{"id":237121,"date":"2008-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-21T20:43:58","modified_gmt":"2015-12-21T15:13:58","slug":"smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar … on 17 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar … on 17 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
Sessions Judge, Belgaurn, in Criminal Revision Petition\nNo.370\/2006 and to restore the order dated 27.10.2006\n\npassed by the JMFC II Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.671\/2965,\n\nrejecting application \ufb01led by the respondent\/accusedw f   .<\/pre>\n
2. The brief facts of the case leading to this’..”p’etiti.oh is <\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
The complaint under Section   <\/p>\n
Procedure was \ufb01led by the compiaVi’na%nt ahgainstggthewlaccused
\nfor the offence punishable un.ti–en”g_v~Section’ ‘”138  the<\/p>\n
Negotiable Instruments Act.” _Dulri.ngVfthe’recourse of the said<\/p>\n
proceedings, ac_cus’ed__filed*4an\u00ab.’Va;3pi\u00a7cation under Section 293
\nread with Section  Criminal Procedure to send<\/p>\n
the cheque _for’u’cern’parin.g  admitted signatures of the<\/p>\n
I-‘f_e.\\k’ision’i”netitioner withwthat of signature appearing on the<\/p>\n
ch1eeue_a-‘hea.ri’ng’aun.oV.’.3L67516 dated 1?.06.2004 for chemical<\/p>\n
x””‘V’exarnine.tion.-~  JMFC II, Belgaum, has rejected the<\/p>\n
 applicavtiiiin. Learned counsel for the accused had sought<\/p>\n
for””.refer%’ing the cheque to the Forensic Laboratory, to<\/p>\n
 ‘ascertain whether the signature on the cheque belongs to the<\/p>\n
:’VJ”\u00bbac’cused and how old is the signature. The accused has<\/p>\n
” admitted the signature on the abovesaid cheque in her reply<\/p>\n
to demand notice marked at Ex.P.8, in para no.4 as under:<\/p>\n
C\/’<\/p>\n
”  looted all the articles worth
\nRs.10,0o,000\/– and valuable papers like
\nsigned blank cheques and cheque book. Out  it
\nof the said cheques the cheque bearin_\u00a7”‘~” It it
\nno.1s7s16 dated 17.06.2004 is also one. <\/p>\n
That means according to the accused ‘.E’x’.P~.\u00a7;_v-clheque  * <\/p>\n
signed by her is one of the articles :i.oot:e<.'.. <\/p>\n
'\u00a5'herefore, there is no dispute '4-regard-i.n\u00a7 sjigi.natLi3rev%<\/p>\n
appearing on Ex.P.1, the cheque)'-..:_The 'i'rla.|_'V\ufb01Co1.irt has
\nobserved that there is no 'nt-;e_d to;_send_':the__cheque to the<\/p>\n
Forensic Laboratoryfor ve~rificatio–n_V~.or""c_on'ipa'rision of the<\/p>\n
signature,Zvijhe'Trivallx\ufb01oiurtblthis-isalsci opined that the finding of<\/p>\n
the Forensictexpert   of the signature would not<\/p>\n
.– .. ._ was r
\n__h_elp the_%.case of eitheijxjthevparties. 'therefore, the Trial Court<\/p>\n
'ti'-..asA rejecte:id:.the"-.s_aid application. Aggrieved by the same,<\/p>\n
 the"'eccu_sed'  pifeierred a Revision Petition.<\/p>\n
   and substance of the finding of the<\/p>\n
" " –1'i."v'R__evisional' \u20acZ_.o'urt is as under:<\/p>\n
 it "me iearned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that<\/p>\n
 _ asceijtainling the age of the writing in the cheque will not help<\/p>\n
 "the'revision petitioner in any way to prove her case and no<\/p>\n
V'<\/p>\n
purpose will be served by sending the cheque for chemical<\/p>\n
examination. It has further observed that it is not necessary<\/p>\n
to send the cheque in question for chemical exareinaVti_oi-n.j;,:"'<\/p>\n
But, however, in the final order, the learned Ses_sio–hs'    <\/p>\n
has allowed the revision petition in J <\/p>\n
order dated 27.10.2006 passed in  sol <\/p>\n
as it pertains to refusal of th'\u00e9'e\u00bb.:V:prayer  V"i.-gorision
\npetitioner to send the chedue  for
\ncomoaring the disputed  admitted
\nsignature and ordei'ed.1"that thLe:.~~'ch'ed'ue~.in___V\u00a7u:est%on'shall be
\nsent to the   ."toV"'=lf.jornoare the disputed<\/p>\n
signature   oflthe admitted signature.\n<\/p>\n
4. \u00e9leard  sir:3es”vand’Vperused the records.<\/p>\n
\u00bbA ‘-counsel for the petitioner submitted that in<\/p>\n
 V the iedai i\u00a5oti’ce,’~li;the accused has clearly admitted that the<\/p>\n
U’<\/p>\n
 ehequein qlu.e’s\u00e9t’iod was looted alohgwith other articles and it<\/p>\n
.  \ufb01ohtained the signature of the accused. Relying on this, the<\/p>\n
 –.'{‘riai~:V{\ufb01ourt has formed an opinion that it is not a fit case to<\/p>\n
T ‘l–.r:e’fe’rl the cheque to the Forensic Laboratory. But the learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge has formed an opinion that the cheque was<\/p>\n
forged one and comoarision of the signature is necessary.<\/p>\n
when in the legal notice, the accused has clearly admitted
\n9\/<\/p>\n
that the signature on the cheque is her signature. Each<\/p>\n
being the case, the learned Sessions Judge could  <\/p>\n
come to the conclusion that the cheque should__Vl\u00a7e:.sentxl’for’  it<\/p>\n
chemical examination for ascertaining;the”g’enu\u00abiner:essgfvvgthe <\/p>\n
signature, is not correct. in support of  centention. ‘learn,uedv.v”<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner relied ‘oan:i:he decisioetinaclalsell of
\nH M SATISH V\/S. B is ASHi::Jri{\u00e9_re;\u00a7ei;ted:’:inV:TL._8 2oo7*:<A:R 936.
\nTherefore, in my View the  revisional
\nCourt suffers from   Taking into
\nconsideration   also the materials
\nplaced on glecore. th'is"_'Rei}islon Petition deserves<\/p>\n
to be al|ovv'e(i.l'  V     l h\n<\/p>\n
6. In View.of=the-vaVbt>_\u00a7re.:–‘discussion, I pass the following:<\/p>\n
  i  g  ccccc <\/p>\n
‘ In  _ ~v.This~.\u00a2’riminal Revision Petition is allowed.<\/p>\n
  dated 10.07.2097 passed in Criminal
\n ‘, llgelllsion Petition 37o\/zoos on the fiie of the 11
\nihciditional Sessiens Judge, Belgaum, is hereby<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
 iii) The order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the JMFC<\/p>\n
II, Beigaum, on the application \ufb01ied under
\n6\/<\/p>\n
KM<\/p>\n
Section 293 read with Section 311 of Code: of<\/p>\n
Criminal ?rocedure is hereby restored.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar … on 17 September, 2008 Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy Sessions Judge, Belgaurn, in Criminal Revision Petition No.370\/2006 and to restore the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the JMFC II Court, Belgaum, in C.C.No.671\/2965, rejecting application \ufb01led by the respondent\/accusedw f . 2. The brief facts of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar ... on 17 September, 2008 - 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\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar ... on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-21T15:13:58+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar … on 17 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T15:13:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":830,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar ... on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-21T15:13:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar … on 17 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar ... on 17 September, 2008 - 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\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar ... on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-21T15:13:58+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar … on 17 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T15:13:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008"},"wordCount":830,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008","name":"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar ... on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-21T15:13:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-surekha-l-rao-vs-smt-rajeshwari-rajashekhar-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Surekha L Rao vs Smt Rajeshwari Rajashekhar … on 17 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/237121","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=237121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}