{"id":251410,"date":"2006-06-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006"},"modified":"2018-12-22T10:56:34","modified_gmt":"2018-12-22T05:26:34","slug":"sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: III (2007) BC 419<\/div>\n
Author: G K Tamada<\/div>\n
Bench: G K Tamada<\/div>\n

JUDGMENT<\/p>\n

Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.\n<\/p>\n

1. The point involved in these two criminal petitions is one and the same and, therefore, these two petitions are being disposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n

2. Criminal Petition No. 1749 of 2005 is filed by M\/s Sri Vijayalakshmi Agencies, a Partnership Firm, and three of its partners, whereas Criminal Petition No. 2553 of 2005 is filed by three partners of M\/s. Sri Vijayalakshmi Agencies. The second respondent M\/s. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited filed two Calendar Cases, being C.C. No. 1234 of 2004 and C.C. No. 1144 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioners herein and others alleging an offence under Section 138<\/a> of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”) and the Court below has taken cognizance thereof. These criminal petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in the above C.C. Nos. 1234 of 2004 and 1144 of 2004, insofar as the petitioners are concerned.\n<\/p>\n

3. The main contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy, is that the petitioners cannot be fastened with any liability, as they have nothing to do with the alleged issuance of cheques, and thus sought quashing of the proceedings, pending against the petitioners. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent opposed the said submission and has drawn my attention to the specific averments made in the complaint, and submitted that the question as to whether or not there is any active participation by the petitioners, has to be gone into by the Court below and, thus, it is not a matter for quashing the proceedings in the above Calendar cases.\n<\/p>\n

4. Admittedly, in the complaint filed by the second respondent, M\/s. Godavari Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, there are five accused. The first accused is M\/s. Vijayalakshmi Agencies, the Partnership Firm, and second, fourth and fifth accused are the partners, and the third accused is the Managing Partner of the said Firm. It is averred in the complaint that the Managing Partner of the Firm i.e., the third accused in the complaint, Sri Ambati Lakshminarayana Reddy, is the signatory to the cheques and the said cheques were issued on behalf of the Partnership Firm i.e., M\/s. Sri Vijayalakshmi Agencies. The question as to whether in the absence of any specific allegation against the partners, can it be said that all the partners are liable for prosecution, was debated in number of cases and the Courts have taken different views, and ultimately the Supreme Court put it at rest holding that there must be specific allegations against the partners of the Firm and then only, the partners can also be held liable. In the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla IV<\/a> (2005) BC 425 (SC) : IV (2005) CCR 12 (SC) : 2005(2) ALD (Crl.) 595 (SC), the Supreme Court held that only the persons who were said to be connected with the commission of crime at the relevant time can be subjected to action and that the inevitable inclusion would arise on account of the conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company. Thus, it is held that in order to bring a case within the ambit of Section 141<\/a> of the Act, the complainant must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable.\n<\/p>\n

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent tried to distinguish the said judgment stating that the accused therein is a company and in the context of the company and its Directors, the Supreme Court has taken a view in that regard, but the first accused is a Firm and, therefore, the above judgment has no application to the present case.\n<\/p>\n

6. The said contention cannot be accepted in the light of the explanation offered to in Section 141<\/a> of the Act. In the explanation, it is made clear that company means any body corporate and inclusive of a firm or other organization of individuals, and similarly a Director in relation to a Firm means a partner in the firm. From the said explanation, it is clear that wherever it is a company it is the Directors and wherever it is a Firm, it is the partners. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent, in my considered view, has to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n

7. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra), this Court has gone into various allegations made in the complaint. From a reading of the complaint, no doubt, there are certain allegations against all the partners of the Firm, and the said allegations are as follows:\n<\/p>\n

The accused Nos. 2,4 and 5 are the partners of accused No. 1 Firm and that accused No. 3 is Managing Partner of accused No. 1 Firm and that accused Nos. 2 to 5 are actively participating in the day-to-day business of accused No. 1 Firm and, therefore, all the accused are jointly and severally liable for payment of the outstanding dues payable by accused No. 1 Firm.\n<\/p>\n

8. From the above allegations, it is clear that they are omnibus and they do not satisfy the requirement put forth by the Supreme Court in the judgment supra. The commission of an offence must be specific. Except stating that accused 2 to 5, who are partners, are actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the firm, no specific role is attributed to accused 2,4 and 5. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that accused 2,4 and 5, who are the petitioners herein, cannot be held responsible for the dishonour of the cheques in question and cannot be tried for the offence punishable under Section 138<\/a> of the Act of course, the Firm, which is arrayed as A1, in my considered view, can definitely be prosecuted because the cheques in question were issued by the Managing Partner on behalf of the Firm.\n<\/p>\n

9. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 1144 of 2004 and C.C. No. 1234 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Sccunderabad, insofar as the petitioners 2 to 4 in Criminal Petition No. 1749 and petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in Cri. P. No. 2553 of 2005 are concerned, are hereby quashed. Having regard to the fact that the above Calendar cases were instituted in 2004, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of them expeditiously.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Andhra High Court Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006 Equivalent citations: III (2007) BC 419 Author: G K Tamada Bench: G K Tamada JUDGMENT Gopala Krishna Tamada, J. 1. The point involved in these two criminal petitions is one and the same and, therefore, these two […]<\/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":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006 - 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\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-22T05:26:34+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-22T05:26:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1085,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006\",\"name\":\"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-22T05:26:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006 - 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\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-22T05:26:34+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-22T05:26:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006"},"wordCount":1085,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006","name":"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-22T05:26:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vijayalaxmi-agencies-and-ors-vs-state-of-a-p-and-anr-on-21-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Vijayalaxmi Agencies And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 21 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/251410","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=251410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}