{"id":26994,"date":"1954-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954"},"modified":"2015-02-13T23:24:47","modified_gmt":"2015-02-13T17:54:47","slug":"the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October … on 21 October, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October … on 21 October, 1954<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 41, \t\t 1955 SCR (1) 777<\/div>\n
Author: V Bose<\/div>\n
Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Jagannadhadas, B., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHANJI MUNJI AND ANOTHER.OCTOBER 12, 1954.[MEHR\t  CHAND\t  MH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/10\/1954\n\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nJAGANNADHADAS, B.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\n\nCITATION:\n 1955 AIR   41\t\t  1955 SCR  (1) 777\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1956 SC 294\t (3,11)\n F\t    1957 SC 521\t (6,7)\n D\t    1960 SC1080\t (27)\n F\t    1960 SC1203\t (10,11,13)\n F\t    1961 SC1381\t (10)\n RF\t    1962 SC1006\t (78,79)\n R\t    1963 SC 151\t (21,22)\n F\t    1966 SC 882\t (9,14,15,32)\n R\t    1966 SC1788\t (17,18)\n O\t    1970 SC 564\t (54,55,152,153,154)\n D\t    1972 SC2656\t (11)\n RF\t    1973 SC 974\t (9,10)\n RF\t    1973 SC1461\t (1525)\n R\t    1978 SC 597\t (189)\n MV\t    1982 SC1325\t (80)\n F\t    1984 SC 866\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution   of   India,  Art.   14-Taxation\t on   Income\n(Investigation\tCommission)  Act,  1947 (XXX  of  1947),  s.\n5(1)--Whether ultra vires the Constitutions. 5(1) of Act XXX\nof  1947 and Indian Income-tax Act, (XI of 1922), s.  34  as\namended\t by Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act,\t1954-whether\ncover  the  same field-Discriminatory procedure\t before\t the\ndate  of  Constitution and after the date  of  Constitution-\nValidity thereof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n      Parliament by amending s. 34 of the Indian Income\t tax\nAct, 1922, by passing the Indian Income-tax (Amendment)\t Act\n(XXXIII\t of 1954) has now provided that oases of those\tvery\npersons\t who originally fell within the ambit of s. 5(1)  of\nTaxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (XXX\nof 1947) and who, it\n788\nwas  alleged,  formed a distinct class, can  be\t dealt\twith\nunder the amended s. 34 and under the procedure provided  in\nthe  Indian  Income-tax Act.  Both  categories\tof  persons,\nnamely,\t those who came within the scope of s. 5(1) as\twell\nas  those who came within the ambit of s. 34, now  form\t one\nclass.\n      Held,  that after the coming into force of the  Indian\nIncome-tax  (Amendment)\t Act, 1954 (XXXIII  of\t1954)  which\noperates on the same field as s. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 the\nprovisions  of s. 5(1) of Taxation on Income  (Investigation\nCommission)  Act,  1947 (XXX of 1947),\tassuming  they\twere\nbased  on  a rational classification, have become  void\t and\nunenforceable as being discriminatory in character.\n       Article\t14 of the Constitution not  only  guarantees\nequal protection as regards substantive laws but  procedural\nlaws as well.\n     When an Act is valid, in its entire by before the\tdate\nof the Constitution the part of the proceedings regulated by\nthe special procedure and taken during the  pre-Constitution\nperiod\tcannot be questioned however discriminatory  it\t may\nhave been but the discriminatory procedure after the  coming\ninto force of the Constitution cannot be continued.\n     Suraj Mal Mohta v. Sri A. V. Viavanatha Sastri  (A.I.R.<\/a>\n1954 S.C. 545), Keshava Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay<\/a>\n[1951] S.C.R. 228), Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja and Another v.\nThe State of Bombay<\/a> ([1962] S.C.R. 710), Syed Qasim Razvi v.\nState  of Hyderabad<\/a> ([1953] S.C.R. 589) and Habeeb  Mohammad\nv. State of Hyderabad<\/a> ([1953] S.C.R. 661) referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:  Petitions Nos. 330 to  333  of
\n1954.\n<\/p>\n
    Under  article 132 of the Constitution of India for\t the
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.  Das, (B.\tSen, Balaprasad Singh and Ganpat  Rai,\twith
\nhim) for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and C.   A.
\nDaphtary,  Solicitor-General for India (O.  N. Joshi,  Porus
\nA. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the respondents.
\n1954.  October 21.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\n     MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J.-Writ Petitions Nos. 330 to\t 333
\nof  1954,  though  presented  by  different  persons,  raise
\nidentical  questions for consideration and decision and\t can
\nbe conveniently disposed of by one judgment.\n<\/p>\n
789<\/span><\/p>\n
In   April,   1947,  Taxation\ton   Income   (Investigation
\nCommission)  (Act, 1947, Act XXX of 1947) was passed by\t the
\nCentral\t Legislature.  By section 3 of the Act\tthe  Central
\nGovernment   was  empowered  to\t constitute  an\t  Income-tax
\nInvestigation Commission for investigating matters  relating
\nto  taxation  on  income with particular  reference  to\t the
\nquestion   whether  the\t existing  law\twas   adequate\t for
\npreventing  the\t evasion thereof.  Section 5(1) of  the\t Act
\nfurther empowered the Central Government to make a reference
\nby the 30th June, 1948, to the Commission for  investigation
\nand  report of any cases wherein it had prima  facie  reason
\nfor  believing that a person had, to a\tsubstantial  extent,
\nevaded\tpayment of taxation on income.\tThe date for  making
\nthe reference was subsequently extended to 1st of September,
\n1948.\tBy an Amendment Act passed in 1948 it  was  provided
\nthat  the  life of the Commission, in  the  first  instance,
\nwould be up to the 31st of March, 1950, but that it could be
\nfurther\t extended  to 31st of March,  1951.   By  subsequent
\nlegislations the life of the Commission has been extended to
\nDecember, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t procedure  prescribed\tby the Act  for\t making\t the
\ninvestigation  under  its  provisions is of  a\tsummary\t and
\ndrastic\t nature.   It  constitutes  a  departure  from\t the
\nordinary  law of procedure and in certain important  aspects
\nis detrimental to the persons subjected to it and as such is
\ndiscriminatory.\t  The substantial differences in the  normal
\nprocedure of the Income-tax Act for catching escaped  income
\nand  in\t the procedure prescribed by Act XXX of\t 1947,\twere
\nfully  discussed by this Court in Suraj Mal Mohta v. Sri  A.
\nV.  Visvanatha Sastri<\/a>(1) and require no\t further  discussion
\nhere.\n<\/p>\n
    Sub-section\t (4) of section 5 of the Act  provided\tthat
\nthe  Central Government could refer to the Commission  cases
\nof persons other than those whose cases had been referred to
\nit  by\tthe 1st of September, 1948, under section  5(1)\t if,
\nafter  investigation, the Commission made a report  to\tthat
\neffect.\t Thus, two categories of oases under Act XXX of 1947
\ncould  be  referred to the Investigation Commission  by\t the
\nCentral Government,
\n(1) (1955] 1 S.C.R. 448.\n<\/p>\n
101<\/span>
\n790<\/span><\/p>\n
namely,\t those falling under section 5(1) and those  falling
\nunder section 5(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t accordance with the provisions of section  5(1)  of
\nthe  Act  the Central Government on the\t 31st  of  December,
\n1947, referred to the Investigation Commission the cases  of
\nthe  four petitioners for investigation and report.   It  is
\nalleged\t by  each of these petitioners that  no\t action\t was
\ntaken  by  the\tCommission on these  references\t during\t the
\noriginal  period  of its life or even  during  the  extended
\nperiod\tprovided by the Amendment Act of 1948.\tIf a  report
\nhad been submitted in these cases during the original period
\nof  the life of the Commission, the problems that now  arise
\nwould  not  have  arisen,  because  the\t Act  being  a\tpre-
\nConstitution  Act was good law before the  Constitution\t and
\nacts   done  thereunder\t before\t the  commencement  of\t the
\nConstitution  could  not  be impugned on the  basis  of\t the
\nprovisions  of Part III of the Constitution which came\tinto
\nforce  on the 26th January, 1950.  Those provisions  had  no
\nretrospective operation and could not affect the validity of
\nthis law or the completed proceedings taken thereunder.\t  Be
\nthat  as it may, it appears that nothing happened  in  these
\ncases till January, 1952, when it is alleged an official  of
\nthe  Commission summoned the petitioners for  a\t preliminary
\ndiscussion  which  took place in February, 1952,  and  since
\nthen the petitioners have from time to time been called upon
\nto produce a number of statements and books of account,\t but
\nthe  investigation has not proceeded beyond the\t preliminary
\nstages\t and  the  Commission  itself  has  admittedly\t not
\ncommenced any proceedings in these cases, though a period of
\nnearly\tseven  years has elapsed since the  references\twere
\nmade, with the result that subsequent events have intervened
\nand,  in  our  opinion, have made these\t references  to\t the
\nCommission abortive.\n<\/p>\n
    As\talready stated, the Constitution of India came\tinto
\nforce  on the 26th January, 1950, and  the  pre-Constitution
\nlaws  had then to stand the test for their validity  on\t the
\nprovisions  of Part III of the Constitution.  Article 14  of
\nthis  Part guarantees to all persons the right\tof  equality
\nbefore\tthe law and equal protection of the laws within\t the
\nterritory of India.  This article not
\n791<\/span>
\nonly guarantees equal protection as regards substantive laws
\nbut  procedural\t laws  also  come  within  its\tambit.\t The
\nimplication  of the article is that all litigants  similarly
\nsituated  are  entitled\t to avail  themselves  of  the\tsame
\nprocedural  rights  for relief, and for\t defence  with\tlike
\nprotection  and\t without  discrimination.   The\t  procedural
\nprovisions  of\tAct XXX of 1947 had therefore to  stand\t the
\nchallenge  of article 14 and could only be  upheld  provided
\nthey  withstood that challenge.\t The question was  canvassed
\nin  this Court in April, 1954, in Suraj Mal Mohta v. Sri  A.
\nV.  Visvanatha Sastri<\/a> (supra).\tWhat happened in  that\tcase
\nwas  that the Investigation Commission, while  dealing\twith
\nthe  case of another assessee referred to it  under  section
\n5(1)  of  the Act, reported to the Central  Government\tthat
\nSuraj  Mal Mohta and other members of the family had  evaded
\nincome-tax  and their cases should be referred to  it  under
\nthe  provisions\t of  sub-section  (4)  of  section  5.\t The
\nreference  was accordingly made with the result\t that  Suraj
\nMal  Mohta  applied to this Court under article\t 32  for  an
\nappropriate writ restraining the Commission from taking\t any
\naction against him under the provisions of Act XXX of  1947.
\nIt was there contended that the provisions of sections 5(1),
\n5(4), 6, 7 and 8 of the Act had become void after the coming
\ninto  force  of the Constitution,  being  discriminatory  in
\ncharacter,   and  that\tthese  provisions  contravened\t the
\nguarantee  of  article 14 of the Constitution.\t This  Court
\nupheld\tthis contention and granted an appropriate  writ  to
\nSuraj  Mal Mohta.  It there expressed the opinion that\tsub-
\nsection\t (4)  of section 5, on its plain  reading,  was\t not
\nlimited\t to cases of persons who, to a\tsubstantial  extent,
\nhad evaded taxation but that it dealt with all those persons
\nwhose  cases  fell  within the ambit of section\t 34  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax  Act,  and that being so,  there  was  no
\njustification\tfor  discriminating  them  in\tmatters\t  of
\nprocedure from those dealt with under the Indian  Income-tax
\nAct,  and  thus\t sub-section (4) of section  5\twas  hit  by
\narticle\t  14   of  the\tConstitution  and   was\t  void\t and
\nunenforceable.\t The  result of this decision was  that\t the
\nCommission  was restrained from dealing with  Mohta’s  case.
\nThe provisions of section 5(1)
\n792<\/span>
\nof  the Act were also attacked in that case as\tcontravening
\narticle 14 of the Constitution, but the Court refrained from
\nexpressing any opinion about their constitutionality as that
\nquestion  had  no relevancy then.  The consequence  of\tthat
\ndecision was that a certain provision of Act XXX of 1947 was
\ndeclared  void\tand  unenforceable  to\tthe  extent  of\t its
\nrepugnancy to the provisions of Part III of the Constitution
\nunder article 13(1) thereof Its validity however during\t the
\npre-Constitution period was beyond question.
\n    What this Court said in its judgment in Suraj Mal  Mohta
\nv. Sri A. V. Visvanatha Sastri<\/a> (supra) has perhaps  resulted
\nin  the\t filing of these petitions which were  presented  to
\nthis Court on the 16th of July, 1954, after the decision  in
\nthat  case  had\t been  pronounced.   In\t the  petitions,  as
\noriginally  drafted, the provisions of section 5(1)  of\t Act
\nXXX   of  1947\twere  impugned\ton  the\t ground\t that\tthey
\ncontravened  the guarantee of equal protection of  the\tlaws
\nenacted\t in  article  14 of the Constitution  and  for\tthat
\nreason\tthe Commission had no jurisdiction to deal with\t the
\ncases of the petitioners by applying the discriminatory\t and
\ndrastic procedure of the impugned Act.\tIt was alleged\tthat
\nthe  petitioners  belonged to the same class of\t persons  as
\nwere dealt with under the ordinary law enacted in section 34
\nof the Indian Income-tax Act.  Before these petitions  could
\ncome  to  a hearing and a day after they were  presented  to
\nthis Court, the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance VIII
\nof  1954  was  promulgated by the  President  and  this\t was
\nsubsequently  made  into an Act on the\t25th  of  September,
\n1954.\tThe  Indian Income-tax (Amendment)  Act,  XXXIII  of
\n1954,  though  assented to by the President on the  25th  of
\nSeptember,  1954, came into force with effect from the\t17th
\nof  July,  1954.  The provisions of this  Act  furnished  an
\nadditional  ground  of\tattack to  the\tpetitioners  on\t the
\ncontinuance of proceedings by the Commission in these  cases
\nunder the provisions of Act XXX of 1947.  An application was
\ntherefore  made\t seeking  permission  to,  urge\t  additional
\ngrounds.   This\t was not opposed by  the  learned  Attorney-
\nGeneral\t and was allowed.  In the additional grounds it\t was
\nurged that the relevant
\n\t\t\t    793<\/span>
\nsections of Act XXX of 1947, which affected the petitioners,
\nhad  been impliedly repealed by the amended Act of 1954\t and
\nceased to have any legal force and that the Commission could
\nno  longer  proceed  under  those  provisions  against\t the
\npetitioners.   It  was further contended  that\tthe  amended
\nsection 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act was comprehensive in
\nits  scope,  and  all persons that  were  dealt\t with  under
\nsection 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 had been brought within\t its
\nambit, and that being so, there was no basis left for giving
\nthem  discriminatory  or special  treatment  different\tfrom
\nthose  similarly  situated, and who were to  be\t dealt\twith
\nunder  section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act\tas  amended.
\nIt was said that assuming but without admitting that section
\n5(1)   of  Act\tXXX  of\t 1947  was  based  on\ta   rational
\nclassification\tand  was  not  hit  by\tarticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution  because  of  that circumstance,  it  had\tnow,
\nbecause\t of  the amendment in section 34 of  the  Income-tax
\nAct, become void, as the classification which saved it\tfrom
\nthe   mischief\tof  article  14\t if  at\t all,\thad   become
\nineffective,   its   distinctive   characteristics    having
\ndisappeared,  and that the persons falling within the  class
\ndefined\t in section 5(1) now belong to the same class as  is
\ndealt with by section 34 as amended.\n<\/p>\n
     Two questions were thus canvassed before us:
\n   (1)\tWhether\t section 5(1) of Act XXX of  1947  infringes
\narticle\t 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it is not  based
\non a rational classification ?\n<\/p>\n
      (2)Whether, after the coming into force of the  Indian
\nIncome-tax (Amendment) Act, 1954, which operates on the same
\nfield as section 5.(1) of Act XXX of 1947, the provisions of
\nsection 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947, assuming they were based on
\na   rational  classification,  have  not  become  void\t and
\nunenforceable, as being discriminatory in character.?\n<\/p>\n
    In\tour  opinion,  for the\tpurpose\t of  deciding  these
\npetitions, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the
\nfirst  question\t because we think the second  contention  is
\nwell  founded  and is sufficient to determine  the  case  in
\nfavour of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    The provisions of section 15(1) of Act XXX of 1947 could
\nonly be supported, if at all, for a differential
\n794<\/span>
\ntreatment  of persons dealt with in that section in  matters
\nof procedure, on the ground that these persons constituted a
\nseparate   class,  and\tthe  classification  was   rational.
\nParliament  has,  however,  by amending section\t 34  of\t the
\nIndian Income-tax Act, now provided that cases of those very
\npersons who originally fell within the ambit of section 5(1)
\nof Act XXX of 1947, and who it was alleged formed a distinct
\nclass,\tcan be dealt with under the amended section  34\t and
\nunder  the procedure provided in the Income-tax\t Act.\tBoth
\ncategories  of\tpersons, namely, those who came\t within\t the
\nscope  of section 5(1) as well as those who came within\t the
\nambit  of section 34, now form one class.  In  other  words,
\nsubstantial  tax-dodgers or war profiteers who were  alleged
\nto have formed a definite class according to the  contention
\nof the learned AttorneyGeneral under section 5(1), and whose
\ncases\tneeded\tspecial\t treatment  at\tthe  hands  of\t the
\nInvestigation Commission, now clearly fall within the  ambit
\nof  amended section 34 of the Indian Income-tax\t Act.\tThat
\nbeing  so,  the\t only basis  for  giving  them\tdifferential
\ntreatment,  namely,  that they formed a\t distinct  class  by
\nthemselves, has completely disappeared, with the result that
\ncontinuance of discriminatory treatment to them comes within
\nthe mischief of article 14 of the Constitution and has\tthus
\nto be relieved against.\t All these persons can now well\t ask
\nthe  question,\twhy  are  we now being\tdealt  with  by\t the
\ndiscriminatory and drastic procedure of Act XXX of 1947 when
\nthose  similarly situated as ourselves can be dealt with  by
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer  under the  amended  provisions  of
\nsection\t 34 of the Act.\t Even if we once bore a\t distinctive
\nlabel that distinction no longer subsists and the label\t now
\nborne  by us is the same as is borne by persons who  can  be
\ndealt with under section 34 of the Act as amended; in  other
\nwords, there is nothing uncommon either in properties or  in
\ncharacteristics\t between us and those evaders of  income-tax
\nwho are to be discovered by the Income-tax Officer under the
\nprovisions  of\tamended\t section 34.  In  our  judgment,  no
\nsatisfactory  answer can be returned to this  query  because
\nthe field on which amended section 34 operates
\n795<\/span>
\nnow  includes  the strip of territory which  previously\t was
\noccupied  by  section  5(1)  of Act  XXX  of  1947  and\t two
\nsubstantially  different laws of procedure, one\t being\tmore
\nprejudicial  to\t the  assessee than  the  other,  cannot  be
\nallowed\t to  operate  on  the same  field  in  view  of\t the
\nguarantee of article 14 of the Constitution.
\n    The\t learned Attorney-General attempted to\tcombat\tthis
\ncontention  on\ta  two-fold ground: (1) That  the  class  of
\npersons dealt with under section 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 was
\nnot  only the class of substantial taxdodgers but it  was  a
\nclass of persons whose cases the Central Government, by\t 1st
\nof September, 1948, had referred to the Commission and\tthat
\nclass  had thus become determined finally on that date,\t and
\nthat  that  class  of persons could be\tdealt  with  by\t the
\nInvestigation Commission under the drastic procedure of\t Act
\nXXX  of 1947, while section 34 of the Indian Income-tax\t Act
\nas  amended  empowered the Incometax Officer  to  deal\twith
\ncases  other than those whose cases had been referred  under
\nsection\t 5(1) to the Investigation Commission : (2) That  in
\nany   case  the\t proceedings  having  started\tbefore\t the
\nCommission in pursuance of the reference under section\t5(1)
\nof  Act XXX of 1947 those proceedings cannot be affected  by
\nthe amendment, it having no retrospective operation.
\n    Both  these\t contentions, in our opinion, are  not\twell
\nfounded.\n<\/p>\n
    As regards the first contention canvassed by the learned
\nAttorney-General  it  seems  to\t us  that  it  cannot  stand
\nscrutiny.   The class of persons alleged to have been  dealt
\nwith  by section 5(1) of the impugned Act was  comprised  of
\nthose  unsocial elements in society who during recent  years
\nprior to the passing of the Act had madesubstantial  profits
\nand  had evaded payment of tax on those profits those  cases
\nwere  referred to the Investigation Commission\t before\t 1st
\nSeptember,  1948.   Assuming  that  evasion  of\t tax  to   a
\nsubstantial amount “could form a basis of classification  at
\nall  for  imposing a drastic procedure on  that\t class,\t the
\ninclusion of only such of them whose cases had been referred
\nbefore\t1st  September, 1948, into a class for\tbeing  dealt
\nwith by the drastic procedure, leaving other tax evaders
\n796<\/span>
\nto  be\tdealt with under the ordinary law will\tbe  a  clear
\ndiscrimination\tfor  the  reference of\tthe  case  within  a
\nparticular  time has no special or rational nexus  with\t the
\nnecessity for drastic procedure.  Further it seems that this
\nvery  class of persons is now included within the  ambit  of
\nthe amended section 34 of Act XXXIII of 1954.  The draftsman
\nof this section has apparently attempted to remedy  whatever
\ndefects in the classification made under section 5(1) of Act
\nXXX  of 1947 had been pointed out during the  discussion  in
\nSuraj  Mal Mohta’s case in this Court.\tThe preamble of\t the
\nAct  states  that  the\tAct  is\t intended  to  provide\t for
\nassessment  or reassessment of persons who to a\t substantial
\nextent had evaded payment of tax during a certain period and
\nfor matters connected therewith.  The language employed here
\nbears close likeness to that employed in section 5(1) of the
\nimpugned  Act.\t The  Act has inserted\tthe  following\tsub-
\nsection in section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act :\n<\/p>\n
    ” (I-A) If, in the case of any assessee, the Income. tax
\nOfficer has reason to believe-\n<\/p>\n
    (i)that  income, profits or gains chargeable to  income-
\ntax have escaped assessment for any year in respect of which
\nthe relevant previous year falls wholly or partly within the
\nperiod\tbeginning  on the 1st day of  September,  1939,\t and
\nending on the 31st day of March, 1946; and\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)that  the  income,  profits or gain  which  have  so
\nescaped assessment for any such year or years amount or\t are
\nlikely\tto  amount to one lakh of rupees or  more;  he\tmay,
\nnotwithstanding\t that the period of eight years or,  as\t the
\ncase  may  be, four years specified in\tsubsection  (1)\t has
\nexpired\t in respect thereof, serve on the assessee a  notice
\ncontaining  all\t or  any of the requirements  which  may  be
\nincluded  in a notice under sub-section (2) of\tsection\t 22,
\nand may proceed to assess or reassess the income, profits or
\ngains  of the assessee for all or any of the years  referred
\nto  in clause (1) and thereupon the provisions of  this\t Act
\nshall, so far as may be, apply accordingly
\n    It\twas  argued  in Mohta’s case as\t well  as  in  these
\npetitions that the classification made in section 5(1) of
\n\t\t\t    797<\/span>
\nthe impugned Act was bad because the word “substantial” used
\ntherein\t was  a word which had no fixed meaning and  was  an
\nunsatisfactory\t medium\t for  carrying\tthe  idea  of\tsome
\nascertainable\tproportion  of\tthe  whole,  and  thus\t the
\nclassification\tbeing vague and uncertain, did not save\t the
\nenactment   from   the\tmischief  of  article  14   of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThis  alleged  defect stands  cured  in\t the
\namended\t section 34 inasmuch as the Legislature has  clearly
\nindicated in the statute what it means when it says that the
\nobject of the Act is, to catch persons who to a\t substantial
\nextent\thad evaded payment of tax, in other words, what\t was
\nseemingly   indefinite\twithin\tthe  meaning  of  the\tword
\n“substantial”  has been made definite and clear by  enacting
\nthat  no  evasion  below a sum of one  lakh  is\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of that expression.  Again, the  classification  of
\nsection\t 5(1) was criticized on the ground that it  did\t not
\nnecessarily  deal with persons who during the period of\t war
\nhad  made  huge profits and evaded payment of tax  on  them.
\nThe  amendment made in section 34 has remedied\tthis  defect
\nalso.\tThe amended section clearly states that the  amended
\nsection\t will  operate\ton  income  made  between  the\t 1st
\nSeptember, 1939, and the 31st March, 1946, and tax on  which
\nhas been evaded.  It is thus clear that the new\t sub-section
\ninserted  in section 34 by the provisions of Act  XXXIII  of
\n1954 is intended to deal with the class of persons who\twere
\nsaid  to  have\tbeen classified\t for  special  treatment  by
\nsection\t 5(1)  of Act XXX of 1947.   The  learned  Attorney-
\nGeneral\t frankly conceded that to a certain extent  the\t two
\nsections  overlapped, but he urged that the overlapping\t was
\nnot complete and that those remained still outside it  whose
\ncases  had  already  been  referred  to\t the   Investigation
\nCommission.  We are unable to uphold this contention in view
\nof  the clear language employed in the amended Act and\tthis
\ncontention is therefore negatives.\n<\/p>\n
     The  second contention raised by the learned  Attorney-
\nGeneral is, in our opinion, concluded by a number of earlier
\ndecisions  of this Court wherein it has been held that\twhen
\nan  Act\t is  valid in its entirety before the  date  of\t the
\nConstitution,  the part of the proceedings regulated by\t the
\nspecial procedure and
\n102<\/span>
\n798<\/span>
\ntaken  during pre-Constitution period cannot  be  questioned
\nhowever\t discriminatory\t it may have been, but that  if\t the
\ndiscriminatory procedure is continued after the date of\t the
\nConstitution,  then a person pre-judicially affected  by  it
\ncan legitimately ask why he is now being differently treated
\nfrom  others similarly situate-vide Kesava Madhaya Menon  v.
\nThe  State of Bombay(1), and Lachmandas Kewalram  Ahuja\t and
\nAnother\t v. The State of Bombay<\/a>(2).  The  same\tpropositions
\nwere re-stated by this Court in Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of
\nHyderabad<\/a>(1),\tand   in  Habeeb  Mohammad   v.\t  State\t  of
\nHyderabad<\/a>(1).  In the cases of these petitioners, as already
\npointed\t out,  the proceedings taken  by  the  Investigation
\nCommission  against them under the discriminatory  procedure
\nof  the impugned Act against them have not been com.  pleted
\nand are pending and that being so, no justification  remains
\nfor  continuing\t these proceedings against  them  under\t the
\nprocedure  of the impugned Act when other persons  of  their
\nclass  and  having the same common  characteristics  can  be
\ndealt with by the Income-tax Officer under the provisions of
\nthe amended Act and the procedure of the ordinary law of the
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
       For  the\t reasons given above we are of\tthe  opinion
\nthat  assuming the provisions of section 5(1) of Act XXX  of
\n1947  could be-saved from the mischief of Article 14 of\t the
\nConstitution  on the basis of a valid  classification,\tthat
\ndefence\t is no longer available in support of it  after\t the
\nintroduction  of  the new sub-section in section 34  of\t the
\nIncome-tax  Act, which sub-section is intended to deal\twith
\nthe same class of persons dealt with by section 5(1) of\t the
\nimpugned  Act.\t The result is that proceedings\t before\t the
\nInvestigation  Commission can no longer be  continued  under
\nthe procedure prescribed by the impugned Act.  We ‘therefore
\ndirect\tthat  an  appropriate writ  be\tissued\tagainst\t the
\nCommission  prohibiting it from proceeding further with\t the
\ncases  of these petitioners under the provisions of Act\t XXX
\nof 1947.  In the peculiar circumstances of this case we make
\nno order as to costs in these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  Writ issued.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1951] S.C.R. 228.\t    (3) [1953] S.C.R. 589
\n(2) (1952] S.C,R, 710\t   (4) [1953] S.C.R. 661,
\n799<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October … on 21 October, 1954 Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 41, 1955 SCR (1) 777 Author: V Bose Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Jagannadhadas, B., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: BHANJI MUNJI AND ANOTHER.OCTOBER […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October ... on 21 October, 1954 - 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\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October ... on 21 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-13T17:54:47+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\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October … on 21 October, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T17:54:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954\"},\"wordCount\":3708,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954\",\"name\":\"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October ... on 21 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T17:54:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October … on 21 October, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October ... on 21 October, 1954 - 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\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October ... on 21 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-13T17:54:47+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\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October … on 21 October, 1954","datePublished":"1954-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T17:54:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954"},"wordCount":3708,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954","name":"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October ... on 21 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T17:54:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-bombay-vs-bhanji-munji-and-another-october-on-21-october-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Bombay vs Bhanji Munji And Another.October … on 21 October, 1954"}]},{"@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\/26994","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=26994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}