{"id":229361,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-01T19:39:21","modified_gmt":"2018-08-01T14:09:21","slug":"ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n\n\n           Criminal Misc. Petition No.181 of 2007\n\n\n\n\n\n                  1.  M\/s.   Hindustan  Lever   Limited\n\n                   2.  K.   Venkat  Ramani\n                                        ...Petitioners\n\n                           Versus\n\n\n                  The State of Chhattisgarh\n                                              ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
     {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\n                      Procedure, 1973}<\/p>\n
!     Mr.  Surendra  Singh, Senior Advocate  with  Mr.  Neeraj
\n      Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
^     Mr.  Kishore  Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General  with
\n     Mr.  Akhil  Mishra,  Deputy Govt.  Advocate  &  Mr.  Rajendra
\n     Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State\/respondent.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\nHonble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J \n\n\n\n\n       Dated:27\/08\/2009\n\n\n\n\n:       Judgment\n                         ORAL ORDER\n                         (27-8-2009)\n<\/pre>\n
1.    This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\n  Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code’) is for quashment  of
\n  criminal  proceeding pending before the Court  of  Judicial
\n  Magistrate  First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint  Case
\n  No.511\/2003 for the offence punishable under Section 7 read
\n  with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
\n  1954 (for short `the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
2.    Quashment is prayed on the ground that petitioner  No.2
\n  K.  Venkatramani is not the nominee appointed by petitioner
\n  No.1 in the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 17 (2) of the
\n  Act, therefore continuance of criminal proceeding against the
\n  person  not connected with the commission of offence  would
\n  amount to abuse of the process of the Court.  Quashment  is
\n  also prayed on the ground that prosecution has been launched
\n  against petitioner No.1 intentionally & deliberately  after
\n  lapse of more than 1 + years of the date of taking sample of
\n  the  food product which was permitted for use within  three
\n  months  from  date of its manufacture and  any  prosecution
\n  without affording opportunity of analysis of the sample  by
\n  the Central Food Laboratory in terms of Section 13 (2) of the
\n  Act has caused serious prejudice to petitioner No.1.\n<\/p>\n
3.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
\n  copy of the complaint & copies of other documents filed  on
\n  behalf of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that
\n  petitioner  No.1 is a Company which manufactures  Atta  and
\n  petitioner No.2 is an appointed nominee of petitioner  No.1
\n  under  Section 17 (2) of the Act.  Other co-accused persons
\n  Shankarlal & Inder Chand are sellers and authorized agents of
\n  the Company to sell the Atta.  On 15-9-2001, the sample  of
\n  Atta  manufactured  by petitioner No.1 was  purchased  from
\n  accused Shankarlal which was sold to him by co-accused Inder
\n  Chand.   After completing the formalities and the procedure
\n  prescribed, the sample was sent for analysis to  the  State
\n  Public Analyst and on analysis the Atta was found adulterated
\n  vide report dated 22-10-2001.  Name of nominee of the Company
\n  was enquired by the Food Inspector from the Joint Director,
\n  Food  & Drugs Administration, Raipur who intimated the Food
\n  Inspector  the  name of petitioner No.2.   Again  the  Food
\n  Inspector enquired the matter from petitioner No.2 on which
\n  the Company\/petitioner No.1 has intimated the Food Inspector
\n  vide  letter  dated  21-2-2002 that Mr. Pankaj  Agrawal  is
\n  nominee for Raipur area.  Finally the complaint was filed on
\n  30-5-2003 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur
\n  who  took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners
\n  and two other co-accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
5.    The  petitioners have filed this petition under Section
\n  482  of  the Code on the ground that on the date of alleged
\n  offence, petitioner No.2 was not the appointed nominee under
\n  Section  17  (2)  of  the Act for the  Company,  therefore,
\n  petitioner No.2 is not responsible for any offence.  The said
\n  Atta was manufactured on 10-8-2001 and the sample was taken
\n  on  15-9-2001.  It was specifically written in  the  notice
\n  given under Section 7 of the Act that “best use before three
\n  months”  and the said time expires on 10-11-2001,  but  the
\n  complaint has been filed much after the said date i.e. on 30-
\n  5-2003.  The accused has a right to analyze the sample by the
\n  Director, Central Food Laboratory in terms of Section 13 (2)
\n  of  the  Act, but his valuable right of analysis  has  been
\n  denied by the prosecution which caused serious prejudice to
\n  the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Learned  Senior  Advocate appearing on  behalf  of  the
\n  petitioners  argued that petitioner No.1 has intimated  the
\n  Assistant Commissioner, Local Health Authority, Food & Drugs
\n  Administration – Chhattisgarh vide its letter dated 7-4-2001
\n  that vide resolution dated 18th December, 2000, the Company
\n  has  nominated  Mr. Pankaj Agrawal as the  Nominee  of  the
\n  Company for the State of Chhattisgarh under Section 17 (2) of
\n  the Act in relation to the storage, sales, distribution and
\n  marketing  of  the  entire range of foods  including  Atta.
\n  Further,  in reply to the letter dated 7-2-2002, again  the
\n  Company  has  intimated  the Food Inspector,  Food  &  Drug
\n  Administration  vide its letter dated  15-2-2002  that  Mr.
\n  Pankaj Agrawal is nominee under Section 17 (2) of the  Act.
\n  However, the complainant has not made Mr. Pankaj Agrawal as
\n  party and has made petitioner No.2 as party.  Therefore, any
\n  criminal   proceeding  against  petitioner  No.2   is   not
\n  maintainable  and the same is abuse of the process  of  the
\n  Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.    As  regards the question of criminal proceeding against
\n  petitioner  No.1  Company, learned Senior Advocate  further
\n  argued,  it  has been specifically mentioned  in  the  food
\n  article  that “best use before three months”, the Atta  was
\n  manufactured on 10-8-2001, the sample was taken on 15-9-2001
\n  and the same was for use within three months i.e. till 10-11-
\n  2001,  but  the prosecution has been launched on  30-5-2003
\n  after  more than 1 year 6 months.  Therefore, even  if  the
\n  Company applies for analysis by the Director, Central  Food
\n  Laboratory in terms of Section 13 (2) of the Act same would
\n  be  futile  exercise  and would be of no  help,  hence  any
\n  prosecution and denial of valuable right provided under the
\n  Act in favour of the Company would be abuse of the process of
\n  the  Court.  Learned Senior Advocate also submits that  the
\n  petitioners are competent to approach the High Court directly
\n  under Section 482 of the Code without filing any application
\n  before the Court concerned who has taken cognizance of  the
\n  offence  against the petitioners.  Learned Senior  Advocate
\n  placed reliance in the matter of M\/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd.  and
\n  another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others1 in which
\n  the Apex Court has held that in appropriate case if complaint
\n  does  not  disclose the commission of offence  against  the
\n  petitioners, then they may directly approach the High Court
\n  under Section 482 of the Code without approaching the Court
\n  of Judicial Magistrate First Class for discharge or otherwise
\n  quashment  of  the  complaint case  pending  against  them.
\n  Learned Senior Advocate further placed reliance in the matter
\n  of G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others2 in
\n  which  while dealing with same question the Apex Court  has
\n  held that for filing petition under Section 482 of the Code
\n  filing of any application before the Magistrate for discharge
\n  is  not  sine qua non.  Learned Senior Advocate also placed
\n  reliance in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.
\n  Ghisa Ram3<\/a> in which the Apex Court has held that inordinate
\n  delay in prosecution – Sample becoming decomposed and hence
\n  impossible  of analysis – Accused deprived of his  valuable
\n  right  –  Conviction cannot be sustained.   Learned  Senior
\n  Advocate further placed reliance in the matter of State  of
\n  Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. and others<\/a>4 in which  the
\n  Apex Court has held that in case of parallel provisions  in
\nthe  Insecticides  Act,  for re-analyzing  the  sample  after
\n  expiry of the period of use of the insecticide, sending  of
\n  sample  to  Central  Insecticides  Laboratory  is   of   no
\n  consequence and complaint is liable to be quashed.  Learned
\n  Senior  Advocate also relied upon the matter of Shri  Rohit
\n  Mull and another v. The State of Goa5 in which Goa Bench of
\n  the Bombay High Court has held that sending of notices under
\n  Section 13 (2) of the Act after expiry date of product, right
\n  of  petitioners-accused to get samples  analyzed  from  CFL
\n  frustrated and proceedings are liable to be quashed.  Learned
\n  Senior  Advocate further relied upon the matter  of  Suresh
\n  Narayanan and others v. State of M.P.6 in which the  Madhya
\n  Pradesh High Court has held that milk or milk products like
\n  ice cream etc. gets deteriorated within 10 months from date
\n  of lifting, therefore, sending second sample for examination
\n  to  Central  Food Laboratory is of no use and allowing  the
\n  prosecution of accused would therefore be nothing but abuse
\n  of process of court of law.\n<\/p>\n
8.    On  the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General
\n  appearing on behalf of the State\/respondent vehemently argued
\n  that the Food Inspector has enquired the name of nominee of
\n  the   Company  from  the  Deputy  Director,  Food  &   Drug
\n  Administration, who intimated the name of petitioner  No.2,
\n  therefore, whether petitioner No.2 was nominee on the date of
\n  commission of offence or another person Mr. Pankaj  Agrawal
\n  was  nominee,  is a question of fact and at  the  stage  of
\n  petition under Section 482 of the Code it is not possible to
\n  enquire about the disputed facts.  The petitioners have not
\n  filed application before the trial Court for their discharge
\n  on the aforesaid ground and have directly approached the High
\n  Court without making exceptional case.  The petitioners are
\n  required to show that if the allegation made in the complaint
\n  is admitted in its face value, even then conviction would not
\n  be  possible, and therefore, the criminal proceeding may be
\n  quashed.  But, in the present case, the petitioners admit the
\n  allegation made in the complaint and the same is sufficient
\n  for their conviction.\n<\/p>\n
9.    This  is  a petition under Section 482 of the Code  for
\n  quashment of criminal complaint pending before the Court of
\n  Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.  Power under Section
\n  482 of the Code is exceptional in nature and should be used
\n  sparingly.   While  dealing with exercise  of  power  under
\n  Section  482  of  the  Code in the  matter  of  M\/s.  Zandu
\n  Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful  Haque
\n  and others<\/a>7 the Apex Court has held thus,
\n          “8.   Exercise of power under Section 482  of
\n          the  Code  in  a case of this nature  is  the
\n          exception and not the rule.  The Section does
\n          not  confer any new powers on the High Court.
\n          It  only  saves the inherent power which  the
\n          Court  possessed before the enactment of  the
\n          Code.  It envisages three circumstances under
\n          which   the  inherent  jurisdiction  may   be
\n          exercised, namely, (i) to give effect  to  an
\n          order  under the Code, (ii) to prevent  abuse
\n          of   the  process  of  court,  and  (iii)  to
\n          otherwise secure the ends of justice.  It  is
\n          neither  possible nor desirable to  lay  down
\n          any  inflexible rule which would  govern  the
\n          exercise   of   inherent  jurisdiction.    No
\n          legislative enactment dealing with  procedure
\n          can  provide for all cases that may  possibly
\n          arise.    Courts,  therefore,  have  inherent
\n          powers  apart from express provisions of  law
\n          which  are necessary for proper discharge  of
\n          functions  and duties imposed  upon  them  by
\n          law.    That  is  the  doctrine  which  finds
\n          expression   in  the  section  which   merely
\n          recognizes and preserves inherent  powers  of
\n          the  High Courts.  All courts, whether  civil
\n          or  criminal possess, in the absence  of  any
\n          express  provision,  as  inherent  in   their
\n          constitution,   all  such   powers   as   are
\n          necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong
\n          in course of administration of justice on the
\n          principle   “quando   lex   aliquid    alicui
\n          concedit,  concedere videtur et id  sine  quo
\n          res  ipsae  esse non potest”  (when  the  law
\n          gives  a  person anything it gives  him  that
\n          without   which  it  cannot  exist).    While
\n          exercising  powers  under  the  section,  the
\n          court  does not function as a court of appeal
\n          or revision.  Inherent jurisdiction under the
\n          section  though  wide  has  to  be  exercised
\n          sparingly,  carefully and  with  caution  and
\n          only  when such exercise is justified by  the
\n          tests  specifically laid down in the  section
\n          itself.   It  is  to be exercised  ex  debito
\n          justitiae to do real and substantial  justice
\n          for  the administration of which alone courts
\n          exist.   Authority  of the court  exists  for
\n          advancement of justice and if any attempt  is
\n          made to abuse that authority so as to produce
\n          injustice,  the  court has power  to  prevent
\n          abuse.   It  would be an abuse of process  of
\n          the  court  to allow any action  which  would
\n          result in injustice and prevent promotion  of
\n          justice.   In  exercise of the  powers  court
\n          would be justified to quash any proceeding if
\n          it  finds that initiation\/continuance  of  it
\n          amounts  to abuse of the process of court  or
\n          quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
\n          serve  the ends of justice.  When no  offence
\n          is  disclosed by the complaint, the court may
\n          examine  the  question  of  fact.    When   a
\n          complaint  is  sought to be  quashed,  it  is
\n          permissible  to  look into the  materials  to
\n          assess  what the complainant has alleged  and
\n          whether any offence is made out even  if  the
\n          allegations are accepted in toto.”\n<\/p>\n
10.   In  the  present  case, the petitioners  have  directly
\n  approached this Court without filing any petition before the
\n  Judicial Magistrate First Class.  In the circumstances, the
\n  petitioners  are  required  to show  exceptional  case  for
\n  quashment of criminal complaint against them.  Para 9 of the
\n  complaint reveals that firstly, the Food Inspector enquired
\n  the  matter  relating to nominee of the Company,  from  the
\n  Deputy  Director,  Food & Drug Administration,  Raipur  who
\n  informed  the  name  of petitioner  No.2.   When  the  Food
\n  Inspector asked consent from petitioner No.2, petitioner No.1
\n  has  informed him vide its letter dated 21-2-2002 that  Mr.
\n  Pankaj Agrawal is nominee of the Company under Section 17 (2)
\n  of  the  Act  for  Raipur region and the Company  had  sent
\n  different copies of letters to the Food Inspector which the
\n  complainant has filed along with the complaint.  Letter dated
\n  15-2-2002 reveals that Mr. Pankaj Agrawal is nominee of the
\n  Company  under  Section 17 (2) of the  Act.   It  has  been
\n  specifically mentioned in the letter dated 15-2-2002 that Mr.
\n  Pankaj  Agrawal  is nominee of the Company with  regard  to
\n  storage, sales, distribution and marketing of branded staple
\n  foods  comprising of salt, wheat and wheat  products.   The
\n  petitioners  have filed original intimation dated  7-4-2001
\n  sent  to the Assistant Commissioner\/Local Health Authority,
\n  Food & Drugs Administration – Chhattisgarh much before  the
\n  taking of sample on 15-9-2001 along with a copy of resolution
\n  dated 18-12-2000, which reveals that Mr. Pankaj Agrawal has
\n  been nominated as nominee of the Company under Section 17 (2)
\n  of  the Act in relation to the storage, sales, distribution
\n  and marketing of the entire range of foods business excluding
\n  tea,  coffee, ice creams and frozen desserts to include  in
\n  particular,  (i)  Oils and Dairy Fats (ODF)  comprising  of
\n  Refined  Oil,  Vanaspati, bakery fats Fat spreads  &  other
\n  Vegetable  oil  products and Dairy Products; (ii)  Culinary
\n  Products comprising of jams, squashes, ketchup, soups, tomato
\n  paste\/puree  and other processed fruit\/vegetable  products;\n<\/p>\n
  (iii)  spices, seasonings and dressings, etc. and pre-mixes
\n  thereof;  (iv)  Bakery  products including,  yeast,  baking
\n  powders, Corn flour etc; (v) Staples including Atta,  salt,
\n  sugar,  cereals,  pulses  and  preparations  thereof;  (vi)
\n  Powders\/Mixes  for Preparation of – Soups, Broths,  Sauces,
\n  Desserts, Bakers products, Beverages, Syrups, Jellies,  Ice
\n  creams, Custard, Snacks & Cakes, Energy drinks and other food
\n  products;  vii) Spreads such as mayonnaise, tartar  etc.  &
\n  Gravies and mixes thereof; (viii) Confectionary items  viz.
\n  Jelly bits etc. in the western region including in specific
\n  the  states  of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat,  Goa,
\n  Chhattisgarh  and the Union Territory of Daman  &  Diu  and
\n  Silvassa.\n<\/p>\n
11.   The  provisions of Section 17 (2) of the  Act  read  as
\n  follows: –\n<\/p>\n
          “Any   company  may,  by  order  in  writing,
\n          authorize  any of its directors  or  managers
\n          (such  manager  being employed  mainly  in  a
\n          managerial   or  supervisory   capacity)   to
\n          exercise  all such powers and take  all  such
\n          steps  as  may  be necessary or expedient  to
\n          prevent the commission by the company of  any
\n          offence under this Act and may give notice to
\n          the  Local  (Health) Authority, in such  form
\n          and in such manner as may be prescribed, that
\n          it  has nominated such director or manager as
\n          the   person  responsible,  along  with   the
\n          written  consent of such director or  manager
\n          for being so nominated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Explanation.-Where   a    company    has
\n          different   establishments  or  branches   or
\n          different  units  in  any  establishment   or
\n          branch,  different persons may  be  nominated
\n          under   this   sub-section  in  relation   to
\n          different establishments or branches or units
\n          and  the person nominated in relation to  any
\n          establishment, branch or unit shall be deemed
\n          to  be  the person responsible in respect  of
\n          such establishment, branch or unit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.   Section  17  (2) of the Act authorizes the  Company  to
\n  nominate  a  nominee  of  the  Company  against  whom   the
\n  prosecution may be launched.  It is clear from the  enquiry
\n  made by the Food Inspector and the reply received by the Food
\n  Inspector which has been mentioned in para 9 of the complaint
\n  itself that Mr. Pankaj Agrawal was nominated as nominee  of
\n  the Company relating to food products especially of wheat &
\n  wheat products.  Atta is admittedly a wheat product.  Details
\n  of food products have been mentioned in the resolution dated
\n  18-12-2000  where the specific word `Atta’  has  also  been
\n  mentioned.  Therefore, admittedly, launching of prosecution
\n  against  petitioner  No.2  after  knowing  the  fact   that
\n  petitioner No.2 was not the nominee of the Company  on  the
\n  date of alleged commission of the offence and one Mr. Pankaj
\n  Agrawal was nominee of the Company, is not sustainable under
\n  the law and continuance of such proceeding would amount  to
\n  abuse of the process of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
13.   Section  17 of the Act specifies as to who may  be  the
\n  accused in case of offences by companies i.e. according  to
\n  clause  (a)  the  nominee and according to clause  (b)  the
\n  company,  if nominee is nominated or authorized under  sub-
\n  section (2) of Section 17 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
14.   As  regards  the  question of continuance  of  criminal
\n  proceeding against petitioner No.1 Company, admittedly, the
\n  Atta was for best use within three months from the date  of
\n  its  manufacture.  Report of the analysis reveals that  the
\n  Atta was found adulterated on 20-10-2001 much before the date
\n  of its best use i.e. 10-11-2001, but the prosecution has not
\n  been  launched  before 10-11-2001 and it has been  launched
\n  after  1  +  years  of its manufacture on  30-5-2003.   The
\n  Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is a special  Act
\n  which  provides  deterrent  punishment  and  also  provides
\n  safeguard to the accused.  The Act further provides valuable
\n  right to analyze the sample from the Director, Central Food
\n  Laboratory under Section 13 (2) of the Act which  reads  as
\n  follows: –\n<\/p>\n
          “On  receipt of the report of the  result  of
\n          the  analysis under sub-section  (1)  to  the
\n          effect   that   the  article   of   food   is
\n          adulterated,  the  Local  (Health)  Authority
\n          shall,  after the institution of  prosecution
\n          against  the persons from whom the sample  of
\n          the article of food was taken and the person,
\n          if   any,  whose  name,  address  and   other
\n          particulars have been disclosed under section
\n          14-A,  forward,  in such  manner  as  may  be
\n          prescribed,  a  copy of  the  report  of  the
\n          result  of  the  analysis to such  person  or
\n          persons,  as the case may be, informing  such
\n          person  or persons that if it is so  desired,
\n          either   or   both  of  them  may   make   an
\n          application to the Court within a  period  of
\n          ten days from the date of receipt of the copy
\n          of  the  report  to  get the  sample  of  the
\n          article  of  food kept by the Local  (Health)
\n          Authority   analyzed  by  the  Central   Food
\n          Laboratory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.   As  held  by  the Apex Court in the case  of  Municipal
\n  Corporation (supra), inordinate delay in prosecution, sample
\n  becoming decomposed and hence impossible of analysis, accused
\n  deprives of his valuable right.  Para 7 of the said judgment
\n  reads thus,
\n          “(7)  It  appears to us that when a  valuable
\n          right is conferred by S. 13 (2) of the Act on
\n          the  vendor to have the sample given  to  him
\n          analysed by the Director of the Central  Food
\n          Laboratory,  it  is to be expected  that  the
\n          prosecution  will proceed in  such  a  manner
\n          that  that right will not be denied  to  him.
\n          The  right  is  a valuable one,  because  the
\n          certificate  of  the Director supersedes  the
\n          report  of the Public Analyst and is  treated
\n          as   conclusive  evidence  of  its  contents.
\n          Obviously,  the right has been given  to  the
\n          vendor  in  order that, for his  satisfaction
\n          and proper defence, he should be able to have
\n          the  sample kept in his charge analysed by  a
\n          greater  expert whose certificate  is  to  be
\n          accepted by Court as conclusive evidence.  In
\n          a case where there is denial of this right on
\n          account  of  the  deliberate conduct  of  the
\n          prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his
\n          trial,  is  so seriously prejudiced  that  it
\n          would  not be proper to uphold his conviction
\n          on  the  basis  of the report of  the  Public
\n          Analyst, even though that report continues to
\n          be   evidence  in  the  case  of  the   facts
\n          contained therein.”\n<\/p>\n
16.  While dealing with the question of valuable right of the
\n  accused in case of the Insecticides Act, the Apex Court has
\n  held in the matter of State of Haryana (supra), that sending
\n  of sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory at late stage is
\n  of no consequence and the complaint is liable to be quashed.
\n  Para 11 of the said judgment reads thus,
\n          “11.  Sub-section  (1) of  Section  30  which
\n          appears  to  be  relevant only prescribes  in
\n          effect  that ignorance would be of no defence
\n          but  that  does not mean that  if  there  are
\n          contraventions of other mandatory  provisions
\n          of  the  Act,  the  accused have  no  remedy.\n<\/p>\n
          Procedure   for   testing   the   sample   is
\n          prescribed  and if it is contravened  to  the
\n          prejudice  of  the accused, he certainly  has
\n          the right to seek dismissal of the complaint.
\n          There  cannot  be  two opinions  about  that.
\n          Then  in order to safeguard the right of  the
\n          accused  to have the sample tested  from  the
\n          Central   Insecticides  Laboratory,   it   is
\n          incumbent  on  the prosecution  to  file  the
\n          complaint expeditiously so that the right  of
\n          the  accused  is  not lost.  In  the  present
\n          case,  by the time the respondents were asked
\n          to  appear before the Court, expiry  date  of
\n          the  insecticide was already over and sending
\n          of   sample   to   the  Central  Insecticides
\n          Laboratory at that late stage would be of  no
\n          consequence.   This issue is  no  longer  res
\n          integra.   In  State  of Punjab  v.  National
\n          Organic  Chemical Industries Ltd.,<\/a> (1996)  10
\n          JT  (SC)  480 this Court in somewhat  similar
\n          circumstances  said that the  procedure  laid
\n          down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the
\n          accused  to have sample tested by the Central
\n          Insecticides  Laboratory and adduce  evidence
\n          of  the report so given in his defence.  This
\n          Court   stressed  the  need  to   lodge   the
\n          complaint  with utmost dispatch so  that  the
\n          accused   may  opt  to  avail  the  statutory
\n          defence.  The Court held that the accused had
\n          been deprived of a valuable right statutorily
\n          available  to  him.   On  this  view  of  the
\n          matter,  the Court did not allow the criminal
\n          complaint to proceed against the accused.  We
\n          have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
\n          1940  and the Prevention of Food Adulteration
\n          Act,  1954  involving the same question.   In
\n          this   connection  reference   be   made   to
\n          decisions  of this Court in State of  Haryana
\n          v.  Brij Lal Mittal,<\/a> (1998) 5 SCC 343 : (1998
\n          AIR SCW 2240 : AIR 1998 SC 2327 : 1998 Cri LJ
\n          3287)  under  the  Drugs and  Cosmetics  Act,
\n          1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa
\n          Ram,  AIR<\/a>  1967 SC 970 : (1967 Cri  LJ  939);\n<\/p>\n
          Chetumal v. State of M.P., (1981) 3 SCC 72  :
\n          (AIR  1981  SC  1387 : 1981 Cr LJ  1009)  and
\n          Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar
\n          Saraf,<\/a> (1999) 2 SCC 400 : (1999 AIR SCW 346 :
\n          AIR 1999 SC 738 : 1999 Cri LJ 1125) all under
\n          the  Prevention  of  Food  Adulteration  Act,
\n          1954.\n<\/p>\n
17.    In  the  case  of  State  of  Haryana  (supra),  while
\n  discussing right of accused to get sample re-analysed  from
\n  Central  Insecticides Laboratory, the Apex Court has  taken
\n  into consideration the earlier provisions contained in  the
\n  Act and after discussing the authorities under the Act, the
\n  Apex  Court  has  held that sending of  sample  to  Central
\n  Insecticides Laboratory at late stage is of no  consequence
\n  and the complaint is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Further,  while dealing with the same question  in  the
\n  matter of Suresh (supra) and placing reliance in the matters
\n  of Municipal Corporation (supra) & State of Haryana (supra),
\n  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High Court  has  held  that  in  such
\n  circumstances  allowing the prosecution  of  accused  would
\n  therefore be nothing but abuse of the process of the Court.
\n  Same  view  has been taken by Goa Bench of the Bombay  High
\n  Court  in the matter of Shri Rohit (supra) in which it  has
\n  been held that in case of adulteration of chocolates, notices
\n  under Section 13 (2) of the Act sent to the accused after two
\n  days  before  date  of  expiry of  the  product,  right  of
\n  petitioners-accused  to  get  samples  analyzed  from   CFL
\n  frustrated and the proceedings are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Dictum of the aforesaid authorities is applicable in the
\n  present case.  Launching of prosecution after more than 1 +
\n  years    has   seriously   caused   prejudice    and    the
\n  accused\/petitioner No.1 is deprived of its valuable right of
\n  analyzing the sample from the Central Food Laboratory.   In
\n  accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 13 of  the  Act,
\n  certificate  or report of the Director of the Central  Food
\n  Laboratory is final and supersedes the report given by  the
\n  public analyst.\n<\/p>\n
20.   In  the present circumstances of the case, I am of  the
\n  view  that  the  petitioners have been  able  to  make  out
\n  sufficient case for quashment of criminal proceeding, under
\n  Section  482  of the Code without approaching the  Judicial
\n  Magistrate   concerned,  and  the   instant   petition   is
\n  maintainable as held in the matters of M\/s. Pepsi (supra) &
\n  G. Sagar (supra).\n<\/p>\n
21.   In  the light of the dictums of the Apex Court  in  the
\n  matters  of  Municipal Corporation, State of Haryana,  Shri
\n  Rohit  & Suresh (supra), continuance of criminal proceeding
\n  would amount to abuse of the process of the Court relating to
\n  petitioner No.1.\n<\/p>\n
22.   For  the  foregoing reasons, I deem it a fit  case  for
\n  invoking the inherent jurisdiction in terms of Section 482 of
\n  the  Code.  Accoridngly, the petition is allowed.  Criminal
\n  proceeding  pending  before the Judicial  Magistrate  First
\n  Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.511\/2003 against
\n  the  petitioners namely, M\/s. Hindustan Lever Limited &  K.
\n  Venkat Ramani is hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.181 of 2007 1. M\/s. Hindustan Lever Limited 2. K. Venkat Ramani …Petitioners Versus The State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 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\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-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=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-01T14:09:21+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=\"21 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-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T14:09:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4254,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T14:09:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 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":"M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 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\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-01T14:09:21+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T14:09:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":4254,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009","name":"M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T14:09:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hindustan-lever-limited-vs-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Hindustan Lever Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 August, 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\/229361","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=229361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229361\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}