{"id":271464,"date":"2004-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004"},"modified":"2017-09-25T19:34:13","modified_gmt":"2017-09-25T14:04:13","slug":"state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: B Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  877 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of West Bengal\t\t\t\t          \n\nRESPONDENT:\nSadan K. Bormal & Anr.\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nN. SANTOSH HEGDE & B.P. SINGH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
B.P. SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State of West Bengal has preferred this appeal by
\nSpecial Leave impugning the judgment and order of the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Calcutta dated 21st February, 1997 in
\nCriminal Revision No.2578 of 1994 whereby the High Court
\nquashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein
\nholding that the 3rd Special Court, Calcutta appointed under the
\nWest Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act,
\n1949 for trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>,
\n1947 (for short Act of 1947) had no jurisdiction to try the
\nrespondents for the alleged offences after coming into force of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1988 (for short Act of 1988) w.e.f.
\n9th September, 1998.  In substance, it held that though the said
\ncourt was earlier empowered to try offences under the Act of 1947,
\nsince no such jurisdiction was conferred upon it afresh after
\ncoming into force of the Act of 1988, which repealed the Act of
\n1947, it had no jurisdiction to try such offences after coming into
\nforce of the Act of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts of the case which are not in dispute may be briefly
\nrecapitulated.  The respondents herein were employees of the State
\nBank of India and at the relevant time were working in its Netaji
\nSubhash Road Branch, Calcutta.  A criminal case was registered
\nagainst them under the provisions of the Act of 1947 as also under
\nSections 120B<\/a>, 420<\/a>, 419<\/a>, 467<\/a>, 468<\/a> and 471<\/a> of the IPC.  The
\noffences are alleged to have been committed by them in or about
\nthe month of August, 1988.  A month later, on 9.9.1988 the Act of
\n1988 came into force repealing the Act of 1947.  A criminal case
\nwas registered against respondents on 31.10.1988 and a
\nchargesheet was filed before the Court of the Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, Calcutta who by his order dated 12.7.1990 took
\ncognizance and transferred the case to the Metropolitan Magistrate
\n17th Court for trial.  However, on objection raised by the Public
\nProsecutor that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the case as
\nthe same was exclusively triable by the Special Court, the said case
\nwas transferred to the Court of the 3rd Special Judge, Calcutta, a
\nCourt empowered under the West Bengal Criminal Law
\nAmendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 to try offences under the
\nAct of 1947.  The 3rd Special Judge took cognizance on 22nd
\nMarch, 1993 when the chargesheet was filed before that Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondents herein challenged the jurisdiction of the 3rd
\nSpecial Judge to try the case, as he had not been so empowered
\nafter coming into force of the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1988.
\nThe objection was rejected by the Special Court whereafter the
\nrespondents moved the High Court of Calcutta in its revisional
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
The sole question which arises for consideration before us is
\nwhether an offence committed while the Act of 1947 was in force
\ncan be tried by the Courts empowered to try offences under the Act
\nof 1947 after coming into force of the Act of 1988 w.e.f. 9.9.1988
\nrepealing the Act of 1947.  The case of the respondents before the
\nHigh Court was that the Special Courts had been vested with
\njurisdiction to try cases under the Act of 1947 by the West Bengal
\nSpecial Courts Act, 1949.  After coming into force of the Act of
\n1988 no such jurisdiction had been conferred on those courts and,
\ntherefore, they could not take cognizance or try an offence under
\nthe corresponding provisions of the Act of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
 It is, therefore, necessary to notice the relevant
\nprovisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1947 and the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1988 as also other legal provisions
\nwhich have a bearing on this subject.  Section 5<\/a> of the Act of 1947
\ndefines misconduct while Section 5A<\/a> enumerates the Police
\nOfficers who shall investigate any offence punishable under
\nSection 5<\/a> of the Act.  Section 6<\/a> of the Criminal Law Amendment
\nAct, 1952, a Central Act<\/a>, provided for appointment of Special
\nJudges for trying offences under the Act of 1947, but so far the
\nState of West Bengal is concerned, by reason of the West Bengal
\nCriminal Law Amendment (Special courts) Amending Act<\/a>, 1953,
\nSections 5<\/a> to 10<\/a> of the Criminal Law (Amendment), Act, 1952
\nwere made inapplicable to the State of West Bengal.  Therefore,
\nSpecial Judges under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act<\/a>, 1952
\nwere not appointed in the State of West Bengal.  However, by the
\nWest Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act,
\n1949, the Provincial Government was empowered by Notification
\nin the Official Gazette to constitute Special Courts of Criminal
\nJurisdiction and from time to time by Notification in the Official
\nGazette to allot cases for trial to a Special Judge.  The Special
\nJudge had jurisdiction to try the cases for offences specified in the
\nSchedule to the Act which included an offence punishable under
\nSection 5<\/a> of the Act of 1947.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is thus apparent from the above provisions that the offence
\nunder Section 5<\/a> of the Act of 1947 was made exclusively triable by
\na Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law
\nAmendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949.   It is not in dispute that
\nthe 3rd Special Judge before whom the respondents had been put up
\nfor trial was a Court vested with such jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1988 came into effect
\nfrom 9th September, 1988.  Section 3<\/a> of the Act of 1988 empowers
\nthe Central Government or the State Government by Notification
\nin the Official Gazette to appoint as many Special Judges as may
\nbe necessary for such area or areas or for such case or group of
\ncases as may be specified in the Notification to try the offences
\nmentioned therein, which includes any offence punishable under
\nthe Act of 1988.  Section 4<\/a> makes such cases exclusively triable by
\na Special Judge.  Section 5<\/a> confers jurisdiction on the Special
\nJudge to take cognizance of offences without the accused being
\ncommitted to him for trial and, in trying the accused persons to
\nfollow the procedure prescribed by the Code<\/a> of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 for the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates.
\nSection 26<\/a> and 30<\/a> of the said Act are relevant which read as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
“Sec. 26 –  Special Judges appointed under Act
\n46 of 1952 to be special Judges appointed under
\nthis Act  Every special Judge appointed under the
\nCriminal Law Amendment Act<\/a>, 1952 for any area
\nor areas and is holding office on the
\ncommencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a
\nspecial Judge appointed under section 3<\/a> of this Act
\nfor that area or areas and, accordingly, on and from
\nsuch commencement, every such Judge shall
\ncontinue to deal with all the proceedings pending
\nbefore him on such commencement in accordance
\nwith the provisions of this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
“Sec. 30 Repeal  and saving : – (1) The
\nPrevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1947 (2 of 1947)
\nand the Criminal Law Amendment Act<\/a>, 1952 (46
\nof 1952) are hereby repealed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but without
\nprejudice to the application of section 6<\/a> of the
\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), anything
\ndone or any action taken or purported to have been
\ndone or taken under or in pursuance of the Acts so
\nrepealed shall, insofar as it is not inconsistent with
\nthe provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been
\ndone or taken under or in pursuance of the
\ncorresponding provisions of this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs earlier noticed in the State of West Bengal no Special
\nJudge was appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act<\/a>,
\n1952 to try offences under the Act of 1947.  However, Special
\nJudges were appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law
\nAmendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 to try offences under the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act<\/a> of 1947.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court took the view that Section 3<\/a> and 4<\/a> of the
\nAct of 1988 clearly provided that an offence punishable under the
\nAct of 1988 was triable only by a Special Judge appointed under
\nSection 3<\/a> of the said Act and not by any other Court,
\nnotwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
\nbeing inforce.  Section 26<\/a> of the Act of 1988 only protected the
\nappointment of Special Judges under Section 5<\/a> of the Criminal
\nLaw Amendment Act, 1952 and not the appointment of Special
\nJudges made under any other Act such as the West Bengal
\nCriminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949.  The Act<\/a> of
\n1988  being a Central Legislation had overriding effect over the
\nprovisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special
\nCourts) Act, 1949.  The learned Judge following earlier decisions
\nof the Court held that taking cognizance of an offence under the
\nprovisions of the Act of 1988 by a Special Judge appointed under
\nSection 2 of the West Bengal Criminal Law (Special Courts) Act,
\n1949 was not permissible in law and, therefore, the order taking
\ncognizance was bad, illegal and without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance was placed by the appellant on Notification
\nNo.6614-J dated 23rd April, 1993 issued by the Government of
\nWest Bengal for appointment of Special Judges under Sub-section
\n(1) of Section 3<\/a> of the Act of 1988.   By the said notification all the
\nJudges or Special Courts appointed under Sub-section (2) of
\nSection 2<\/a> read with sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the West Bengal
\nCriminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and
\nfunctioning as such Judges were appointed as Special Judges under
\nthe Act of 1988 for the purpose of trial of offences as enumerated
\nin Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3<\/a> of the Act of
\n1988 in respect of the areas of their respective Courts.  The
\ncontention of the appellant was rejected by the learned Judge
\nholding that the Notification which in effect gave retrospective
\noperation to Section 3<\/a> of the Act of 1988 was not legal and
\npermissible in law, and that if such effect had to be given it could
\nbe done by a Central Legislation, and not by a Government
\nNotification, since the Notification could not override the
\nprovisions of law.  In this view of the matter the High Court
\nallowed the Revision Petition and quashed the criminal proceeding
\nagainst the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
When the appeal was first argued before us on 6th April,
\n2004, it was argued on the basis of the provisions of the various
\nstatues noticed by the High Court, and counsel for the respondents
\nsubmitted before us that the proceeding had been rightly quashed
\nby the High Court for lack of jurisdiction in the Court trying them.
\nOn the other hand, counsel for the appellant – State submitted that
\nthe High Court was in error in quashing the proceeding. Relying
\nupon the Notification of 23.4.1993, it was contended that in any
\nevent the Courts had been vested with jurisdiction to try offences
\nunder the Act of 1988 by the said Notification.  In the alternative,
\nit was submitted that even if the Court came to the conclusion that
\nno court had been vested with jurisdiction to try offences under the
\nAct of 1988, rather than quashing the prosecution the same could
\nhave been kept in abeyance till such time as special courts were
\nempowered to try such offences.  It is the submission of the
\ncounsel for the State that an offence committed under the Act of
\n1947 does not stand obliterated by the repeal of the Act of 1947,
\nand indeed it could be tried under the corresponding provisions of
\nthe Act of 1988.  The only question was about the jurisdiction of
\nthe Court to try an offence under the Act of 1947 after coming into
\nforce of the Act of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
Later, it was brought to our notice by the counsel for the
\nappellant that the West Bengal Legislature has enacted an Act
\nknown as the Prevention of Corruption (West Bengal Amendment)
\nAct, 1994.  It was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 23rd
\nDecember, 1999.  The said enactment was not brought to the
\nnotice of the High Court, nor to our notice when the matter was
\nfirst argued. We, therefore, reheard the matter and afforded an
\nopportunity to counsel for the parties to make their
\nsubmissions on the basis of the new enactment brought to our
\nnotice.\n<\/p>\n
By Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption (West
\nBengal Amendment) Act, 1994 West Bengal Act<\/a> No.LVI of
\n1994, the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1988 in its application
\nto the State of West Bengal stands amended for the purpose
\nand in the manner provided under the Act.  In the Act<\/a> of 1988,
\nSection 26A<\/a> has been inserted which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“26A- Judges appointed to preside over Special
\nCourts under West Bengal Act<\/a> 21 of 1949 to be
\ndeemed to be Special Judges appointed under
\nthis Act.- (1) Every Judge appointed to preside
\nover a Special Court under the West Bengal
\nCriminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act,
\n1949 (West Ben. Act 21 of 1949), for any area or
\nareas and holding office on the commencement of
\nthis Act shall be deemed to be a special Judge
\nappointed under section 3<\/a> of this Act for that area
\nor areas and, accordingly, on and from such
\ncommencement every such Judge shall continue to
\ndeal with all the proceedings pending before him
\non such commencement in accordance with the
\nprovisions of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Every Judge appointed to preside over a
\nSpecial Court under the West Bengal Criminal
\nLaw Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, for
\nany area or areas, holding office on any date after
\nthe commencement of this Act but before the
\ncommencement of the Prevention of Corruption
\n(West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the said date) and purporting to act
\nunder the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed
\nto be a Special Judge appointed under section 3<\/a> of
\nthis Act, for that area or areas and, accordingly, on
\nand from the said date, every such Judge shall
\ncontinue to deal with all the proceedings pending
\nbefore him on the said date in accordance with the
\nprovisions of the Act”.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 4 of the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994
\nprovides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“4. Saving and validation
\nNotwithstanding anything contained in the
\nprincipal Act or in any other law for the time being
\nin force, any order passed, any evidence recorded,
\nor any action taken under the principal Act by a
\nJudge of Special Court appointed under the West
\nBengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special
\nCourts) Act, 1949, and purporting to act under the
\nprovisions of the principal Act, before the
\ncommencement of this Act shall be deemed to
\nhave been validly passed, recorded or taken under
\nthe principal Act as amended by this Act as if this
\nAct were in force when such order was passed or
\nsuch evidence was recorded or such action was
\ntaken”.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section (1) of Section 26A<\/a> relates to Judges appointed
\nto preside over  Special Courts under the West Bengal Special
\nCourts Act, 1949 holding office on the commencement of the Act
\nof 1988.  They are deemed to be Special Judges appointed under
\nSection 3<\/a> of the Act of 1988 and, accordingly, on and from such
\ncommencement they shall continue to deal with all the proceedings
\npending before them on commencement of the Act of 1988 in
\naccordance with the provisions of the Act of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-section (2) of Section 26A<\/a> relates to Judges appointed
\nunder the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 and holding
\noffice on any date after the commencement of the Act of 1988 but
\nbefore the commencement of the Amendment Act<\/a> of 1994.  Such
\nSpecial Judges purporting to act under the provisions of the Act of
\n1988 are deemed to be Special Judges appointed under Section 3<\/a>
\nof the Act of 1988. Accordingly, on and from the said date, every
\nsuch Judge shall continue to deal with all the proceedings pending
\nbefore him on the said date in accordance with the provisions of
\nthe Act of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt thus appears that sub-section (1) in its application is
\nconfined to a Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal
\nSpecial Courts Act, 1949 before the date of commencement of the
\nAct of 1988, while sub-section (2) confers jurisdiction on a Judge
\nappointed under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 on any
\ndate after the commencement of the Act of 1988 but before the
\ncommencement of the Amendment Act<\/a> of 1994.  In both cases
\nthey are deemed to be Special Judges appointed under Section 3<\/a> of
\nthe Act of 1988 and are empowered to continue to deal with all the
\nproceedings pending before them in accordance with the
\nprovisions of the Act of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 4 of the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 begins
\nwith a non obstante clause and seeks to save and validate any order
\npassed, any evidence recorded or any action taken under the Act of
\n1988 by a Judge of Special Court appointed under the West Bengal
\nSpecial Courts Act, 1949 while purporting to Act under the
\nprovisions of the Act of 1988 before the commencement of the
\nWest Bengal Amendment Act of 1994.  It is further provided that
\nall such orders passed, evidence recorded or actions taken shall be
\ndeemed to have been validly passed, recorded or taken under the
\nAct of 1988 as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act,
\n1994 as if the latter Act was in force when such action was taken.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have, therefore, no doubt that the West Bengal
\nAmendment Act, 1994 by inserting Section 26A<\/a> in the Act of 1988
\nhas created a legal fiction whereby a Special Judge appointed
\nunder the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 even before the
\ncommencement of the Act of 1988, or thereafter, but before the
\ncommencement of the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994, is
\ndeemed to be a Special Judge appointed under Section 3<\/a> of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequently empowered
\nto continue to deal with all the proceedings pending before him on
\nthe relevant date in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
\nSection 4 of the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 saves and
\nvalidates all actions taken by such Special Judges purporting to act
\nunder the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1988 as
\nif the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 was in force when such
\norder was passed or such evidence was recorded or such action
\nwas taken.  So viewed, the provisions of the West Bengal
\nAmendment Act, 1994 provide a complete answer to the
\ncontentions raised before us by learned counsel for the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the provisions of the West Bengal Amendment
\nAct of 1994, we have no doubt that the Special Judge trying the
\naccused\/respondents and who was appointed under the West
\nBengal Special Courts Act, 1949 and purported to act under the
\nAct of 1988, is now vested with jurisdiction to try cases under the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, and by operation of law all actions
\ntaken by him purporting to act under the Act of 1988 are saved and
\nvalidated as if the Amendment Act<\/a> of 1994 were in force when
\nsuch an order was passed or such evidence was recorded or such
\naction was taken by him.  Giving effect to the legal fiction we must
\nimagine that Section 26A<\/a> stood incorporated in the Act of 1988
\nwhen it came into effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel for the respondents submitted that the fiction
\ncreated by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 should not be
\ngiven an extended operation.  In considering such a statute, the
\nCourt must consider what is the fiction created, what is its purpose,
\nand what is its effect.  He further submitted that on a fair reading
\nof the provisions of the Act of 1988 as amended by the West
\nBengal Amendment Act of 1994, only those proceedings are saved
\nwhich were pending before the Special Judge on the date of
\ncommencement of the 1988 Act i.e. on 9th September, 1988.  In
\nthis case on the relevant date no proceeding was pending before
\nthe Special Judge as the matter was still under investigation.  He,
\nfurther, submitted that it is not permissible to read a fiction upon a
\nfiction in a deeming statute.  According to him, a statute can create
\nonly one fiction and therefore, it is not permissible to interpret the
\nprovisions of the Act of 1988 as creating two fictions, firstly that
\nthe Special Judges are deemed to have been appointed under
\nSection 3<\/a> of the Act of 1988, and secondly, to deem that all actions
\ntaken by them were in accordance with corresponding provisions
\nof the Act of 1988 as if the West Bengal Amendment Act 1994
\nwere in force when such actions were taken.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to him, any offence committed before the Act of
\n1988 came into effect and in respect of which no proceeding was
\npending before a Special Judge, must lapse and the accused can not
\nbe tried for that offence at all.  Counsel has placed reliance upon
\nthree judgments of this Court reported in Mancheri Puthusseri
\nAhmed and Ors. Vs. Kuthiravattam Estate Receiver (1996) 6 SCC
\n185; State of Maharashtra Vs. Laljit Rajshi Shah & Ors. (2000) 2
\nSCC 699 and Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Calcutta Vs.
\nMoon Mills Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 870. We, however, find nothing in
\nthe aforesaid decisions to support the submission urged on behalf
\nof the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe submission that only those cases could be tried by the
\nSpecial Judges which were actually pending before them on the
\ndate the Act of 1988 came into effect, proceeds on an extraneous
\nassumption and ignores the clear provisions of sub-section (2) of
\nSection 26A<\/a> of the Act of 1988 inserted by the West Bengal
\nAmendment Act of 1994, which conferred validity on the actions
\nof Special Courts appointed even after the Act of 1988 coming into
\neffect.\n<\/p>\n
\tEven if, it is assumed for the sake of argument (though the
\nfactual position in this case is different) that the Act of 1947
\nhaving been repealed by the Act of 1988, and no Special Judge
\nhaving been appointed under Section 3<\/a> of the Act of 1988 to try
\noffences under the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>, 1947, the result
\nwould not be that the offences committed stood abated and
\nconsequently the offenders could not be tried at all.  In such a
\nsituation, the trial of the offenders had to be postponed till such
\ntime as Special Courts were created to try those offences in
\naccordance with law.  In such a situation the High Court ought to
\nhave kept in abeyance the trial till jurisdiction was conferred upon
\na competent Court to try the accused in accordance with law.  This
\nCourt had occasion to consider such a situation in  State by Central
\nBureau of Investigation Vs. Sh. S. Bangarappa (2000) Supp. 4
\nSCR. This Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“That apart, if the High Court found that XXI City
\nCivil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is not
\nempowered to try such cases, how could that be a
\nground to quash the criminal proceedings?  At the
\nworst that would be a ground to transfer the case
\nfrom that Court to the Court having jurisdiction to
\ntry the offence, and if no Court has been
\nempowered till then, the criminal proceedings can
\nbe kept in abeyance till the Government issues a
\nnotification conferring such power on any other
\nCourt”.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as interpretation of a provision creating a legal fiction
\nis concerned, it is trite that the Court must ascertain the purpose for
\nwhich the fiction is created and having done so must assume all
\nthose facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable
\ncorollaries to the giving effect to the fiction.  In construing a
\nfiction it must not be extended beyond the purpose for which it is
\ncreated or beyond the language of the Section by which it is
\ncreated.  It cannot be extended by importing another fiction.  These
\nprinciples are well settled and it is not necessary for us to refer to
\nthe authorities on this subject.  The principle has been succinctly
\nstated by Lord Asquith in East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. V. Finsbury
\nBorough Council, (1951) 2 ALL ER 587, when he observed :-\n<\/p>\n
“If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of
\naffairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited
\nfrom doing so, also imagine as real the
\nconsequence and incidents which, if the putative
\nstate of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably
\nhave flowed from or accompanied it-.   The statute
\nsays that you must imagine a certain state of
\naffairs; it does not say that having done so, you
\nmust cause or permit your imagination to boggle
\nwhen it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that
\nstate of affairs”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above principle has been approved by this Court in
\nlarge number of decisions.\n<\/p>\n
\tApplying these principles to the provisions of the West
\nBengal Amendment Act of 1994 which inserts with retrospective
\neffect Section 26A<\/a> in the Act of 1988, we find that the Legislature
\nwas aware of the lacuna created by failure to appoint Special
\nJudges to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/a>,
\n1988.  Though, offences had been registered, objections were
\nbeing taken before the Courts concerned as to their jurisdiction to
\ntry the accused and such objections had been upheld in some cases.
\nIt, therefore, became imperative for the Legislature to step in and
\nconfer jurisdiction upon Special Courts to try offences under the
\nAct of 1988.  Though Special Judges had been appointed in the
\nState of West Bengal under the West Bengal Special Courts Act,
\n1949, they could not take cognizance and try offences after the Act
\nof 1988 came into effect, since the Act of 1947 stood repealed and
\nSection 26<\/a> of the Act of 1988 did not save the Special Courts
\ncreated under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949.  It was
\nwith this in view that the West Bengal Legislature enacted the
\nWest Bengal Amendment Act of 1994 inserting Section 26A<\/a> in the
\nAct of 1988.  Since, the Special Courts continued to exercise
\njurisdiction over the matters brought before them, the Legislature
\nby law conferred validity on such actions by a deeming provision.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe submission that a law can create only a single fiction
\nmust also be repelled.  This Court in Yellappagouda Shankargouda
\nPatil Vs. Basangouda Shiddangouda Patil, AIR 1960 SC 808; held
\nthat the Legislature may sometimes create a chain of fictions by
\nthe same Act or by succeeding Acts.  If the Legislature is
\ncompetent to enact a provision creating a legal fiction, we see no
\nreason why it cannot create a chain of fictions if necessity arises.
\nIt is true that in interpreting a provision creating a legal fiction it is
\nnot open to the Court to import another fiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the instant case, the amendment of the Act of 1988 by the
\nWest Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 is intended to meet the
\nsituation arising from  non-appointment of Special Judges under
\nthe Act of 1988 which repealed the Act of 1947.  With a view to
\nmeet this situation the law deemed, subject to the conditions
\nenumerates therein, the Special Judges appointed under the West
\nBengal Special Courts Act, 1949 to have been appointed under
\nSection 3<\/a> of the Act of 1988.  With the above purpose in mind it
\nwas further deemed that any order passed, evidence recorded, or
\naction taken purportedly under the Act of 1988, shall be deemed to
\nhave been validly passed recorded or taken under the Act of 1988
\nas if the Act of 1988 as amended by the West Bengal Amendment
\nAct, 1994 were in force at that time.   We, therefore, hold that the
\nPrevention of Corruption (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1994 by
\namending the Act of 1988 inserting Section 26A<\/a> therein has vested
\njurisdiction in the Special Courts appointed under the West Bengal
\nCriminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 subject to
\nconditions laid down therein, to try offences under the Prevention
\nof Corruption Act<\/a>, 1988.  All actions taken by them are validated
\nas if the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1994 were in force when
\nsuch action was taken.  Unfortunately, the aforesaid enactment
\nwhich governs the case in hand was not noticed by the High Court.
\nCounsel for the parties were also remiss in not bringing the West
\nBengal Amendment Act of 1994 to the notice of the High Court,
\nand therefore the judgment rendered by the High Court was per
\nincuriam.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and
\norder of the High Court quashing the proceeding before the 3rd
\nSpecial Judge, Calcutta and direct the said Court to proceed with
\nthe trial in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004 Author: B Singh Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 877 of 1998 PETITIONER: State of West Bengal RESPONDENT: Sadan K. Bormal & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2004 BENCH: N. SANTOSH HEGDE & B.P. […]<\/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-271464","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004 - 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\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-25T14:04:13+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-25T14:04:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4557,\"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\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-25T14:04:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004 - 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\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-25T14:04:13+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-25T14:04:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004"},"wordCount":4557,"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\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004","name":"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-25T14:04:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-west-bengal-vs-sadan-k-bormal-anr-on-29-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/271464","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=271464"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271464\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271464"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271464"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271464"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}