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-30T18:58:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-suraj-vs-the-excise-inspector-on-4-december-2000-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.R.Suraj vs The Excise Inspector, &#8230; on 4 December, 2000"}]},{"@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\/225108","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=225108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}